A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Article titles and capitalisation 2	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	01 Aug 2025	15 Aug 2025
Transgender healthcare and people	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	11 Aug 2025	25 Aug 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Indian military history	18 Jul 2025

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Race and intelligence	none	(orig. case)	4 July 2025
Clarification request: Indian military history	none	(orig. case)	22 July 2025
Amendment request: PIA Canvassing	none	(orig. case)	31 July 2025

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131	132

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget and this report may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131	132

Clarification request: Race and intelligence

Initiated by Sirfurboy at 12:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Sirfurboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Lewisguile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Diff of notification of Lewisguile [1]

Statement by Sirfurboy

Requesting clarification as to whether Grooming gangs scandal is covered by the Race and Intelligence CT, per the reasoning of Lewisguile, who wrote "Race and intelligence" doesn't just cover race and intelligence. Per the arbcom decision, it extends to the "intersection between race/ethnicity and human ability or behaviour". In other words, claims that ethnic group x is more likely to engage in behaviour y should be covered by that policy. [2]. The grooming gangs issue is described by one academic source [3] thus:

"Britain has seen a series of high-profile convictions of groups of men found guilty of child sexual exploitation. The vast majority of publicised convictions have been of British Asian men, which was quickly translated into the media-speak of the ‘Pakistani Grooming Gang’. This moral panic replayed familiar mythologies of the ‘gang’ – characterised by alien cultural practices, operating under a racialised honour code, and demonstrating an uncontainable deviant masculinity – and yet the spectre of the Pakistani grooming gang also added something new to the repertoire of both official and popular racisms. The far-right English Defence League rebuilt its crumbling organisation on the basis of revulsion to what they termed ‘rape jihad gangs’"

The recent Casey audit found poor data on ethnicity, which is being leapt on by some parties with claims of a cover up regarding the above narrative - unsupported by WP:BESTSOURCES at this time, which note failings relating to child safety and in ethnic data collection but no cover up. Clearly contentious around race and religion.

Supplementary to the answer, if "no, it is not covered" I would like to request amendment such that it is included, or else addition of a new CT, as it is clearly a contentious topic, having attracted multiple press coverage (on Wikipedia's coverage alone) and comment from Elon Musk that has yielded personal attacks on Wikipedia editors on and off-site (off wiki evidence available but cannot be linked owing to WP:OUTING concerns. Please let me know if and how that evidence should be submitted. On-wiki, please see [4]). Supplementary if the answer is yes, I'd like to request WP:ECR in this topic area owing to deliberate and sustained off-site disruption (the support of which will require me to supply off-wiki evidence with OUTING concerns, but which states explicitly that such disruption has taken place and been successful). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CarringtonMist A source that indeed sees this issue as a gendered crime is [5] although I feel GENSEX is still a push, personally. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a ping on this - so is it agreed the CTOP covers this? or can we get it made a new CTOP by motion, per SMarshall? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lewisguile

Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#List of contentious topics, the designated "area of conflict" for WP:R–I is described as "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour". This is restated in the final decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Contentious topic designation, with the clarification that this should be "broadly construed". So, despite its name, this would seem to cover any article dealing with the putative association/relationship between ethnicity and a given behaviour (such as a certain type of criminality that might be more prevalent among an ethnic group), and should cover Grooming gangs scandal as well.

In any case, the broader topic has been raised in a high profile alt-right publication by a self-described banned WP editor, and gets lots of edit attempts in the subject area whenever it hits the headlines (including in related articles, such as about UK politicians). Clarity on this issue would be helpful. In the last AfD within the topic, a number of editors with <500 edits added their !votes with very similar wording to that used by the magazine article in question. Some of those editors are also responding to other (non-formal discussion) threads with the same "oppose" wording, suggesting they don't really know what they're doing besides objecting. See here and here.

Previously, this subject was part of another "main" article that was merged into Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom, after several debates about naming ("Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom" was redirected to "Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom", before the merge). The last version of the main article had page protection, but because "Grooming gangs scandal" is a new article on the same topic, it hasn't been carried forward. This has potentially contributed to the issues at hand, but reinstating PP would, IMO, be a quick fix in the interim, as it will resolve most of the concerns about possible canvassing, tendentious editing, SPAs, etc. It may be that this can only be enacted after the ongoing RM on the page, since some people have already !voted, and that would probably allay complaints that this was done to skew the results (although there is an ongoing discussion above the RM which is likely more constructive, and is already reaching consensus per here, here, here, here, and here, so the RM is less essential anyway).Lewisguile (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to @ScottishFinnishRadish, see above. If you read the responses detailed in the article (take the "Research" section, for example), you'll see that a large amount of space is dedicated to the argument in the media and politics that men of British Pakistani origin are particularly overrepresented among perpetrators of "grooming gangs". That's clearly a putative link between ethnicity and behaviour. See also the second paragraph of the lede, where we talk about the moral panic around Muslims and the claims made about British Pakistani men. The first clause of the first sentence of that paragraph isn't exclusive—it's intended to mean that media discussion has focused on ethnicity, as well as said ethnicity apparently impeding investigation. The second and third sentences of this paragraph state this more clearly anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to @CarringtonMist, @Thryduulf, and @Riposte97, and the trickiness of CTOP categorisation in general:

I take the points about WP:GENSEX and rape/CSE, but WP:R–I seems more applicable. I agree IPA is perhaps also stretching things a bit too far, unless that were worded to cover people of Indian, Pakistani and Afghan descent.

I note that Race and crime, however, is explicitly covered by R–I, and that was why the wording was broadened here. I think the issue is that "Race and intelligence" suggests a certain narrow reading, which appears at odds with the broader topic designation. "Race and behaviour" might be better (or, in line with GENSEX, something much broader like "Race and ethnicity" in general, since all these topics end up being controversial in practice). I don't think an explicit link to such behaviours being inherited is necessary for R–I to apply, though, as the wording says "the intersection of" (i.e., where the topics meet), "race" is an invented social category rather than a purely biological one anyway, and "ethnicity" is cultural as well as lineal.

To Riposte97, specifically: if you read my statement above, I suggested that any PP that gets added could be done so after the RM to avoid any impression of discounting !votes. I think we all pretty much found consensus on there anyway, which included keeping the page and adding a new one, so I don't think it's fair to say this is about overriding any closure result. Rather, I think there is genuine concern among many editors about outside influence (which may be emboldened if it pays off/goes without challenge here), which has led to one editor being doxxed already, and accounts with <500 edits can be a symptom of that influence. In general, inexperienced accounts aren't advised to take part in contentious discussions, but I don't think it would have changed the consensus we reached on that page (as most editors were more experienced), which was more productive than a list of "support"/"oppose" !votes. Lewisguile (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CommunityNotesContributor

I added talk/edit notices for this, after previously thinking this was covered by IPA, but changed this to R-I based on assessment from Lewisguile. I'm here to understand what's what and get told off if necessary for making any potential mistakes. CNC (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CarringtonMist

Not to create even more uncertainty here, but couldn't this also be covered by the Gender/Sexuality CTOP? ...Not sure what the general etiquettte is for non-extended confirmed users and ArbCom commentary, but I've been semi-following this mess for the past few days CarringtonMist (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I'm in the minority here, but rape is a gendered crime, and I'm not sure it's so absurd to connect sex trafficking with gender and/or sexuality. And for the record, while I sympathize with the desire to impose a little more order on a very heated discussion (to put it mildly), my reading of R&I is such that it would be a bit of a stretch to apply it here, and I don't think India-Pakistan fits either. CarringtonMist (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hemiauchenia

I do think that the topic is covered by the current contentious topic wording: intersection between race/ethnicity and human ability or behaviour, because the central issue of the controversy revolves around whether British Pakistanis are more predisposed to group-based child sexual "grooming"-based abuse than other ethnicities, not just whether police did/did not act upon such gangs based on their ethnicity as suggested by SFR. See for example Cockbain and Tufail 2020: [6] "The central argument of the ‘grooming gangs’ narrative is, in short, that a ‘disproportionate’ number of Asian/Muslim/Pakistani-heritage men are involved in grooming (mostly) white British girls for organised sexual abuse. These claims are often substantiated with reference to a spate of high-profile prosecutions of so-called ‘grooming gangs’ in towns and cities such as Rotherham, Rochdale, Derby, Telford, Oxford, Huddersfield and Newcastle" Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: who was involved in protecting some of the redirects e.g. [7]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

I think the request here is to clarify that the race and intelligence case covers assertions that a certain race or ethnicity is particularly predisposed to crime, or to a specific type of crime. Loki (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

From the perspective of someone completely uninvolved, this topic being within the R&I CTOP area feels like a bit of stretch but I'm on the fence about whether it's too much of a stretch or not - I can see arguments both ways. A cleaner way of doing it would be to make the intersection of race and criminality a CTOP area. That could be done as a stand-alone designation or as an expansion of the R&I case designation (change the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, and to the intersection of race/ethnicity and criminality).

I think it is definitely not covered by the India/Pakistan CTOP, and nor should it be. Gender and sexuality is even less relevant here (imo) than India/Pakistan is. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Riposte97

It seems inappropriate to attempt to extend this CT to Grooming gangs scandal, whether by ruling that the current designation catches the topic or by extending it to do so, for a few reasons:

1. I have not seen anyone make the argument that any race or ethnic group is predisposed to committing the kinds of crimes described in the article, merely that British Pakistanis may be overrepresented. That says nothing about heredity, which is what the CT is really concerned with. 2. There is no evidence of disruptive editing in the topic area, and no explanation of how the expansion of the CT might help the encyclopaedia. 3. It is not clear how CT deignation would address the external attention this topic has gleaned, nor why that would even be an appropriate objective for Wikipedia to attempt.

The page in question was recently the subject of an AfD, which failed, and is currently the subject of an RM, which also looks set to fail. Left unsaid in this filing is that many of the editors in those discussions have been relatively inexperienced, and the request for ECR, if granted, might alter these outcomes.

Procedurally, I also note that most of the editors involved in the various discussions that Sirfurboy has contributed to or opened regarding this topic have not been notified of this filing. I only happened upon it by chance. Riposte97 (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman I don't really see how the examples you have cited justify CT protection. It seems like there is just disagreement about content. Riposte97 (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dimadick

If the matter concerns ethnicity, religious intolerance, and moral panics largely spread though the yellow press, "race" is an awfully misleading title to cover the topic. Is there any chance to draft a specific policy concerning ethnic tensions that does not use terminology from the Victorian era? Dimadick (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LeChatilliers Pupper

Nowhere in the article or any talk discussion or any previous edit has anyone ever made a connection between grooming gangs and intelligence.

RS as I understand, have some uncertainty on ethnicity. RS are clearer on the role of a deregulated nighttime economy and also on state failure to investigate credible claims and support victims.

Further, I find the notion that intelligence would be connected to the propensity to commit grooming to be offensive, we have seen many examples in recent years of high-profile grooming behaviour from highly intelligent, successful people Epstein, numerous catholic church scandals were committed or covered up by people with pHDs in divinity.

S Marshall

It's not race and intelligence. It is about the allegation that paedophile rings in the UK are disproportionately likely to be South Asian Muslims -- an extraordinarily toxic matter, and one that would clearly benefit from the sysop scrutiny and the additional tools and protections that come from a CTOP designation.—S Marshall T/C 00:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Later, after Primefac's contribution] No, look, Muslim isn't a race. Nobody is saying Hindus or Sikhs are paedophiles. This doesn't fit in Race and Intelligence. Give it a separate CTOP designation by motion, please.—S Marshall T/C 01:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If "Race and intelligence" has become so broad that it also covers the intersection of crime and creed, then its name needs changing.—S Marshall T/C 18:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Woshiwaiguoren

This seems inapt. The article and mainstream sources do not at all say that the so-called "grooming gangs" are inherent to the Pakistani ethnicity or to South Asians racially. But simply that it is an observable criminal phenomenon with a disproportionate ethnic representation. Ethnic affinity networks occur in many contexts, and indeed crime is one. The Mafia, the Russian Mafia, Albanian Mafia, etc. In none of these cases is an inherent disposition key to the topic.

There are fringe racist views that claim an inherent Islamic or Pakistani nature to the "grooming gang" phenomenon, but this hardly dominates the topic and hasn't featured prominently in the page discussions.

I also note that this request was submitted following attempted deletion and then renaming of this article (which failed or are likely to fail). While that doesn't affect the merits of the request, it is important context. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

I am divided on if there is no CTOP topic area that fully captures the core of this. Personally, I think Contemporary UK Politics should eventually become a ctop area, which would cover this topic nicely. on a sidenote, here is a tangentially related article [[8]] - significant right wing attacks on this article, corresponding to race (south asian/muslim) and UK politics Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom, seems that there had been an attempt to push race-based analysis for grooming gangs onto this article by @Kioj156 here [9], before it got reverted by hemiauchenia. of note, Kioj156 made the original Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom article here [10].

even before Kioj, there appears to be a biased article tag on the article since 2010. In comparison to Race and crime in the United States, which argues differences due to material conditions in the US, the UK version appears to blame disparities in crime on "cultural explanations", and does a lot to suggest that black and brown peoples are more predisposed to crime. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Since arbs seem to be leaning towards the CTOP covering this, should a rename for it perhaps be considered? If it covers both race and intelligence and race and crime (or race and behavior), a broader name might be necessary. Possibly something along the lines of a CTOP for scientific racism. It might be slightly tricky because ofc people will argue over whether something is scientific racism or not, but generally that's not a problem in practice because the existence of a serious dispute along those lines among high-quality sources would be enough to make something part of the CTOP anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

I don't think we should interpret ARBIPA as covering anyone of any of those nationalities anywhere in the world. It's already overbroad, and broadening it further isn't the fix for that. Gensex also doesn't really fit, since that's about gender disputes, not about responses to child sexual abuse. Race and intelligence is the closest, but I think that's targeted towards discussions of x race displaying y behavior, not a scandal about how law enforcement handled a situation potentially being affected by the ethnicity or nationality of the perpetrators. Race and intelligence isn't meant to cover anything involving race, ethnicity, or nationality. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed covers the article, as I think that the scope covers race x being allegedly more likely to do y; see the ARCA that introduced that language too, as the intent was to cover race and crime. I don't think that this is a real gender-related dispute or controversy (it would be one if the dispute was framed on the gender of the perpetrators instead of the ethnicity) and think that IPA would be a stretch (it would be covered if the location was in one of those countries instead of the UK), though maybe it could be covered by broadly construed.
@CarringtonMist: As long as the topic area does not have a extended-confirmed restriction (list of topics), you are free to participate here. As for whether one should be imposed, I would really need extraordinary evidence of our normal processes failing to contain disruption. I see very few logged enforcement actions regarding Race and intelligence this year and last year. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Riposte97: To be clear, I consider the designation to cover correlation and causation as intersection is a broad term. @LeChatiliers Pupper: I touch on this in my comment above, but while the case is called Race and intelligence, the current contentious topic designation is broader than that. I think that human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed can cover criminal conduct. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to close this with a rough consensus that grooming gangs scandal is covered, but did not do so because of the last two comments. I don't think that there is any appetite to create a new contentious topic just for this issue. I guess I support changing the CT: maybe renaming it to "race and behaviour" would provide more clarity, since there has been obvious confusion. Given that there would be no change to the actual scope, only moving the subpage and updating its related templates etc, I assume that a motion isn't needed (for clarity, I don't support renaming the actual case, just the CT subpage). Sdrqaz (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original intent from the original amendment was to cover "race and crime", so if an article is having issues with the intersection of race and a crime then it logically stands that it fits the intention of the motion made to amend the (what is now a) CTOP. Primefac (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the article's content does not cover race and intelligence, that's not all the CTOP covers. Specifically, the behaviour part of the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour does seem to cover much of the article's content and sourcing. - Aoidh (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sdrqaz, Primefac and Aoidh. Anything to do with "X race is said to engage in y behaviour" is covered under the CTOP, even if it is discussion of sources to dispute a claim of that nature. That doesn't mean articles can't discuss those topics: it means that editors have to abide by the CTOP and be extra careful when editing in that topic area. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually agree that the CTOP was definitely intended to cover an article like this – the original dispute seems to have center much more specifically around academic discourse related to race and genetics and ability, which is a little narrower. But I do think it's a borderline call as to whether it falls under 'broadly construed' and even if it didn't, on the balance, I'd for sure be willing to grant an extension to that effect. To clarify: I'm not going to hold this up and request a motion, I'm happy for this to close with consensus that the CTOP really does cover the intersection of race and ability, broadly construed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support moving and renaming as proposed by Sdrqaz here. I agree that the article that spawned this original request is covered by the CT. Daniel (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Indian military history

Initiated by Toadspike at 11:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Indian military history arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Toadspike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Toadspike

1. Does the Indian military history extended-confirmed restriction apply only to military history on the current (post-Partition) territory of the country of India, or does it include military history that took place entirely in another South Asian country?

2. If a conflict took place between a party in India and a party outside of India, does the extended-confirmed restriction apply? Does this depend on whether battles in the conflict took place within the current territory of India or not?

3. How do we treat AfC submissions that were written before the enactment of this remedy, but are only now being reviewed? If they are suitable for acceptance, can they still be accepted? If not, should they be deleted (from draftspace)?

These questions were prompted by the contributions of a specific editor. As this request for clarification is about the general principles, not that specific case, I have chosen not to name them here. If Arbs would like me to add them as a party, I will do so.

@ScottishFinnishRadish Thank you for your reply. ~~Does "India" mean the current territory of India or the current state of India?~~ What I'm really getting at is whether predecessors of India like British India also count as "India", since those entities included significant territory outside of the modern state of India.

The problem with wording like "if India was involved" is that nearly all of the conflict about "Indian military history" does not involve the modern state of India.

Statement by voorts

Since we're already here, does "Indian military history" encompass contemporary conflicts? If not, what's the cut off date or era? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Koshuri Sultan

I was planning to initiate this request per my comments on the case discussion thread.[11] Just as voorts asked above, you can see the linked discussion there, which also has no answer regarding the scope.

Does the scope of "Indian military history and the history of castes in India" cover times before the establishment of British Raj or the times before the foundation of India? Koshuri ^(あ!) 14:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz: Reading the evidence and proposed decision of the case itself, it appears that only the diffs involving the events before 1857 events were found to be actionable for being within the case' scope.

You have made a mention of the United States, however, the DS regime covering this country also concerns its politics specifically after 1992.[12]

That said, I think a period should be thoroughly clarified. It would be reasonable to agree on events before 1947 as history because the period since 1947 is regarded as "contemporary India", not that of historical India also in scholarly sources.[13][14][15] Koshuri ^(あ!) 06:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Indian military history: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Indian military history: Arbitrator views and discussion

1. Only India or related to India.
2. Yes, if India was involved it doesn't matter where the conflict took place.
3. They can be accepted.
This is obviously just my view, but it seems fairly clear-cut. #1 does get at one of my concerns about the grand unified CTOP, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings on what "Indian history" means for arbitration enforcement because we need to balance the need for the definition to be easily understandable against the historical reality of the term.
In my opinion, we indicated in "Breadth of topic bans" that Indian history also includes history prior to the Partition. Just as how Chinese history spans the various dynasties prior to the PRC/ROC (even if it wasn't called China at that point) and how American history doesn't just begin in 1776, I think that Indian history covers the current republic as well as clear predecessor states like the British Raj and Mughal Empire, even if they go beyond the current republic's borders. The term "India" was used before the Partition as well: the Raj was commonly called "India" and the term was used for many years prior to the current republic's creation. Hopefully that also answers Koshuri Sultan's question as well and I otherwise agree with SFR regarding Toadspike's Q2 & Q3.
Voorts: I don't think that there is a good place to cut off when history begins – aren't we all creating history now? – so would rather that we kept contemporary conflicts as well. If enforcing administrators wish to sanction people from (eg.) pre-Modi Indian military history instead of the entirety of Indian military history, they would have support in doing so. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: PIA Canvassing

Initiated by Dovidroth at 06:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Motions: PIA Canvassing (January 2024)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 § Dovidroth topic ban

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Dovidroth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 § Dovidroth topic ban
- I wish to appeal the topic ban

Statement by Dovidroth

Hello.

I am humbly submitting an appeal on my topic ban in ARBPIA.

In the last year and a half since my tban, I have taken great pains to reflect upon what happened, as well as reaffirm to the wiki community that I can once again be considered a trustworthy and valuable contributor.

The period in which the proxying happened was in the days after October 7th. Emotions were very high, and the PIA space was as combative and high tension as it ever has been. We were all being bombarded in many directions, and I made a grave mistake by copy pasting a couple unsolicited requests on a topic I personally agreed with that had come in via email. I would also like to admit that I did what I did because I felt the situation was so distorted and biased by consistent distortions of disruptive behavior of experienced editors. I am glad that ARBCOM has taken steps to deal with this.

I had always taken great pains to strenuously avoid any type of prohibited edits.

I recognize that during the proceeding I was not forthcoming regarding the proxy editing. Many people were subject to constant scrutiny and false reports, and I was very much afraid that if I had admitted to what really happened (which was a couple isolated isolated instances), I would be rolled into larger accusations being thrown around at the time of wider potential editing efforts, which I am not a part of and have never been a part of.

Furthermore, I should have been more forthcoming about what happened when asked about it, but I genuinely was scared and did not feel I would have been judged in accordance with my transgression. For the record now, I wish to apologize for both the couple edits, as well as the omission.

Since being unblocked almost a year ago, I have continued to contribute in other topics, having done well over 1,000 edits. Among my edits, I have created a new article (Rabbinic period) which was featured as a DYK and for which I received a barnstar from another user. I also received a "nice work" comment from another user for work that I did on another page. I have also contributed substantially to Kiddush Levana, which I have nominated for GA status, and it is awaiting review.

More than a year has passed since the closure of the Arbcom case, and I have been very careful not to touch any topics related to the conflict. I would appreciate another shot at ARBPIA, and hope that Arbcom will consider my case favorably, or at least establish a path or timeline to restoration of full edit status.

Firefangledfeathers - The original ARBCOM case was here, my appeal of the site ban was here, and I filed one appeal that I later realized was prematurely that I withdrew.

Firefangledfeathers - There was ban on restoring content from banned users. I never appealed this. And there was a previous 3 month topic ban, for which I opened an appeal, but it was closed due to the ARBCOM case. Dovidroth (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

That Dovidroth states that their conduct was in part based on a "situation was so distorted and biased by consistent distortions of disruptive behavior of experienced editors" does not fill me with confidence that they won't engage in the same behaviour again if they feel that others are at fault. TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Dovidroth, to make it easier for others to review your appeal, could you please link the discussions that led to your past and present sanctions, as well as any failed or successful appeal requests? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dovidroth, any other PIA-related sanctions or appeals? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

PIA Canvassing: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

PIA Canvassing: Arbitrator views and discussion

For ease of reference: April 2024 announcement of successful appeal against site-ban (sanction was handed down at the same time as the topic ban). Daniel (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've topic banned them in the past, so if anyone thinks I should recuse on this appeal feel free to let me know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If having topic banned Dovidroth in the past would be a problem requiring recusal by itself, the entire committee of 2024 would have to recuse, so... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit different when sanctioning as an individual admin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Shortcuts

This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (arbitrators only)

All editors are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension on this page below (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended comments or submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Requests for enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Chess

Chess WP:TBANned from WP:GENSEX. asilvering (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Chess

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:GENSEX

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

I am not aware of any previous relevant sanctions.

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

Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page: [16].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Chess

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

Statement by Chess

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

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

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

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

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

As it happens, we now have an RSN thread saying that a source should be disqualified because it was co-authored by an activist. Ultimately, merely knowing the primary author of a study in question is nowhere near enough for them to not be independent. If it is determined to be so, then sources need to be re-evaluated across multiple topic areas, including multiple CTOPs such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, for one.[17] I was considering leaving a similar remark that "this would be inconceivable in any other topic area: we wouldn't start declaring US government sources as unreliable because of their affiliation with a group pushing WP:FRINGE scholarship", and thought maybe it's a better idea to create an WP:FTN thread. That was a mistake, and I apologize for it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I obviously knew it was a questionable post at the time because I edited it 3 times over 30 minutes to "clarify" my thinking that this was hypothetical and not a real proposal to blacklist the Republican Party. [18][19][20] At that point I went to bed. Then I woke up and started arguing with people. It was obviously a bad decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cass Review at RSN is useful because an admin at WP:Arbitration Enforcement#AnyWikiUser asked yesterday is there on-wiki consensus that the Cass report is unreliable? and cited that discussion.[21]
The "RM during an RM" in PIA was me working out a compromise with another user to try and resolve the interminable conflict on Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre.[22] Proposing compromises during contentious moves can make them easier to close and aren't disruptive.
"Starting an RfC w/o a WP:RFCBEFORE" was because two users were fighting and an admin told them to start an RfC.[23] I started the RfC for them to try and end the fight.
The NPOVN thread was to get a focus on policy for the Rafah aid distribution incidents -> Rafah Gaza Humanitarian Foundation massacres requested move, because editors wanted to correct for bias in sources. Nobody called the thread itself a strawman, EvanHallBear called an essay I wrote (WP:TITLEWARRIOR) a strawman directed at them.[24] It's not targeted at them: it's an essay I've written that is broadly applicable to the area and is the result of me spending years trying to get people to use better arguments at requested moves, and the essay was appreciated by uninvolved admins.[25] Also, that RM successfully ended on-time because I proposed a compromise wording of Rafah aid distribution killings in the middle of the existing RM that got wide consensus.[26]
The thread on "What definition of antisemitism should we require sources to have?" is my response to the WP:ADL and Times of Israel RfCs where editors accused both of making false accusations of antisemitism against pro-Palestinian protestors. I believe that argument was unhelpful at the WP:ADL RfC and distracted from the ADL's factual errors on other, more important topics. An explicit commitment that editors should not apply their own definitions of antisemitism was acknowledged by others as being potentially helpful.[27]

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

@Moneytrees:

"Trolling" = making a "based" userbox for me. Maybe my generation uses it differently than yours.
Consensus at the article was to avoid "they/them" or "he/him".[28] Some editors also agreed with the DEADNAME point.
Shifting "gender identity" up by a header level in the MOS is fair because it's treated differently than other forms of identity on Wikipedia in that we almost always accept it.
I try to take myself to ANI so admins can tell me if I'm being too abrasive. The first time with Locke Cole, Colin said I made accusations against Locke. The second time, I tried to avoid mentioning others and focused on myself. It's hard to have nuance in my framing when I'm asking an admin for help because I believe I'm starting to get overly heated.
I don't think it's a FRINGE issue for editors to assert "trans children should be aborted". That's a user-conduct issue. I don't want a list of FRINGE opinions building up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Bluethricecreamman: Sorry for misunderstanding.

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

@Moneytrees: I was one of the people defending Nableezy.[29] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

@Tamzin: Moneytrees seems to disagree, as they said Mia Khalifa (straight cisgender sex worker) was covered by WP:GENSEX when providing diffs.[30] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by AndyTheGrump

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

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

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

Statement by Parabolist

Parabolist's statement contains 237 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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

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

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

Is this thing on? Parabolist (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

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

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

Statement by jps

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

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

Statement by JDiala

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

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

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

Statement by MilesVorkosigan

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

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

Statement by Simonm223

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

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

Statement by YFNS

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

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

He starts a discussion on Puberty Blockers without an RFCBEFORE and with a plainly poorly worded question [31]
He started a discussion on the reliability of the Cass Review at RSN[32]
- He says many editors in the transgender topic area believe it promotes misinformation and quotes me and Simonm noting false claims in the Cass Review. Importantly, he doesn't mention any of the RS we used for our claims.
- RSN is about use in context. He leaves out any context for how it will be used, to center on abstract reliability (which other's pointed out, calling it poorly formatted, POINTY, etc)
  - I will note, that editors who argued diametrically opposed positions at the FTN threads thought it was an unhelpful RFC

At these FTN conversations, he said we should debate FRINGE theories not organizations. Then when we had an RFC on if the view that transgender identities are, in themselves, a mental illness or otherwise frequently caused by mental illness [is] WP:FRINGE, he says Value judgements don't make a source WP:FRINGE[33] and This is just about banning bad opinions, in my view.[34], then strawmans that this means it's FRINGE to say autistic people are more likely to be transgender and we're trying to declare the NHS Fringe.

On a personal note, his POINTY behavior at the last few threads seemed targeted towards me. He accused me at ARBCOM[35] and RSN[36] of duplicitous behavior - arguing I said SEGM authorship wasn't disqualifying previously but did now. As multiple editors noted at RSN, I never said this, as the discussion he linked was about a journalist positively citing SEGM. Not members of or, as is this case, the founder of SEGM.

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

But this POINTY behavior seems to extend to PIA too:

He starts an RM during an RM[37] and RFC's without RFCBefores[38]
He started a NPOVN thread on Should we try to correct for reliable sources being systematically biased against Palestinians?[39]
- Those he pinged said he was strawmanning their arguments
He starts an RSN thread which puts forward as an option Wikipedia editors create or adopt one definition of antisemitism and determine if sources are abiding by it.[40]
- Which multiple people tell him is not for this board[41]

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

He starts a thread on the Palestine Chronicle, opening with a laundry list of reasons not to like it[42]
Shortly after, he starts a thread strawmanning criticism of the Times of Israel[43]

I found all this by experience and/or searching for new topics he created[44]. From what I've seen, Chess has a habit of starting POINTY threads where he strawmans those he disagrees with. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moneytrees

Moneytrees's statement contains 1135 words and is within 10% of the 1100-word limit.

Extension granted to 1100 words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Note that my initial comment was at 497 words)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Seraphimblade, Fwiw, I think that makes sense and I agree with Asilvering. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

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

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

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

Statement by Tamzin

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

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

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

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

noticed this statement from the arbcom trans healthcare case request. [45], Participation of myself in the case is mooted by the AE thread which will likely end in my topic-ban. I concede/retract everything and no longer want to engage in this area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by EvansHallBear

Confining my comments solely to this discussion [46]. As Chess noted above, my accusation of straw-manning was related to his (since deleted) title warrior essay and not to the original NPOVN discussion. His characterization of my comments was definitely uncharitable, but I interpreted this as an attempt at reductio ad absurdum instead of straw-manning. While a more direct approach might have been better, this did ultimately cause me to reconsider my arguments. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smallangryplanet

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

Chess' overall attitude has already been highlighted by multiple people, including an admin ([47]). Yet nothing has been done about it. I don't think a "formal warning" will do much at this point. He was already warned about filling groundless or vexatious enforcement requests yet he did that to me and another editor recently, knowing that the case would fail, just to be able to then use that as "proof" of Lf8u2 and myself being part of a supposed canvassing operation. He has been spamming every PIA discussion for months whenever any shoddy outlet talks about it, sharing zero concrete proof of various allegations, yet he uses them as justification to, for example, re-litigate RMs. We are talking about someone who has been here for almost 15 years. People with less experience are not afforded such grace. There is a limit to WP:AGF and I think this has been weaponised by Chess, as you can see in this discussion when someone expressing legitimate concerns is then accused of being obsessed with him. One can argue that I am not a neutral party, since I have been accused by Chess of being impartial, biased, a sock, a canvasser, etc. I have already talked about his toxic behavior in the ARBPIA5 case last year, well before those accusations. Nothing has changed since then. Even when I obviously disagree with others, I can usually find a level of compromise, and we can work on finding a common ground. That hasn't been my experience with Chess so far, and this seems unlikely to change, so I believe a t-ban for PIA and GENSEX is warranted here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buidhe

Although we've disagreed more often than not in the past, I am consistently surprised by how often I see Chess editing against what I perceive as their POV. I do believe they have made some serious mistakes here, but I think that if their behavior raises to the threshold of topic ban, probably most people editing on those topics also deserve a ban. I think that the ban would be a net negative and I do think that Chess will not engage in more trolling if extended some WP:ROPE. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Chess

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

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

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

I don't have any idea how to tban someone from "culture wars topics" in a way that doesn't promote endless wikilawyering. We could at least hand out tbans for PIA and GENSEX as two particularly heated topic areas in which this kind of disruption has occurred. -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not substantively engaged with this report, but I find minor trolling incompatible with the expectation that Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia and Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced. So I'm a bit surprised that "it's only minor trolling" is what is being used as a defense here. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess let me reveal the extent to which I haven't substantively engaged: I didn't realize you started the minor trolling piece. I saw it from comments of Loki and Evergreen (and Money). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chess, [e]ngaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution... is an exception to bans. If you were not a party to the case, I think participating in it would be questionable, but if you are I cannot imagine anyone taking issue with your participation. Of course you could ask ArbCom yourself to be sure, but I know I wouldn't sanction someone for that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a behavioral issue that isn't limited to a single CTOP, although it looks like GENSEX is the CTOP where it's most disruptive. I wouldn't object to a tban from GENSEX/a subset of GENSEX/some reasonable crafting of "culture wars" with the understanding it can be appealed after six months if Chess has avoided starting pointy discussions anywhere. But as an alternative solution, I'd also support a logged warning against starting pointy discussions anywhere. Valereee (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're going to eventually have to figure out how to bring this to an end. As far as I can see as of this writing (please correct me if I'm wrong): Valereee would be okay with a GENSEX/GENSEX subset topic ban or a final warning (I'd agree with Asilvering that we can't just topic ban from "culture wars", though some days I wish we could), Asilvering considered topic bans from both PIA and GENSEX, and I was in favor of one from GENSEX (I don't think we've discussed PIA enough here that I'd be comfortable with that sanction; if anyone thinks Chess should be sanctioned in that area as well, I'd prefer that be handled on a separate report as this one is already huge). Barkeep49 said he hadn't participated much; unless something has changed there, I don't believe he's either proposed or opposed any type of sanction. So, I think a topic ban from GENSEX is fairly broadly supported and could be implemented to close this out, but interested in other thoughts as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. Valereee (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade is correct that I have not given this enough time to have an opinion on outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That's a reasonable objection to a PIA sanction. -- asilvering (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Icecold

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

Request concerning Icecold

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: GENSEX

Diffs:

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

Jul 16 2025 [48] Accuses other editors of being activist editors

Jul 16 2025 [49] ditto

Jul 16 2025 [50] Accuses editors of gaslighting because a consensus didn’t go his way

Jul 1 2025 [51] Accuses editors of prioritizing their own feelings over “facts” because consensus didn’t go his way.

22 May 2025 [52] Aspersions against pretty much every editor that disagreed with him in consensus, among other things accusing other editors of “stalking”

22 May 2025 [53] Personal attacks

22 May 2025 [54] ABF, personal attacks

22 May 2025 [55] Personal attacks

22 May 2025 [56] Aspersions

22 May 2025 [57] Admits to using LLM for his text while attacking other editors

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [58]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[59]

Discussion concerning Icecold

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

Statement by Icecold

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

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

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

I think the worst criticism of me is that I'm NOTHERE. I think this is completely wrong. This account is 19 years old, this isn't a new fly by account here to edit on one topic. I've made small edits on varying different topics, from cleaning up vandalism [60] to adding new news [61] to challenging incorrect facts [62]

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

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

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

Then my stalking allegations. I stand by them, it was clear to me that GP was constantly appearing across 3 talk pages to respond to me when they hadn't been tagged [63] [64] [65]. Once or twice could be a fluke, sure, but more, implies they were following me around. The argument that GP may have other friendly editors on their watchlists falls apart when we consider user Gazumpedheit, whom GP clearly disliked. Editors are defending GP and saying it's not stalking, but if I had engaged in similar behaviour to GP, that these editors would be accusing me of stalking. I was accused of all sorts, such as bludgeoning, when all I was doing was responding to people's arguments against my request, which I feel as someone proposing a request I had a duty to do.

I also stand by my comment that at least one editor was editing based on personal feelings and not following the evidence [66] [67]. One editor literally admitted doing this. If I had said something similar, it would have been brought up against me at this arbitration. That editor earlier got banned for admitting they were editing based on a personal feeling not based on the evidence. Reminding people of that editor's comment isn't a personal attack. I apologise for accusing others of arguing in bad faith, my biggest frustration was that I was asked to find various reputable sources to support my claim, I did so (finding more reputable sources for my claim than reputable sources on the article supporting the status quo), and then this was still denied. My proposed change also brought that article more in line with other equivalent articles that use my wording, so I was following precedent, but that was still denied. That says to me that the article wasn't being evidence-led, but guided by people's opinions, against wikipedia policy.

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

Statement by GraziePrego

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Springee

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

Do not comment on users (unless the statement is clearly positive). Many online forums draw the line at actually insulting people (exp: Editor Patel is stupid). Wikipedia's CIVIL policy is stricter than that. Suggesting someone's motives are other than trying to improve the content of the encyclopedia is casting aspersions. This means you should not suggest someone is "clearly a conservative/liberal/right/left/up/down/etc". It is of course acceptable to argue an edit might make a reader think the article is biased or that a source is biased and that negatively impacts it's WEIGHT etc. But just don't comment on the other editors as a person. If in doubt I'm sure the admins below, if contacted on their talk page, would help you understand where the limits are if you aren't sure about a comment.
Stick to the facts, not emotions. Yeah, sometimes it's naturel to think, "what the Belgium[68] is that person thinking". However, sometimes it's just our own failure to understand their perspective that is the issue. Trying to reach out civilly on user talk pages may not always work but I've been pleased how often it does.
Agree to stay away from the Graham Linehan page for a while. I would suggest 6 months or/and until you have say at least 1000 edits. The idea is to work on other parts of Wikipedia to show that you understand how to work with others. If you declare a self imposed tban, and stick with it, that will show that you are trying to avoid issues.

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

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

Statement by YFNS (Icecold)

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

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

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

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

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

Followed by arguing Gazumphedit's NOTHERE block was unfair since they couldn't defend themselves [69]

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

@Icecold, you reached out to request help from a user who, it had been noted in the thread they replied to you in, made bigoted comments[70]

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

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

IC accusing GP of stalking over Gazumpedheit's page is particularly nonsensical. GP edited the page before IC did[71] so was presumably watching it, and gave IC a very neutral clear answer to their question about how blocks work.[72][73] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Icecold

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

So, as appearing in order:
Diff 1 ([74]), comment on content, not editors. You're certainly free to disagree with other editors, but trying to assign bad motives to them is unacceptable. In many cases, reasonable people can disagree.

Diff 2 ([75]), same as diff 1.

Diff 3 ([76]), same as diff 1, and the "laughing" face at the end even more so. While again you are free to disagree with other editors, ridiculing them is totally out of line.

Diff 4 ([77]), same as diff 1.

Diff 5 ([78]), expressing frustration in one's own userspace, and users are allowed pretty wide latitude in their own userspace. Not as concerned about this one.

Diff 6 ([79]), criticizing someone else for contributing a lot is completely inappropriate.

Diff 7 ([80]), casting aspersions. If Icecold genuinely felt like someone was inappropriately stalking them, they should have brought that up in the appropriate venue, with actual evidence, to request action on that. However, it is not uncommon for editors interested in the same topic area to run into one another at more than one article. While one can tell other editors not to post on their user talk page, one cannot demand that another editor [l]eave me alone in general; that would effectively amount to a unilateral interaction ban.

Diff 8 ([81]), the nastiness and sarcasm is unacceptable and unnecessary.

Diff 9 ([82]), talk page discussions are open to participation by any interested editor; again, Icecold may not unilaterally decide that another editor should not participate. And, again, editors interested in the same area may have one another's talk page on their watchlist; that is neither uncommon nor inappropriate.

Diff 10 ([83]), while the use of LLMs is not strictly forbidden, disruptive behavior is, and in practice, LLM usage often leads to disruption. Icecold has committed to no longer doing this, so as long as they uphold that, this is again not as much of a current concern.
All that said, I think Icecold needs, at minimum, to be removed from the subject of Graham Linehan, as they clearly don't have the appropriate temperament to edit on that topic. I'll give Icecold an additional 300 words to explain why that shouldn't just be a GENSEX topic ban overall; as they're relatively new, I'd prefer a narrower restriction if possible, but not if that just means the disruption will get moved elsewhere. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I (and most other experienced editors) would advise editing in noncontentious topics while you learn. Arguing about the appropriate use of "gender critical" vs. "anti-transgender" in a BLP is a minefield even for highly experienced editors. And accusing someone of stalking you because they appeared at the talk pages of other editors you both have interacted with is evidence of your lack of experience. That is completely normal. I do it literally every day, and it happens to me regularly. Valereee (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a full topic ban from GENSEX would be preferable --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MjolnirPants

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

Request concerning MjolnirPants

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: American Politics (Also intersects with WP:GENSEX and WP:CT/BLP)

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. This notice with reference to American politics. I don't know if MjolnirPants is specifically aware of the other CTOPs

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Samuelshraga's statement contains 699 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

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

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

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

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

Re: Parabolist’s point about the ellipsis and simple misreading of the sentence, the effect is that Mjolnir is saying the sources describe Singal as transphobic/anti-trans rather than 'anti-LGBTQ'. It makes no difference, as the sources say neither. Especially in the context of a discussion on MOS:LABEL and describing a BLP as "anti-trans" in an article.

The main thing I asked MP to substantiate [84][85][86] and where they doubled down (diffs 3 & 4) were the references to the Atlantic and Economist. If those outlets described Singal as transphobic or anti-trans (or any synonym), I'll withdraw the complaint. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector I wasn't familiar with the context of the block. I simply looked at MP's block log when filling out the filing, and saw a reference to personal attacks in the description - personal attacks form part of this filing. I'll strike that if it's definitely not relevant here. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to Loki's comment about Mjolnir's behaviour being bad but not AE-worthy, I'll just say this - Mjolnir was clearly not amenable to polite correction on the behavioural side, and doubled down repeatedly on claims about the sources that are simply untrue. Misrepresenting reliable sources is listed as an example of disruptive editing. Assuming bad faith is against behavioural guidleines.

What I want out of this filing is for Mjolnir to accept that their claims about the sources and their attitude to other editors fell short on these - especially in CTOPs - and to change their behaviour. I support the minimal administrative action required to achieve this. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade you say I should be topic banned at least in part because I am being (at best) obtuse regarding what sources say. Please can you explain what the sources say that differs from what I’ve claimed? My reading of what the sources say is mostly the same as Loki’s below. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth please read "If MjolnirPants can substantiate the claim ... I will of course withdraw this complaint" as a reference to the fact that Mjolnir had never specified which articles they were referring to when making their claims, so I couldn't be 100% sure that I had read the right ones. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [87]

Discussion concerning MjolnirPants

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

Statement by MjolnirPants

MjolnirPants's statement contains 1366 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

Samuel is upset that I refuse to engage with their sealioning and wants to punish me for it.

This filing is laughably dishonest. Look at the diff cited above, where I very explicitly (looking at you, Void if removed) said one thing about several sources and something different about the GLAAD source, yet Samuel deliberately cut off half of the first sentence to make it look like I said one thing about all of those sources. I mean, I literally used quotes to indicate the label GLAAD applied to him, did not use quotes when referring to the others, and I said the others "...described him or his works as anti-trans or transphobic..." Samuel is literally and obviously misrepresenting what I said.

Samuel's logic is so fundamentally warped that it's literally the same as taking the quote He was taller than any of the others and he outweighed any two of them combined, and concluding that quote does not, in fact, describe the subject as being 'large' because the word 'large' doesn't appear in it. This is logic that's not worth engaging with, let alone entertaining as if it stands on its own.

That's not the extent of the dishonesty here, either. The entire argument is about whether to quote a reliable source, not whether to go around calling Singal 'anti-trans' in wikivoice, yet every single bit of the pearl-clutching happening here is about whether it's okay to 'label' him. Nobody's suggested labeling anyone as anything, only reporting on what a reliable source said. And this is information that's unarguably relevant to the subject at hand, not some POV-push to use this as a coatrack to call poor wittle Singal a nasty name.

As if that weren't enough, the argument against it (including some of the arguing down below among the admins) is blatantly ignorant of the basics of the English language and basic verbal or written communications. Since when is "anti-X" a pejorative statement? I'm proudly anti-Nazi. Everyone on this project who's ever fixed a spelling error is anti-misspellings. The whole purpose of this project is anti-ignorance. The assumption (upon which all the bickering here rests) that saying someone is anti-trans is actually some kind of slur, instead of a simple statement of easily-verifiable fact is wildly stupid. Whether that stupidity is assumed or inherent is not something I'll speculate about. But make no mistake: It's a profoundly stupid assumption, with no basis in fact.

Or perhaps you don't want to argue that it's a slur. Do you want to call it 'controversial' to preserve your precious BLP argument? Fine, find me some sources saying that he's pro-trans. Shit, find me some sources that say he's not anti-trans. Show me the actual controversy. (Hint: there is no controversy. Because it's neither a pejorative nor a controversial statement. It's a neutral, factual summary of his views.)

Anyone who takes this seriously is either ideologically motivated or too blinded by their pearl-clutching about the possibility of the Sacred Rules (hallowed be their invocation, and glory be upon their initialisms) being violated in letter, if not in spirit, (and by the big meanie, MjolnirPants no less!) to actually have any business editing this project. Yes, I'm looking at you, Guerillero. I know you've been around for a while, but if you're trying to make sure you lose the respect of any rational person who doesn't want WP to be an ideological battleground, you're on the right track below.

Don't ping me here again. (All of you are capable of typing my username without making it a ping.) I could not care less what happens here. And the reason I didn't respond sooner is, frankly, because I can't be bothered to check WP every day. I actually have a life outside of WP.

Here's a fun fact: I spent this past weekend hanging out with trans women, doing my little side-gig. Some of y'all know what kind of work I do as a side gig. I'll give the rest a hint: It ain't drag. The world is simply not ready to meet Scarlett O'Hairy yet.

This right here is the reason WP is constantly dealing with arbcom cases about POV pushing. Because most of y'all are bound and determined to turn AGF into the very suicide pact Jimbo said it was never meant to be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LokiTheLiar From the Slate source:

But as the piece goes on—notably without a single happy, well-adjusted trans teen among its host of central characters for the first 9,000-plus words—it becomes apparent that certain voices and fears are privileged over others. This, unfortunately, is a trend that can be seen throughout Singal’s history of biased reporting on trans lives. - First paragraph
This is not the first time he has disregarded inconvenient accounts from trans people—and in the absence of these voices, he is responding to a strawman - Sixth paragraph
Implicit in Singal’s body of work on trans children is the sense that he is telling a difficult but essential truth that others are unwilling to acknowledge, but neither the media landscape (which is littered with pieces exactly like this one, down to the same subjects) nor the medical one reflects this. - Ninth paragraph
That this was instead the story the Atlantic chose to tell, and that it was entrusted to a man whose own neuroses leave him so unqualified to tell it, is a loss for cis and trans people alike. - Literally the last sentence of the article

I guess my advice to Samuel to actually read sources should have been spread a little more liberally. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loki: Also, the things you're saying should have been said at the original discussion. MP's refusal to discuss prevented any kind of convincing or compromise. Alas! You've caught me in the act of committing the grave and unforgivable sin of [checks notes] failing to handhold other editors through such arduous tasks as [double checks notes] reading the sources before arguing about what the sources say. How dastardly! How despicable! My mustache shall be twirled like no mustache has ever been before in the wake of this villainy... MUAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valeree: And of course anti-trans is a pejorative; it's not true that it's the same as anti-Nazi. I don't even know how to respond to this beyond asking what in all of god's green earth you think would be a neutral word to describe someone who insists upon writing misinformation in opposition to a topic with no connection to that topic themselves, if not anti-whatever. Why don't you read MOS:LABEL and show me where the prefix (and it does, in fact, explicitly discuss prefixes and suffixes) 'anti-' is mentioned. I can't find it.

Clearly the writer thinks he's anti-trans, but they stop short of calling him that Reading comprehension is a well-written article we have which explains in detail why your whole argument is wrong. I mean, you stated yourself that the authors of the articles clearly believe Singal is anti-trans (and I'll remind you that some of those sources did, in fact, explicitly call him that), so you clearly have some reading comprehension. Why, then, would you choose an argument which not only assumes we collectively lack it, but actively rejects the practice?

I mean, I haven't explicitly stated a premise in an essay longer than a single paragraph since I was in middle school, because doing so is generally just bad writing. The only times when you would do so is when the passage in question is part of a larger work, and you need to convey the premise quickly and succinctly. But when your entire 2000 word (or more) article is about that premise... Well, anyone with any competence in writing will tell you that explicitly stating your premise is generally not very useful. Indeed, it's often counter-productive, because most such articles are argumentative in nature. They're trying to convince the reader. Telling someone what to believe is usually entirely ineffective, whereas telling them why they should believe something is widely understood to be far more effective.

The example I gave which you find 'unconvincing' used actual, competent literary devices to convey an idea without spelling it out the way I would if I were writing for literal children. That's exactly the same thing the authors of the various sources raised here did. This whole side of the discussion -which you've clearly now placed yourself down into- is premised on the notion that anything not obvious to a moron -whether or not it's obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills- is verboten. You might want to raise your standards a bit. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sweet6970

Sweet6970's statement contains 150 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Regarding MjolnirPants and notifications for Contentious Topics: On 11 June 2025 I started a new section on his Talk page headed Gensex, saying: I see that at the top of this page you say that you are aware of all D/S topics related to politics. Presumably this means there is no need to serve you with a Contentious Topics alert for gensex. [88] His response was to revert this, with the edit summary: No room for creeping on my talk page.[89] I’ve no idea what he meant by this. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, this diff of 23:52 11 June 2025 by MP [90]cited by Void if removed is a response to this diff of 21:52 11 June 2025[91] by me. We had previously come into contact on the Talk page of the essay Wikipedia:No Nazis. [92] I find the tone of MP’s comments objectionable, but I am much more concerned about the impossibility of engaging in reasoned argument with this editor. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parabolist

Parabolist's statement contains 60 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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

Statement by Tryptofish

Tryptofish's statement contains 544 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

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

That said, I've looked at everything in the complaint, and what I am seeing is a content dispute in a very sensitive area, where tensions are high, and nothing that the complaint attributes to MPants rises to the level of disruptive conduct. This is indeed a sensitive area (by which I mean GENSEX, although in this case it hits the jackpot by being intertwined with AMPOL and Trump), one where ArbCom is in the process of starting a case, so I can sympathize with editors on either side who feel slighted by comments. If you read the linked talk page section from the beginning, editors on both sides are to some extent talking past one another. Here is MPants' first comment there: [93]. Aside from the last sentence, which in context is a fairly mild request to read before posting, the comment is entirely one that is about sources and content, and that seeks to identify areas of agreement while arguing against disregarding reliable sources. As the discussion goes along, there's ongoing WP:IDHT from other editors, and MPants becomes increasingly blunt, it also looks to me like MPants is taking a position that looks like the consensus in the discussion, with Samuelshraga taking a partially different content position than MPants, and, as I said, MPants is not being disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: What Black Kite said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside my personal feelings, ~~I think that Seraphimblade has summarized the situation accurately.~~ I admit that MPants didn't help his case with the tone of his statement here. ~~I would just ask that this be dealt with via mutual topic bans or mutual logged warnings rather than site bans, so that editors can still do work in other, less heated, topic areas.~~ --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note for transparency: I posted this: [94]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone very carefully through the talk page discussion that led to this filing, and I struck some of what I said above. Damn, this is difficult, and I don't blame any admins for finding it difficult. I could write a lot more to substantiate what I'm going to say now, but I would need a word extension, so here is the tl;dr, and admins can ask me for more if they want.

Nowhere in the discussion did MPants advocate for calling Singal "anti-trans" in Wikipedia's voice. Nowhere! MPants supported including that term with attribution to a source, and there is a ton of discussion about whether the source was WP:DUE for including that way in a BLP. I'm seeing admins saying that MPants did otherwise, but you need to get the facts right.
There's another editor in that discussion, who is not Samuel, who kept engaging with MPants in what looks to me like a seriously WP:IDHT way, arguing in effect that no sourcing should be cited, even with attribution, and disparaging reliable sources as advocacy etc. That editor has commented here at AE. But with the 2-parties rule, AE shouldn't act on that without a new thread. MPants became increasingly heated in replying to that other editor, and it's understandable. Samuel agreed with some of the things that the other editor was saying, and got caught in the middle. But it's really that third editor who was the problem. Go through the discussion, and you can see it.
You should close this without action against either the accused or the filer. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Void if removed

Void if removed's statement contains 458 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I can't agree with Parabolists' reading at all, and even if we could stretch charity to that interpretation, it could have been cleared up in one reply - but it wasn't. If asked to source specific wording, editors should do so, yet every reply doubles down. This sort of behaviour in a CTOP is exhausting and serves only to raise the temperature.

Similarly I find this edit and the accompanying talk page comment concerning.

The citation is a philosophical essay arguing the opposite of what it was given in support. The other two citations on talk are:

An article about a film which had been alleged as constituting hate speech, not the phrase
A link described as from The UK Parliament which is actually not at all, but an unvetted consultation submission by a single-sex prison campaigner which complains that some people have described it as hate speech

And then handwaving that literally countless others exist. The general tone of comments on talk is unnecessarily inflammatory and provocative too. Eg. this. And this after failing to acknowledge WP:RSEDITORIAL concerns over sourcing a statement of fact. And this WP:BATTLEGROUND comment.

A CTOP is the last place to make unsourced and badly sourced assertions while insisting they are just very obviously true, nor to misrepresent sources, nor to make WP:POINTy comments and demand other editors do their homework instead of simply responding to questions civilly. An instruction to be WP:CIVIL and stick to what sources say would not go amiss. Void if removed (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, in this precipitating comment MP did not provide a single citation for their claims. I can't actually see a single RS given by MP in the entire thread. SS bent over backwards to WP:AGF with someone who was uncivil, did not back up their claims, and expected others to put in legwork to try and find the actual sources MP may have referred to. The accusation of being obtuse about what sources say is surprising when MP has at no point provided one. SS had to go dig them up themselves, and other editors agreed with SS' reading of those sources. Void if removed (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protestations about wikivoice are beside the point, since the exchanges with Samuelshrega are whether the label is DUE with attribution. The merits of the label are irrelevant - the behavioural issues are: claiming to have provided sources while not actually providing sources, and responding with WP:BATTLEGROUND when questioned on it - behaviour which has unfortunately continued here. Void if removed (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanielRigal

DanielRigal's statement contains 79 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Hold on. All of the diffs offered in the initial report are edits to Talk pages? This isn't about BLP violations in an article at all? Am I missing something? Oh, and we are digging up an unrelated block from 2019? This looks like an attempt to shut down discussions. All I see here is MjolnirPants getting slightly frustrated at people trying to use the "Card says 'Moops'" type of argument. Is there any actual substance here? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snokalok

Snokalok's statement contains 220 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I'd say some of this perhaps strays into a degree of rudeness, but as for BLP, MP is making a reasonable argument based on extensive sourcing in thread about a figure who is more or less entirely notable for his journalistic and social media advocacy against trans rights. To me, trying to deny or reduce that when it is so central to his personal brand, reads at best as grasping at straws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snokalok (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that, Samuelshraga previously filed a thread against YFNS that was described by admins at the time as throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks and was closed with action.[95] Before it was formally closed but after it became clear no action would be taken, SS then crashed out about YFNS in another thread.[96]

This debacle was shortly followed by an arbcom case proposal on GENSEX (which has the votes to be picked up but which has not formally been picked up yet) where editors trying to remove other editors with opposing POVs became a major topic of discusion.[97].

While I make no statements on the character of this filing, it is worth noting that - extensive crashout aside - Mjolnir is worth hearing out in this light. Snokalok (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

LokiTheLiar's statement contains 449 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

While I think Samuelshraga is correct about the sourcing here, this feels like going to AE to get MjolnirPants to produce sources in a content dispute to me. I don't really feel like this is AE-worthy.

(Just for context of why I think Samuelshraga is correct about the sourcing: based on the state of Jesse Singal's article at the time of the comment, the sources in question are probably: Slate, CJR, The Economist, the Social Market Foundation (yes, this is the same source), The Atlantic, GLAAD. Most of these say that one specific article written by Singal was incorrect, and usually also say that it was stigmatizing or transphobic. Only the GLAAD source directly calls Singal himself "anti-trans", though Slate does call him biased in general. Especially because of the duplicate source I think MjolnirPants was not properly checking whether the sources said what he needed them to say, and this is bad and troutworthy, but IMO not AE-worthy.) Loki (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarek: Not to pile on here, but the sources don't support even the first statement. The sources are very critical of that one specific article by Singal, but even when you get to "his works" in general there just isn't a lot of reliable sourcing. Loki (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MP: ~~Initial objection withdrawn (I did not originally parse any of those as meaning what you said they mean, but now you point it out I'll grant it),~~ but it's replaced with a new one, which is: Why not just say that during the original discussion? Why did you have to be dragged to AE to explain what you meant? Loki (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait no. Those are all from one source, that I already said says Singal is biased generally. What about the other sources? Loki (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MilesVorkosigan: CJR/The Economist is still about one article Singal wrote: saying the story was transphobic and wrong is not the same as saying that Singal is transphobic generally. And the Atlantic is saying that Singal is biased against the kids in his article transitioning, which is not the same as saying he's anti-trans generally. I realize these are somewhat nitpicky distinctions, but they're important: Singal's a living person and to say something about him that he'd dispute, we need to have it sourced clearly and unambiguously.

(Like, to be clear: I believe Singal is anti-trans generally, because I've read his tweets. But tweets aren't reliable sources. A fact can be true but not verifiable because it hasn't had good sources written about it, and I believe that's happening here.)

Also, the things you're saying should have been said at the original discussion. MP's refusal to discuss prevented any kind of convincing or compromise. Loki (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector/Valereee: "in Wikivoice" are the operative words there, MP was very much arguing for labeling Singal with attribution, which per MOS:LABEL still requires strong sourcing. Loki (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell

Sean Waltz O'Connell's statement contains 421 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I agree that MjolnirPants' behavior is concerning. He has been persistently uncivil throughout the discussion, made personal comments about other users, and failed to provide sources to support the claim that reliable sources widely or commonly refer to certain individuals and organizations as "anti-trans", as required by MOS:LABEL and WP:BLPSTYLE. Instead, he advised other users to check the sources he mentioned by name, without providing any links. This may also be a WP:CIR issue. After other users conducted research to identify the sources MjolnirPants was apparently referring to, none were found to explicitly use the label, except for the advocacy group GLAAD, which alone is not sufficient to justify the use of such a contentious label about a living person. Telling other users to "do better," "spend a tad bit more time on self-reflection", etc. while failing to explicitly cite any sources to support his position is not acceptable. The diffs have already been provided by other users, so I will not repost them. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that compliance with the rules is important, and WP:BLPSTYLE advises us not to "label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." Similarly, MOS:LABEL cautions against using value-laden labels for any individual or group unless such labels are widely used by reliable sources, and only then use in-text attribution. To quote: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. In my understanding, the use of a contentious label such as anti-trans by one or two sources, especially opinionated or advocacy-oriented ones, is not sufficient to justify its usage. "Common" implies widespread usage by top quality sources. I don't believe Samuelshraga was wrong to demand compliance with the rules, as they are in place for a reason. It is up to those who seek to use such labels, even with attribution, to demonstrate common and widespread usage in reliable sources. Jesse Singal is a journalist who has written for highly respected and reliable publications such as The New York Times and The Atlantic, neither of which considers him a transphobe. While some may disagree with his reporting, his perspective remains a legitimate one in a deeply polarizing debate, and we should not dismiss it by applying contentious labels. Generally, I don't think labels add any useful information beyond carrying implicit value judgments and oversimplifying complex issues where no scholarly consensus exists. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MilesVorkosigan

Removed as a violation of WP:BLPTALK. Please do not comment in this thread further. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Black Kite's statement contains 105 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

You would have thought that with an ArbCom case about to start on transgender-related disruption, the usual suspects would have stopped trying to remove people that they feel are their ideological enemies from the topic area, but clearly this appears not to be the case. It is certainly something I wouldn't have done in the circumstances. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: MP has not edited at all since this AE was filed, and if you look at their contribs they regularly have long gaps between activity. It would be incredibly harsh to sanction them on the basis of this, barely 48 hours later. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

Ivanvector's statement contains 651 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

A block I made is being referenced here, and so I feel the need to point out that the block occurred in the context of MjolnirPants being harassed by a vicious racist troll, who later admitted (bragged, really) that they were only here to get MjolnirPants blocked, and abandoned their account immediately after leaving an "own the libs" style parting shot. Much more happened behind the scenes via oversight and arbcom, and from what little of it I was privy to (I've never been an oversighter nor an arbitrator) there was a general consensus that they would be unblocked immediately if they just asked, and in fact that's what happened even though it was two years later. I was pushing to lift the block symbolically without a request, and would have unilaterally if oversight hadn't already taken it over. Still, if we were able to scrub entries from block logs, this one would be top of my list to purge, per WP:NONAZIS.

It's absolutely not relevant here, other than that having picked this particular block out of all the entries in MPants' log calls into question the motivation of the filer. I suppose we'll have to take them at their word that they simply aren't familiar with the context. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't familiar with the dispute nor with the BLP subject before coming here, but I did have a look at the discussion from which the complainant provided diffs, and I personally don't see the problem. I see an experienced editor trying to discuss the proper framing of a BLP subject known for their transphobic writings and becoming frustrated at being stonewalled with repetitive WP:GREENCHEESE arguments, and then being tone policed. And now having an enforcement process weaponized against them. This should be dismissed with no action. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: here are all the times I could find in the linked discussion where MjolnirPants said something to the effect of "nobody is arguing for Singal to be described as anti-trans in wikivoice":

[98] "Nobody has suggested the use of the word 'transphobic' in this discussion [...] Nobody curently involved is advocating for labeling any individual or group in wikivoice as 'transphobic' or even 'anti-trans'."
[99] (you'll have to read this one for context)
[100] "Once again, Wikipedia is not labeling anyone as "anti-trans"."
[101] "You are continuing to argue against labeling him that in Wikivoice which nobody is endorsing here." (emphasis in original)

The complainants here repeatedly accused MjolnirPants (and others) of wanting to call Singal disparaging terms in wikivoice despite MPants having literally argued against that exact point at least four times. If this is not sealioning I don't know what is. ~~How embarrassing that you're now repeating the same sealioning arguments; you should recuse from this discussion.~~ Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee and LokiTheLiar: there is a difference between discussing a subject's controversial views on a talk page in the interest of improving an article (see WP:BLPTALK) versus writing those views into an article without proper sourcing. MjolnirPants was trying to do the former, but was repeatedly shouted down by editors who misinterpreted their comments (whether willfully or not) or just didn't read them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I presume to have been granted an extension, having been invited to clarify when I'm already over the limit. I meant to partly address your comment about MPants' statement dealing with labelling Singal, and partly Loki's comment that labelling with attribution requires sourcing, as both comments seemed to be calling out malfeasance on MjolnirPants' part. The point I intended to make, and my interpretation of BLPTALK, is that discussing contentious information about a BLP subject on a talk page in the interest of improving our coverage of the subject (within reason) is fair comment, and does not require inline citation (though WP:MINREF probably disagrees). Thus, having engaged in such a discussion on a talk page or on this page should not be held against MjolnirPants. This does not appear to be a point on which we disagree, however. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223 (mpants)

I've been watching this listing with some alarm but, after seeing yesterday's developments I decided to post a brief comment.

First, regarding MPants' reply above. When I look at the diffs that led to this filing what I see is an editor dealing with WP:CPUSH. Civil POV pushing turns Wikipedia into a game of who can make their opponent lose their cool first. It is a method of argumentation designed to frustrate and antagonize. Having admins at AE look at obvious civil POV pushing and suggest that MPants needed to defend themselves was likely an additional irritant. With that in mind, it's somewhat unsurprising they came in and said some angry things. They had been provoked to anger.

Second, regarding calling Singal anti-trans, there are sources. In fact there are peer reviewed sources such as: The Politics of Transgender Health Misinformation. By: Billard, Thomas J, Political Communication, 10584609, 2024, Vol. 41, Issue 2 which says of Singal much of this misinformation enters public discourse via "mainstream" media sources that are "invested with various forms of social, cultural, political, and economic power" (p. 237). Misinformational claims such as those listed above appear frequently in feature articles and op-eds in The New York Times and The Atlantic, with a consistent stable of misinformation-peddling authors including, among others, Jesse Singal and Abigail Schrier; moving into media and we have pieces like NY Times hires anti-LGBTQ columnist in appalling move: Newspaper continues to platform harmful voices. By: ELLIS, SARAH KATE, Washington Blade, 02789892, 1/20/2023, Vol. 54, Issue 3 which says of Singal writer Jesse Singal, who is not transgender or LGBTQ but who has built a career inaccurately writing about trans issues and targeting trans people, reviewed and supported his friend's inaccurate anti-transgender book. It also says of Singal that he makes false and harmful exclusionary innuendo about transgender women and safety.

I could easily burn through my 500 words with such examples. The point is that it is easy to find reliable sources that call Singal a misinformation peddler on trans issues, that say he writes inaccurately on trans issues and that he targets trans people, that he engages in false and harmful exclusionary statements, etc.

Civil POV pushers like to demand a very high specificity of language that goes against Wikipedia's summary style. And so they will point to the fact these articles describe Singal's anti-trans activities rather than summarizing them and then claim they are not evidence he is anti-trans. But we do have a summary style. And the clearest and most accurate possible summary of Singal's career is to call him anti-trans.

We should not be removing editors from the topic area for losing their cool in the face of such antics. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee if we are to treat ourselves as not permitted to summarize the unpleasant views of people who hold them because those summaries are treated as pejorative then the best case scenario for BLP articles will be a preponderance of terrible prose. The more likely scenario will be hagiography of people with unpleasant views. Simonm223 (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

It seems there are several issues here. One seems to be a bit of talking past each other. That is an unfortunate thing that sometimes happens in these long discussions. Editors misinterpret a comment/statement or confuse the claim of editor A with editor B who is saying something similar. That isn't an indication of bad faith or incivility. In fact, civility is one of the best ways to undo such a situation. Certainly that could have been helpful here. CPUSH seems to be one of those things that is thrown out when editors can't convince someone else that they are "Wrong(tm)" But why bother proving they are Wrong(tm)? No one is required to reply to someone on a talk page. If the Wrong(tm) editor isn't changing the article, what's the problem? If they are stonewalling a change then a RfC is a clear way to establish that consensus isn't with them. Above it's argued that CPUSH results in otherwise good editors loosing their cool and becoming uncivil. Yes, that is an issue, with the editor who fails to follow civil. Again, there is no rule that says we have to reply to someone who is Wrong(tm). Civil, unlike CPUSH, is a policy for good reason. When an editor uses language that, even it not a direct insult, is clearly rude, inflammatory etc they make it harder to reach an amicable consensus, discourage other editors from being willing to engage in the discussion and potentially start an escalation that can lead to good editors being blocked. Clear incivility is not something that good faith editors, even ones who are Wrong(tm) should have to tolerate. I suspect, absent the incivility, the content disagreement in question would resolve itself either via continued discussion or a civil RfC on the topic. Springee (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by YFNS (MjolnirPants)

Jesse Singal, who is widely considered to have created the blueprint for anti-trans activism today[102] - starting with this academic article to drive home who we're talking about.

Others have already noted: 1) SamuelShraga's past history of weaponizing AE and reading things in the worst possible light 2) Mjolnir supported attribution, not putting "anti-trans" in wikivoice. I am disappointed admins fell for the strawman he wanted it in wikivoice.

Now, the source we have in the article is an RS (Condé Nast's LGBT magazine Them (magazine)), which calls him anti-trans[103]. It says

the report cited debunked and discredited anti-transgender sources and
the document cites notoriously anti-trans sources throughout its “analysis,” including the U.K.’s widely disputed Cass Review, the “Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine” (SEGM), and long-discredited writer Jesse Singal.

The Trump administration HHS gender dysphoria report is widely agreed in MEDRS and RS to be chock-ful of WP:FRINGE bullshit. Some editors have crusaded to try and remove the fact, reported in RS, that the report cited a bunch of WP:FRINGE anti-trans activists. WP:PARITY applies.

MP said . Slate, the CJR, The Economist, the Social Market Foundation, The Atlantic, apart from the Economist/Social Market Foundation (same source), each of these was indeed heavily critical of his bias against trans people. Which indeed makes an attributed description along those lines more due.

@MjolnirPants: is not a GENSEX regular, generally focusing on FRINGE[104]. I think he should have just linked the sources instead of referencing them and his reply here was too confrontational (MP, I would advice you strike/tone down your AE statement). But I have some sympathy for not knowing how to handle GENSEX WP:PROFRINGE activism - frankly this is a topic area where admins never deal with WP:PROFRINGE editors who've learned to WP:CPUSH. I think a warning might be called for.

SamuelShraga, on the other hand, absolutely has been attempting to weaponize AE (and consistently advocate citing SEGM...). I'd describe his behavior at the talk page as baiting and willful ignorance. I think a GENSEX TBAN or at least AE post ban would be helpful. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GENSEX cases will continue to wind up at AE until ARBCOM or even AE admins do something about WP:PROFRINGE GENSEX editing poisoning the topic area.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Clerical notes

@MilesVorkosigan: I have removed your section as a violation of WP:BLP. Since your commentary so far has not been helpful, I am advising you to not post again in this thread. This isn't just a matter of you being wrong on policy; per WP:BLPTALK, your edits themselves violate the policy. Nor does it matter whether maybe some source could be found to support your view; your insistence that this is so obvious as to not need sources is part of the BLP violation. Please also take this as a warning that future statements like this—about any living or recently deceased person, about any alleged hateful viewpoint, without clear sourcing explicitly making the same claim—will result in a block or TBAN under WP:CT/BLP (of which you should consider yourself aware). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning MjolnirPants

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

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

Agree, clearly indicates awareness. Valereee (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants, if there's any chance you're just up against it right now IRL and need time, we can suspend this for a bit. Just let us know how much time you need. Valereee (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a statement by MjolnirPants makes me think a vacation from the topic area is needed --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I would sanction just for failure to respond; no one's required to. That said, we can't wait indefinitely either, so at this point I think we should just evaluate the complaint as it stands. Of course, should MjolnirPants want to add their input at any point, they're still welcome to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. BLP doesn't let us SKYBLUE negative information about a living person, especially when the sources brought up to support that negative fact fact don't actually day that, see Lokitheliar's statement. People need to start with what Reliable Sources actually say and work from there rather than starting with a truth and trying to justify it. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As MP points out above, those were two separate sentences saying different things, so it's inaccurate to say that he's misleading when a statement about GLAAD doesn't apply to the first five. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that they're both right. MjolnirPants' attitude, even as demonstrated here, is certainly not one conducive to keeping things calm in a very controversial area, and Samuelshraga is being, even at the most charitable, rather obtuse regarding what sources say and seems to engage in I didn't hear you and similar disruptive behavior. I don't really see a good reason that either of them should continue editing in this highly contentious area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sensitive to issues of sealioning, but I don't think that's what I'm seeing here from Samuelshraga. I don't find Mpants' analogy or assertion ("quote He was taller than any of the others and he outweighed any two of them combined, and concluding that quote does not, in fact, describe the subject as being 'large' because the word 'large' doesn't appear in it") convincing. Calling someone anti-trans ~~in Wikivoice~~ is not the same as saying the person has been described as having anti-trans bias, and asking for RS calling the person anti-trans is reasonable.

And of course anti-trans is a pejorative; it's not true that it's the same as anti-Nazi. Unless a person is calling themselves anti-trans, or the label is widely being used in RS (and in the case of GENSEX, I'd agree we need those RS not to be biased) we shouldn't use the label. Mpants, all of the passages you quote are saying his writings about trans subjects are biased. Clearly the writer thinks he's anti-trans, but they stop short of calling him that, so WP would need to also if that's what we're basing our description of him on. Valereee (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MilesVorkosigan, Everyone already *knows* that Singal is (at best) anti-trans, that's the basis of most of his notability is not good enough for calling someone anti-trans in Wikivoice. When it comes to negative labels, it is seldom BLUE that "everyone knows" this about a living person. We need a reliable source, preferably multiple and of very high quality. Valereee (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector, I was responding directly to Mpant's statement. I actually considered adding, "I know early in your statement you said this wasn't about the label, but your entire statement following that dealt with whether or not labelling Singal as anti-trans was fair based on their writings being described as biased, and whether anti-trans was even a pejorative, and then in your reply to Loki, all of your examples are in support of Singal being anti-trans." I didn't because I felt like was I was saying was long enough, but I guess it's necessary here to have made that clear. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MJP, what would be a neutral word to describe someone who insists upon writing misinformation in opposition to a topic with no connection to that topic themselves, if not anti-whatever. Generally, we see arguments to call them someone who has done X, Y, and Z, and leave it at that until RS are calling them the pejorative term.

It doesn't really matter that by my reading and yours and everyone who read that Slate/Outward piece, the author of that piece clearly thinks Singal is anti-trans. You're of course right that in a lengthy opinion piece criticizing another article, he's unlikely to start out with "Jesse Singal is a big fat anti-trans, and here are all my reasons for thinking so." But when we're talking about a pejorative label at a BLP, unless the highest quality RS are calling him that -- often it's done in passing, like the Them piece -- it's reasonable to object to labelling a BLP with a pejorative term. Valereee (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223, re: summary style. It's a reasonable argument to say that if RS aren't using the pejorative term, our summary style doesn't justify it either. It's not sealioning to demand RS who are using that pejorative term. I am aware that puts editors at an article in a position where it's hard to find consensus. I'm also aware that there are editors at any number of GENSEX articles who would not be arguing nearly so hard about that if their own opinions weren't in the mix. That's what makes GENSEX so difficult. Valereee (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223, of course you can summarize their unpleasant views. "X has argued X, Y, and Z." <---summary of what the source says at greater length. "X is anti-trans." <---conclusion drawn from the fact you know anti-trans people often make similar arguments. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to side with Valeree here about BLP. Sourcing for calling a BLP "anti-trans" in wikivoice needs to be ironclad, not a "everyone knows it" sourcing situation. I'm very unimpressed with the line of reasoning that "anti-trans" isn't a pejorative and so thus it doesn't need sources that explicitly state a BLP is "anti-trans". I'm also not impressed with the amount of aspersions/battlegrounding being used here: "Samuel's logic is so fundamentally warped" "blatantly ignorant of the basics of the English language and basic verbal or written communications" "stupidity is assumed or inherent is not something I'll speculate about". None of this is necessary or helpful at all. It's possible to make arguments without this sort of ... I'm struggling to find a word that isn't "invective" to describe it, so I'll just re-use "battleground behavoir."

This isn't to say I'm not unimpressed with Samuelshraga bringing this to AE - the way I'm reading their "If MjolnirPants can substantiate the claim ... I will of course withdraw this complaint" is that they are using AE as a step in the underlying content dispute, and that's not what AE is for - it very much feels like they brought this here not so much because of what MJP is doing is wrong but as an attempt to "win" also.

Frankly, I find this whole filing an excellent example of how this CTOP is toxic. The fact that we have editors willing to overlook BLP policy or blatant battleground behavior (from all sides) is not good at all. Not sure what we here at AE can do to solve either the micro or the macro problem though. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like it's getting worse, too. Even with an active ArbCom case request, it seems like nearly everything we're seeing is GENSEX. This is at least the second one in recent memory (For Ivan: that at least one side is characterizing as) over the use of the label anti-trans, alone. Valereee (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, MJP wasn't arguing at article talk to call Singal anti-trans in Wikivoice. They were, by my reading, arguing that quoting with attribution a source that other editors are saying is biased was okay if RS who weren't using the term nevertheless were saying things that would tend to support the idea that using that content wasn't undue. MJP, if you need more space to respond to that, please take up to 100 words. (Or anyone else can feel free to correct me, please ping to make sure I see it, I'm traveling and busy but want to be clear on this.) Valereee (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector, could you clarify the point you're making with there is a difference between discussing a subject's controversial views on a talk page in the interest of improving an article versus writing those views into an article without proper sourcing. To me that's an "of course", but maybe you have some nuance you're thinking of? Valereee (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes, sorry, should have clarified that extra words = okay. Thanks, I understand your point. Valereee (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlvaKedak

AlvaKedak is given a logged warning for four breaches, albeit minor, of their topic ban. They are advised that editors proceed at their own peril when they operate in topic areas closely related to an area they are banned from, and that especially in the early days of a topic ban it is a good idea to avoid these; repeated violations, even if accidental, may lead to blocks.

Orientls is informally cautioned to spend less time policing the TBAN compliance of others and that the first recourse for a minor violation should usually be asking the editor to self-revert. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning AlvaKedak

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Orientls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history#AlvaKedak indefinite topic ban

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

18:18, 25 July 2025 - Ironically, lectures another user about the Arbcom sanctions on this Indian historical empire while violating the topic ban on himself imposed by Arbcom.
04:45, 26 July 2025 - Another topic ban violation as he is editing article about a historical Indian empire.
19:17, 26 July 2025 - Violating the topic ban by sharing his knowledge about Indian military history
19:20, 26 July 2025 - No different than above violation
19:23, 26 July 2025 - Another violation

These violations came after he was already cautioned about his earlier topic ban violations. Orientls (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

"AlvaKedak (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed."[105]

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): Not required here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Orientls's statement contains 619 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

@Tamzin: I disagree that "if ArbCom had wanted to say "Indian history", it could have", because then it would mean AlvaKedak cannot edit even about topics like Aryabhata which is irrelevant to caste and military. He is topic banned from Indian military and caste history that means he cannot even edit about B. R. Ambedkar or Reginald Dyer, let alone editing about these empires like Hoysala Kingdom, Gajapati Empire and more that are all about Indian military history. To be very clear, he is not allowed to edit about any empires but he is doing it even after warning. Orientls (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: See WP:BROADLY. What you are saying is like saying Aryabhatta should not fall under a "topic ban from Indian astronomy history". Weren't these all these Indian empires sustained by militaries? Didn't they come and fade as part of military campaigns? AlvaKedak also edited Gajapati military two times on 24 July 2025.[106][107] This is absolutely in line with your interpretation. Orientls (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Since you are acknowledging that he was warned and he acknowledged it, then why do you want to simply warn him for the latest topic ban violation (you agreed on at least 1 diff)? You haven't addressed how any of these empires are irrelevant to Indian military history when they are all about Indian military history. If "we TBAN someone from American politics" then they cannot edit about Donald Rumsfeld even though he was not involved in American politics throughout his entire adult life but was notable all because of it. Same way these empires are notable all because of their relevance in Indian military history, that's why editing their articles is a violation of Indian military history topic ban. Orientls (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts and Tamzin: While we are evaluating this report, AlvaKedak has again violated his topic ban right here by changing "King Tipu had vowed never to use it until he completely defeated the British Army. After King Tipu Sultan martyred, the British dismantled the throne" to "Tipu had vowed never to use it until he completely defeated the British Army. After Tipu Sultan, the British dismantled the throne". Orientls (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: You are misreading the diff. Alvakedak did not remove "multiple instances of a word" but removed multiple words like "king", "martyred" and is directly talking about the content that is all about a historical battle, i.e. Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (which is also mentioned there). This is a clear-cut violation of his topic ban. Orientls (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: You haven't addressed AlvaKedak changing "After King Tipu Sultan martyred, the British dismantled the throne" to "After Tipu Sultan, the British dismantled the throne".[108] Can you tell the name of the event where Tipu Sultan "martyred" in the hands of the British? Tamzin is also yet to address that. If you are going to say that talking about a historical military death has nothing to do with military history, then that would make no sense. Orientls (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [109]

Discussion concerning AlvaKedak

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 AlvaKedak

Statement by Vanamonde93

Vanamonde93's statement contains 38 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I have to agree with my colleagues below: editing about an empire is not in and of itself a part of military history, as that would cover far too much of the history of the subcontinent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning AlvaKedak

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

~~I'm inclined to issue a one week block. AlvaKedak, do you understand what the broadly construed aspect of your TBAN means or do you need a broader TBAN from all Indian history to clarify things?~~ voorts (talk/contributions) 15:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my mind. I agree with Tamzin. An informal warning is fine here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I partly disagree. Diff 1 is a violation, although I appreciate that it might not be obvious to someone that enforcing the ECR is itself covered by the TBAN, so I'd only give an informal warning for that. The other diffs don't seem within the scope of the TBAN to my eye. If ArbCom had wanted to say "Indian history", it could have. While these polities had militaries, the edits didn't concern those, unless I'm missing something. That said, I can't say I recommend editing this close to the boundary of the topic ban. It's best to stay far afield, ~~even~~ especially in the early days of a TBAN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC), ed. 19:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Orientls: I simply disagree. A historical Indian empire is not inherently within the topic area of Indian military history. Many aspects of it may be, but not the entire topic. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Orientls: I am quite familiar with WP:BROADLY. Aryabhatta would fall under an Indian astronomy history TBAN because he was an astronomer; everything about his article is subsidiary to the topic of astronomy. BROADLY doesn't work in the other direction, though. When we TBAN someone from American politics, we don't say they cannot edit about the United States at all. Therefore when we TBAN someone from Indian military history, we are not saying they cannot edit about any Indian entity that has ever had a military. Again, if ArbCom had wanted to do that, it would have said so. Now, I wouldn't say it's a good idea to make such edits, since it's close to the line, but it's not across it.
You are right that the two Gajapati diffs were violations, but AK was already warned about that and acknowledged fault, which you link to in your filing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Orientls: I don't know how to be more clear. TBANs apply to things that are subsidiary to the topic, but not to things that are broader in scope. Donald Rumsfeld is part of US politics. The US is not part of US politics; rather, US politics is part of the US.
Why do I just want to warn? Because the first two edits read like an honest mistake, and this reads like an honest mistake. Traditionally, an editor gets one or two warnings' worth of leeway for honest mistakes when they get topic-banned, before we start blocking. That said, I wouldn't object to making this warning logged rather than informal.
In addition, I don't know how else to say this, but please try to sound less... bloodthirsty?... about this. You've made your case. Admins are listening, and I am but one admin. Collectively, we will agree with you or we won't. But whatever we do, it will be what we think is most likely to steer this editor back in the direction of constructive edits. The goal here is not to eliminate someone for Breaking the Rules. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Orientls: This is bordering on tendentious. He removed multiple instances of a word in an article on architecture, and one of those instances happened to be in a sentence mentioning the British Army in India. This is, again, not something I would consider a good idea to edit about while under an Indian military history topic ban; but it is, again, not a topic ban violation (or only is in a de minimis sense); and you are, again, grasping at straws here. Please go find something to do other than policing a fellow editor's contributions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tamzin, quite emphatically. Just because an Indian empire has a military does not mean a topic ban from "Indian military history" disallows editing about the empire, as long as the edits are not about the military of that empire. Informal warning is fine. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that AK changed anything in that newest diff that relates to military history. They arguably greatly improved the prose, making it actually readable, without discussing anything related to a battle. Yes, it's probably close to the edge, and if I were them, I might have avoided it, but that's a personal choice. If they'd changed "had vowed never to use it until he completely defeated the British Army" to "had vowed never to use it until he completely destroyed the British Army" or "had vowed never to use it until he drove the British from India", then, yes, it'd be a violation, but merely editing something in an article near a mention of a military event in that same article is not "broadly construed"... it is "grasping at straws" as Tamzin points out above. I might suggest that you do not try "third time is the charm" on this report as it could lead to a boomerang ban on you making reports here. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree, I think Orientls is correct in characterizing the removal of the word "martyred" as infringing on the topic ban. Tipu Sultan died in battle against the British during the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War, which is stated quite plainly in the lead of Tipu Sultan's Summer Palace. The use of "martyred" was both ungrammatical (it should have been was martyred to be grammatically correct) and likely not warranted per neutrality policy (was killed being clearer and less value-laden), but this is very much touching on a military action (and it's worth noting that the resulting text is also ungrammatical--it should not be After Tipu Sultan,..., it should be After Tipu Sultan's death...). Now, this infringement is perhaps still covered by Tamzin's assertion of de minimis non curat lex (to which I'm tempted to respond, de locutiones latinam non curat Wikipedium et broadly construed significat broadly construed) so this probably warrants a warning or slap on the wrist at most, but I think it's wrong to assert that such edits are fair game. More broadly, I don't think it's possible to edit topics pertaining to regime or border change without touching upon military questions--these topics are inherently linked. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "martyred" is terrifically biased language and should not be used without incredibly strong sourcing - removing it in this instance is a great service, because not only was it biased/loaded language, it made no sense "After King Tipu Sultan martyred" is gibberish, frankly. Please stop assuming that Tamzin and I did not actually look at the context of the diff you are reporting. I did indeed open up the diff and read the whole edit. Pinging me back to pick at this again is not helping your case. I disagree with Rosguill that removing "martyred" was inherently related to military history, if the previous bit had been "After King Tipu Sultan's death in battle" ... then by a hugely terrific stretch, it could be argued that this was a topic ban violation. I could see an informal warning to AK to be scrupulous about utterly avoiding pushing the boundaries, but I remain more unimpressed with the filer's behavior here than the edits made that (if we squint REALLY hard) could possibly brush up against the topic ban. (I also disgree that "After Tipu Sultan, the British dismantled" is wrong per se, but that's a stylistic choice that isn't part of this CTOP, thankfully (stares at Capitalization matters in horror)) Ealdgyth (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Rosguill makes a fair point that the "martyred" change is just over the line. @Rosguill @Ealdgyth: Combined with three other just-over-the-lines, how would we feel about this?
AlvaKedak is given a logged warning for four breaches, albeit minor, of their topic ban. They are advised that editors proceed at their own peril when they operate in topic areas closely related to an area one is banned from, and that especially in the early days of a topic ban it is a good idea to avoid these; repeated violations, even if accidental, may lead to blocks. Orientls is informally cautioned to spend less time policing the TBAN compliance of others.
(Also, just a procedural note for the closer if it isn't me: As I understand this, any sanction here gets logged as a case-level warning under Indian military history in WP:AELOG/2025 § Other cases, not as CT/SA.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with that, but I'd also like an informal warning or at least an acknowledgement from the filer that going directly to AE with such a minor issue was bordering on battleground behavior - the better option (and one, ironically, we see more often in Israel-Palestine) is to approach the person making offending edit(s) first to see if they will self-revert or at least realize that such an edit is a breach. I see that CharlesWain did such with AK on the 25th and got a reply from AK that they would stop editing about forts. Generally, approaching the editor first in a low-key, collaborative manner is the approach that should be followed, not immediately dragging someone off to AE - ESPECIALLY when that same low-key approach that worked reasonably well is the immediately previous section to the one where the filer notified AK. I again point out that AK should probably try to avoid the edges of the topic, but I gotta admit that "military history" is a VERY broad topic and there are a lot of places it can trip you up. The Platonic ideal of what CTOP rules are for is to teach editors how to edit collaboratively so that the CTOP rules can eventually go away (I know, Pollyanna moment here for Ealdgyth, but it does occasionally happen more often than pigs fly!) so the ideal here would be for the filer to at least attempt to communicate the problem outside of AE. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal, and Ealdgyth’s informal warning suggestion seems appropriate too. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do have an informal warning as the last sentence of the proposal. I should have made it its own paragraph but yeah. @Ealdgyth: Does that work for you, appended with "and that the first recourse for a minor violation should usually be asking the editor to self-revert"? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Works fine. And thanks for the wordsmithing ... you're much better at the AE-legalease-stuff than I am. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks for drafting. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anpanman11

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 Anpanman11

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sybercracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Anpanman11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/SA — WP:ARBIMH

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

Copyright violations over two articles.[110][111][112] even after warnings copyrighted content still exists as 70.9%.[113]
After the previous violation of the 3rr rule,[114][115][116][117][118] still edit warring against default sorting.[119][120]
Calling good-faith collaborative edits as disruption.[121][122]
For creating new articles he merely provides quotes, page numbers from the sources.(Here, Here, Here) And mostly using outdated primary sources.
For removing or adding content, he merely provides any edit-summaries.[123][124][125]
Battle ground mentally and with false allegations hoax fillings.

I believe this user has a competence issue he doesn't know how to cite sources properly with pages quotes per WP:V, basic policies like Copyvio, Edit war, 3rr, and what is not vandalism/disruption. Sybercracker (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see User talk:Anpanman11#Introduction to contentious topics)

User_talk:Anpanman11#c-Rosguill-20250714185600-Introduction_to_contentious_topics

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Anpanman11 These are not the answers to the issues raised here; you have violated copyright on multiple occasions, violated 3RR, still edit warning, and still have sourcing issues (you often cite sources without providing pages, quotes & outdated/unreliable sources). After doing this, all you're not accepting these mistakes showing negligence.[126]

Even after Copyright violation on Muslim-Gujars you created article "Fazal Ali Khan" and directly copy-pasted content from the sources when Lovkal tagged page for revdel you removed tagged adding further new copyrighted content then he restored the tag again. But now copyright content still exist as 22.5% It clearly show your competence issue.
There is also another issue of WP: Owning on many occasions you said I created this page and why 'Syber' or other editors are editing this page? You're also not aware that on Wikipedia any page or content is not your personal property.
No, you don't have to revert other's edits violating 3RR rule and edit war. You violated 3RR on Muslim Gujars then still you're edit waring on Yahya Khan (Lahore) against improvements.[127][128][129][130] British census reports are outdated and unreliable for ethnic/caste claims in the Indian subcontinent.
I believe edit summaries are mandatory for removing content & sources from pages or replacing pre-existing content with new content that you were doing.
I didn't accuse you of sockpuppetry. I raised a concern that the page, Yahya Khan Bahadur was created 2-3 times by socks and deleted under G5 then the reviewing admin said the content is different from the previous sock's versions.[131] Sybercracker (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anpanman11 All issues mentioned in this report were also of concern to an admin. He said there were sourcing & copyright issues and you need to provide pages, and quotes from the sources.[132] Other editors also gave you warnings for disruption. You're not accepting your mistakes when you know you committed them, and you're not in the mood to listen to anyone. I think you'll repeat all these mistakes purposely If you'll be allowed to go unsanctioned.
In your comment you said "I'm not your father...?" I believe It is WP:UNCIVIL.
There was a clear copyright violation. Sybercracker (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User_talk:Anpanman11#c-Sybercracker-20250727220400-Notice

Discussion concerning Anpanman11

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 Anpanman11

Moved into own section in reply to filer. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I already discussed the matter with @Diannaa and she restored my edit

2. I had to revert your edit as it cited wrong figures with unreliable sources claiming here are 33 million Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan. British census data put the number of Gujjars at around 2m only.

3. Those were unnecessary edits on a page you knew nothing about. You added nothing to the page itself. You merely used it to increase the number of your edits.

4. Unlike you, I always quote authoritative and contemporary or semi-contemporary sources. The fact you're calling these "outdated" tells a lot about your knowledge about how historical sources work.

5. Edit summaries aren't mandatory.

6. You're the one who accused me of being a sockpuppet. You're the one who came up with false allegations.

Also, it's impressive that you've learned how to launch discussions, complaints, accuse someone of being a sockpuppet etc. all within a month of joining Wikipedia. Anpanman11 (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just recently you mentioned Abdullah Khan Alakozai (a page I created) as a Mughal subahdar. Had you read the very first line of the article you would've known he was an Afghan and had nothing to do with the Mughals. It seems you're the one who has basic reading competence issues. Anpanman11 (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved into own section again: I believe this one is a reply to Sybercracker (below). Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't teach me what sources to use, I know better. You have reading issues and you're trying to teach me my expertise.

1. There was no copyright violation on Muslim Gujjars, that's why my edits were restored.

2. I know it's not my personal property, just as I'm not your father that you have to follow me.

3. Sorry, your edits don't add anything to Yahya Khan (governor).

4. That's your opinion, which doesn't matter.

5. You launched Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anpanman11 a week before the page Yahya Khan (governor) was created. Anpanman11 (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Sybercracker's section, again. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I edited that page & copyright went from 75 to 22%. Will still edit more if required.

2. Irrelevant

3. If there was a clear copyright violation in your opinion why did the extended editor restored my edits after a discussion? Copyright of old books (1920s) is expired so it can't be a copyright violation. Anyways, you should discuss this with the editor who restored my edit instead of wasting my time. I'm explaining it for the third time now. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from CoffeeCrumbs' section. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any such thing. The pages are not locked. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from admins' section. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i think you should elaborate. I don't see Shams Khan page locked. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why are they protected now? What else can I edit? This was my expertise. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

Just want to note that Anpanman is continuing to edit the area covered in the recent Indian military history case [133]. I'm not sure how aware they are, though, of the consequences of the very recent arbitration case that placed this area under ECP protection. Anpanman11, can you confirm whether or not you are aware that editing Indian military history topics now requires an editor to have WP:ECP status? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Anpanman11

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

Without commenting on any of the more specific allegations here, @Anpanman11, you have to understand that Indian military history and South Asian social groups are now under an extended confirmed restriction. This means that until you have made 500 edits, you cannot create or edit articles like Shamas Khan, Yahya Khan (governor), or Abdullah Khan Alkozai, as these people are primarily known for their military roles. I've draftified the latter two articles as an arbitration enforcement action. Going forward, do you understand this rule? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anpanman11: Please read WP:ECR. You may not edit about any topic covered by an ECR, whether or not there is a page protection in place. If a page is all about Indian military history, you cannot edit it at all. If parts of a page are about Indian military history, you cannot edit those parts. Also, please only reply in your own section. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mikewem

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 Mikewem

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:PIA

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

Zionism: 27-July-2025 they restored their changes while making a claim about copyvio and commenting about some unrelated minor changes.
Zionism: 27-July-2025 they admitted that they are violating the rule that says "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page", though their explanation for doing so is baseless (as you shall see in the additional comments section).
Zionism: 14-July-2025 they removed the section about the Haredi (while falsely claiming that it's not about “anti-Zionism”).
Zionism: 27-July-2025 they removed part of the Haredi section (this time claiming that it's fringe).
Non Jewish victims of Nazi Germany: in two successive edits, they removed the estimate death toll of the non Jewish civilians (while claiming that it's the "Most common description") and then, they removed more content (while claiming that "Modern scholarship says not to focus on this kind of numerical total"). A few days later, they removed the sources and the content about the death toll of non-Jewish civilians.
Double standard: 27-July-2025 they restored unsourced content while falsely claiming that "lots of sources call [the early Muslim conquests] colonialism". This is an editor who doesn't hesitate to remove what they think is FRINGE (as evidenced by this edit on the Zionism article).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

User_talk:Mikewem#October_2024_2 blocked for edit warring on the Zionism article.
User_talk:Mikewem#October_2024_3 indeffed for WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and clear intent to ignore WP:PIA. Their unblock appeal was accepted by ScottishFinnishRadish and Rosguill.
User_talk:Mikewem#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction they were subject to an arbitrary enforcement sanction because of their edits on the Zionism article (again).

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

Regarding diffs 1 and 2: after an IP left a comment on the Zionism talk page about a possible grammar error, Mikewem took the opportunity to completely change the paragraph (while claiming to address the raised issue). I reverted their edit, addressed one of the issues that was raised by the IP and left an explanation on the talk page. Mikewem restored their edit while making a baseless claim about copyvio (something that even if true, wouldn't justify all the changes). When challenged to prove their claim (I was very specific), they gave a non answer. When I insisted, they made a completely baseless claim about copyvio and ignored the rest of my comment. When I asked them (again) to self-revert, they provided this reply (which ignores what I said). The rule of not restoring challenged material (mentioned at the top of the article's talk page) has served us well and kept the disruption to a minimum, so for them to deliberately ignore it is disruptive at best.

diffs 3 and 4 are more or less about the same rule that they obviously have no respect for.

The other diffs are self-explanatory. M.Bitton (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikewem: ignore 5 and 6 (per SilverLocust). M.Bitton (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Mikewem

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 Mikewem

I’m not sure I can give an initial response before receiving more clarification. I don’t understand how diffs 5 and 6 relate to PIA enforcement, so I feel like I must be misunderstanding some important aspect of this report or of PIA. I’m sorry for asking @M.Bitton:, but would you be willing to provide a more detailed explanation for your inclusion of 5 and 6? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewem (talk • contribs) 22:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cdjp1

As I have looked into and commented on a couple of the edits identified here, I’ll add what I found for the recod.

On the claim of copyvio, Mikewem argues that the phrase "notion of being a nation" is a copyvio of the lyric "notion of a nation" from the song "Non-stop" from the musical Hamilton. If we do a quick Google Scholar search for the exact lyric, we find it appearing in 1,270 results prior to 2012, which is prior to the first public showing of what was then the Hamilton Mixtape in 2013. Or if we want to go prior to 2009, when Miranda has stated he started working initially on Hamilton, the results are 1,010. This should be more than enough to show that the exact lyric is a common enough phrase in academic discussions of things like nationhood to not be a copyvio of a musical that came about after the scholarly sources looked at. We can then move on to how "notion of being a nation" is a different phrase to the lyric "notion of a nation". To put it bluntly, I very much believe any claim of copyvio is fallacious and is being used to justify the removal of a sentence that Mikewem doesn't like.

Secondly on "lots of sources call [the early Muslim conquests] colonialism", they later added a reference to support the claim, which was a single unpublished paper, that was written by Craig S. Wright, a person who only has degrees in computer science, works in financial technology, has no history of publication in relevant topic areas, and was found by UK courts to lie about what he has done/achieved. This is a potential indicator of a poor ability to assess the validity and references of sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mikewem

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

On diffs 1 and 2, that looks like a clear consensus-required violation. The "affirmative consensus on the talk page" requirement does need to be via discussion on the talk page – not merely citing (implicitly) things like the WP:COPYVIO policy, MOS:CAPS guidelines, or the WP:UCR essay. (And the asserted copyright violation is not remotely a copyright violation.)
On diffs 5 and 6, I think Mikewem is correct that those edits are not within WP:PIA. The subjects of victims of Nazi Germany and early Muslim conquests are not generally within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am having a lot of trouble assuming good faith on the copyright removals. A four-word phrase from an unrelated work, not even identical to the five-word phrase used on-wiki? Seriously? Editors do get weird ideas sometimes about how copyright works (partly because our copyright-related policies intentionally exceed, and also sometimes unintentionally misstate, copyright law, I say with a cough in the direction of WP:COPYLINK), but there's only so much AGF I'm willing to extend given the history of sanctions here. The minimum outcome I can see here is a balanced editing restriction (noting that per N95 Mikewem is currently at 74% [133/180] PIA edits in the past 30 days), but at this moment I lean more toward a full TBAN. We do not need editors in this topic area weaponizing policies to gain the upper hand. As with most PIA sanctions, I favor making this thread's outcome, whatever it is, appealable only to ARCA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not totally sold on a full TBAN here, depending on further replies from Mikewem, but I agree that the first two diffs appear to violate the consensus required requirement. (That's a ... weird mouthful). And I find the "alleged" copyright violation to be so much of a reach that I'm having trouble assuming good faith on Mikewem's part for putting it forward. The fact that Mikewem was already indeffed but unblocked less than a year ago is not exactly encouraging. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Stix1776

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

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

Appealing user: Stix1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Stix1776 (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: I was given a topic ban of on circumcision.

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

Notification of that administrator: sorry it's late, my job keeps me very busy

Statement by Stix1776

Since the ban, the other editor in the conflict has has a litany of blocks, topics bans, and finally a indefinite ban for sockpuppetry. I understand Wikipedia needs to be careful of outing, but this user was almost certainly creating a fake profile on Reddit to claim that the other side was "canvasing", something he often does [134] [135] to edit war.

It should be noted that the previous Outing policy in April 2022 did not include a mention to external sites. This was fixed in January of last year. I was not the only editor to find this confusing. Before the topic ban process started, I was genuinely surprised yet apologetic. I am sorry that I did an outing, but this situation is quite confusing.

Since my topic ban, the other contentious account and their socks had multiple blocks for edit warring, something I tried very hard to explain in my AE defense. Since the ban, I've had zero behavioral issues, and the other editor and his socks have had 10+. It's almost comical comparing this user's behavioral history and his socks and more socks and more socks and more socks after I was topic banned. Stix1776 (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– Edit: may I add that an admin decision was made on my topic ban BEFORE I had a chance to post a response. As other editors have noted, most of the complains in the AE report were for things BEFORE I got warned for DS. Reading the original AE report, most of the "personal attacks" that I was blamed for, including accusations of sockpuppetry and a future block for edit warring, in hindsight are fully correct.Stix1776 (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to The Blade of the Northern Lights

Jesus hell. So we're not allowed to argue, with a preponderance of evidence, that the topic ban was a massive mistake? How about that KlayCax and his socks have edited 20% of the page?

As noted, this admin has been a lock em up and throw away the key judge, literally making a decision before I even responded to the AE post. This is shameful.Stix1776 (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also KlayCax wasn't the filer, he was the one I was blamed for for "complaining".Stix1776 (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to Pppery

I literally apologized several times throughout this process.Stix1776 (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was rushed as hell.Stix1776 (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights

Just to note I'm aware of this, I don't think I'll have a lot to say but I know whatever I do say will probably be tomorrow, RL today has been absolutely relentless. Admins (and anyone else who has input), feel free to weigh in before any statement of mine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent I have anything to say, I note this appeal almost entirely focuses on the conduct of the filer at the time. Stix1776 hasn't picked up any other additional sanctions, and KlayCax has engaged in subsequent misconduct, and still nothing about this appeal is stating what the benefit would be for Stix1776 to be allowed to edit this topic area again. If there's a followup statement forthcoming I'm open to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Stix1776

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 (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Stix1776

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

Decline this entire appeal per WP:NOTTHEM. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much as my sympathies would normally be on Stix's side, their last few edits to this page suggest that lifting the topic ban at this time might be unwise. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stix, if you want this to end in your favour, some advice: back up. Way up. Start again, from the beginning. Explain the circumstances that led to your tban in a way that would make sense to someone who is reading about you for the very first time. Explain why you think the ban is no longer necessary. Focus on your own conduct, not that of others. If you think your conduct was perfectly fine and AE admins erred previously, go ahead and make that case - but focus on your conduct, not someone else's. Promise not to repeat whatever led to the tban, even if you think that's kind of stupid. And restrict yourself to one edit to this page every 24 hours. -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stix1776, please put any comments and replies only in your own section. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the blocking admin for KlayCax, I'm pretty open to this appeal, and I don't like the idea of declining an appeal merely for having a bad attitude int he appeal itself, but I agree with asilvering that Stix needs to back up and restart. Frankly I'd be fine with them just collapsing what they've written so far and starting the appeal fresh. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree re: collapsing. And I know I beat the "for Pete's sake, 500 words!!" drum around here a lot, but I would happily ignore all of the words written thus far and not consider them in any count. -- asilvering (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskar sunsari

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 Bhaskar sunsari

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: CoffeeCrumbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/SA

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

15:12, 27 July 2025 Addition of material to a caste group in Nepal, inappropriate attack on others in edit summary please don't remove any sourced data doing fake edits here in Wikipedia won't change your status in society
15:25, 27 July 2025 Addition of material to a caste group in Nepal, in appropriate warning to members of a caste Removed manipulated content added by yadav editors like prominent
01:47, 31 July 2025 Removal of section related to an ethnic group on Nepal, borderline personal attack on editor editor should learn editing first

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

14:27, 31 March 2025 Blocked two weeks for persistent disruption and addition of unsourced content
10:26, 22 April 2025 Blocked for two months and 29 days for persistent distruption and addition of unsourced content
17:17, 22 April 2025 Talk page access removed during block due to making personal attacks on talk page
09:17, 22 July 2025 Extended-confirmed status removed.

Notified editor on talk page in plain text that they no longer had extended-confirmed access and provided a link to WP:CT/SA. [136] Editor at least acknowledged that this was read and gave no indication that anything was misunderstood. [137]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I notified this editor last week in the hopes that they would stay out of an extremely sensitive area until they had their extended confirmed rights restored. This was ignored, and given that these edits in this area have inappropriate edit summaries, I didn't think another warning was inappropriate. Given the attacks on people who are members of a caste that they appear to have a poor opinion of, and the relevant block history, I would have filed this even if the editor did have extended confirmed access. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Bhaskar sunsari

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 Bhaskar sunsari

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bhaskar sunsari

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

That's pretty clearly a violation. Given the past history, I'm inclined to a topic ban and/or block ... two months blocked doesn't seem to have gotten the point across, not sure a topic ban would be better. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ealdgyth. Pending a response, I'm leaning on a TBAN + AE indef at the moment. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reconsideration of topic ban (Aryan valley) to regain access to The Wikipedia Library –

@Minaro123: Please 1) use the sanction appeal template at the top of the page and 2) write your appeal in your own words, rather than through an AI, preferably not containing any lies like the claim that you have created articles since the page-block was imposed. You are welcome to file a new appeal with these issues addressed, but I'll caution you that appeals are rarely granted when the editor has barely edited since the sanction was imposed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Administrator, I am writing to respectfully request a review of the topic ban placed on me approximately two years ago, which restricts me from editing the page titled "Aryan Valley"

l This topic ban has also made me ineligible to access The Wikipedia Library, which I would now like to use for learning and research.

At the time of the ban, I was still learning how Wikipedia works, and I didn’t fully understand the consequences of my actions. Since then, I have taken time to reflect and better understand Wikipedia’s guidelines. I have also contributed positively to the encyclopedia, including by creating new articles.

I am now sincerely requesting that the topic ban b reviewed or reconsidered, so I may regain access to The Wikipedia Library. I am willing to accept any reasonable conditions or oversight the community deems appropriate.

Notably, I reached out to Daniel Case, who replied on 31 July 2025 stating that, since the block was imposed under CTOPS, he would feel more comfortable acting if the request were brought to AE and a consensus supported it. Therefore, I am making this formal request here, in good faith.

I assure the community of my full commitment to editing constructively and respectfully, and I deeply appreciate your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Sincerely, – (Minaro123 (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]