Jump to content

User:CorbieVreccan/Admin Toolbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
THE ULTIMATE ADMIN TOOLBOX
Stolen shamelessly from User:Persian Poet Gal/AdminToolbox
Note: This page may take a long time to load on 56k connections.


Admins, constantly find yourself flipping around for or bookmarking several pages left and right? Want to have them at your fingertips? Well here you have it! You also can find handy links/statistics on this page included in the category trackers below. Feel free to use if you like it!


Admin Actions

[edit]

Admin Actions

Admin Logs

Admin Logs

Other Logs

[edit]

Other Logs

Tracker

[edit]

Admin Category Tracker
(refresh)

RFA Tracker

[edit]

RFA
(refresh)

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 19:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

AIV

[edit]

AIV
(refresh)

Reports

[edit]

Bot-reported

[edit]

User-reported

[edit]

Recent Changes

[edit]

Recent Changes
(refresh)

List of abbreviations (help):
D
Edit made at Wikidata
r
Edit flagged by ORES
N
New page
m
Minor edit
b
Bot edit
(±123)
Page byte size change

31 May 2025

Noticeboards

[edit]

Either click on the titles to jump to the noticeboards or click the "show" button on the red bars under each header.

WP:RFPP

Click to reveal noticeboard



Current requests for increase in protection level

[edit]
Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
Shortcuts

Place requests for protection increases at the BOTTOM of this section. If you cannot find your request, check the archive of requests or, failing that, the page history. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.


President of Djibouti

[edit]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chetsford (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Automated comment: @Chetsford: One or more pages in this request have not been protected.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The redirect page, since it was getting disrupted as well, and added CTOPS notices to both talk pages per WP:CT/HORN. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Bigg Boss (Malayalam TV series) season 7

[edit]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Given the ongoing speculations and rumors surrounding the contestants for the upcoming season of the series, there has already been repeated vandalism, a pattern also observed in previous seasons. Therefore, I kindly request semi-protection for the page until the season concludes, likely by early December. — MimsMENTOR talk 17:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Telephone numbers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

[edit]

Indefinite pending changes protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Meets criteria for PCP according to the chart (comparison table) in the protection policy, infrequently edited page with high level of IP disruption. RaschenTechner (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. One bad edit in the past 4 years.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Rao

[edit]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – multiple socks vandalizing page with a short story. —tonyst (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Most recent disruptors. Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Deep Purple

[edit]

Reason: The page has suffered from edit vandalism. With regards to the origins of the band Deep Purple. A legitimate source has been added to show that the band was formed in London, and not Hertford. Someone keeps changing or trying to revert it to Hertford which is unsourced, since all sources used are those taken from articles that directly source from Wikipedia, creating a false source. If the origin of location of the band could be kept as 'London' that would be great to prevent constant edit wars. Thank you. 2A00:23C6:7118:D401:80B9:FCDC:4CA8:F5B (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

If this could be made permanently protected, that would be helpful? 2A00:23C6:7118:D401:80B9:FCDC:4CA8:F5B (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Deep Purple

[edit]

Reason: Sorry, could this page be permanently protected from edit vandalism of the place of origin. Deep Purple originated in London, and the source is provided. Thank you Deep Purple Fan (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Current requests for reduction in protection level

[edit]
Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
Shortcuts

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

  • To find out the username of the admin who protected the page, click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page," which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
  • Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
  • Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
  • If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page, please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected, please use the section below.

Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Shortcuts

2010 FIFA World Cup

[edit]

Reason: It has been 11 years since this page was semi protected. The tournament itself held 15 years ago, so I don't think the page will be very popular or vandalized. Also, articles about the next two editions—2014 FIFA World Cup & 2018 FIFA World Cup—are not protected. Therefore, I suggest we cn try to remove the protection and see what happened. The Seal F1 (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Could you try discussion with the protecting admin first? If they decline or take more than a few days to respond, your welcome to ask me to review or re-request here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi. The administrator who protected that page has made only a few edits over the past month — all of them related to "cleaning up" their talk page, so I'm not sure if this is a good idea. That's why Im asking here.The Seal F1 (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
It's not uncommon for admins to be inactive for a month but still respondent to pings. I figured we should attempt a ping. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Ok. I'll try. The Seal F1 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

MultiVersus

[edit]

Reason: I only asked for protection before because of a small part of the article that a few users contested over, that section has since been amended. I'd like for the current protection to be lifted, especially since the game is over now. MannysMyName (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I hadn't noticed it was at PCP. That's harmless, but I've removed it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

List of Pokémon characters

[edit]

Reason: It prevents users, registered or unregistered, from adding new details or clarifying pre-existing ones. 73.51.48.214 (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Not unprotected – Please use an edit request to request specific changes to be made to the protected page. You didn't read the instructions at the top of this page, did you? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Current requests for edits to a protected page

[edit]
Request a specific edit to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
Shortcut

Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

  • Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
  • Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
  • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
  • If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
  • This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests


Gaza genocide

[edit]

Change the page title to "Gazan Genocide". I think it would sound more better like for example, Bosian Genocide, Rwandan Genocide, etc. 47.18.219.118 (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Handled requests

[edit]
A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.


WP:AN/Edit warring

Click to reveal noticeboard



User:Afm2105 reported by User:Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

[edit]

Page: Dawn of the Dead (2004 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Afm2105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 05:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
  2. 22:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
  3. 20:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Went bak to prior version. "Unnecessar" is an OPINION"
  4. 17:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 04:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Dawn of the Dead (2004 film)."
  2. 04:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Dawn of the Dead (2004 film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 04:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Last prt of plot */ reply"

Comments:

User specifically threatened to violate WP:3RR further despite initiating a talk page discussion trying to resolve the issue. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, you have edit warred. Whether that includes three or four reverts doesn't change that you have edit warred. Thanks for stopping, joining the talk page discussion opened by the other user and coming here instead of reverting further. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Alexnewmon2623 reported by User:Fdom5997 (Result: Indefinitely pblocked)

[edit]

Page: Mohegan-Pequot language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alexnewmon2623 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&oldid=1292474049

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&diff=prev&oldid=1292383837
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&diff=prev&oldid=1292414385
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&diff=prev&oldid=1292431521
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&diff=prev&oldid=1292451820


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&diff=prev&oldid=1292414385

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fdom5997#Mohegan-Pequot_language

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexnewmon2623&diff=prev&oldid=1292475470

Comments:
This user had removed the information on the language page, without any discussion in the talk page with other users (or linguist-users) first before doing so. I tried to discuss with the user that the phonology and grammar was studied and published by a certified linguist who had worked closely with other linguists to do work on the language. But then they kept arguing with me about the info being "outdated" and kept removing the cited info on the language page. Then they even went as far as making false claims that the language revitalization project had "multiple issues with [their] research" and then claimed that the linguist was "let go" because of it. And then they mentioned the name of a linguist who they falsely claimed was doing the core-work of the language revitalization project, but had actually (according to my research) worked on a totally separate language, not this one in particular. Although they (the linguist of the different language) are only *aiding* other linguists in publishing different children's books on this language, not doing the actual core linguistic work.

  • Indefinitely pblocked from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Anj8888 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

[edit]

Page: Miss Possessive Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Anj8888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 20:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1292586624 by Livelikemusic (talk)"
  2. 19:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1292585893 by Livelikemusic (talk)"
  3. 19:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1292585299 by Livelikemusic (talk)"
  4. 19:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 20:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Miss Possessive Tour."
  2. 20:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC) ""
  3. 20:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 20:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Social Media */ new section"

Comments:

User:NRO Constellation reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Pageblocked)

[edit]

Page: All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: NRO Constellation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 02:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "It's on the talk page. Please feel free to engage there. The comments are from the then-vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and current Secretary of State). You cannot censor Rubio's comments merely because they are from source that you and your colleagues deemed unreliable. There is no original research. Thanks."
  2. 01:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "Deleting an interview with the then-vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and current Secretary of State) because it was via NewsNation is outrageous."
  3. 01:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "No Original Research - Clarifies that, per congressional mandate, AARO is required to investigate allegations of unreported UAP programs. Quotes directly from AARO's director and key senators who established AARO with the specific intent of investigating "firsthand" claims of unreported UAP programs."
  4. 23:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Current AARO investigations */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 23:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments: This is on a contentious topic, user was previously notified. Also simultaneously edit warring at Remote viewing and Stargate Project (U.S. Army unit). - MrOllie (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=edit&section=8#

  • Blocked – for a period of 1week from the articleAcroterion (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

User:NoMoreBu11 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

[edit]

Page: John Ioannidis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: NoMoreBu11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 12:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1292712621 by MrOllie (talk) They absolutely do not. The article: "How to Handle Reasonable Scientific Disagreement: The Case of COVID-19" cites Nicholas Taleb, that is hardly conclusive considering his personality and constant use of ad hominems. The other source is a Wired article about the perceptions of undergrads (or rather the journos perceptions of undergrads perceptions). Great sources."
  2. 11:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1292711117 by MrOllie (talk) The content hardly supports the claim, it's is a slanderous accusation."
  3. 11:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1292706792 by Bon courage (talk) Great argument. You're going to need a bit more proof to label someone a conspiracy theorist. Words have meaning."
  4. 10:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "A single paragraph from a 5-year old article on a deeply controversial subject. Quite a lot has changed of our understanding of the pandemic and the lockdowns since 2020."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 11:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Edit warring about labelling of COVID-19 misinformation. Editor was also informed of COVID-19 contentious topics restrictions here. MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The issue has clearly been discussed at length in articles talk page, yet the slanderous and false sentence still remains on the article lead. It completely misrepresents the person in question. Provide a better source of your claims instead of wasting the admins time. NoMoreBu11 (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Note this has been discussed at length on the article Talk page, and the editor being reported – while apparently aware of that – has made no attempt to engage in that discussion, but has simply edit-warred their way to 4RR. Bon courage (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

User:2600:1012:A123:C269:65FC:7F21:1B7A:9A9F reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Page semi-protected)

[edit]

Page: James Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:1012:A123:C269:65FC:7F21:1B7A:9A9F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Too many to list them all. Semi-automatic reporting tools cannot help. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

/32 should get p-blocked from James Tour for edit warring, spanning from 20 May 2025 till 28 May 2025. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

User:2600:1015:B03A:A184:7C69:4EFF:FED3:4575 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

[edit]

Page: X (Def Leppard album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:1015:B03A:A184:7C69:4EFF:FED3:4575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Consecutive edits made from 22:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC) to 22:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
    1. 22:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Background */"
    2. 22:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC) ""
  2. 22:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 22:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC) to 22:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
    1. 22:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 22:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 22:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on X (Def Leppard album)."
  2. 22:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on X (Def Leppard album)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

  • Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Carloseow reported by User:MimirIsSmart (Result: Page protected)

[edit]

Page: Sokoban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carloseow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1291789117]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Special:Diff/1291834025
  2. Special:Diff/1292470010
  3. Special:Diff/1292475089
  4. Special:Diff/1292746650



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1292978892

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1292897955

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1292979528

Comments:

Editor reverted all attempts to uphold MOS on the page without violating 3RR. While I appreciate changes and corrections to my edit, editor has attempted to disregard my edits with reversions and noting it to be a "change of scope", despite the article itself containing numerous MOS problems I had attempted to fix. MimirIsSmart (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@MimirIsSmart I’d like to clarify that after your initial changes were reverted, the appropriate next step per the WP:BRD cycle was to open a discussion on the article’s talk page. Instead, you continued reinstating your version without seeking proper consensus, despite concerns raised about scope changes and content sourcing. A discussion is already underway at Talk:Sokoban, and I encourage all involved to continue addressing the issues collaboratively there. Carloseow (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Lovebury reported by User:Some1 (Result: Blocked)

[edit]

Page: Generation Z (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Lovebury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Slow motion edit-warring and addition of unsourced content on multiple pages by Lovebury. Templated them for not using edit-summaries (which they're still not using after that message) and now they're mis-using the "minor edit" checkbox. They have been warned in the past about the addition of unsourced content and (have been blocked for) disruptive editing. Some1 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – One week for long term edit warring at Generation Z and other pages. User has been blocked previously and seems to ignore feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Nightfarerzero reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

[edit]

Page: Elden Ring Nightreign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Nightfarerzero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Consecutive edits made from 08:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC) to 10:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
    1. 08:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Added soulslike"
    2. 10:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added information"
    3. 10:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed typo"
  2. 05:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */It's reliable information from the game itself."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 04:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC) to 05:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
    1. 04:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Made it easy to under"
    2. 04:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed some errors"
    3. 05:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed some errors"
    4. 05:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed typos"
  4. 04:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added plot with spelling improvements"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 01:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC) to 02:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
    1. 01:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Added more flow"
    2. 01:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added capital for words"
    3. 01:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added more info on Shattering"
    4. 02:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed a typo in the editd"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 23:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC) to 23:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    1. 23:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed lowercase"
    2. 23:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added dark souls"
    3. 23:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added caligo title"
  7. Consecutive edits made from 21:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC) to 22:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    1. 21:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "Added information like prequel"
    2. 21:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Setting */Added the setting and plot"
    3. 22:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Removed an error"
    4. 22:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Setting */Added the link to elden"
    5. 22:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added a typo fix"
  8. Consecutive edits made from 15:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC) to 15:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    1. 15:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added content"
    2. 15:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Setting */Added info"
    3. 15:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
    4. 15:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added information"
  9. Consecutive edits made from 14:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC) to 15:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    1. 14:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added plot"
    2. 14:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed error"
    3. 14:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed typo"
    4. 14:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "Added prequel"
    5. 14:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Setting */"
    6. 14:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added content"
    7. 14:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed typo"
    8. 14:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Setting */Fixed"
    9. 15:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed"
  10. 13:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 04:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style)."
  2. 04:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Re"
  3. 05:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Re"
  4. 05:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Elden Ring Nightreign."
  5. 05:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Newly created account with the single purpose of adding a huge chunk of plot to a recently released video game. All their edits are about Nightreign and they use an inappropriate tone and style. Messages and warnings haven't worked and they continue to add the plot bloat. Not a single response. Perhaps a competence issue or refusing to get the point. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Qegfkkkuy reported by User:McSly (Result: Pblocked for a week)

[edit]

Page: Black hole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Qegfkkkuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 14:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "The utterly wrong statements about black holes' high density, contained in the article, are completely unsourced."
  2. 14:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "I have provided a reliable source. I am not going to discuss anything with idiots"
  3. 14:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Discuss with whom? The inane first line of the article, defining black holes as high-density objects, has been here since the beginning of Wikipedia, and nobody noticed"
  4. 13:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Provide a reason."
  5. 11:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* History */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 14:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:

Actively refusing to discuss and calling other editors "idiots" McSly (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)


WP:UFAA

Click to reveal noticeboard


{{divhide|Usernames for administrator attention}}

Bot-reported

[edit]

User-reported

[edit]


WP:ANB

Click to reveal noticeboard



Russification of non-Russian names and toponyms

[edit]
BLOCKED
Blocked as suspected socks of User:Goelia by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Agent 007 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A person, using several accounts (Sojetz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Erledigungs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and there must be other accounts), has been Russifying article titles for a long time despite being told not to. Also ask to revert all the renamings done by this person without any discussions and using socks Devlet Geray (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Have you started a file at WP:SPI? Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the two accounts as socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goelia. However, I think filing an SPI and requesting CU would be helpful to look for others. The socks in Goelia appear to be stale, but these two accounts can be compared against each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quwoting2

[edit]

User Quwoting2 keeps removing content from the Debí Tirar Más Fotos article (just to give one example) without providing an explanation in the edit summary, despite multiple warnings and direct requests to do so. Multiple warnings and complaints by different users regarding Quwoting2's behavior can be found here, here and here for years now. Also, on the article’s talk page, attempts to discuss various topics have been made, but they continue to engage in disruptive editing regardless. Thedayandthetime (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

^ *slight breath* okay..
So for context the main reason this is being brought up is that the sampled/interpolated artists for this album are credited as producers and not songwriters which can be seen here and here (@Sbb618 ping?). My opinion is that they should remain credited as producers unless reliable primary sources are available, e.g. physical/liner notes, in which case they can be credited as songwriters, or, in the case of an album like GNX by Kendrick Lamar, not at all. @Thedayandthetime then suggested that a note could be added to every credited sample, which I believe would only server to clutter the page more: notes like this[a] would arguably serve as more of a distinguisher. (In their defense I did not elaborate on this in my edit summaries, but I felt I had explained it enough.) Despite this, they have insisted upon adding (what is in my opinion unnecessary) content to the Track listing section, stating "this is Wikipedia, not a Bad Bunny fan page". I don't get that.
In my opinion, I am simply following a consensus. I may be wrong. Quwoting2 / Mhm? 02:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I haven't been following any disputes on the page itself the last few months, but the credits for the album that are given on streaming services have been confusing & led to many debates, since they're both incorrect (Bad Bunny is not the sole writer on almost every song even though most of his albums list him as such; this can be confirmed by looking up the songs in publishing databases like the ASCAP or BMI repertories) and misleading (for some reason, on Tidal (usually used for sourcing credits because it's the most comprehensive & easy to read) this album listed the original writers of its many samples not under writers as is commonplace, but under *producers*, which is almost certainly not the case).
Should we faithfully reproduce the data from the best & most accessible source we have even when it's wrong, incomplete, or both? Or should we interpret these sources in a way that may be more correct and informative, but is adding a dimension we can't reliably guarantee through sources even though we can safely assume it's correct just through common sense? I don't have a good answer. I think as-is, the page is getting cluttered and looks unbalanced, but that's really working around the data we have now instead of being priority #1, and is getting off track from the topic at hand. Sbb618 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I do think we should "interpret these sources in a way that may be more correct and informative, but is adding a dimension we can't reliably guarantee through sources even though we can safely assume it's correct just through common sense". Per WP:PRIMARY, "deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense". Thedayandthetime (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
adding a dimension we can't reliably guarantee through sources even though we can safely assume it's correct seems to me to be the very definition of WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Except we can guarantee those dimensions through sources, as stated above (publishing databases like the ASCAP or BMI repertories). Also, Spotify had all sampled artists credited as songwriters for a while. Not sure if there's an archived version of that though. Thedayandthetime (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Here's a revision with (now archived) Spotify giving proper credit to the songwriters. Per WP:CON, "consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable)." The only editor opposing my edits is Quwoting2, who once again removed content while this discussion was happening, which could be seen as violations of both WP:STONEWALL and WP:DISRUPT. Thedayandthetime (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

AI editing? concerning User:Jorge906

[edit]
Indef'd by Asilvering. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The articles/GA reviews that this user created, e.g. Dancing with Our Hands Tied, Talk:King of My Heart/GA2, Draft:How Did It End?, seem to be products of blatant AI (not just AI-assisted, but AI-created). Is this permittable? Ippantekina (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Leaving a note at WT:GAN pointing here. CMD (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Yikes. @Jorge906, can you please tag the GA review with Template:G7? LLMs do not understand our content review processes. If the review page is deleted, it will go back to the queue in its original position. -- asilvering (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Ok Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Done. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I'd have to take a closer look at the article and draft, but both the GA review and their userpage have blatant LLM hallmarks. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I also recall they made an obviously AI-generated proposal at the village pump last month. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I do recall that, but I deleted it I think Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Nope, it was archived as seen here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 217#Provisional Initiative: Improving Judy Garland Content on Wikipedia. Even if it was deleted, it would still be in the revision history anyways. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
[The following is addressing the use of AI to generate a GA review. specifically Talk:King of My Heart/GA2]: It is tempting to say that AI-generated GAN reviews are not permitted ... but AI is a locomotive rolling down the track. At this point I think WP should focus on emphasizing that AI is a tool the reviewer can use, no different that the existing Copyright Violation tools; or grammar/spell checkers. For all these tools: The human editor must still "review the review".
At a minimum, the human editor that ran the AI tool must read the AI report; compare the AI report to the GAN article body and verify accuracy; and craft a manually-written confirmation that they've reviewed it and it is consistent with the GAN article.
In addition, the human must perform the tasks that AI tools cannot do yet:
  1. Validate that images are free use
  2. Examine some sources and verify that the citations are legitimate
  3. Check cites for consistency (e.g. mixing [rp] with sfn )
  4. Compliance with MOS guidelines
  5. Image layout and formatting
  6. Do "Wikipedia specific" style checks e.g. InfoBoxes, NavBars, Categories etc.
  7. ... etc, etc, etc ...
Also: The AI tool (at least these example cited above) is not producing good quality comments ... they seem to be vague hand-waving. AI is not catching prose or style issues that a (experienced) WP copy editor can provide.
For those reasons, an AI-generated review, by itself, is absolutely not acceptable for a GA review.
Those are my initial thoughts. I suppose this same AI debate will start happening in several places in WP: GA, article creation, Peer Reviews, FA. Noleander (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
It is not just tempting, it is practice based past AI review attempts, and this is another example of why that practice exists. All very well to say "AI is a tool the reviewer can use", but if the AI cannot catch prose and style issues, then it isn't really going to be a helpful tool. Llms are predictive algorithms, they're not going to be much help with anything else. For example, this AI has claimed that there are bare url cites in the article. There are not, but presumably it's picked up somewhere that bare urls are not ideal, and has inserted that idea despite it having no relation to the article at hand (something a grammar/spelling checker would not do). CMD (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I dislike AI articles and reviews as much as anyone. But it's not realistic to outright ban the use of AI ... editors are going to use it, there's no stopping that. Isn't it better to require disclosure and to create guidelines, than to pretend editors will stop using it? Noleander (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
There's also no stopping e.g. block evasion and sockpuppetry, by people with the necessary nous to avoid making it too obvious. We still have policies against such things, and enforce them when we can. The only 'guideline' (actually a policy) we need regarding AI-generated input (in articles, or elsewhere), in my opinion, is that it should be immediately deleted, and the contributor warned that persistent use of such material will result in an indefinite block. LLM-generated content 'cannot be trusted in article space, and anyone incapable of communicating in their own words elsewhere on Wikipedia has no business trying to participate in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Correct. An editor who cannot contribute without AI tools is not competent to be editing, and is unwelcome. Bon courage (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'd support a ban - my suggestion above was my attempt to be practical (and modern?). Does WP have a ban on AI already in place? I see essay Wikipedia:Large language models ... is there an active proposal to make a policy/guideline covering AI? Noleander (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
As of now, no ban, and as far as I'm aware, no formal proposal for such. Instead, we have a time-sink expanding at an almost exponential rate, as more and more communication-skills-deficient individuals (and sometimes just lazy ones) decide to let the bots do the work for them. We spend more than enough time trying to make sense of each other, and I very much doubt the community will show much enthusiasm for endless arguments with bots. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Another troubling scenario is using AI to flood Talk pages as a kind of automated gish gallop tool, as was suspected recently at Talk:Acupuncture. The editor is question was sanctioned, and that is what in practice will happen to problematic AI-using editors, but the community as a whole should ideally get behind a PAG on this. I suspect there are too many editors who believe AI is somehow useful for encyclopedia writing. Bon courage (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Per this discussion, such comments can be collapsed by admins or "closers", and I think there is generally strong support for any user to collapse them. JoelleJay (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Should this AN issue evolve into a proposal for a WP guideline/policy? Initiating that would be way over my head ... but it would be nice if this AN issue resulted in a concrete proposal. Noleander (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
There are many important concerns, however for the purposes of this side conversation from my comment I want to emphasize the narrow case in question, that AI should not (because it can not, it's just not how the models work) be used to review a GAN. There are no guidelines that can ameliorate this. CMD (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
It has been historically pretty difficult to make proposals to restrict generative AI that everyone can agree on, until the ban on AI-generated images not too long ago. From experience, it is best to start with clearly defined proposals in specific use cases. A possible RfC question could be something like:

Is AI-generated content acceptable in a GAN review?

This is specifically about generated content, and doesn't apply to, say, using ChatGPT as a translation tool, or as a grammar checker (although someone using a LLM in that way should verify that it doesn't alter the meaning of what was written or add new content).
I expect the question of using LLMs for spotchecks to also come up, and don't have a strong opinion on whether it should be included as an additional question in this RfC – it isn't great, but might be slightly out of scope on top of being harder to verify. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Making the question about generation presupposes that the different functions of ChatGPT can be separated, which they can't be. Further, so far, no-one has pointed out what the llm can be used for in a review. Noleader specifically stated that they don't trust it for spelling and grammar, which seems the part of GACR that a predictive algorithm would be most easily able to do (I find it to have a roughly equal hit and miss rate). Use in GAN review is a specific use case, and one which those at GAN have already rejected multiple times in the past. Somewhere there are specific tools being trialled to assist with source checking and identifying unsourced text, but so far as I know aren't at the point where they can replace manual spot-checking. CMD (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I meant to say grammar checking regarding the reviewer's own written review, not regarding the article under review, my bad. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I still wouldn't encourage that, as it can't be separated from everything else ChatGPT does. It's all the same algorithm/base instructions. Very different results from say, putting it into a document editor and seeing what squiggly line suggestions are made (at least perhaps, until llms are integrated into those products too). CMD (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@Noleander, in my view this "attempt to be practical" is what has stalled out a lot of discussions on AI more than anything else. Since you do apparently support a ban, why the devil's advocacy? You don't need to answer that. But the next time you see someone doing it, ask them if that's what they really believe is best. After all, we also can't prevent people from violating BLP policy, or from writing unverifiable content on Wikipedia, or whatever else. It is, nonetheless, our policy that people do not do these things. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I wrote that "devil's advocate" post above because I assumed that WP would permit AI soon, and my goal was to establish restrictions & constraints (within the GAN context, at least). Now that I see that other editors are willing to support a ban, perhaps such restrictions will not be needed. Regarding the absence of any AI policy in WP (so far) .... that reminds me of some policy proposals from many years ago: I quickly discovered that creating new policies in WP is a Sisyphean task: one could propose the policy that "2+2=4" and dozens of editors would oppose it. Such is the nature of WP consensus-building. Noleander (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
This is a good time to mention that consensus is a Wikipedia policy. Recent discussions on ANI show overwhelming consensus that many instances of LLM usage are disruptive and not acceptable on Wikipedia. Even if there is no policy or guideline that explicitly addresses LLM-based disruptive editing, we are fully capable of determining whether the effects of LLM-assisted edits are disruptive and implementing sanctions for user conduct when necessary. An editor will eventually propose the right wording in the right location to get the consensus codified into a policy or guideline section that we can link to with a convenient shortcut. Until then, we will continue to handle inappropriate uses of LLM case-by-case under the backing of consensus, which is a policy in itself. — Newslinger talk 09:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Outside of individual bans, nope. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
There is policy consensus that LLM-generated contributions to discussions may be collapsed or struck. JoelleJay (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines § Striking and collapsing obvious LLM-generated comments to implement the consensus from the January RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 199 § LLM/chatbot comments in discussions through an addition to the talk page guidelines. — Newslinger talk 19:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Alright, thanks :) Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
yes, I think so. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Is it a problem using AI to generate articles? Obviously, I do the citations myself. Maybe I should read the WP policy on using AI. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it is 'a problem' to use a predictive-text algorithm that bases its output on indiscriminate data-trawling from all over the web (including Wikipedia, along with vast quantities of even-less-WP:RS-compliant material). Yes, it is 'a problem' to use a predictive-text algorithm that, as an inherent consequence of this algorithm, will routinely 'hallucinate' false statements (along with citations etc) where it struggles to cobble together plausible text. And yes, it is 'a problem' to post any article you have not written yourself citing sources you have yourself read, to Wikipedia. This would apply whether you obtained it from an LLM, via an Ouija board, or from some bloke down the pub. Articles are supposed to be written by contributors, based on material they have obtained from the sources they have cited. That's what contributing an article entails. Not leaving it to some bullshit-bot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, this is well put. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it is against Wikipedia policy to use AI to help you write, as long as you proof-read and double-check the text. Submitting AI-generated text without reading it is against the rules, but it isn't against the rules to use AI to write it. Just like it isn't against the rules to use the AI tools embedded in graphics programs to make images. Just like it isn't against the rules to use scripts and bots to perform tasks on Wikipedia. TurboSuperA+(connect) 10:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
To be fair, it is against the rules to generate new images from AI prompts, or upscale existing ones. And bots have to be approved. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it is against the rules to generate images with AI, but it isn't against the rules to use AI assistance when making or editing images. The distinction came up in the RFC on use of AI in medical images. Editors pointed out that some programs (like Photoshop) come with AI built-in. TurboSuperA+(connect) 10:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I know, I started that RfC. I was just pointing out that things weren't as unregulated as it may seem. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Sure. And I was just trying to clear up that "using AI" has degrees to it, so that the editor who asked isn't afraid to use AI to spell-check or something like that in the course of writing. The verb "use" is ambiguous and vague. We already say "generate" and "assist", which are better verbs to use when talking about AI, imo. TurboSuperA+(connect) 12:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
AI to spellcheck is interesting. I must be from the future, since every computer I've used in the last couple decades has spellcheck built in, no ChatGPT needed...
Someone could use an LLM to "generate" a rote table perfectly, while another could use it to "assist" in producing made up citations for human-written text, so I don't see how that categorization is useful here. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Noting that this is the second time that this user makes an AI-generated review of the same GA, after Talk:King of My Heart/GA1 last month, where they had explicitly been told that this was not sufficient for a review. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, in the first GAN of the same article (Talk:King of My Heart/GA1) I had told Jorge906 that an AI review is probably not legit. Somehow they come back for GA2 of the same article with AI... Ippantekina (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Given your latest edits to The Red Tour, stating that content is translated from Vietnamese, I hope you are willing to state that you can read Vietnamese yourself at a level sufficient to be sure the translation is accurate, and are not relying on machine translation to do that for you. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
This user is still using AI to edit articles... I dropped them a message on their talk page to temporarily halt all of their AI edits. Ippantekina (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
They should probably just be indeffed as NOTHERE... JoelleJay (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
And this: Talk:King of My Heart/GA2. No need for AI if you're just going to wordlessly tick the boxes. Well, thanks for all your attempts to turn this around, folks, but I'll call it here. -- asilvering (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft talk page moved to main space and overwritten

[edit]

Today, User:Itamar Sade moved Draft talk:David Assia to David Assia. It seems they then overwrote the contents with those of Draft:David Assia, which had recently been declined at AfD.

At the very least, a history split needs to be made, and the old talk page restored. The subsequent edits to the mainspace page may need to be merged onto the draft, if the former is not kept.

User conduct is being discussed already, at WP:COIN#User:Itamar Sade, so all I'm asking for here is a cleanup of the edits.

What a mess. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure a history split is needed, since it was the same editor working on the content in draftspace that then pasted it into the article - it's correctly attributed as it is. My concern is the extremely blatant end-around of a declined AfC, what with moving the talk page to mainspace and then pasting the declined content on top of it. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I've split the old talk page edits, since that's cleanly doable and bound to cause confusion down the line. I've not merged the draftspace edits, both per The Bushranger's comments and because there are WP:Parallel histories with the second AfC decline. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Redirect creation

[edit]
Executed ! by Pppery (non-admin closure) Agent 007 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could a willing administrator create Matplotlib version3.10.0, https://matplotlib.org/ as a redirect to Matplotlib? It is linked in the exif of File:Mandelbrot high-resolution.png. JayCubby 17:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. I'm not happy about this situation where files are forcing increasingly bizarre titles to be created, but it's what the consensus is and I can't think of any better ideas. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting experienced closer

[edit]

Is there anyone who's willing to close WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 476#RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor? It's been hanging around on WP:CR for a month or so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism

[edit]

Hello. @Baratiiman is doing vandalism in Tourism in Iran. The user has added a nonsense paragraph that cites "no tourist visited Iran in 2025"! The user has used a non-reliable reference that does not correspond with those words too. I reverted the vandal edit in that article and warned the user in its' talk page, but the user did not respond and reverted back. This user has been banned in Persian Wikipedia due to its vandal actions. The.shahab (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I have put sources
And Where is your source Baratiiman (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I assume that you can understand Persian (I do, at least). Take another look at your reference and see if "No Tourist in Iran 2025" is anywhere in that article or not. The.shahab (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Word by word i've translated the text Baratiiman (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I should unbelievably believe that you do not understand neither Persian nor English! Mr. Shakib said: "in Norooz 1404 (March 21st - April 2nd 2025), [inbound] tourism of Iran was severely weak and I somehow could say that no "incoming tour" was held in that time."
Just for your information, a tourist can visit a given destination, on a packaged tour, or as an individual. No tour in Iran, means no packeged one (A to Z). Mr. Shakib is the manager Association of Tour Operators of Iran, so he cites his words about those tours. The.shahab (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
And how can we say how many tourists visited Iran in 2025 when the year isn't half over yet? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
And that is contradicted my my own original research (yes, I know that that can't be put in a Wikipedia article) by which I was talking to a Bangladeshi in the UAE just a couple of weeks ago who had visited Iran in 2025 as a tourist. I don't know whether it was in Norooz (or however you spell it) but it was about then and definitely in 2025. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Baratiiman has been the subject of repeated complaints regarding the quality of translation of Farsi sources that border on WP:SYNTH. See Talk:2025 US–Iran negotiations#Three times Khamenei, Talk:2024 Iranian presidential election#Reformists Front section has been sabotaged, Talk:2024 Iranian presidential election#Quality problems, Talk:2024 Iranian presidential election#Chatbot sentence for possibly recovery, User talk:Baratiiman#Removed a text block from you at food security, User talk:Baratiiman#Ways to improve List of libraries in Isfahan, User talk:Baratiiman#List of libraries in Isfahan moved to draftspace, User talk:Baratiiman#"Jew settlers" for example. Articles they have created or edited heavily often have to be cleaned up for poorly-written and possibly unsupported material.Borgenland (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Also noting statistics [1] during the last Persian Year, which ended with Nowrouz on 20 March of this year, unless Baratiiman can prove that those 7.3 million stopped arriving on 1 January or tries to discredit the source. Borgenland (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Please review for Special:Contributions/Bajetha thakurs

[edit]

Please help for contributions for Draft:Bajetha Donnermar2 (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Bajetha thakurs (talk · contribs) creating articles using WP:LLM (GPTZero shows a confident match) and should be strongly discouraged to contribute untill they fix this major issue. Agent 007 (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Here's an edit where they left the LLM response in along with the text! Second person entranced by LLM I've had to deal with today. Going to pblock from mainspace, draft and category space until this is cleared up, as an LLM helps a person contribute a lot of material quickly (which we do not want in this case). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

New general sanctions regime notification

[edit]
Permanent link: here.

The community authorizes the standard set of contentious topic restrictions as general sanctions for topics related to Assyrian, Chaldean, Aramean, and Syriac identity, culture, and politics, broadly construed. The use of "and" here should be understood inclusively, meaning sanctions may apply to any, multiple or all of these ethnicities and listed topics. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Clean up redirect / AfD closure

[edit]
DONE
My mess cleaned, chapeau to HouseBlaster --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My apologies, would an another admin please clean up a mistaken closure of this AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Panamá Flight 982) I made, please? I was using XfD closer, but it appears to have only deleted the redirect, but not the actual article itself, I'm not sure if I should revert, or now tag the article as G6... or something else. Again, apologies. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like HouseBlaster got it for you. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon Goldsztajn (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amending Judge Deborah Taylor Wikipedia Page

[edit]

Dear Administrators

I am trying to amend the wikipedia page for Judge Deborah Taylor. Deborah Taylor (judge)

Details shown on this page appear to have been confused with a different Judge Taylor working in Immigration and Asylum. The picture on the page is correct. However, Judge Deborah Taylor has asked for the correct information to be shown. She is currently Chair for the Nottingham Inquiry and would like the website to be clear when viewed by the public. Correct information to be added is below and I have referenced with the attached source https://nottingham.independent-inquiry.uk/the-inquiry-team/

I have been unable to update personally as I understand there is a conflict of interest as I work for Ministry of Justice. I have tried to update using edit COI and edit request wizard - but am not familiar with updating wikipedia and am falling foul of protocols which delete my requests. Could I please ask that the Judge Deborah Taylors page is updated with the correct information?

Thank you

Stephen

Deborah Frances Taylor (born 18 December 1959) is a retired British barrister and Judge.

Early Life and Education

She was born in Newcastle upon Tyne and educated  at Central Newcastle High School for Girls (GDST), before studying at Somerville College, Oxford from 1979 to 1982 graduating with a BA in Jurisprudence. She completed Bar Finals at the Inns of Court School of Law in1983.

Legal Career

Taylor was called to the bar at Inner Temple in 1983 and practised at Crown Office Chambers, appearing in notable cases including Callery v Gray (HL)(2002) following the introduction of Conditional Fee Agreements.

Taylor was appointed an Assistant Recorder in 1998, Recorder in 1999 before being appointed to the Circuit Bench in 2005. From 2013 she also sat as a s.9 Judge in the High Court Queen’s Bench Division and Administrative Court, and in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. She was appointed a Judicial Appointments Commissioner from 2011 -2013.

In 2016 she was appointed a Senior Circuit Judge, Resident Judge at Southwark Crown Court and Recorder of Westminster. Taylor presided primarily over serious and complex financial cases.Other notable cases including Balakrishnan (the Lambeth Slavery case) (2016), Gregor Matlok (2017) burglary in pursuit of Madonna, Rolf Harris (2017), the appeal of Amy Dalla Mura (2017) for harassment of Anna Soubry MP, sentencing of Julian Assange (2019) for failing to answer bail, Claudia Webbe (2022) appeal by MP against conviction for harassment, Hornberger (2021) stabbing outside the Home Office, and the trial of Boris Becker (2022).

Taylor was made a Bencher of Inner Temple in 2010 , and served as Treasurer in 2022. After retiring from the Judiciary in December 2022 she became Chair of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service from March 2023 until April 2025 and was appointed Chair of the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board in July 2023.

On 22 April 2025 Secretary of State for Justice Shabana Mahmoud announced the appointment of Taylor as Chair of the Nottingham Inquiry into the 2023 attacks by Valdo Calocane during which three people were stabbed to death and three more seriously injured. Stephen Manger (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Stephen Manger Your edit history doesn't indicate any edit requests were made by you. What happened when you attempted to use the wizard? You can also make an edit request manually directly on the article talk page. See WP:ER for instructions. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
This and this show that Taylor (as the OP says) attended Somerville college from 1979 (which of course strongly suggests that she was born in 1959, not 1953). Therefore the biographical sentence is about the wrong person, so I have removed it, and also DOB of the subject, which was unsourced anyway. I have sourced the correct middle name with a government document. I believe the article is now correct, but of course could be expanded (possibly using the interview source I mentioned). Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this so dropping it here, broken tool on contribs page for IPs

[edit]

I was looking at the IP contributions of this person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.173.126.199

When I clicked on the WHOIS toolsforge link, it went to a 404: https://whois-referral.toolforge.org/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=67.173.126.199

Just FYI for wherever one of you may need to refer this. Thanks. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Works for me. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
It took what seems to have been an inordinate amount of time for me (I didn't time it as I should have done) but it got there in the end. Either toolforge or the WHOIS server seems to have a bit of a performance problem. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Very Polite Person, I had a technical problem two days ago when Quarry was down and if I have technical questions, I post a query at WP:VPT. I don't always get a solution but the percentage of editors who check on that noticeboard who can answer technical questions is much higher than WP:AN. Give it a try next time. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
An additional tool was recently added as the Alternate for Geolocate. That tool is not relevant for this report, but the discussion shows where such matters are controlled: Template talk:Anontools#Protected edit request on 1 May 2025. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

RFC on extended confirmed

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed definition. It is a proposal to change WP:XC from 500 edits + 30 days to 500 edits + 90 days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Block request for a disruptive user Skitash

[edit]
We're not doing yet another thread. IP if you have anything concrete and new to add, please use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Concern Regarding User:Skitash – Persistent Reverts, Ignoring RSN and Consensus Star Mississippi 19:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)


Footnote: OP WP:BOOMERANGed with a proxyblock. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This guy is reverting all of my edits in English Wikipedia, all of them and says that I'm "disrupting" the English Wikipedia. But you can look my edits: There's nothing disruptive. The administrators must solve that problem.

For example: I just added Amr ibn Hisham's pictural name on his article and he reverted it. 78.177.163.183 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Konnichiwa222 - disruptive edits and ECP evasion

[edit]
Konnichiwa222 indef'd, then caught socking. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Konnichiwa222 have been engaged in edits that are nonconstructive, biased, pushing POV WP:POVPUSH, unexplained content removals, re-adding reverted content without discussion and violating wikipedia polices.

They were also previously warned by other editors. They have also removed or blanked other editors warnings on their talk page without any reply.

They have also tried to evade wp:ecp here and edited Flag of Israel right after

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_during_the_Gaza_war&diff=prev&oldid=1292218192 ( reverted before by another editor, and you are adding it again )

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_7_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=1292224342

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_states_with_limited_recognition&diff=prev&oldid=1292008071

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations&diff=prev&oldid=1290430715 ( removal of links and texts, and npov violations )

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_during_the_Gaza_war&diff=prev&oldid=1287655613

There are probably more - but can find if needed Cinaroot (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The edit at 'List of states with limited recognition' is amazingly bad. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1291780456 They have tried to do it multiple times Cinaroot (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
They were also accused of dishonest edit summaries for this edit by another editor here Cinaroot (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure how a user who is extended confirmed (which they are, and have been since 16th April) can "evade ECP"? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
They had edit count of less than 500 on April 16th. they made several edits to Category:2019 anime films to reach 500 edits and got ECP on April 16th. Cinaroot (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Whats interesting is here you can see repeated edits and reverts of the same content. But you cannot see that edit history here Cinaroot (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@Cinaroot Those edits are all to different pages - note the years are different. They made one edit to each category then immediately reverted it, making a total of 122 pointless edits to game ec [2]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
haha.. completely missed it. Cinaroot (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks. The link was unclear what was being pointed at. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I have indefinitely topic banned Konnichiwa222 (talk · contribs) from all pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This is implemented as a contentious topic restriction. — Newslinger talk 11:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
While I focused on a-i because that's one of my top topic areas I'm interested in, the problematic behavior extends to other areas as well. So a temporary or permanent site-wide block may also be appropriate, IMO.
Cinaroot (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Since we are in a noticeboard discussion, it would be helpful if you or anyone else could share evidence of the conduct issues in other topic areas here, so that it can be evaluated.​ — Newslinger talk 17:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Never mind. After Konnichiwa222 deleted this noticeboard discussion in Special:Diff/1292570392, I indefinitely Red X Blocked them for disruptive editing. — Newslinger talk 18:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks - probably a sock too. do we need a sock investigation ? Cinaroot (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Also, when you write the blocking message here Special:Contributions/Konnichiwa222 - I think you need a special URL so that the message can be easily retrieved in the future (when the discussions here are archived). Just a small tip. Cinaroot (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
If you have evidence that links Konnichiwa222 to a suspected sockpuppeteer, then please file a sockpuppet investigation to have it examined.
As for the block message, any link to a discussion that has since been archived automatically triggers a pop-up message with a link with the archived discussion; see WP:ANI#Letting other admins know about this board for an example. I suppose I can use a link like Special:GoToComment/c-Cinaroot-20250527065700-Konnichiwa222_-_disruptive_edits_and_ECP_evasion that goes directly to the first discussion comment, and I'll think about doing this next time. Thanks.​ — Newslinger talk 19:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Sometimes - that pop-up doesn't work. I know about this Help:Permanent link I don't know how about Special:GoToComment
So it would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/1292584656#Konnichiwa222_-_disruptive_edits_and_ECP_evasion
See eg. Special:Contributions/Thinker78 Cinaroot (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I'd be more inclined to use Special:Permalink if the discussion were already closed, but I did use it in the topic ban notice. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
yes - that make sense. ty. Cinaroot (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Emperor Nobuyuki (talk · contribs) has just been CheckUser-blocked as a sockpuppet of Konnichiwa222. This sockpuppet account also made unconstructive edits to multiple pages before it was blocked. — Newslinger talk 21:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ethnocentric edits

[edit]
Wrong venue to debate this. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please lock the Turkic people in Afghanistan page. It is constantly being edited by ethnic nationalists who attempt to alter the demographics, including Pashtun Ghilzais. The claim that they are descendants of Khalaj is merely a theory, and even if true, their current identity is Iranic. Therefore, this manipulation is a clear example of Pan-Turkist falsification. کوروش نیک نژاد1010 (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Please make the request here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Cinaroot (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I did this but it is unjust to consider the Ghilji Pashtuns as Turks based on an unverified theory especially when the same people who proposed this theory themselves believed that the Khalaj had an Indo-European origin کوروش نیک نژاد1010 (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I declined the protection request. Protection is not required, and this topic should not have even been brought here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unban request for ZagrosianSigma

[edit]

This editor accepted the terms of the standard offer last September, tried to request unblock in November, and since then has gone the full standard six months without being caught with their hands in the laundry bin. However, they cannot be unilaterally unblocked due to WP:3X (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Combatuser1), so I am bringing the request here. Their original block, in September 2023, was for disruptive editing (see User talk:Combatuser1). Yamla has found no recent evidence of block evasion. Verbatim request below:

Hello dear Admins, I'm writing again to ask for another chance on Wikipedia in the past I wasn't familiar with the rules and I didn't know that making more than one account (sockpuppeting) wasn't allowed and I also didn't understand that editing without proper sources was serious and is considered vandalizm, I now realize these were serious mistakes that I've done and I regret them.

Some of the things I did was also out of frustration, there were users who kept interfering my edits just undoing them without even reaching out and helping with that what I did was against the rules and most of them were specifically targeting Kurdish related topics on purpose, they tried removing the term Kurdistan in many articles which no one said anything about and I was the only one who was enforced the rules on, I know and understand that the way I responded was unethical and wrongful and I regret every action that I've taken which were against the rules and policies. I've taken time to read the policies and understand them better and if I get another chance to come back to the community I will follow the rules carefully and willingly and I will stay respectful even when I disagree, I just want to contribute positively and help improve articles in a right way. Here is a list of the Sockpuppets I've used that Admin requested me to write them down (These are the only accounts used by me the others are not mine): - User:Combatuser1 (My first account which I've forgotten the password and I can't access it) - User:ImInLoveWithWiki - User:CombatA11 - User:Yeszzzz - User:BeetleJuice0 - User:ITylon - User:FortressKnight - User:KurdianA - User:Victor MacTavish - User:Sarxr - User:Manganese1 - User:RîzgarîKurdîstan - User:HalloKurdish - User:Hihowareyoymate - User:ReconRaptor - User:ZagrosianSigma (My Current Account) I know that it's many and I'm not proud of it, I want to make a new page and I would appreciate it if you guys reconsidered, thank you for taking the time to read this. Best Regards,

ZagrosianSigma

Thanks for your consideration. -- asilvering (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Support in principle. I would, however, like to see examples of edits ZagrosianSigma would make if unblocked. JayCubby 17:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
    In my view, that is not likely to be helpful since ZS was blocked before they could really become an experienced editor, and so they've never really had much of a chance to learn how to make "good edits". The more relevant question is whether the community believes that ZS has reconsidered their approach and is now willing to learn. -- asilvering (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
    TBAN seems a good alternative condition then. JayCubby 03:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • A commendably open request. It may be best to strongly advise the avoidance of WP:CT/KURD as part of the unban. CMD (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
    I agree, although it may be simpler just to make that a TBAN from Kurdish topics an explicit unblock condition, appealable later, rather than potentially inviting edits in a fraught topic before they've built up a track record of constructive editing elsewhere. signed, Rosguill talk 20:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - I don't think the conduct was awful enough that we should worry too much about WP:ROPE, but since I believe unblocks ought to designed in a manner in which it's more likely there won't be a reblock, I support this on Rosguill's suggested condition of a topic ban on the Kurdish people and Kurdistan, broadly construed. Even in the unblock request, there are aspersions being cast about the motivations of others in Kurdish topics, so I would be a categorical oppose without the topic ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support unblock per WP:LASTCHANCE, conditional on a topic ban on Kurdistan and Kurdish people, language and culture, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support provided the following:
  1. the user is given a topic ban on Kurdistan, Kurdish people, and their language and culture (broadly construed),
  2. they give examples of edits they'd make, and
  3. they make an effort to learn how to become a good editor.
They should know they will be on a tight leash if they do get unblocked, but if they're OK with that and the conditions I listed out, I see no reason why we shouldn't give them a WP:LASTCHANCE. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support as the last chance. There is no issue with the topic ban. Orientls (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Following some conversation on their talk page, they've agreed to abide by a topic ban: Im okay with accepting the topic ban for the time being. I’ll focus on editing in other areas, build some experience, and hopefully return to that space later with a stronger track record. -- asilvering (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Lost access to all my account

[edit]
Moved from WP:ANI § Lost access to all my account
 – The Bushranger One ping only 06:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I am User:Linkin Prankster. I lost access to my account as well as other account User:Roman Reigns Fanboy as Wiki is asking me to enter the verification code they sent on my email address. Problem is, I don't remember the emails for either of the account. I have messaged Wikimedia yesterday, but still haven't heard back. Please get my accounts restored to me. Supreme Rankling (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

How is anyone supposed to know that’s your account? I don’t know if admins can help you, but it’s a security issue if they can. I’d recommend creating a new account. Cinaroot (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
@Supreme Rankling: We can't help you recover an account; only the WMF can do that, and sadly they often aren't able to help if you don't know your email address. Did you ever email anyone through Special:EmailUser? If so, they'll know the email addresses you registered the accounts with, so you might want to reach out to them. All the admin team can do right now is give you back extendedconfirmed, and that's only if you have some way to prove that you are LP/RRF. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree. Email is generally the only viable option. However, Special:EmailUser only works if you have an Email address(es) with those accounts. I agree with Cinaroot. You're probably better off creating a new account. Pibx (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Well they don't need to create a new account because this is the new account. Although I guess they can still create a new new one if they don't want this to be their permanent username. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh, yes, that's true. In fact, now that I think about it, the only thing that matters is EC. A User may request EC before meeting 30/500 if they have another account that is already EC. But if they cannot access the older account, and the older account doesn't have an Email Address, there's generally nothing much that can be done. Pibx (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Well you can check my IP address. It'll turn out to be the same as Linkin Prankster. I don't know how else to prove I'm the same person. Supreme Rankling (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
How do I request an EC btw? Supreme Rankling (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
OP, try sending an email via "email this user" to the lost accounts; at least LinkinPrankster has email enabled. I don't know how many email-adresses you got, but there's at least a chance you will receive a push-message that "you've got mail". Lectonar (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Check this: Extended confirmed users. Since Email is enabled, there's a chance it can work. Pibx (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
I've put a request there. Supreme Rankling (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
@Supreme Rankling: Are you sure your IP address hasn't changed? Per MW:Help:Extension:EmailAuth and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 219#Now need to use email code to login?, most likely you are only getting these emails since you're trying to login with a new IP. Maybe even with a new user agent. Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm using the same mobile networks I always have. Vodafone Idea (Vi) and Airtel. Check the IP ranges of Linkin Pranskter, and you'll find I used the same mobile networks there too. Supreme Rankling (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Try emailing ca@wikimedia.org. I believe they have an account recovery procedure. I don't know if you qualify, but it's worth a shot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Did that yesterday, no response or acknowledgement. Supreme Rankling (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
It will generally take a few business days. — xaosflux Talk 12:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
They did reply now, they rejected my request. Supreme Rankling (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

My request to restore the account has been rejected. Supreme Rankling (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I sent emails to both accounts for which you do not have access.
If receive the emails, you still have access to the accounts. If you do not have access to those emails, then you best forget about them.
If you do gain access to your old accounts, you should deactivate all your accounts except for one, as per WP:MULTIPLE. Peaceray (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't remember the emails for any of the accounts, there's no point in sending the emails. Supreme Rankling (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
You don't have access to the original email accounts at all anymore? And you don't know of any other accounts on other websites that you might have signed up with using the same email accounts? --Super Goku V (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't even remember if they had an email to begin with. Supreme Rankling (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
If you aren't even sure if there is an email associated with these accounts and, even if they did have one, you can't remember the email address (and so probably can't log into it), then I see no way forward here. You'll have to accept that those accounts are gone but also list them on your new User page. If it helps, you should know that this same problem has happened in the past with editors who have been active for much longer than you. Just remember with your current account to enable email account and write down that account's information. Do it right now if you haven't already done it! Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Supreme Rankling, I agree with Liz that there unfortunately doesn't seem to be a way to recover your previous accounts. I recommend using a secure password manager to record your passwords and emails going forward, which would prevent this issue from happening again. — Newslinger talk 07:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this is Scorpions13256 editing under his new account. Up until I came across this thread, I had no idea that the WMF could recover accounts. On my original account that I created in 2010, I accumulated 200,000 edits. My email in this account and my other two accounts was simply (Redacted) this entire time. I sent emails with all of them. Oshwah also has access to technical information verifying that Scorpions13256 and Scorpions1325 are the same account. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Administrator backlog for speedy deletion F8

[edit]

Hi, there's a 305 file backlog for WP:F8 deletions(!). They're pretty easy to deal with, so help in clearing would be appreciated! —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {u - t? - uselessc} 12:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Ms. Hanna Wendot Cheptumo

[edit]

l want to create article for MS.Hanna Wendot who is a current Cabinet Secretary, Gender, Culture, The Arts and Heritage and in Kenya.creation of this page is currently restricted to administrators, kindly advice me on what to do.Thank you Ngangaesther (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ngangaesther: That title doesn't appear to be protected. Rather, it appears you are using mathematical bold characters rather than actual letters. This happens sometimes if you use ctrl+v instead of ctrl+⇧ Shift+v with formatted text. Please try Hanna Wendot Cheptumo instead. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
P.S., since your userpage says you work for the Kenyan National Library Service... If you know anyone who works on Parliament's website, you should tell them that they should be using <b>...</b> tags to boldface things, not mathematical bold characters as they have here. Doing it the way they're doing breaks a lot of things, as you can see. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply; I am now able to create the article. Ngangaesther (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any restriction either, but if it still doesn't work try Draft:Hanna Wendot Cheptumo (or Draft:Hanna Cheptumo?). CMD (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine

[edit]
Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Dr vulpes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 11:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Notified: [3]

Reasoning: I appreciate the closer's efforts in handling this complex RFC. I understand that it takes considerable time and effort to read through such a lengthy discussion. However, I believe that issues of this complexity may benefit from review by multiple administrators. Additionally, I feel that some concerns raised by myself and other users regarding the RFC closure remain unaddressed. First, there are procedural issues. The RFC opened with a non-neutral statement, which is a violation of WP:RFC. More importantly, WP:FRINGE is a policy concerning fringe theories, but it does not specifically address fringe organizations. If there is no existing policy defining what constitutes a fringe organization, then designating an organization as fringe is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s policies. We cannot declare an organization to be fringe without first establishing a clear policy that defines what that means. It was suggested that the amendment be developed at WT:FRINGE, where there was a discussion without consensus about possible changes to the policy. However, it is not appropriate to apply the "fringe" label to an organization first and then determine the policy framework afterward. Such designations must be based on pre-existing policy, not determined retroactively. Another concern relates to the substance of the RFC question itself, which stated that SEGM "only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints." However, on the same board, we had a separate RFC, split from the main one, on whether the medical recommendation that puberty blockers shouldn't be prescribed to children outside of medical research was WP:FRINGE. There was a strong consensus that this position is not fringe. [4] This means that SEGM’s main position, as outlined in [5], is not considered fringe. How do we reconcile the consensus that SEGM's main position is not fringe with the statement that SEGM only exists to promote fringe views? Note that the question was not whether SEGM promotes some or mostly fringe ideas, it explicitly asserted that EVERY idea SEGM promotes is fringe, and that claim has been disproven. If SEGM’s main position is not considered fringe, it is logically inconsistent to conclude that the organization exists solely to promote fringe views. Such a conclusion disregards the consensus from the RFC on puberty blockers. In my view, and I believe this sentiment was shared by other editors who commented on Dr vulpes' talk page, these concerns were not adequately considered in the closure. In light of that, I would like to request a closure review from the community. Please see Dr vulpes' talk page for the relevant discussion.

Closer (Dr vulpes)

[edit]

Non-participants (SEGM)

[edit]
  • I'm waiting to see the response from the closer, but I have to say I'm concerned about the procedural integrity of any RFC where those responding can write "per nom". Also, after a quick perusal I see around half a dozen responses I would have removed from consideration altogether which swings the support percentage significantly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    @ScottishFinnishRadish Sorry, this is my first time in an appeal. Should I just expand on my rationale for the close? I wrote a longer version but I didn't think anyone wanted to read a mini thesis. In hindsight I might have cut it down a little much. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Dr vulpes, I recommend reading through this discussion and commenting on the points editors made about your closure, what it did right and what it lacked according to those editors who found it lacking. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I normally try to respond to the issues raised in the challenge itself, and any concerns raised in the uninvolved/non-participant section.
My major concerns are the procedural issue with the RFC, which was raised by several of those responding and led to responses such as Yes Per nom and Multiple reliable sources per nom but not mentioned in the close and no discussion of weighting of responses. There were also a lot of responses like:
  • Yes, it's a blatantly fringe group. That is obvious to any good-faith editor.
  • Yes - Seems pretty straight forward.
  • Yes, definitely fringe.
  • Very much fringe
  • Fringe is the politest term for it.
  • Yes, fringe. Pretty unambiguously
  • Yes, fringe. Pretty unambiguously
So, raw numbers we're looking at ~30 to ~10 which does look like a slam dunk but that's not taking into account the large number of responses that are based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue or the non-neutral RFC which was sufficiently non-neutral to be quoted by those supporting the position of the RFC. I'd like to see the reasoning for discarding the procedural concerns, and an rough explanation of how you weighed responses. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
SFR, can I check with you about the notification duties of someone challenging an RFC? I don’t see any effort to publicise this challenge to participants in the RFC. OsFish (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Good, the closer of this discussion should essentially ignore the opinions of those involved in the RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support closure. I don't find the "not fringe" !votes or responses particularly compelling. I don't see how else this could have been closed. Woodroar (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus per Void if removed, who raises some concerning points about the SPLC 'designation', among other things. JayCubby 16:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support closure The consensus in that disccussion is clearly that this organization presents a fringe perspective. Those arguing it wasn't fringe were a smaller but vocal minority opinion. This appeal is not to continue the discussion and the points made in it but to assess the closure. I thought the closure was understandable and overdue since this RFC was opened in early February! Thank you to the closer. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn, suggest panel closure This closure is lacking in several areas. I agree with SFR's comment about procedural integrity. For such a long discussion this was a very short closing statement. Some closings can reasonably be viewed as weight of numbers. Others should be seen agnostic to the numbers and focus only on the relative merits of the arguments. This is a merits case. Both sides made a number of reason based points and counter points. It wasn't clear that either side ultimately had the better of the debate. A significant point which was not adequately addressed in the closing is how the FRINGE guideline should be applied to an organization vs ideas and what it means in terms of article space editing that the organization is "Fringe". How does this closing trickle down into article level content? If this were a "fringe idea" it would be obvious. However, as a "fringe organization" what does the RfC ultimately mean? This is potentially a precedent setting decision and that shouldn't be handled lightly. In reading the close it appears that the closer put most of their emphasis on weight of numbers, but, as SFR noted, a number of the !votes may have integrity issues. Concerns regarding the impartiality of the actual RfC also joined a long list of unaddressed items. Regardless if this is ultimately the correct outcome, to be fair to the process and the participants, the closing must properly address these neglected issues. For all these reasons this closing should be overturned and ideally given a panel closure. Springee (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support closure. This RfC is a bit of a mess, but I don't really see how it could have been closed in any other way. Some of the Yes rationales were weak, but equally some of the No rationales (as Liz says, a "vocal minority") were unconvincing and were really trawling the Internet for references to the SEGM that weren't negative. In the end, the major point being made is that this is an organisation that supports such pseudoscientific nonsense as ROGD and are far too close to being a political organisation rather than a medical one and I think that viewpoint is better made than the opposing one. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • There are really two questions here: Do the participants consider SEGM to be a "fringe" organization in the colloquial sense? And do the participants consider SEGM to be, as clarified by YFNS four days into the RfC, an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints? Only the second question is suitable to settle via RfC, but, per SFR, it's clear that quite a few supports were more about the first. However, a number of opposes were also weakly-reasoned, with a lot of people talking past each other because they were talking about different aspects of what SEGM advocates, which have different levels of currency in different countries. Ultimately I cannot see how a consensus can come out of this RfC in any direction; but at the same time, that should not be taken as a repudiation of any past consensuses, which have been pretty damning against SEGM. Overturn as no consensus, being clear that this does not delegitimize existing consensuses about SEGM's reliability or the fringiness of any of its views.
    Instead, I recommend the following to participants:
    • FTN is a suitable venue for further discussion of specific POVs on transgender healthcare.
    • Questions about the full scope of SEGM's unreliability, e.g. whether it extends to articles sponsored by SEGM but published by generally reliable sources, belong at RSN.
    • Advocacy to include content already ruled unreliable or fringe in a contentious topic area belongs at AE. So, of course, does any rhetorical dishonesty or other disruptive editing in either direction.
  • -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Participants (SEGM)

[edit]
  • Support Close SEGM is described by the SPLC as an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group [6] and the SPLC points out how SEGM's "research" is heavily used by other extremist groups to marginalize trans people. This is far beyond simply the question of whether a medicine designed to slow puberty should be used only by cis children. In the case of any other hate group, targeting any other subaltern group, there would be no doubt that their publications would be deprecated. We wouldn't use the KKK to talk about race relations in the United States. We should be treating this hate group no differently than we would the KKK or any other SPLC-designated hate group. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    Your opening can be seen as misleading. The linked article is about the group "Focus on the Family", not SEGM. Deep in the article the wirer makes the unsupported claim that SEGM is a hate group yet offers no evidence and the SPLC didn't appear to have them designated as such. Thus your comparison to the KKK is unsupported. This also illustrates one of the issue with how editors use the SPLC. An unsupported claim, deep in an article about a different group, taken without context is used as evidence that a group is a 'hate group". Note that one of the consistent concerns with the SPLC raise by people off Wikipedia is they are motivated as much by politics rather than facts. This certainly looks like such a case. You have closed your argument by stating they are a SPLC designated hate group. Where is your evidence? Springee (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    The article said what itcsaid about SEGM - that it associates SEGM with Focus on the Family is kind of my point here. This is a hate group. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    Do you realize that's bad logic? Ford built the car that Bonnie and Clyde liked. Is Ford responsible for robbing banks? You are exercising the guilt by association logical fallacy. Springee (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    See below. Even if we accept the premise that the SPLC calling SEGM a hate group explicitly somehow doesn't count if it's in an article about Focus on the Family, there's a whole article describing SEGM as a pseudoscientific anti-LGBTQ+ group that exhaustively details it as a key node in a network of anti-queer disinformation. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    Is SPLC now a reputable source for medical information? Either way, that's shifting the goal post. Again, this is why the SPLC is a questionable source. Springee (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    They're a reputable source for hate groups. And this is a hate group. Per the SPLC. You are the one moving goal posts to try and make the fact that we are discussing a hate group into some sort of non-issue. I've said my bit. We are done. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    Then where is the page designating them as such and explaining why? You (and your SPLC source) have used a guilt by association claim. What you have done is illustrate why the SPLC is a bad source for politically charged topics like this. Springee (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    The first page that I shared literally calls SEGM an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group. That is a direct quote. The second page I shared extensively documents that this hate group operates using pseudoscientific attacks on that community. Are you even reading these articles or are you just saying "nah" without doing so? Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    This really isn't the place for this argument. This discussion is whether the reading of consensus in that discussion was correct, not if you agree with arguments made or to continue making those arguments. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    This is circular. By this reasoning, SPLC are an RS on absolutely any subject they write about. Void if removed (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    But here's another article from the SPLC that nails SEGM to the wall [7] Notably, American College of Pediatricians was a key node in an earlier iteration of the anti-LGBTQ+ pseudoscience network, having initiated its anti-LGBTQ+ activism from its founding in 2002. The other organizations in the figure were founded between 2016 and 2022.
    Examining the network over time demonstrates how SEGM became a prominent hub of information.     and The sample of authors also includes several members of and advisers to the anti-LGBTQ+ group American College of Pediatricians (a group whose founding predates all other groups in this author network). Namely, Andre Van Mol, Miriam Grossman, Paul McHugh, Paul Hruz and Michael Laidlaw are or have been members of the group. Laidlaw was also a member of the working group since its inception in 2018 and served as medical consultant to Kelsey Coalition after it was founded and promoted by Heritage Foundation in 2019.[29] J. Michael Bailey and Lisa Littman also helped develop web content for the Kelsey Coalition in 2019, according to leaked emails. and By 2020, the old- and new-guard authors cited in the most recent legal challenges to LGBTQ+ health care institutionalized their research agendas and connections in several organizations. SEGM, Rethink Identity Medicine Ethics (ReIME), and the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research (ICGDR), for example, promote the anti-LGBTQ+ pseudoscience research agenda, as examples. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    I presume these are arguments raised in the original RfC. Having read over that RfC there were solid arguments on both sides. The SPLC's biased opinion just muddies the water with guilt by association claims rather than factual evidence. Springee (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    In what way is the SPLC biased here? Is there a conflict of interest? OsFish (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think that we should equate "hate group" and "fringe organization." For example, the SPLC also characterizes the American College of Pediatricians as a hate group, but some of its views are quite mainstream, such as being anti-abortion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
    That's not what Fringe means in the Wikipedia context. Lots of people can believe a Fringe belief and it's still fringe. A state can build policy on a fringe belief and it's still fringe. Fringe designations have to do with the reception of those ideas by the relevant academies. The academic consensus among social scientists, legal scholars, historians and doctors, all of whom have relevant academic experience is that abortion bans are harmful. Therefore an anti-abortion stance that suggests abortion bans are beneficial is fringe even if it is popular. Likewise ROGD, conversion therapy and denying trans people healthcare are things well recognized by social scientists, legal scholars, historians and doctors as being, you know, bad for the health outcomes of trans people and for society. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
    I'm aware of what WP:FRINGE means. I'm also aware that there is no definition for "fringe organization" as contrasted with "fringe theory." And you didn't address my main point: I don't think that we should equate "hate group" and "fringe organization."
    (As for anti-abortion views, I don't think it makes sense to get into a real discussion of it here. I overgeneralized re: "mainstream," as it need not have the same status in the various relevant fields. I'm not aware of any field in which it's fringe rather than minority, and in ethics, my sense is that both pro-choice and anti-abortion stances are mainstream. If you want to discuss it further, we can do that on my talk page.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus I think it is tough to overturn a 3:1 vote, but I don't think enough weight was given to criticism of the sources - especially given the citations used by the closer, the fact that this hinges on unsettled medical controversies with a range of different legitimate positions in MEDRS, and the unprecedented nature of declaring an organisation FRINGE without ever settling what that means or which supposedly FRINGE theories this covered.
  • The closer cites two sources. One is a social science paper (so not competent to make any judge of biomedical claims itself), the other is a piece in the French-Canadian press that interviews the author of the social science paper. So these aren't actually independent sources.
  • A significant source that has been used over and over (also quoted in that popular press coverage) is WP:SPLC. This is a partisan lobby group with a narrow scope of reliability on the US-based far right who are specifically noted as requiring attribution for their labelling. It seems astonishing that a label from SPLC will require attribution in text, and yet a label from SPLC - in a biomedical area they have no expertise in, and when referencing subjects they are opposing in court - can be taken as so influential when deciding their legal and political opponents (some of whom are outside the US) are FRINGE.
  • The closer gave inadequate weight to neutral/favourable coverage in reputable, independent sources like the BMJ (which repeatedly quotes SEGM, and happily publishes press releases announcing systematic reviews they commissioned and funded). FRINGE organisations don't typically get this kind of treatment.
  • Many of the "yes" votes gave no reasoning at all. Not even "per nom".
Frankly, this is a bad precedent for relying so heavily on SPLC and that source alone should have been discounted from the outset - because as things stand we are channeling the partisan, non-independent and unattributed opinions of SPLC on a biomedical topic into a strong policy like FRINGE. We are now in the untenable situation where peer-reviewed RS and MEDRS in reputable journals face a constant uphill battle on talk because a US-based lobby group used the right kind of hyperbole about its political opponents. Remove that source and all the sources that depend on it, and this whole thing looks a lot weaker.Void if removed (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • In a biomedical area they have no expertise in, and when referencing subjects they are opposing in court - can be taken as so influential when deciding their legal and political opponents (some of whom are outside the US) are FRINGE. - As you keep ignoring, the SPLC in those cases is supported by dozens of MEDORGs, since every MEDORG in the US opposes trans healthcare bans.
  • As you keep failing to mention, that particular BMJ author has been criticized by the British Medical Association[8], UK's LGBT doctor's union[9], and the Royal College of Surgeons' LGBT chapter[10] for biased and imbalanced articles which systematically ignore how trans people experience their healthcare. That article itself is entirely devoted to complaining that American and international MEDORG's don't think the Cass Review represents the be-all-end-all of trans healthcare.
  • That press release literally just notes that they were the ones to fund a paper. But even the researcher they hired to do it thinks SEGM is full of bullshit:
    • But Guyatt also expressed ambivalence about SEGM’s approach, although he said he knows little about the field of gender medicine. As children move through adolescence towards their late teens, he said, their autonomy demands respect. Withholding care entirely, or even limiting it to the context of clinical trials, is not the correct path. As Guyatt sees it, SEGM places a low value on children’s autonomy. In medicine, Guyatt told Undark, much of clinical practice has a limited evidence base. “That doesn’t mean we don’t do it. So, I’m saying ultimately, it’s a value and preference decision.” ... Guyatt suggested that SEGM is trying to have it both ways. “On the one hand, they haven’t made up their minds,” he said. But on the other hand, “they’ve made up their minds” by taking a position against gender-affirming care until more evidence arrives.[11]
  • which supposedly FRINGE theories this covered. - claiming ROGD is real, arguing trans identities are frequently caused by mental illness, supporting gender exploratory therapy, opposing bans on conversion therapy, etc.
So your evidence they're reliable is 1) a reporter who multiple MEDORGs consider incredibly biased and 2) a press release that mentions they funded some research - but not that the researcher they've hired has gone on record calling out SEGM's position as making up they're mind while claiming they can't.
How would you reply to the spokesperson for the Endocrine Society saying "[SEGM] is a relatively small group that has been making the same arguments for a number of years, and they are very much outside the mainstream[12] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Can you move your out of order vote down after mine please. Void if removed (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
As a social scientist myself I can tell you that Wuest & Last are more than capable of the analysis they did. The paper goes into a lot of depth and the included appendix has over 70 pages of reference material to SEGM. I know it's behind a paywall but if you have access to WP:LIBRARY you should check it out. It's doing a lot of lifting. As for the news article I included it because I knew some people might not have access to the paper. As for the SPLC source again this is a source that people can access and relate too, I don't expect everyone to go into the weeds into Wuest & Last 2024. Also I didn't think/know I had to list every single source, I can do it if it'll help but I assumed that with such an active discussion that people had read the provided material.

This paper addresses two related questions about how scientific uncertainty claims have been produced. First, what scientists, clinicians, and political organizations have lobbied for and legally defended GAC bans for minors in the U.S.? Second, what kinds of scientific arguments are advanced in litigation defending those bans? As a representative case study, we analyzed federal litigation over Arkansas's Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act of 2021. ... To answer the first question, we identified the political and scientific agents involved in creating and defending SAFE and many similar GAC bans for minors. To answer the second question, we created and qualitatively analyzed a dataset featuring 375 unique citations referenced throughout federal litigation over SAFE to identify the scientific arguments made by ban proponents. We conclude that such arguments concerning scientific uncertainty have created significant divisions in federal courts over the legality of GAC for minors.

— Wuest, Joanna; Last, Briana S. (2024). "Agents of scientific uncertainty: Conflicts over evidence and expertise in gender-affirming care bans for minors". Social Science & Medicine. 344: 116533. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116533.
Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, I have read Wuest & Last at great length many times as it has come up across many talk pages and the issues are too numerous for this discussion, which is already overlong - but I'll give a quick overview.
FRINGE, for our purposes, applies to theories. Wuest & Last call SEGM a "fringe" organisation, because in their view they espouse positions outside the medical mainstream. However, at no point in this paper do they establish that - nor are they a competent source for doing so for the purposes of Wiki, because establishing what is "the medical mainstream" requires MEDRS sources, which this is not. The appendix you cite is entirely unpersuasive, as it just lists a bunch of citations and kind of asserts there's some misinformation somewhere without showing any. For example, on one of the few entries about SEGM they point to a systematic review commissioned by NICE and say:
This systematic review was commissioned by the National Health Service England and Improvement to investigate gender identity services for children and young people. It concluded that the evidence for hormonal replacement therapy across all measured outcomes is "of very low certainty" according to GRADE, if there was evidence for an outcome. [...] Critics cite this as evidence that gender-affirming healthcare is mired in uncertainty and experimentation.
Where's the misinformation? Where's the fringe theory? There isn't any - and Wuest & Last was written prior to the Zepf et al. update to this systematic review which found the exact same low-quality evidence three years later, and about a dozen other systematic reviews subsequently also finding the exact same thing - including two commissioned by SEGM in partnership with McMaster University and published in the BMJ this year. It also predates the respected neuroscientist Sallie Baxendale's systematic review, which is still the only systematic review of puberty blockers to include animal studies - and which was first presented at a SEGM conference.
Wuest & Last relies on asserting misinformation over uncertainty where actual uncertainty exists. It is already significantly behind the curve on the evidence base - and this is an evidence base we require MEDRS sources to judge. Frankly, the paper is one extended begged question.
This is a controversial subject that is simultaneously playing out in the medical literature - with some strong and legitimate differences of opinion - and in the courts in the US, and those who are party to that litigation - like SPLC - have a vested interest in saying their science is good, and the other side's science is bad. SPLC are not competent to make this claim about biomedical matters, and even within their narrow area of expertise require attribution.
And the problem is in this RFC the claims about the group being fringe are inseparable from the claims about the science being fringe. But the science is not fringe and the uncertainty is genuine. If republican lawmakers exaggerate it for political ends, then that's on them. If ADF try to make disingenuous hay in court with this that's on them. But exaggerated claims by partisan bad actors in court are not the limits of what's being addressed here.
What's being claimed is that SEGM - who hold minority positions that may be unpopular here but are demonstrably (and increasingly) within the spectrum of the global medical mainstream and are getting legitimate papers published in reputable sources that meet our standard for MEDRS - are FRINGE because all their positions are actually wrong and bad (without ever substantiating that) because SPLC say so. And it just so happens that they have to be wrong in order for SPLC to win in court. This is effectively giving SPLC a supervote over MEDRS, which is absurd.
I think it is quite wrong that rather giving weight in the RFC to the argument "respectable scientists co-author work with SEGM in respectable journals or present at their conferences, therefore they are probably not FRINGE", what we now see on talk is the argument "SEGM are FRINGE, therefore those scientists aren't respectable", on the basis of non-independent, partisan sources like SPLC which should have been weeded out from the discussion at the beginning. Void if removed (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Dr V, if you are deciding based on your own reading of material vs arguments made in the discussion, how is that not a super vote? Springee (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Close This closure review seems to just be a relitigation of the RFC and rests on some faulty premises
  • More importantly, WP:FRINGE is a policy concerning fringe theories, but it does not specifically address fringe organizations. If there is no existing policy defining what constitutes a fringe organization, then designating an organization as fringe is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s policies. We cannot declare an organization to be fringe without first establishing a clear policy that defines what that means - As the close notes, In review, SEGM is a fringe organization. The core criteria in WP:FRINGE are met, and reliable sources characterize SEGM’s work as pseudoscience and misinformation. WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS there for support describing SEGM in such terms and handling the views expressed by SEGM with caution and minimal weight if any. It is important to take a moment and note that this is not a case of Wikipedia editors imposing a label on SEGM; it is a reflection of what reliable sources have called SEGM.
    • This is an organization that RS specifically call "fringe", purveyors of misinformation and pseudoscience, etc. An Endocrine Society spokesperson has addressed this organization to say it's far far outside the medical mainstream. Every RS that covers them in any depth calls out this nonsense.
    • This goes back to the reason for the RFC, people strenuously argue that this organization is not known for all that and try to use OR to contradict what RS say about them, as we see here.
  • this means that SEGM’s main position, as outlined in [7], is not considered fringe.
    • SEGM is known for pushing views that we have had RFCS already find are FRINGE, namely claiming that ROGD exists[13] and that trans identities are frequently/usually caused by mental illness[14] (the latter being their position from which all others stem)
    • No source says this is SEGM's "main position", not even SEGM, who is being cited for that claim, make it
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this SEGM position is its main one, it is an official stance, explicitly framed as “it is SEGM’s position that…”. The corresponding RFC did not consider this position fringe, which undermines the claim that SEGM only exists to promote fringe views. So far, no one has addressed the inconsistency between the outcomes of the two RFCs: one concerning SEGM as a whole, and the other concerning restrictions on puberty blockers. Even if the position on puberty blockers is not SEGM’s main stance, it remains an official one. If not all of SEGM’s positions are fringe, it is logically inconsistent to assert that SEGM only exists to promote fringe views. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Let's say for example there was an organisation who's sole existence was to deny trans people medical care and promote conversion therapy, this organisation would only exist to promote fringe views. This organisation would also argue against puberty blockers in minors as they are medical care for transgender people. These 2 positions are logically consistent. I hope this shows how it's very possible for an organisations existence to be to promote fringe views, yet they would still argue for alt/minority views. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. I don’t think we can really decide what counts as a fringe organization when there’s no policy defining that. In fact, the RFC is in violation of WP:FRINGE, since that policy only covers theories, and not individuals, groups, or organizations. The SPLC is a very partisan source and not reliable for statements of facts, yet it’s cited over 20 times in the SEGM article, including for statements of facts. The SPLC has long been criticized for frivolously slapping the "hate group" label on political opponents, and sometimes even on random people or groups, apparently to boost fundraising. Here's one of such critical pieces, by journalist Ken Silverstein in Harper’s and its blog: [15]. There's also this Politico piece that gives a detailed look at how their labeling process actually works: [16]. I don’t think the SPLC’s labels mean much when it comes to medical topics, where they are not experts. Personally, I find it hard to see how a group of doctors questioning puberty blockers and transition surgery for minors qualifies as a hate group. And how could SEGM be an "anti-LGBTQ+ hate group" when their president Roberto D’Angelo is openly gay? In any case, SPLC labels have nothing to do with whether certain views are scientifically or politically fringe. We have no policies that fringe views are determined based on labels by radical political advocacy groups. To determine whether all of SEGM's views are fringe, we need to examine each one individually or list them all and evaluate them together. So far we’ve only thoroughly discussed one of SEGM’s views, and it wasn’t found to be fringe. In fact, their stance on puberty blockers is quite mainstream and aligns with the policies of a number of European health authorities. When SEGM states that there are "significant uncertainties regarding the long-term risk/benefit profile of "gender-affirmative" hormonal interventions", it aligns with the position of the WHO which refused to include children in its guideline on the health of trans people because "the evidence base for children and adolescents is limited and variable regarding the longer-term outcomes of gender affirming care for children and adolescents". [17] According to Undark: “On key issues, the organization’s views were increasingly aligned with those of several major European medical institutions, which were beginning to restrict access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.” "This emphasis on psychological support aligns with current health policy in several other countries, including Sweden, Finland, and the U.K." [18] How can SEGM's views on these issues be fringe, when they align with the health policies in those countries? This hardly makes them a group that exists just to push fringe ideas.JonJ937 (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    It has been explained many times in the RfC that states can hold fringe views. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    Those are points that were made during the RFC and were considered during the close. What about the closure was flawed? This isn't a second bite at the litigation pie. With that, you should expect your current argument to be discounted entirely by whoever closes this. 12.75.41.115 (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Close it's clear to me that the nominator just wants to relitigate the RFC. Every single point they made here they made at the RFC, people answered them and the closer made a decision which included them. To me the main reason for this review seems to be I don't like the decision the closer made, rather than anything substantial actually about the close.LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn to BADRFC. The RfC was started by asking if an organisation was WP:FRINGE. After a few days, dozens of !votes and thousands of words of discussion, the nominator clarified that a "WP:FRINGE organisation" should be taken to mean an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints. We can't know how many of the original !voters returned to take this into account. It's also possible that they may simply disagree with this definition, it not being found in any policy or guideline.
Beyond the lack of clarity (expressed during the RfC) about what participants actually meant by WP:FRINGE organisation, it's even more unclear what the implications of a WP:FRINGE designation means for how editors should treat an organisation, its views or its output in different contexts. Does it affect all their output or only that which concerns WP:FRINGE viewpoints? Does it affect material they publish themselves, or also material citing or referencing the FRINGEORG in RS? If content by a FRINGEORG member is published in a reliable source, is there a presumption for the reliability of the source or the fringeness of the org? Disputes on these lines occurred during and now after the RfC. The close simply rules on these topics - and worse does so ambiguously - without showing how a consensus was reached.
The close should recognise that most participants didn't specify what a FRINGE organisation is, or what that designation means. No policy or guideline specifies this. The idea that we'd therefore determine that:
(a) SEGM is a WP:FRINGEORG;
(b) because of a brand new definition of a FRINGEORG in closer's first paragraph; and
(c) the rules of how to treat a FRINGEORG in closer's third paragraph;
is unworkable. To find (a), there needs to be consensus on (b), which plainly doesn't exist. And for the RfC to mean anything, there needs to be consensus about (c), which even if there had been (there wasn't) is surely beyond the scope of a discussion about a specific organisation, and is the domain of WP:VPP or this section.
I don't ask the closer to repeat every point made in the RfC, but this was a sufficiently basic and important issue that without it the close can't stand. I should say that I think the closer took on an unenviable task and deserves our gratitude regardless. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support close We're just going to be relitigating this over and over, aren't we? This is the same usual attempts by fringe promoting editors to relitigate any decision that closes with a determination that a subject or issue is fringe. It just keeps getting pushed at over and over again. Every single overturn to no consensus argument above is 100% just relitigation of the RfC subject itself, just arguments copied and dropped over here instead. SilverserenC 01:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Close As others say, this appears to be a straightforward attempt to relitigate the RFC. Far from the complainants' points raised not being answered, the points were repeatedly addressed but there was a lot of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT with the same fringe claims repeated over and over in the RFC despite others producing multiple MEDRS contradicting them. That's why the RFC took so long. There was ample opportunity to persuade the preponderance of editors who !voted (and a lot !voted), but that attempt clearly didn't succeed. As happens in RFCs. No procedural problems exist.OsFish (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Problematic RfC There is no WP guideline on what it means for an organization to be a "fringe organization," only a guideline on fringe theories. This RfC actually prompted a discussion on WT:FRINGE re: whether there should be a FRINGEORG section in WP:FRINGE, and if so, what it should say. I think that the community should sort that out before characterizing an organization as fringe or not. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (SEGM)

[edit]

Comment from RFC creator: I'd like to address some issues raised by the overturn voters:

  • 1) We don't have a WP:FRINGEORG policy / WP:FRINGE only covers theories and not individuals or organizations WP:BLPFRINGE says There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. and describes how to handle them. Apart from the fact that only a slim minority made this argument, its entire premise is that our longstanding FRINGE guidelines on how to handle individuals famous solely for fringe views either 1) don't exist and can be conveniently ignored or 2) will fall apart completely if we apply the same standards to groups solely famous for fringe views.
  • 2) SEGM's main position is restricting puberty blockers to clinical trials: No source describes this as their main position, not even SEGM, who is being cited to make this claim.
  • 3) SEGM's FRINGE views aren't identified: This is transparently false (and worse, being argued by people who participated in these debates)
    • SEGM claims that ROGD exists. We had an RFC concluding that ROGD is nonsense[19] Before somebody claims that the RFC said there is no consensus to describe it as "fringe", the RFC said that there was no consensus to do so in wikivoice, but that consensus was it's not scientifically supported
    • SEGM claims that transgender identities are frequently caused by mental illness. Our recent RFC on that concluded very strongly that this view is FRINGE[20]
    • SEGM argues that bans on conversion therapy shouldn't cover gender identity change efforts/gender exploratory therapy - a position that no MEDORG in the world supports (as they all say the opposite, that it absolutely should)
  • 4) People who voted early did not know what "fringe organization" meant in this context: Plainly false, most of the responses prior to the clarification still touched on exactly the same issue: multiple sources have identified it for creating misinfo, They're transparently a group whose purpose is to advocate for WP:FRINGE theories, they're clearly committed to pushing a fringe perspective per the massive amounts of external coverage to that effect described above. etc. They clearly discussed the topic at hand
  • 5) Per nom's shouldn't count: In my initial statement, I reference multiple RS that characterize it as known for misinformation and give examples of misinfo. People pointing to that are pointing to a set of evidence that SEGM is known for its advocacy of FRINGE views because they found it convincing. I have never seen the argument that an RFC should flat out discount "per XYZ votes" - I'd thought it was actually generally encouraged so not everybody is repeating the same argument.
  • 6) This is solely about the SPLC: There are dozens of RS, ranging from news articles to academic articles, describing them as FRINGE. Almost any source that delves into their activities notes that their views are considered fringe. The spokesperson for the Endocrine Society has gone on record stating "[SEGM] is a relatively small group that has been making the same arguments for a number of years, and they are very much outside the mainstream.[21] I'd describe trying to frame this as purely about the SPLC designation as facetious at best.
  • 7) The RFC was malformed: It was not originally intended to be an RFC, just a noticeboard discussion[22], somebody recommended I create one so I did very shortly after.[23]

Frankly, I find it very depressing that we're seriously relitigating whether a group who MEDORGS and RS describe as fringe, misinformation pushers, a hate group, etc, is indeed notable for its FRINGE views, after a 3-1 consensus it was and 4 months after the RFC opened. If this is overturned, I predict it will be taken by WP:PROFRINGE editors as a vindication of their behavior and most likely lead to issues across GENSEX that will cause more headaches for everyone. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

As one of the people who falls in category (1), your claim that "its entire premise is that our longstanding FRINGE guidelines on how to handle individuals famous solely for fringe views either 1) don't exist and can be conveniently ignored or 2) will fall apart completely if we apply the same standards to groups solely famous for fringe views" is a false dichotomy. I very clearly wasn't assuming either one of those. It also moves the goalposts a bit: the section of BLPFRINGE that you just quoted is about notability, when you did not frame the RfC in terms of notability, and hardly any participant in the RfC discussed notability. Had the RfC been about notability, the question would have been something like "Is SEGM notable only because it promotes fringe views?" without introducing the term "fringe organization" at all. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Question re: alt account

[edit]

I've created an alt account, AlsoPonyo, to use when I don't have access to my 2FA authenticator. Can I assign it advance perms (i.e. EC and rollback)? Or is that verboten and should be requested at WP:PERM?-- Ponyobons mots 19:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Go for it. Or, if you're nervous that you're violating Rule 47 Part 111(a)X, I'll do it. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I just went ahead and did EC and rollback, but I'm re-engaging the cloaking device soon. I really think you can do similar perms yourself if something else comes up. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, Floq. Much appreciated.-- Ponyobons mots 19:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not for bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake but I appreciate you being transparent and forthcoming about a new alternate account, Ponyo. It helps avoid questions down the road should they arise. Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
@Ponyo: Added Autopatrolled to the alt account's perms, since your main account has it. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
In general, as long as you're a user in good standing, nothing wrong with anything like this. Appreciate you being transparent. qedk (t 愛 c) 19:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review and Resolution Regarding Block on Mohegan-Pequot language Article

[edit]
Closing this before Alexnewmon2623 stumbles into a site block. The issues with your edits have been explained to you and described at AN3. If you continue to perseverate on this dispute, you will be blocked per WP:IDHT. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(discussion in question can be found here)

Hello Administrators,

I understand and respect the need for moderation to maintain Wikipedia’s quality and standards, and I acknowledge that I have been blocked from editing the Mohegan-Pequot language article. However, I kindly ask for a careful review of the version of the article I contributed compared to the current one.

My edits were made thoughtfully and constructively. I extensively reworded and reorganized the article to improve clarity, accuracy, and respect for the Mohegan language and community. The repeated reversions by other editors seem more focused on undoing my changes rather than genuinely improving the article. This pattern of reversion without meaningful engagement resembles an edit war on their part rather than a collaborative effort. I am trying to enhance the article, yet I am the one being blocked.

I want to be very clear that I am not whining, not desperate, and not trying to start a fight. This is not about me wanting to cause conflict or undermine others. My sole intention has always been to help improve the article with accurate, respectful, and up-to-date information. I understand there have been accusations that I am acting entitled or unwilling to compromise, such as claims that I want to “delete all of it” or that I “just can’t learn how to take a loss.” These statements do not reflect at all any of the language I have been using througout this. I have given clear, respectful, and factual responses throughout. I am open to discussion and collaboration, but what I have encountered instead is repeated reverting of well-sourced improvements without meaningful dialogue. This isn’t about silencing anyone or disregarding existing content; I just want to make sure the article reflects the best available knowledge and honors the community it represents.

If the other editors genuinely care about the quality of the article, I would expect them to build upon or refine the work I contributed instead of reverting it back to a less accurate and less clear version. This lack of cooperation and refusal to engage constructively is discouraging—not only to me but potentially to future editors wishing to improve this topic.

The article receives around 60 views per day, so maintaining outdated or inaccurate information misleads readers seeking trustworthy knowledge about the Mohegan language. Given my background and close involvement with the Mohegan Language Reclamation Project, I am deeply concerned about the continued presence of such content.

I am willing to accept if the administrators decide to keep certain information that I consider outdated or inaccurate. However, the ongoing undoing of my constructive edits without any attempt to improve or discuss the content is problematic and unfair.

Therefore, I respectfully request reconsideration of my block and a review of the article’s edit history with these concerns in mind.

Finally, I do not just want to be unblocked—I want this issue resolved in a way that prevents ongoing reverts if the block is lifted, as I anticipate that the same pattern would likely continue. I am open to any suggestions or mediation to find a constructive path forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

—Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

WP operates on a WP:CONSENSUS model. This means that, if there is a disagreement, then instead of reverting to your prefered version, you need to discuss things and come to a consensus on the article talk page. It is uncool to remove a large swath of existing material from the article without first discussing it, but expect others to merely refine your work. Multiple people reverted you; you can't say everyone else is edit warring and you aren't. This was explained to you in a warning on your user talk page, which you removed, so I'll link to that page again: WP:Edit warring. What should prevent future reverts is you not reverting to your prefered version without getting consensus first.
I think it would be better for you to open a discussion on the article talk page (which you are not blocked from), and depending on how you act at that discussion, we could then talk about unblocking you from editing the article. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Artificial intelligence used by user?

[edit]

@PRDM 9: seems to be translating content from other wikipedias (French, Spanish etc.) on pages relating to Peru, but, like on Pachacuti, he seems to not pay attention to the article he's editing. He added information already in the article and added two sources, one was a review of the source he wanted to cite, the other is weirdly formatted. He seems to translate very slowly, one paragraph takes several edits. Early edits seem more "human" though, before a weird change occurred. 80.187.83.20 (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I have notified them about this discussion. 2001:8003:B15F:8000:B596:595D:94E2:529E (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Notification

[edit]

There is a discussion at the village pump that concerns the administrator inactivity policy and recall process and might be worthwhile for the community to chime in to. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Ban request - Luikerme

[edit]
Per WP:3X, Editors who are confirmed by a CheckUser to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block that is active, for any reason, are to be considered site banned by the English Wikipedia community. Guilherme Gava Bergami is the sockmaster of Luikerme, and they have two "confirmed" CU checks on their SPI page. Therefore they are already site-banned. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Luikerme (talk · contribs) is indeffed - I see that @Dbeef: has recently tagged them as a sock of Guilherme Gava Bergami (talk · contribs). They are a persistent socker - see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Luikerme. Socks have been blocked by @Discospinster, ScottishFinnishRadish, Lofty abyss, Jake Wartenberg, and Rusalkii:. Their MO is claiming that living people are dead. I am posting here to a) raise awareness of their editing style and b) request a ban. GiantSnowman 18:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not needed as they're already considered banned under WP:3X. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) They're already globally locked and blocked. Banning them would be like taking the brain out of a decapitated head. Worgisbor (congregate) 19:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Still, I think it's useful to inform other admins about them if they are prolific sockers. Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


WP:AE

Click to reveal noticeboard


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

Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
341342343344345346347348349350351352353354


M.Bitton

[edit]
No consensus to act after nearly a month; closed without action. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
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 M.Bitton

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Closetside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. [24] Refuses to acknowledge a map of a RS and calls my reading of it an "interpretation." Furthermore, incredibly arrogant by refusing to recognize there even is a dispute, considering themself a mere purveyor of what the RS say.
  2. [25] [26] Insists I wait for a 3O despite stating they don't disagree with me on those points (I previously assumed they did)
  3. [27] Baselessly calls my perspective OR, despite previously providing sourced despite previously providing RS to back up my position
  4. [28] [29] [30] [31] Again, refuses to acknowledge the sources I brought up to support my position, even though a 3O explicitly told them they were ignoring my sources beforehand.
  5. [32] Despite the dispute being hashed out well already and advised by a 3O, they insisted we go to DRN. While this may be fine, they subsequently haven't opened up anything on DRN yet despite their insistence.
  6. [33] Refused to acknowledge a legitimate rebuttal to their interpretation of the sources they cited.
  7. [34] Insisted on coming here despite me giving them one last chance to correct their behavior and avoid this report.
  8. [35] Violated WP:STATUSQUO in Emirate of Bari, despite me warning him such an edit would be added to this report. Incorrectly invoked WP:ONUS to remove material that previously had informal consensus and cited the supportive WP:3O, even though 3O is not binding.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. [36] Blocked for disruptive editing (quite similar behavior) 2 months ago.
  2. [Page blocked] in January 2025 for one week, edit-warring
  3. [37] Blocked for disruptive editing in 2015.
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

[38]


Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  Closetside's statement contains 461 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Additional comments:

  • I rewrote the lede after the RM was resolved. At the time, I thought the dispute was whether the Wadi Gaza and Besor Streams were one stream or two, and I thought the RM settled it as one. I was unaware of M.Bitton's notion of it originating near Hebron and did not revert their revert once they reverted it. My other rewrites were bold attempts at compromise per BRD and I did not revert their revert.
  • Furthermore, it seems M.Bitton is politicizing the non-political, claiming the RS consensus "erases Palestine" without evidence, even though the definition pre-dated the existence of the West Bank. While such a definition relegates its West Bank tributaries, this is straight-up RGW, especially without one RS to back up the claim unambiguously. There are other ways to bring that fact to the general reader's attention.

In conclusion, this editor has returned to their disruptive editing despite being blocked for a month a mere two months ago due to it. I wish they took the off ramp, but alas they didn't, so here we are.

Considering he has disruptively edited in Israeli and Palestinian geography, German and Morrocan relations, and Islamic Italian history, this is a wide-ranging problem a topic ban cannot remedy. @FortunateSons

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]



Discussion concerning M.Bitton

[edit]

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

Statement by M.Bitton

[edit]
  M.Bitton's statement contains 833 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

This report is in response to my question to the admins, as well as what I said to them.

In conclusion, I don't think Closetside is capable of editing PIA related articles without pushing a nationalist POV, as evidenced by the two previous reports and the PIA related block. M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  • @Liz: I was told that I couldn't complain about them in the other report because the scope of a discussion is limited to the "conduct of two parties". This report was made after they saw my request. I responded to what is worth responding to, the rest is them complaining about the fact that I don't agree with them and their attempt to censor properly sourced content. M.Bitton (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • MilesVorkosigan (a non EC editor at the time who violated the ECR policy) accused me of ignoring the sources, and when asked which sources they are referring to, they provided this non answer, with a battleground attitude to boot. M.Bitton (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • The source mentioned by Fiveby was used to prove that even the author of the map (presented by Closetside as a source that contradicts those that I cited) does not deny the West Bank origin of the stream. M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Liz: the two are related. I cannot ignore the fact that they only started this report after realising that I was about to start one about their behaviour. That I don't agree with their interpretation of what happened is a given: they removed properly sourced content (the root of the issue), dismissed all the reliable sources that don't align with their pov, cited less explicit sources (not to prove another origin, but to disqualify the other and justify the sourced content removal), insisted on only using their preferred description (which they characterised, without a shred of evidence, as the " typical description"), etc. Luckily, Richard Nevell (who followed the discussion from the start) provided a third-party perspective. Had this been a one off, I would have dismissed it as a simple content dispute, but it's not, and the fact that, in the middle of the dispute, Closetside did the same thing to another PIA related article (mentioned above) is a serious cause for concern. M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Regarding Samuelshraga's claim: 1) I didn't really get involved in the RfC until they finished !voting and commenting. 2) When I left a comment, MilesVorkosigan replied to it with this uncalled for accusation of ownership (after they did it before and doubled down on it in their comment above). 3) They then added this one (about me "going to get blocked again"). 4) This is their response to a question that was meant for Closetside (even though Closetside later claimed that they weren't aware of ...). 4) Their response to me mentioning a policy (they attributed some nonsense to me). 5) They then accused me of trying to right great wrongs. As if that wasn't enough, Closetside wrote this editor got blocked two months ago for this exact behavior and will probably get blocked again. Thanks for having my back.. In other words, they opposed all possible solutions for a compromise (as suggested by myself and Richard Nevell) and personalised the RfC from the get go to prevent me from expressing a view that they don't like.
As much as I would like to ignore certain things, I can't help but notice that all three editors (Closetside, Samuelshraga and MilesVorkosigan) have at least one thing in common ([1], [2]), [3]), leading me to believe that there is more to this than meets the eye. M.Bitton (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @FortunateSons: what do you think of the diffs that I provided? M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @FortunateSons: they are not "new", and even if they were, that still wouldn't give them carte blanche to abuse me. M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Asilvering: I'm not used to this board, so I didn't pay attention to the word limit. What do you suggest I do to address it? Can I delete comments that have been replied to? M.Bitton (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Fiveby

[edit]
  Fiveby's statement contains 220 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

For a quick primer on the content dispute here i'd suggest admins take a quick look at figure 1 in "Analysis of extreme rainfall trend and mapping of the Wadi pluvial flood in the Gaza coastal plain of Palestine" (WPL Springer link) (the abstract of which MBitton has quoted on the take page) which illustrates the main channel of the stream and the drainage basin of all the tributaries. Not to decide the content issue but to determine if editors are making valid arguments and representing sources appropriately on the talk page. fiveby(zero) 14:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Richard Nevell, there is no controversy or confusion as to the physical geography here, a mundane bit of content with concepts and terminology we should have all learned in middle school. How and why such controversy and confusion has been manufactured on the talk page is an exercise for the admins here. While there are many ways of describing our water body we should not entertain those which move the source to the Hebron Hills nor those which have the course somehow reaching the Med without passing through Gaza. I submit that neutral editors would realize both that there are important issues concerning the tributary waters from the West Bank and that there is no need to alter the course in order to provide that content. fiveby(zero) 10:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by MilesVorkosigan

[edit]
  MilesVorkosigan's statement contains 379 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

In his statement, M.Bitton says that there was no 3O. That is only very, very technically correct, because I saw the request on the 3O page and went to the talk page for the article. I asked both users some questions, ClosetSide responded, M.Bitton refused to engage and just kept repeating that he would only use the one source that agreed with him. He would not explain why he chose to ignore the other sources mentioned on the talk page or why he would not discuss them. After I reminded him of policy, he filed a complaint here, trying to pretend that asking him about his sources violated the Arb decision about Israel/Palestine.

Then he removed all of my comments from the talk page.

MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Note that M.Bitton is perhaps slightly misleading in his most recent reply when he calls me a 'non-EC' editor. As he knows, it turns out I was at *that* time eight edits way from EC, and I am now well past that number, as pointed out by neutral editors in his complaint against me.
That is the reason that the most recent recommendation in his complaint is to close it without action.
As to the 'battleground' statement, I'll point out that M.Bitton has three two blocks for edit warring in that last few months. I have none.
MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
He edited his prior statement with an unclear edit summary, so now, after I mentioned it, it is correct. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I just noticed that there is another clear inaccuracy in M.Bitton's statement, where he accuses Closetside of WP:Canvassing. Closetside didn't need to bring this new complaint to my attention, I obviously noted it because I was already watching the page, it was on my watchlist because of M.Bitton. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I just noticed that I'm apparently being accused of being in a conspiracy of some kind, here ...more to this than meets the eye.?
I don't really know what to say about that, but did want to add one last diff, where M.Bitton made the same kind of vague accusation that someone was violating NPOV and upon being asked for specifics, first wrote a poem of some kind, and then this reply. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Richard Nevell

[edit]
  Richard Nevell's statement contains 438 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I am commenting here as both parties have pinged me in their comments. My previous involvement on the talk page largely been around the article title. I have watched the discussion about the current points of contention unfold but contributed little as my available time is unpredictable and I didn't want to join a conversation and go quiet.

There is some talking at cross purposes and not much meeting in the middle. M.Bitton has been quoting explicit statements from sources (eg: "The Khalil Besor river originates in the West Bank") whereas those used by Closetside are less explicit. Closetside has been making special pleading that the sources provided by M.Bitton define the watercourse in a different way to other sources. Even if that is the case, that does not negate the sources provided by M.Bitton it means we need to work out how to reconcile those differences.

Though not raised by Closetside in their opening statement, there is also the issue of the removal of sourced content about the Wadi Gaza Nature Reserve, which Closetside justified as being undue. Five sentences explaining the reserve's extent, ecological issues, and rehabilitation not only seems like useful information but an appropriate level of detail for the article in question. On reflection, I should have said as much on the talk page as the situation unfolded.

Closetside's approach is to make their point and set conditions which need to be met to 'disprove' them. It is a rhetorical approach which attempts to control the discussion and treats it more as a debate to be won rather than being based on consensus building. The contribution of the 3O giver was unhelpful as they misunderstood the ARBPIA restrictions and reacted poorly to being informed that they were not yet eligible to engage by accusing M.Bitton of owning the page, and I thought the mention of a topic ban read like a threat.

As a non-expert in this subject area I would look for secondary sources explicitly stating "the Besor Stream originates xyz". Speaking of which, thank you to User:Fiveby for pointing to fig 1 in Bergman et al 2022. That and the text from the same source quoted by M.Bitton suggests that there are different ways to describe the stream. It would explain how the sources M.Bitton and Closetside have been taking different approaches. Reading more of the article I think the way forward, content wise, is to emulate the description in the 'Introduction' section, noting the main channel and tributaries. As the source describes the Besor as having multiple headwaters trying to select a single one may be overly reductive. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Samuelshraga

[edit]
  Samuelshraga's statement contains 499 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Full disclosure: M.Bitton and I have a history, and I am the one who filed the recent AN/I thread which led to their month-long block.

I am commenting because I don't think that M.Bitton's behaviour has meaningfully changed. They are fresh off a block for behavioural violations. I detailed then, for one, IDHT and invoking contrived interpretations of policy (then it was NPOV), without specifying what in the policy supports their position. In the dispute here, they similarly invoke WP:OR vaguely even when confronted with sources[40], [41], or just throws it at any opposing argument.[42]

This behaviour is not specific to this dispute or topic area. The other POV-pushing is still evident - here they tell an editor that their content doesn't belong on the Morocco page and to place it in the more obscure Germany–Morocco_relations[43], only to then revert that editor there 3 times in a row [44][45][46]. M.Bitton proceeds to template this editor (twice) for edit-warring. That editor has 352 edits by the way, so WP:BITE is a concern, but this is improper to anyone.

One reason that M.Bitton got blocked before is that after being reported, they doubled down and went on the offensive. This is another instinct that has not changed since their block, if their first response above is anything to go by.

All I sought last time was for M.Bitton to recognise the problematic behaviours and change them. M.Bitton ended up apologising when caught for block evasion, but I am not aware of any instance of them recognising why they were blocked in the first place or undertaking to improve. Rather they've returned and within a month are embroiled in intractable content and conduct disputes across multiple topic areas.

Is it possible that this whole dispute with Closetside could have been avoided by starting it with a touch more civility and a lot fewer aspersions and assumptions of bad faith?[47][48] I think so. And if M.Bitton doesn't see the problem with their behaviour, is there any chance they're not going to be brought back again by the editors who they've attempted to beat into submission? Samuelshraga (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Having kept an eye on the Besor stream RfC, the problematic behaviour is ongoing there. M.Bitton has provided about two thirds of the last fifty edits. Closetside, after re-engaging, managed to stay civil and then disengage. Other editors (notably not Closetside) unwisely raised the temperature of the discussion. However, M.Bitton returned in kind [49][50], asked questions that seem to be based on a contrived reading of prior discussion to make a point[51][52][53], assumed a whooole lot of bad faith[54][55] (and then linked back to one of those multiple times). It's hard to believe that this environment is not dissuading potentially constructive outsiders from participating.Samuelshraga (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
If admins consider the recent charges of nefarious conspiracy something that needs to be addressed, I'd request 100-200 words extension for it please. Otherwise I think I'm done. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I've condensed my comments to stay within the word limit. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by FortunateSons

[edit]
  FortunateSons's statement contains 384 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Making no statement on the content, perhaps it would be beneficial to either close this with or without action. FortunateSons (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The new diffs by Samuelshraga are really not inspiring confidence that M.Bitton can edit within this topic area without being disruptive and hostile to others, particularly those he disagrees with. And doing this right now - though I know that there is no official expectation of being on one's best behaviour while having an open AE discussion - indicates to me that the threat of imminent sanction, as would be provided by a (last) warning, is insufficient to curb this behaviour FortunateSons (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@M.Bitton, I haven’t had the opportunity the look at them yet, but they do put you at 1.1k words based on my rough count, and adding ~ 200 words after an admin complaint about word limits is probably something to avoid in the future. FortunateSons (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@M.Bitton the first one and the last three are the only ones accessible to me. It's possible that this is a case of user error on my side, but do you mind checking that the others actually work? FortunateSons (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@M.Bitton those work now, thanks. The behavior of those 3 editors isn’t great either, but they’re all relatively new editors (and if they aren’t, now might be a good time to have that checked), who - unlike you - don’t have 10 years and 50k edits worth of experience, or 3 sanctions within this year alone. I‘m not an admin, but if I were, this would be a case for an „indefinite means appeal it in 6 months“ sort of tban, maybe with a warning for conduct associated with ctop enforcement, if nothing else than for writing 1.1k words without an extension after the whole drama from last time.
On a personal note, I genuinely believe that you are a skilled editor and could be a productive contributor to the topic area, but honestly, you’re not being one right now based exclusively on the way you engage with some editors. No matter which way this ends, I think that spending a bit of time editing something less adversarial, or maybe returning to the area after the current war ends might cut down on the problematic parts while allowing you to shine at the stuff you do best. FortunateSons (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

[edit]

Result concerning M.Bitton

[edit]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Hello, M.Bitton, it seems like your comment in this discussion is making further accusations against Closetside and not responding to the points they brought up in their complaint against you. Since Closetside opened this complaint and not you, it would be helpful if you could consider the examples they brought up and either confirm them or contest them rather than starting a brand new complaint against them. Otherwise we have two separate complaints going on at the same time. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
M.Bitton, you are correct that due to recent changes, complaints at ARE now can only concerns details about two editors, the filing party and the editor whom the complaint is about. So, that is why your comments about Closetside were not welcome on the other complaint but suitable for this one since Closetside is the filing party. But my own comment made yesterday was to encourage you to engage with Closetside's opening critique rather than bringing up unrelated complaints you had against Closetside. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
While I do not agree with all of the ways M.Bitton is characterizing Closetside, I do think he is correct to have noted that the 3rd opinion giver was not qualified to do so; given the complexity here it would be the incredibly rare editor who is capable even at 500 edits of being capable of understanding both the content and policies at play and so 8 edits short of extended confirmed or not I think he's right to give short shift to that. While on the narrow question at play here, I come to largely similar conclusions to Richard Nevell on the broader behavior questions I share Samuelshraga's concerns even if the evidence presented post-block do not appear to be in this forum's remit. I antcipate that I may not have time to further weigh in on this dispute and so do not need to be consulted by any admin(s) attempting to form consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
@Closetside: I am not suggesting a compromise nor do I see Richard Nevell doing so. Instead I agree with his comment that you, even in this comment I'm replying to, make their point and set conditions which need to be met to 'disprove' them. which isn't actually how consensus - not compromise - can be built. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I've only skimmed this and have no position on the overall merits, but I am disappointed to read So far, he is uninterested in arguing or conceding gracefully, instead beating the same drum like a proponent of a canard, and this behaviour is harmful to the encyclopedia. and it seems like your comment in this discussion is making further accusations against Closetside and not responding to the points they brought up in their complaint against you in light of my recent block of M.Bitton. -- asilvering (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@FortunateSons, no one has investigated this issue yet. Which would probably be easier if folks stuck to the word limit. -- asilvering (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Since participants in this discussion continue to blow past the word limit, I've added some templates to help you count. Please adjust accordingly. -- asilvering (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@M.Bitton I wouldn't advise removing anything someone's already responded to (but let it be a lesson to all about how tit-for-tat isn't really helpful for anything other than driving up word count). But I expect you can significantly condense what you've already said, and certainly you can avoid responding to anything further without asking for an extension. -- asilvering (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yarohj

[edit]
General informal warning given to both Yarohj and UtoD about the need to discuss --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
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 Yarohj

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
UtoD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Yarohj (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/SL
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 6 May 2025 Continously removes content from the page of Mullivaikkal massacre insisting there is no RS despite the other user who added it again naming the RS and the same RS being discussed in talk page.
  2. 7 May 2025 And again reverting to remove the same content while insisting no RS. No talk page activity and clearly didn't even check it out.
  3. 6 May 2025 Adding large blatant WP:SOAPBOX copy-paste section dumps on the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page. No talkpage explanation either as the exact issue has been discussed and solved through RC.
  4. 7 May 2025 Uses reverting to try and force back the content and again, no talk page activity.
  5. 7 May 2025 And reverted again. No talk page activity which makes me give them a warning and notify them of CT sanctions despite them being previously active in SL pages under CT just in case if they are unaware.
  6. 7 May 2025 Ignores the warning and reverts yet again and dumps the massive WP:SOAPBOX section despite already being warned and notified of the CT sanctions in place.

@Femke: Note that user Johnwiki states the main citation is the UN panel report in Mullivaikkal page which is also present in the in-line citations. Also note that for Sri Lanka Armed Forces the issue has been discussed before and also an RfC decision for the page not to content dump WP:SOAPBOX sections which are already present in more relevant pages on it but to have a concise section in History explaining the things and give links to relevant articles which is already present. However the issue being reported is user Yarohj edit warring and trying to push them through by force even after being warned -UtoD 10:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Femke: It appears the user is unaware of what WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Also separate headings for Human Rights issues had been solved by RfC where it was decided controversies be concisely mentioned under History similar to IDF.RfCs handled the wording on that section. Undoing years of consensus building is tiresome thus better for user to explain issues in wording than WP:SOAPBOX WP:CSECTIONs by mass copy-paste dumping . -UtoD 05:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
[56]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[57]

Discussion concerning Yarohj

[edit]

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

Statement by Yarohj

[edit]

The source you linked literally says "The UN says most of those civilians died in government shelling as they were crammed into ever-diminishing “No Fire Zones” – though the Tamil Tigers are also alleged to have committed grave abuses including suicide bombings and the use of human shields.", I don't how you can mention allegations as established information, and make a big claim that LTTE has done massacres against Tamils in NFZs, while its well known established fact, that Sri Lanka Armed Forces have committed countless genocidal atrocities against Tamils in NFZs, backed by a lot of sources as mentioned in that article and @UtoD has removed a whole section of content from Sri Lanka Armed Forces page too, it was relevant content copy pasted from other articles with attribution, I don't know how any of this is WP:SOAPBOX, significant notable activities that happened in the civil war, how can that be WP:NPOV, portraying as if nothing happened, like there is no cases against them of genocide, war crime and human rights violations, not mentioning any of this is WP:SOAPBOX, a propaganda recruitment page for Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Yarohj (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

[edit]

Result concerning Yarohj

[edit]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Yarohj: I see you've not yet found your way to talk pages. When an edit is reverted, the standard route is to open a talk page discussion, to see if you can come to a consensus, for instance via compromise. This is called WP:Bold, revert, discuss. When you repeatedly revert, this is edit warring. I don't see any recent discussions of sourcing on Talk:Mullivaikkal massacre on either side. Can you explain why you believe the cited source ([58]) did not support the statement? Maybe you're unaware that the infobox does not always repeat citations for the rest of the article. Or do you believe that Channel4 is unreliable? These discussion need to happen on talk, not via repeated reversions in edit summaries. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
    Continuing the discussion as a normal admin action may still be warranted. Yarohj: do you understand that thinking you're right is not an excuse for edit warring? Especially in contentious areas like this, you need to talk and reach consensus instead of edit warring. When you want to change the direction and tone of a page, you need to convince people on the talk page that the previous version was not neutral and did not reflect how the very highest-quality sources describe the topic. How much attention you give certain aspects of a topic impacts the neutrality (for good or worse), so text that is neutral is one article can be WP:UNDUE weight and non-neutral in another article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think I am right, it is what the sources say, that said as you can this is a contentious topic and yet very sensitive too, even now Sri Lanka Armed Forces page doesn't seem to show any neutral point of view, as the editor who reverted everything could have started discussion too WP:DRNC, anyway I get it, I will discuss in talk page to reach consensus as I have done before, this single instance was different. Yarohj (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for your commitment to avoid edit warring. Two more comments:
    I don't think I am right, it is what the sources say. That's a concerning attitute, in the sense that you still think your reading of the sources is right about 'due weight'.
    as the editor who reverted everything could have started discussion too. While true, per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD, the etiquette is for the person who makes the initial edit to start a concise discussion if they disagree with a revert. Can you indicate whether you understand this?
    On holiday now, so I won't respond for a while. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I will just say (without having looked at the complaint in detail) that this is not a valid CT notice: the rule on awareness is that Only the officially designated templates should be used for an editor's first contentious topic alert, and more importantly I don't think "CT sanctions apply to these articles" is at all useful for a new editor who likely has no idea what CT even stands for. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I've given them the CTOP warning now. @Yarohj, can you please respond to Femke's question above? -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I would close this thread with no action due to a lack of evidence of disruptive behavior by Yarohj after they became aware of the sanctions --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. If someone closes this before Yarohj responds to Femke's question, could they please copy the question over to their talk page? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
    I am aware of it and will be mindful of it in future. Yarohj (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

JohnWiki159

[edit]
No AE action taken at this time except advise editors to engage in dispute resolution rather than reverting. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
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 JohnWiki159

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Petextrodon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
JohnWiki159 (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/SL
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 18 December 2021 Adds LTTE as perp to infobox, despite a source that he himself had cited making it clear LTTE was noted for its absence of sexual violence (pp. 134, 143, 146) barring few allegations.
  2. 29 December 2021 First revert, re-adds LTTE as perp to infobox after being removed by another editor who thought it misleading.
  3. 9 April 2024 Reverts my removal, and re-adds LTTE as perp to infobox, without addressing my edit explanation weeks earlier where I explained that one anti-LTTE source can't be given equal weight to other reliable sources in the lede contradicting it, although a talk discussion about this issue had been active since 27 March 2024 and even there he refused to engage my comments addressing him. Another editor issues an edit warring warning on JohnWiki159's user talk page.
  4. 14 April 2024 Re-adds LTTE as perp to infobox after another editor had removed it, without even engaging me in the talk, even after I had notified in the talk page that an admin had issued an edit warring warning on the issue. On the next day, I once again asked him to engage me in the talk and warned him that he could be topic banned but he ignored me.
  5. 16 May 2025 Re-adds the same disputed content an year later after another editor had removed it without engaging the active talk discussion.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 20 April 2024.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is an years-long slow edit warring without talk engagement.---Petextrodon (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Now that JohnWiki159 has brought it up, I want admins to take note of the fact that he has now admitted to adding grapevine against Wiki policy. Not only that, but has also misrepresented the source by presenting it as a fact despite the source itself explicitly describing it as a grapevine. He has also misrepresented the other source, whose author is merely noting that UTHR has made these allegations, without commenting on their veracity and on several instances comments these allegations lack details (pp. 146-147). His "POV editing" accusation applies to his own behaviour, not just on the article in question but also on main article of the LTTE where for the past several years he has been adding excess weight to its negative representation. JohnWiki159 has further pointed out that several other editors also opposed his edit to the infobox. If that were the case, wouldn't the right course of action have been to open a talk discussion than to continue reverting over the years?---Petextrodon (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers, isn't reverting my edit three times (see diffs 3, 4, 5) without talk page engagement with me a violation of guidelines?---Petextrodon (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers, wouldn't that constitute slow-motion edit warring? Without at least a warning, this user might be emboldened to continue this behavior an year later (since he only edits once in a blue moon). Only reason I reported it here instead of ANI or other avenues was because I thought the guidelines were more strictly enforced on contentious topics, otherwise it seems to defeat the whole purpose.---Petextrodon (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers, alright. If the editor persists in this behavior, what course of action should I pursue? I don't want to be regarded as vexatious with another complaint.---Petextrodon (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

AE Notice

Discussion concerning JohnWiki159

[edit]

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

Statement by JohnWiki159

[edit]

Dear all, I have added LTTE as Perpetrator to the info box because the article contains incidents of sexual violence by LTTE members against Tamils. The source cited lists cases of such violence against Tamils by LTTE members. Moreover, UTHR has reported such cases by LTTE and the source lists the cases reported by UTHR. UTHR has reported on violence perpetrated by both the state forces and LTTE. Petextrodon calls UTHR anti-LTTE but at the same time, Petextrodon uses the same UTHR reports as sources for violence perpetrated by the state forces as shown here. The article has several incidents which use UTHR as sources for violence perpetrated by the state forces. But when the same source is used to list the violence perpetrated by the LTTE, that source becomes anti-LTTE for Petextrodon. In this edit, Petextrodon adds a phrase "According to the anti-LTTE" for a LTTE violence reported by UTHR. Isn't this POV editing? The talk page discussion is about whether to include a LTTE violence in the article. Users Petextrodon and Oz346 have objected including an incident in the article reported by the the UTHR source where a forcibly recruited child soldier who had managed to escape faced sexual violence by LTTE members after being caught. The UTHR source says that the sexual violence of the escaped child soldier by LTTE members came to be known later through the grapevine straddling all sections that inhabit Batticaloa's interior. In the talk page, Users Petextrodon, Oz346 and Tame Rhino argue that "things heard through the grapevine are explicitly forbidden from Wikipedia hence this incident cannot be included in the article". However, my opinion is that this incident can be included in the article by mentioning the grapevine straddling. Moreover, the source talks about this incident as well. Since these users are objecting the inclusion of this incident in the article, I decided to only update the Perpetrator list since the article contains other incidents of sexual violence by LTTE members against Tamils, to maintain the neutral point of view of the article. It should be also noted that there have been several other attempts to remove LTTE from the List of Perpetrator and LTTE violence1 2 3 4 5 This gives the question why some users are so focused on trying to only remove the LTTE out of all the Perpetrators from the info box when there are LTTE violence incidents in the article. --JohnWiki159 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe Petextrodon has misunderstood what I wrote. I summarized the talk page discussion to help readers understand the points being raised. What I said was Users Petextrodon, Oz346 and Tame Rhino argue that "things heard through the grapevine are explicitly forbidden from Wikipedia hence this incident cannot be included in the article". I included the argument brought up by these users in quotation marks and then provided my own opinion afterward. I haven't admitted to anything.

Regarding Petextrodon's accusation that I am engaging in POV editing on the LTTE article, I have used reliable sources to add content to that article. I reject Petextrodon accusations of me adding excess weight to its negative representation. When examining contributions of Petextrodon, Petextrodon's edit count is more than twice mine in the LTTE article. Then as per Petextrodon's logic, this implies that Petextrodon has been adding far more excess weight to its positive representation. I believe all content, positive or negative, should be supported by reliable sources and presented in accordance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

Regarding the accusation of misrepresentation by Petextrodon, the source summarizes the specific incident reported by UTHR in which a forcibly recruited child soldier who had managed to escape was subjected to sexual violence LTTE members. There is no mention of "grapevine" in the source. Since Users Petextrodon, Oz346 and Tame Rhino have objected the inclusion of this incident in the article, I decided to only update the Perpetrator list. However, my opinion is that this incident can be included in the article by mentioning the grapevine straddling as highlighted in the UTHR report.

Regarding the content removal by different users, the content removal occurred gradually over the years, often in different stages. Most of the removals were made by IP users or newly created accounts. When the content was restored with proper explanations, there were no ongoing back-and-forth reverts or edit wars. Therefore, there was no need to open a talk page discussion at the time.

Petextrodon calls UTHR anti-LTTE but at the same time, Petextrodon uses the same UTHR reports as sources for violence perpetrated by the state forces as shown here. This inconsistent treatment of the same source appears to reflect a POV editing approach and compromises the article's neutral point of view. Selective application like this risks misleading readers.--JohnWiki159 (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (JohnWiki159)

[edit]

Result concerning JohnWiki159

[edit]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Everyone involved should stop reverting and start discussing. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
    • I agree. There's not enough here to support any sanctions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
      Petextrodon, only one of the reverts is at all recent. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
      We are more likely to sanction slow-mo edit warring in contentious topics, but there are limits to how stale a diff can be. Guerillero has delivered a warning, and I agree with it. Not a formal warning, but a warning nonetheless. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
      Petextrodon, consider working at the talk page (or higher forms of dispute resolution) to build consensus for your preferred version. It's easier to establish misconduct if the content question is more settled and if one side of the dispute is more diligent about discussion (meaning recent discussion). I don't consider this request to vexatious, so a little tidiness on the content side is likely to make future enforcement requests here acceptable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Colin

[edit]
No consensus The discussion among admins feels fairly equally split between imposing a warning and imposing a topic ban from Transgender healthcare or some subset of articles. While normally I would read all of the admins who supporting the topic ban as implicitly supporting the warning, the fact that some made it clear that they see the two as mutually exclusive nixes that option. At this point, we are left with allowing for further discussion by admins and closing without a consensus. In the last few days, the majority of the comments have been from admins who are entrenched in their position going back in forth. More time is not going to make this close any easier. Additionally, this has been running for more than 2 weeks fairly continuously.

Everyone: Please be less verbose.

Colin: It is painfully clear from this discussion that you are on extremely thin ice. Not in a "you might be topic banned from trans issues" way, but in a "shown the door from the project" way. Based on my two terms on the committee, discussions such as this are normally the start of someone's entrance to the circling the drain stage of life on Wikipedia. Very few people have any trust that you are going to change your communication style. This is particulary true after you decided to scold an admin responding to this discussion on their talk page. Do not take this close as a victory.

Arbs: If you would like to take this issue on, please go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions and do it. This "I'm going to take a half bite of the apple to both preserve my ability to rule on this in the future while also guiding the results" is absolutely infuriating for both participants and admins trying to get a consensus here. You are now both in the way of a consensus forming and going to be forced to recuse. Further, your presence here shapes the discussion in unhelpful ways because you are arbs. If you would like to be an AE admin, please resign from the committee.

Admins: The endless and unnecessary back and forth made this close difficult. If you would like to do vote counts and horse trading I know of something that may interest you in November.

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

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 Colin

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
RelmC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Colin (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/Gender and sexuality#Final decision
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 11 December 2024 During Raladic's Arbitration Enforcement, cast aspersions against Administrator Black Kite.
  2. 12 December 2024 Creates a talk page topic on Black Kite's User page which includes "But it does indicate to all that you are prejudiced and have already put editors into two boxes: pro-trans and anti-trans. Which is awful. You may think it is harmless to be prejudiced on the side of the angels but all that shows is a simplistic view of Good-Correct people vs Bad-Incorrect people. And the real world is complicated, and I sincerely hope you are wiser and more intelligent than that would indicate." clearly displaying a continued Battleground mindset.
  3. 5 February 2025 After YFNS, who wrote the majority of the article, opened a DYK nomination for Transgender health care misinformation, Colin launched into several attacks, beginning with: "Readers of this sorry wiki article would be forgiven for thinking it was written by a really enthusiastic teenager who nobody had told NPOV was a core pillar, nor explained the difference between opinion and fact."
  4. 6 February 2025 Colin continued with the attacks against YFNS: "I guess this sort of tripe works on gullible twitter/blog-reading people already minded to hate, but it is Trump-level argumentation that does not impress at any intellectual level.", "This is simply hoax put about by activists to attempt to discredit the finest and most comprehensive review of youth trans healthcare yet published. And meanwhile, outside of your activist silo, it is being accepted and implemented by professionals who are not bigots.", and "As I said, this article reads like a teenager wrote it as an activist pamphlet to address problems they only see from a US perspective, fighting a certain kind of US bigot and thinking the rest of the world is like that too. It doesn't belong in an international encyclopaedia that claims to use professional sources. It certainly doesn't belong on the main page. This sort of subject needs to be written by editors with a commitment to NPOV, not a commitment to The Cause."
  5. 8 February 2025 and concluded with the most egregious remarks by calling the article an 'activist screed' and directly stating to YFNS "And you are an activist single-purpose account. Throwing stones at me doesn't change that."
  6. 2 March 2025 After the comments from Colin, the reviewer paused the review while a Good Article Re-evaluation could occur. Colin then continued with the animus against YFNS at the discussion for how the Re-evaluation should occur.
  7. 15 May 2025 Casts aspersions against Lewisguile.
  8. 16 May 2025 Shifts from aspersions to more directly stating: "I'm rather tired of editors who don't understand what 'assume good faith' is or what a 'personal attack' is, but more than happy to fling those terms about when butt hurt." in reply to Lewisguile pointing out the aspersions."
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Sept 17th 2024 Arbitration Enforcement concluded "A consensus of administrators warns Colin against further uses of inflammatory language in this topic area."
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Subject of a previous GENSEX arbitration enforcement [59].
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Colin has shown that they contribute without issue outside of the topic of GENSEX, and despite the previous warning they consistently launch into a battleground mindset approach when editing GENSEX; casting aspersions and directly making accusations against other editor - typically through belittling their intelligence. --Relm (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

To respond to Colin: relative to when I started editing GENSEX, they have made an impression on me even if I have not made an impression on them. We've been part of the same discussions, GAR and FTN discussions included. I am a historian, not a medical professional, so I try not to stick my head too far out and stick to very simple things and evaluating other editor's arguments, which may be why Colin does not recall me. In February I was taking a break from GENSEX and primarily dealing with this category to get it down to the few dozen [60]. I saw the comments by Colin and they stood out to me, and I saw it on the FTN, so when I looked at the Cass Review talk page after hearing the Noone report had been published and saw the same behavior I believed that it was appropriate to file given they had already been warned for this behavior recently. I've been apart of too many AE filings already, and would prefer to avoid the process entirely going forward. I was harassed during the last one which soured me on the process. When checking to see how common of a problem this was for Colin since their warning, I saw [61] which suggested that a simple talk page topic would be insufficient or received with the same tone. I have no particular end or solution in mind, just a hope that the conduct is corrected sufficiently and that the admins are capable of weighing what the best measure towards that end is. Relm (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The context to what VIR mentioned is that they edited the page to include just the desistance rate [62] without the context of why the source lays out that this number is inapplicable due to inconsistent or lack of definitions, poor methodology, and so on which make all of these low quality studies. I opened a talk page discussion where it was discussed and re-added with that context to avoid a false balance. VIR had already brought it up on the talk page [63] and been dissented to by atleast 4 editors [64] [65][66][67] two days prior to adding it to the mainspace of the article. I reverted [68] and explained why. When the GAR began, VIR attempted to rehash the same argument from [69] the earlier discussion, at which point I responded that they had already been dissented to about it [70]. Specifically, presenting "83% is the best quantitative estimate we have" while ignoring that the source it comes from explains why it is insufficient to describe what VIR attempts to employ it to describe. I stand by all of my statements VIR linked given the context. Relm (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[71]


Discussion concerning Colin

[edit]

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

Statement by Colin

[edit]
Green tickY Extension granted to 1750 words. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Black Kite's comments and the negative reaction of at least three editors can be found here. IMO his statement at 19:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC) is the very definition of a battleground mentality, with no room whatsoever for editors occupying a middle ground, and prejudices any decision such an admin might make.

Transgender health care misinformation is the worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia. It appears to exist in a NPOV exclusion zone. What is described above as "attacks against YFNS" are about the false claim "The Cass Review—a non-peer-reviewed independent evaluation of trans healthcare within NHS England". It is false because the Cass Review consists of seven peer reviewed systematic reviews. Claiming it is not peer reviewed is a fine example of activist misinformation: our article on misinformation makes that false claim.

I reject the "casts aspersions" and "belittling their intelligence" claim entirely. My criticism of Black Kite is evidenced and agreed with by others. In the recent discussion there is no "misbehaviour" being alleged at all, evidenced or otherwise. Editors who are intelligent and working in good faith can also be wrong or misguided in their approach. I have absolutely no doubt that the editors on the above pages are intelligent and working in good faith to improve the encyclopaedia, as they see it.

WP:MEDASSESS warns editors of rejecting (or disparaging) higher level sources in favour of lower and "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review". Which is what the most recent discussion was doing, where editors were assessing Noone on the basis of whether they agreed with it rather than on P&G merits. The authors of the Noone paper are spectacularly lacking in authority or relevant experience, and the contrast with the York team is something I spell out clearly and forcefully.

I accept my language criticising the weaknesses of sources or in statements in or drawn from them is robust and having an inflammatory effect on those who would seek to push those sources or statements. Clearly that's not working or helpful.

I have never engaged with RelmC before, nor was she in those discussions AFAICS. That her first ever interaction with me is to post the above breaks so many rules of behaviour I'm boggled. I'm struggling to think of a clearer example of WP:BATTLEGROUND than that, frankly.

It's clearly this isn't working. I've never shied away from calling out bullshit and bollocks when I see it and don't think that's going to change. Those who know me know I am strongly sympathetic to the trans cause and oppose those who attack out of bigotry. For this reason, a topic ban would be deeply shaming, frankly. I propose a voluntary end to my editing in the GENSEX topic, and feel that I can be trusted to adhere to that. -- Colin°Talk 15:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Barkeep49, ScottishFinnishRadish, Vanamonde93, can I request you close this with the acceptance of my offer. Admin actions are meant to be preventative not punitive, and you have my word the preventative aspect is already done. Continuing this will only lead to "punching me when I'm already down" comments or editors using this AE to attack each other. I hope others have the grace to spot an easy victory / hopeless case when they see it and do something positive with their time instead. -- Colin°Talk 18:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Collapsing back-and-forth among participants. Colin, I'm being generous here and leaving intact 912 words, which I'll consider a retroactive extension. Please request an extension from an admin on WT:AE if you need to comment further—but I'd suggest you have reached the point of diminishing replies here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Snokalok, you don't "know" me at all, as you demonstrate in abundance. Feel free to ping whatever admins you like, I fail to see how pinging the admins who were robustly critical of me last time and most likely to be disappointed in my lack of improvement is me loading the dice in my favour, but clearly you see it how you see it. Sweet6970, this isn't helping. BlackKite's comments were made six months ago. Please can everyone just watch Eurovision instead of being hateful. -- Colin°Talk 19:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin and Vanamonde93. Thank you for your carefully considered comments. I think your assessment is fair and I do acknowledge that my tone/approach/language is a serious problem, particularly in a contentious topic. "Uncivil NPOV-pushing", as Vanamonde93 isn't appropriate, or, frankly, working. Wrt my "dogged" approach, I am trying to adopt a pattern of posting and then taking a break for a day or two.

While I enormously appreciate Tamzin's comments about transphobia, as the author of WP:UPPERCASE, I know nobody will read them after this closes. I know that a mention of such a ban would be gleefully used as a weapon against me in any future disagreements anywhere on the project. I don't think there is any fuller move I can make than, or expression that the problem is not "everyone else", than to drop out of the topic completely, which I'm doing regardless of what you decide. -- Colin°Talk 23:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

More back-and-forth among participants. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Re Parabolist. Horton has a "Doctor of Philosophy, Applied trans studies": they are not a medical doctor nor have they any experience or training in clinical research into drug treatments. Their professional work would amply qualify them to discuss and criticise Cass's recommendations on social aspects of trans youth. It does not, IMO, remotely qualify them as an expert in the the GRADE tool that National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (who kinda know a thing or two about systematic reviews) used for their two systematic reviews on clinical studies on drugs. WP:MEDASSESS does not allow us to dismiss top tier evidence on the basis of criticism from random people with a PhD. Same goes for the psychology lecturer from Galway. I accept I have at times mocked the unqualified, which is what us Brits do, and clearly isn't appreciated by this audience. You'd laugh perhaps if I was mocking an unqualified transphobe, I guess. Parabolist, I suspect your impression of me as one-sided is because of the Cass Review, and I've previously been involved in other discussions, such as about LBG Alliance or trans-inclusive word choices, where you'd likely say I was on your side. Wrt RGW, my reality is Cass Review#NHS Scotland and the professional healthcare response documented here. It is a world away from the transphobic report the US Government has recently published. The multidisciplinary clinical team that produced the linked documents are qualified experts, have everyone's best interests at heart, and more importantly, their report matters, and should matter to Wikipedia. Republished blog postings in Mother Jones do not, I'm afraid. -- Colin°Talk 09:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Re YFNS. Wrt the FRINGE discussion, I've already received and responded to criticism of my dogged approach. I can't find the accusations of bad faith you mention, vaguely recall them, but people saying things doesn't make them true, no more true than the accusations of casting aspersions in this AE report. The very opening sentence of WP:AGF is "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful." I think the approach to settling open controversies in medical science with a vote of Wikipedians is wrong, and doubly wrong for culture war topics. I think it is misguided and harmful for the project. Despite good intentions. There are three admins below saying I am wrong, am misguided and in this topic at least, am actually harming the project, but none of them believes I'm deliberately trying to harm the project. Nor are you.

Wrt the last comment about "german clinical practice guidelines" the source I was opposing was not them. I have no idea why I could be hypocritical about a source I've never discussed or am even aware of. Its existence would not magically make Chris from Galway a reliable source on systematic reviews of clinical research into drug treatments. I do think this demonstrates a fundamental difference to RS between me and you (and you and P&G). You think that if a RS (like those clinical guidelines, say) is critical of the Cass Review, that magically makes all and every other source that is critical of the Cass Review into a reliable source. But reliable sources are not reliable because of how they concluded or whether you or I agree with them. A systematic review of puberty blockers, say, may be a reliable source no matter whether it concludes positively or negatively. Reliability is something something has even before you read it.

I wish those MEDRS systematic reviews had concluded differently about trans healthcare, as I'd my talk page would be full of Defender of the Wiki barnstars from you guys rather than AE noticeboard links. -- Colin°Talk 11:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC) This isn't to excuse my behaviour at all, but I'd be criticising editors you hate, so wouldn't care. -- Colin°Talk 08:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Re YFNS, wrt "followed to DYK", that's diff-worthy hostile allegation if ever I've seen one. Well done. The DYK nomination page is on more watchlists than the Village Pump. But fyi I saw the discussion on WAID's contribs. I'm sure I'm not alone in occasionally peeking at what wiki friends are up to. I didn't and don't care who wrote that article. I'm not going to respond further to you, em, ever. -- Colin°Talk 19:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Liz, with all due respect, what you think about editors having topic bans on this subject is not the point. It's what the rest of the site makes of it and how that will get cited as a personal attack (the previous AE report already has). My retirement from the topic is already in place, regardless of your decision, and will be enthusiastically enforced by a large number of editors. As RelmC demonstrated, even editors I've never interacted with want me removed. I'm sure Tryptofish will help too and you can be sure the universe will be cold before he stops hating me. The AE report has already done its job. Doing something else because that's what you typically do or feel is expected at this point isn't I feel really considering me as a human being. You did X to me because "it's just neater and easier" is depressing, frankly. -- Colin°Talk 08:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Re RelmC: I'm responding to YFNS who has just described Void if removed as "the most blatant MEDRS ignoring activist I've seen on WP" and that they are "an anti-trans pov pusher" on Black Kite's user talk page. His nor my talk page is not the place for arguing about them. -- Colin°Talk 11:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

There are no "wild overly dramatic allegations of misbehavior" from me. The claims above of "casting aspersions" are false. I'm confused by Barkeep's request: Wikipedia is full of amical discussions I didn't participate in. So?

The bold text is not entirely hypothetical. Nor does it or I suggest any editor is NOTHERE, so that doesn't "predicate" anything. Nor do I say in that discussion that any editor is an activist (vs source authors, and others do likewise).

Here are some examples of "something that has not occurred": The words "hate group" currently appear 25 times at WP:FT/N. Here a BMJ paper is dismissed as one of the five authors is "head of a pro conversion therapy group". Here Hilary Cass is linked to the far right. Here the source authors are "infamous conversion therapists or board members of pro-conversion therapy organizations". Here is one of many xenophobic comments about the entire UK being as bad as Russia. These authors are not just incompetent but hateful people or from a hateful country.

My comment about YFNS at the DYK was very wrong but wasn't repeated at the Cass Review discussion, so I fail to see how that becomes a "live controversy", any more than YFNS's ("the most blatant MEDRS ignoring activist I've seen on WP" "an anti-trans pov pusher") is live. -- Colin°Talk 22:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Barkeep49 if I ran a drug trial with two participants, and one of them, their headache went away after an hour, and the other's didn't, what could you reliably statistically conclude? Your experiment is no better. And my comments mainly concern sourcing, not NPOV. There's a current 40,000 word sourcing discussion at FTN(SEGM) with bludgeoning and personal attacks all without my involvement (I made two tiny helpful comments). This topic is incendiary and toxic and if you believe that it only becomes that way when I enter, I have a bridge to sell you. Even the discussion Loki claims was fine "until Colin comes in and makes wild aspersions" actually derailed here when Lewisguile made false allegations of ABF, personal attacks and not liking young people. My reaction to that inflammatory post was not cool, but I wasn't the one making "wild aspersions".

We're seeing a pattern here. In the previous AE, Snokalok offered quotes that, weren't quotes ("Why put words in Colin's mouth then" said Barkeep) and from that false basis, "continues with the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light, to characterize 20 more diffs of Colin's." Lewisguile inflamed the recent discussion at Cass Review with false allegations of misdeeds by interpreting my text in the worst possible light. RelmC's two "Casts aspersions" are false allegations, interpreting my text in the worst possible light. Many more examples possible. Tamzin's rationale for a topic ban last night I'm going to put that down to them using up their mental energy on the essay they just wrote. But I would appreciate a retraction and apology. -- Colin°Talk 07:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Tamzin Did you read the above, starting "The bold text is..." Your description and claim about my "treatment of the hypothetical editors critiquing them" is literally incompatible with what I wrote. No editor (hypothetical or otherwise) is accused of being "activists and not here to build an encyclopedia". Such forms of "editors critiquing authors" exist in multitude and I didn't pass judgement on whether that was acceptable/good, only remarked that was how it is. You are accusing me of an current behavioural problem that is imaginary. Come to my talk page if you want to examine it. -- Colin°Talk 14:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Tamzin I can only repeat that you are misinterpreting my words in the worst possible light. My comment is not "would be acting like assholes". Is someone editing at race and intelligence and dismissing sources because they are written by a hate group "acting like an asshole"? Is someone editing MMR and dismissing a source because the doctor author is well known for fraudulently misrepresenting his work "acting like an asshole"? Is someone dismissing what Trump claimed, because of his well known personal failings an asshole? No. These can be valid criticisms. I have received complaints that my criticisms of some authors are over-harsh. The psychology lecturer from Galway is not a reliable source on how to do systematic reviews. I was pointing out that there are even harsher criticisms routinely dished around, nearly always against authors perceived as being anti-trans. That's just how it is. Neither a good thing or a bad thing.

The "asshole" and "activists NOTHERE" comments are completely untrue misinterpretations of what I wrote. Please do not ascribe malign motives (battleground mentality) to words that have a perfectly straightforward explanation. If you aren't sure what I meant, you could have asked. That would have been, em, civil. -- Colin°Talk 14:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin, I am not arguing that my comments have not at times had "heated rhetoric". But if you go inventing stuff about asshole activist editors who are NOTHERE, and use those words as a rationale for a topic ban, can you not see why I'm upset? Those are your attitude problems with said editors, not mine.

User:Vanamonde93 I cut down my participation after the last AE and serious personal real world events pushed Wikipedia further down my priorities for several months now. I don't see how lack of recent participation is justification to escalate sanctions to a topic ban.

Wrt "you have no plans to change" that's just not true. Maybe there's a cultural communication problem here, and you're expecting what I consider obvious to be spelled out. I've repeatedly agreed with your criticisms (well, excluding the fictitious one about assholes -- your inflammatory language, not mine). My approach, tone, language, rhetoric is not helpful, is inflammatory and rubbing people up the wrong way. I'm not sure what sort of human accepts all that and doesn't intend to do something about it. A psychopath perhaps. So yes I have plans to change. I bought a book yesterday on managing my emotions. But I have made the decision to edit other topics, which as a volunteer I'm entitled to do, and won't change that decision. There's one neurological condition article that I've neglected for too long. Maybe I'll be a happier, calmer, kinder editor after a break from the culture wars. I'll leave you to decide which colour form to fill out now. -- Colin°Talk 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

This feels like a good final comment as I believe you are once again way in excess of the allotted words. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I strongly object to Voorts wording -- "his failure to assume good faith" -- when Barkeep49's "the DYK comments were unacceptable" was accurate. I have repeatedly said I don't believe any editor in these disputes is here to harm the project: they are all working in good faith, even if some are deeply misguided. Assigning malign and false motives behind my words is exactly the sort of thing you guys should be admonishing others for, not doing yourselves. It is completely unnecessary and inflamatory. This forum and this topic needs people who can neutrally describe what they saw, and no more, without projecting imaginary mental concepts into other people's heads. A mindset that takes "that was uncivil" into "he's failed to AGF" is a lazy harmful assumption, and doubly hurtful coming from an admin who has repeatedly stated he only read a small amount of the text here and presumably hasn't read any evidence at all.

False claims of ABF are a common form of personal attack to disrupt a content discussion. If you include this in my AE report, you've just added an extra weapon with the additional personal attack of "and Colin's been admonished at AE for this [ link ]". Frankly, at this point, all you can do is make things worse by being so careless in word choice. -- Colin°Talk 07:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Voort, I confused you with Asilvering and misunderstood your words that you "only <did X>", which is not "bad faith", and not reading the evidence hasn't stopped others commenting. Admins, when you add to your 5300 word response to my 3000 (2200 collapsed) words, please consider the lasting effect of your word choice carefully. -- Colin°Talk 17:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement for which no extension was provided. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sarek, a "no action" means "no official admin sanction/ban" but doesn't mean I can shrug this off and imagine continuing unchanged, emboldened even. I am taking to heart and working on the very serious criticism of my conduct. My very first response was to recognise I am a problem and to retire from the topic entirely. I am a human, not a hypothetical statistic. Civility is accepting the word of an editor of nearly 20 years, and pragmatism is recognising the community is more than willing to enforce. No admin action required is a reasonable and civil response to that. -- Colin°Talk 21:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Void if removed

[edit]

For context, the diff in [1] referenced an admin quite blatantly implying I was an "anti-trans POV pusher" and questioning my motives for bringing Raladic to AE, and Colin was objecting to this sort of unchecked incivility (same with the talk box followup): It does not, at the moment, appear to be very good at combating anti-trans POV pushers (unless they are obviously offensive), because many are civil and policy-compliant. The cynic in me wonders if this is trying to remove an editor who is trying to push back against some of this behaviour.

Complaining about such incivility is not "casting aspersions". Pointing out that this sort of lack of neutrality added nothing and undermines faith in the AE process is not a "battleground mindset". The rest of this complaint is a trawl through mostly months-old comments for anything that can be interpreted the worst possible way, with no consideration of the context. Void if removed (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Seeing as that's looking like the disappointing outcome, I'll just say that FWIW I think GENSEX can ill afford to lose editors of Colin's calibre and commitment to NPOV. Void if removed (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
On the page Relm raises and its GA review, they repeatedly tried to exclude the best (with caveats) quantitative figure of desistance (83%) from a systematic review, cited in a section titled "the desistance myth", arguably misrepresenting a MEDRS by omission. As of now, the page omits and explicitly calls this figure a myth. This sort of selective citation of MEDRS is why experienced medical editors like Colin are vital to the topic area.
1 January 24th (initial removal, improved and re-added by another editor with consensus here)
2 March 2nd (False accusation of misquoting)
3 March 2nd
4 March 4th (Accusation of tendentious editing)
5 March 11th (Battleground, ignores past consensus) Void if removed (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Colin began this AE volunteering to leave the topic. I question the value (and the effect) of a further sanction which won't do anything to actually improve a topic everyone seems to know has bigger issues. Void if removed (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
AE threads are limited to discussion of the conduct of the subject and the filer. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@RelmC in your latest diff to justify bringing this here instead of Colin's talk, you omit the context of it being a reply to what I now see are incivility and personal attacks from YFNS directed at me in an untagged thread - such as "the most blatant MEDRS ignoring activist I have ever seen" and "anti-trans POV pusher", all freely made, unasked for, on an admin's talk page. Not only was this never sanctioned - not even a note of caution or disapproval - but YFNS' GENSEX topic restrictions were lifted a few weeks later. Seems like an uneven standard of behaviour being demanded here, but of course YFNS did not bring this report so this is not behaviour that is under scrutiny. Void if removed (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Snokalok

[edit]

I'm going to address a couple points here:

In regards to the Cass Review, we're obviously not here to dispute content, but as has been said to you a thousand times on this topic, Colin, The Cass Review is a different document from the systemic reviews it commissioned, and it draws different conclusions as them. Thus it cannot be treated as the same thing, AND ALSO we have reliable sources saying the Cass Report itself is not peer-reviewed.[72] And beyond that, a quick look at the Cass Review page shows the entire global medical community outside the UK ripping it to shreds - including but certainly not limited to America, Canada, Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Austria, Poland, Japan, Switzerland. Editors don't NEED to do academic peer review, the entire world already has and they're not impressed.

Those who know me know I am strongly sympathetic to the trans cause and oppose those who attack out of bigotry As someone who has edited with you extensively (as shown by the diffs in my previous AE thread linked above), I know absolutely no such thing. What I have seen is a relentless defense of the honor and credibility of what are widely recognized as pieces of anti-trans propaganda from a government with a long and reliably documented history of deliberately seeking to erode trans rights, being defended not in service of an anti-trans position, but rather in service of what I would characterize as British institutional exceptionalism. Your editorial stance, as I would characterize it, is not one of a directly anti-trans pov, but rather that if the right and proper institutions publish a non-peer reviewed report that cites right wing youtube channels to say that being trans might be caused by pornography and that conversion therapy is the answer - then that is vox dei; regardless of how much of the global medical community says "This is a hit piece backed by anti-trans lobby groups from a government and media apparatus that has been targeting trans people for a long time", regardless of whatever reviews or guidelines they publish tearing it apart, the fact is that the right and proper people in the British government have said X and therefore all other editors must uncritically abide by it and any criticism of it is mere trans activism that has no place on its page regardless of who-from, which has to be either watered down or excluded from the article entirely.

This all would be one thing, everyone has a position on everything, but as was said in this AE and the last one, you do kinda, go off the rails a little for it. I don't think you're a bad editor, but I do think you turn your brain off when it comes to GENSEX in a way that I don't think you're entirely cognizant of.

I support your promise to stay off of GENSEX, but I would support it being formalized - not in disgrace, and I would support a note saying that it's not in disgrace - but simply because I feel like if it isn't, we'll end up back here later on. Snokalok (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd add that I don't like the tagging of Barkeep, Raddish, and Vanamonde, because while they did handle the last thread, to me this feels like some degree of admin-shopping; and if the accused can tag the admins they want, anyone can. Snokalok (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: You are at 562 words. Please request an extension on talk if you need to make any further comments. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
@Snokalok: Per talkpage request, you are granted 138 words specifically for the purposes of proposing a resolution. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Basically, my proposal is that rather than give a full GENSEX TBAN, for which there are understandable concerns about the collateral impact such a thing would have on Colin's reputation, instead simply ban him from anything to do with the Cass Review, broadly construed. That's like 90% of where this all comes from. Snokalok (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Sweet6970

[edit]

1) I am one of the editors who complained about Black Kite’s comment at the AE discussion on Raladic, as linked by Colin. I stand by my comment: it is Black Kite’s comment which is shocking and worthy of sanctions, not Colin’s.

2) Regarding Colin’s offer to cease editing in gensex: this shows there is a very serious problem with Wikipedia’s attitude to editing in this area. Colin has said that he is pro-trans. But he is also an experienced medical editor (which I am not). If he cannot, under the current conditions on Wikipedia, call out bad medical editing, then the medical articles to do with gensex are going to be in a dire state, and probably would be better deleted than left to deteriorate and bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by YFNS

[edit]

At the last AE report I spoke against a TBAN for Colin, and expressed hope that he'd 1) stop being incivil towards and insulting me and 2) stop accusing anybody who slightly criticized the Cass Review of misinformation and "activism" and etc. He has not. I was thinking of reporting in February but decided against it because I was scared it would look like the last case, walls of insulting text and a slap on the wrist, and didn't have time or energy to deal with it. At this point, I regrettably think a TBAN is necessary.

  • This year, he's made about ~100 edits, the majority of which were about trans topics and to some degree, uncivil. He has not been particularly active since his rounds of insulting me in February across the DYK and the talkpage of WP:FRINGE and participating in the GA in March, until resuming bludgeoning at Cass Review which sparked this.
  • I would not describe his behavior as "incivil-NPOV pushing". His POV, eclectic and principled as it may be, is not NPOV. His continued arguments that all critics of the Cass Review are american twitter activists and etc is not NPOV. At the DYK nom, he made the claim This is a field where both activist sides have indulged in misinformation. I'd expect a Wikipedia article to state that clearly and give examples of both., when I asked for sources for that claim he kept insulting me, when I again asked for sources and a cease to the insults, he kept insulting me. Claiming people are pushing misinformation and demanded it be included without providing an RS is not NPOV.

I would like to note that there were further instances of incivility:

  • Feb 8: But a deliberate category error. That last sentence in YFNS is written to mean organisations we hate (and thus regard as FRINGE for believing the Wrong Things) must only be written about by, em, sources that hate them.[73], the last sentence being a proposal for a FRINGEORG paragraph of FRINGE saying Articles on organizations known solely for fringe advocacy should be written using reliable and independent sources and avoid the pitfalls of determining the notability of fringe theories themselves., based on the current WP:BLPFRINGE guidance
  • Later in February, at WP:FTN, he left a mocking and off-topic diatribe against the RFC question Is the view that transgender identities are, in themselves, a mental illness or otherwise frequently caused by mental illness WP:FRINGE within the bounds of mainstream medicine and international human rights?[74] (permalink to closed discussion[75])
    • Followed by snarky off-topic comments like Are we just going to work through every single contentious issue in the field of transgender topics and ask editors to declare it WP:FRINGE? Is that how Wikipedia works today. FRINGE or not-FRINGE.[76] and Oh I can guess the fifth. Conversion therapy. Or did we have that one already? The common thread in all these steps is the Cass Review. There are sources claiming each of the things we've declared to be FRINGE with the Cass Review. Well done.[77] - the fact that the fringe theories noticeboard found many claims fringe, and that RS keep pointing out these claims are made in the Cass Review's report, speaks to this issue with Colin repeatedly accusing all criticism of the review with "activism".

There is a general pattern across his comments of calling any social sciences researcher, particularly LGBT ones, "activists" without explanation or sources and doubling down:

  • At the latest discussion at the Cass Review Writers who have an obvious agenda (as every one of the Noone paper authors and all the York PDF authors have in abundance, claim by a bunch of writers who's only pertinent qualification is "activist" that "Our critical analysis reveals significant methodological problems in the commissioned systematic reviews" is an extra ordinary claim., (the "critical analysis" here being to systematically apply the ROBIS criteria, the go-to method of reviewing systematic reviews for risk of bias)
  • In March at the GA Horton is employed at a business school and most of their published work consists of interviews with groups of like-minded individuals on social media. They have no medical qualifications or clinical research experience and are a well known activist (a scholar with a PHD in trans studies who has written multiple articles about the impacts of discrimination against transgender people)[78]
  • I raised this at the previous AE report for him, noting he'd been referring to Horton's works as "the opinions of someone's mum."

Even in this discussion, there's no real apology and further doubling down:

  • Transgender health care misinformation is the worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia. It appears to exist in a NPOV exclusion zone. - this is a GA, he participated in the GAR and subsequent GA and was asked repeatedly to put forward sources or suggest improvements and just doubled down on insulting me and walls of text
    • Claiming it is not peer reviewed is a fine example of activist misinformation: our article on misinformation makes that false claim. - it doesn't even say that anymore, per the GA he was a part of...
  • I reject the "casts aspersions" and "belittling their intelligence" claim entirely. - this is despite saying I write like a teenager, am obviously a single purpose account, etc
  • This latest comment WP:MEDASSESS warns editors of rejecting (or disparaging) higher level sources in favour of lower and "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review". feels hypocritical to me, considering that higher tier sources, such as the latest german clinical practice guidelines, have repeatedly criticized the Cass Review.

I wish a TBAN wasn't necessary, but his behavior has been unacceptable in all the same ways since the last AE report Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee - Frankly this in the DYK by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist looks like baiting. YFNS, were you seriously suggesting that This is a field where both activist sides have indulged in misinformation. is somehow a controversial statement?
  • 1) Colin completely skipped raising concerns at talk and went straight to insulting me and claiming the article wasn't NPOV, but somehow asking him for RS is baiting him? Insofar as there was any baiting in that discussion, it was probably the person leaving long insulting diatribes in an off-topic place, then refusing to provide sources when asked...
  • 2) Yes - because RS frankly don't back that up. I should know, I have read every academic/medical paper published in the last few decade talking about trans healthcare misinformation. What Colin calls for is a WP:FALSEBALANCE.
    • Imagine if somebody said climate change denial isn't neutral because "both sides do misinformation", and then just insulted you when asking for sources
    • Or somebody said "both sides have indulged in misinformation" about Vaccine misinformation followed by insults when asked for sources.
    • On CTOPs particularly, you are expected to politely discuss things with RS. Not leave diatribes insisting other's find sources to back a position you think is true.
Collapsing back-and-forth among participants and repetition of previous arguments. YFNS, I'm being generous here and leaving intact 1,189 words (I would rather have cut more, but it's mostly in one long comment and I'll give some leeway for a lot being quotes), which I'll consider a retroactive extension. Please request an extension from an admin on WT:AE if you need to comment further. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tbh, I'm kinda shocked that anyone can look at someone pop up to DYK, insult an editor, claim they're biased, and then double down on insults when asked for sources, and take the position that the person he followed to DYK is baiting him for daring to ask for sources. Then express incredulity that a controversial statement that no RS support is controversial.
What is well documented is that Evangelical groups and ex-gay groups and etc make many false claims about trans healthcare and use these to seek to limit it. What is well documented is medical orgs and academics and researchers and etc call bullshit on that. The claim that trans people/doctors are engaged in misinformation to promote trans healthcare is not supported by RS - if I am wrong that is trivially disprovable.
@Colin
  • I think the approach to settling open controversies in medical science with a vote of Wikipedians is wrong, and doubly wrong for culture war topics. - whether trans identities are caused by mental illness is not an "open controversy" considering there are dozens of MEDORGS saying they aren't and none saying they are. Claiming things are more controversial in trans healthcare than they are is a recurring pattern with you
  • Those german clinical practice guidelines cite Noone et al and consider them reliable for their critiques of the Cass Review. So did the British Medical Association. When MEDORGs and overranking sources like CPGs say "this source's critiques of these reviews are valid", we listen.
  • I wish those MEDRS systematic reviews had concluded differently about trans healthcare, as I'd my talk page would be full of Defender of the Wiki barnstars from you guys rather than AE noticeboard links. - If you were civil there'd be no problem. Nobody disagrees the evidence is poor. This is a strawman you keep shadowboxing. What MEDORG's around the world agree on is: "we need better data, the evidence we have is poor, but it suggests that the only method that has ever worked for GD is helping them transition".
    • Re "you guys", the last time at AE I opposed sanctions for you. It hurt to suggest they'd be needed now. I used to look up to you somewhat and for the past few months you keep popping in to insult me and jumping in with a battleground mentality. You lump all the editors disagreeing with you as activists or etc
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Parabolist

[edit]

Perhaps it's having read enough of these discussions, but I would absolutely not describe Colin's approach to these articles as purely NPOV like the admins below. When Colin agrees with sources, he is rigorous about how editors should respect the experience and skills of the doctors who wrote them. When he disagrees with sources, suddenly the doctors who have written those are no longer doctors, and are now activists, which seems to be defined as anyone he doesn't agree with. Look the discussions from the previous complaint, and see how he talks about Dr. Cal Horton, who he repeatedly denigrates as only having the qualification of "being the mother of a trans kid", or diff 8 of this complaint where he describes a peer reviewed study's authors as "a bunch of writers who's only pertinent qualification is "activist"". Disagreement with his point of view strips you of your credentials. This is not the approach of an editor looking to find consensus, it is one of a RGW editor. This is all aside from the fact that there is no way to read his interaction with Lewisguile as having the sort of attitude we should accept in a CTOP as contentious as this. Come on. Parabolist (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Colin's response to me is a perfect example. Immediately it's about how if I saw discussions where he was "on my side" I wouldn't think this way, and that I'd be completely fine with this if he was doing it to a transphobe. How is this not a battleground approach to a topic? Disagreement with Colin's approach towards describing sources makes me a partisan for a "side" now, and therefore my judgement is immediately compromised, unlike his. But hey, maybe the third warning will work, especially since everyone is making sure to couch it in how right he is. The lesson is really being baked in. Parabolist (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

[edit]

Colin, walk away from the topic area of Gensex. I'm not accusing you (or anyone else) of misbehavior. Just walk away. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

[edit]

My statement referred to above at the previous AE was Wikipedia is very good at combating homophobic, misogynistic and racist behaviour. It does not, at the moment, appear to be very good at combating anti-trans POV pushers (unless they are obviously offensive), because many are civil and policy-compliant. The cynic in me wonders if this is trying to remove an editor who is trying to push back against some of this behaviour. I stand by every word of it, because I believe it is the case. It is not a PA (because I don't mention any particular editor) and I am unaware of any Wikipedia rule on having opinions. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

[edit]

I have a long and unpleasant history with Colin, and I want to stipulate that up front. I think it's important for admins to remember WP:BRIE here. I also want to point out, because it hasn't been mentioned yet, that Colin's history with combative language goes back to a 2020 ArbCom case here: [79]. That was in MEDRS/Medical topics outside of GENSEX, so I question how much mileage can still be squeezed out of logged warnings. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I've had a history with Colin, and Loki's link to this, described by Loki as a discussion that went downhill after Colin entered it, made me remember some earlier discussions. In 2018, at Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Archive 3#Other antipsychotic feedback, the discussion was fine at first, I think. Part way into the subsection about "'Should' and similar language", Colin comes in, and I think there is, progressively, an obvious change. Similarly, at User talk:Doc James/Archive 134#Proposed solution, it happens again. That discussion includes an editor who has since been site-banned, and it's part of what led to the ArbCom case about drug prices, but I think that this goes to show that the pattern of Colin entering into a discussion, and it goes downhill after he enters, has been happening for years. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
It looks to me like the admins are seeking something less than a block/ban, and more like a final warning. I've read and thought carefully about Colin's most recent statement, where he recognizes some issues and notes that he has gotten a self-help book, and that strikes me as significant. This AE thread is taking too long to resolve (hint: if you don't want so many words from editors, then don't leave things unresolved for so long – see also how an ideal gas fills all available space). So I think it might be best to go with a logged warning, with a not-too-narrow scope, but make it absolutely clear that any repeat will result in sanctions, no more second chances. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Seeing the discussion about "final warning", I have a wordsmithing suggestion. At the end of "... and responding administrators should place an appropriate block", add something like "without the need for further warning". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
In light of subsequent events, discussed at WT:AE#Wrong section, I'm no longer inclined to feel the way I did in the two comments above, and so have struck them. At this point, I agree with Sarek, and I think it's well-past time to wrap this thing up. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Admins need to make a decision about this – by consensus, not universal consent – and not just let this get archived with no action. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I started to write something harsher, then thought again, and I'm going to say this. First, Valereee, you can see a blow-by-blow account of what was posted where on WT:AE, so you shouldn't need to ask. Graham's first post was here in my section, and the second post was in the uninvolved admin's section. Now to all of you, Colin is saying on the talk page how this has been needlessly stressful for him, and he has a valid concern. This is taking way too long. There are too many admins who are failing to modify their original opinions in order to get to consensus. There are too many admins who are finding excuses not to call this for what it is, and close it. If Colin asserts that he is choosing to voluntarily self-ban from the topic area, then it's not that big a deal to make the topic ban official. Or you can post the FoF/final warning. But if you close this without any action, you will be failing the community, egregiously. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Loki

[edit]

I have two quick things to add. Number 1 is that I agree with Parabolist: this is not a case of "uncivil NPOV pushing", this is just good ol' fashioned POV-pushing. Colin repeatedly expresses concern over NPOV and respecting MEDRS, but if you look at what he's actually arguing, it seems like he thinks the Cass Review is the only MEDRS source in the whole topic area and any other source that criticizes it is "activism" merely by the fact of their criticism of it. You can even see that with the argument over Noone et al where he engages in some weird credentialism to argue that because a certain place has done many good systematic reviews that means they cannot under any circumstances do a bad one and anyone who says they have are not only mistaken, they're malicious.

(To be honest, from having participated in the last time this went to AE I honestly do not think this is due to anti-trans animus per se; I think it's a kind of misguided patriotism and a refusal to acknowledge that, for example, the NHS is not immune to political pressure. But it's still POV-pushing, and the standard POV-pusher's defense of "I'm the real NPOV and you're all activists" shouldn't be convincing here even coming from Colin.)

But number 2 is, I would really like to invite the admins below to read the entire discussions before Colin enters them, and notice the effect of Colin entering a discussion. He's not good for the topic area even if you do think he's legitimately trying to defend NPOV because what happens every time he comes in swinging with wild overly dramatic allegations of misbehavior is that the entire discussion becomes about him and what he said, and no longer about improving the article. Loki (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been asked for more points of comparison, and I can actually give you a pretty direct comparison.
Here is a discussion on the talk page for the Cass Review about a particular recent source. Note that the discussion is almost entirely about the source and its merits.
Compare to this other discussion on the talk page for the Cass Review about a particular recent source. The discussion is again about the source and its merits... until Colin comes in and makes wild aspersions, at which point it becomes a shouting match between Colin and Lewisguile, with stuff like I'm rather tired of editors who don't understand what "assume good faith" is or what a "personal attack" is on Colin's side and Colin, it's not about being "butthurt"; it's about attempting to work together for the aims of Wikipedia with civility and avoiding yet another argument in this topic area on Lewisguile's side. It's really amazing how quickly the discussion left the topic of the source and became about Colin after Colin entered. Loki (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
@Tamzin: "How do we know it's Colin and not everyone else?" is the point of the comparison. Same actors (including multiple opposing POVs), different outcome. Loki (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell

[edit]

I've been following this discussion, but refrained from commenting. However, I noticed Tamzin's comment regarding WPATH. I can't speak for other users, but I believe Colin's intended reference might be to this discussion, which resulted in no consensus after many months of debate. One can see that some users there dismissed sources like The Economist, The New York Times, and BMJ as unreliable, despite the general consensus at WP:RSP recognizing the first two as reliable, and BMJ being a peer reviewed academic journal. I believe the point could be to highlight the inconsistency where highly reliable sources are dismissed in one situation, while lower quality sources are upheld as authoritative in another. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Colin

[edit]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'll start with my standard disclaimer that I sometimes edit in the GENSEX topic area. I do not believe that there is anything in this case that makes me involved, but welcome feedback if anyone disagrees.
    I saw the February remarks to YFNS at the time and considered imposing sanctions; if I'd known about the September warning, I probably would have. That said, sanctions are meant to be preventative, and if the only issues since then are the comments to Lewisguile, then I'd see that as an argument that sanctions weren't in fact needed, because these comments, while not great, in my view fall short of being personal attacks: In the first one, I read the claim of people "bullshitting you" as being about Noone et al. rather than any editor; and the second falls in that unfortunate category, so hard to moderate, of "uncivil but not a PA".
    But I'd like to put a pin in that and zoom out to talk about Colin's behavior in GENSEX in general. I quietly lurk in a lot of GENSEX discussions, and I have found two things about Colin's editing:
    1. He is one of the most truly nonpartisan editors in the topic area. To the extent his edits reflect any personal POV, it does not at all seem to be the orthodoxy of any ideological camp, but a well-considered set of views that leads him to sometimes agree with trans rights activists' views, and other times with gender-critical feminists. And when he comes into conflict with other editors, it does read as being out of genuine concern (correct or not) for their compliance with policies and guidelines, not based on a sense that they are on "the other side" and thus the enemy.
    2. He is incredibly dogged in his style of participation, often bludgeoning discussions in a way that forces out all but the small number of editors who are willing to match his endurance, and often too quick to resort to emotional language. Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 10 § "Womb" v. "uterus" (for, apparently, the nth time) is a representative example. This can lead to incivility and personal attacks, as seen most dramatically with YFNS.
  • All of that is to say that, if Colin does not want the stain of a TBAN that would imply he is a transphobe, well, I'd like to make clear that in my expert opinion he is not. Many user conduct issues in GENSEX are a matter of substance (i.e. POV-pushing), but Colin's issue is one of style (i.e. bludgeoning and incivility). Personally, my philosophy as an admin is that if a TBAN is needed, then it's needed even if the person promises they won't touch the thing, and if you're not TBANning someone, it's because you're okay with the prospect of them going right back to editing that topic area tomorrow. I'm not sure whether I'd be okay with that. I think Colin's attitude is that the problem in this topic area is everyone else, and he's quite right that there's disruptive participation by lots of others in GENSEX, and many of his disputes have been cases of "it takes two to tango". But he is also part of the problem. An acknowledgment of that would go a long way toward avoiding a TBAN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I have the capacity to get involved in this report. But I will say I do not find the ping of me, Vanamonde, and SFR improper. We were 3 people who landed at a logged warning of Colin at the last report, so while not a random collection of people it's also not one that is going to be unafraid to sanction him and in fact ones who are going to understand the history as well as any. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
    @LokiTheLiar: while I won't claim to have done as thorough of a job in this report as I normally do, where I read diffs+discussions+preceding discussions that relate to the discussions with the diff, I have read lots of discussion here and probably need to measure in megabytes the amount of Colin's prose in discussions I have read over the years. So I'm very familiar. What I am open to being convinced about, but have not been so far, is that the problem is with Colin as opposed to a group of editors who do feel Colin has an anti-trans animus. That is he could, at this point, enter discussions in the most collegial and collaborative of manners and it would still derail if he didn't agree with whatever was being said in the discussions before him. Do you have an example of an NPOV related discussion in this topic area not involving Colin that I could use to see the effect you're claiming? Procedural note: you're at 300 words. I would hope 200 words would be sufficient in reply. If not please let me know. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Colin I didn't ask for any amicable discussion. I asked for a discussion in this topic area that revolves around NPOV. Basically the kind of discussion we are discussing here but without you. Loki has presented one such discussion - which I haven't had time to read yet and so I don't know what it does or doesn't show so I have no idea what I will think after it. But it wasn't some generic discussion it was an attempt to prove the assertion being made that you are harming the topic area, something I have currently expressed skepticism about. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Colin I started typing a response yesterday that touched on how low the "hit rate" is in these reports compared to what I am used to in non-obviously closed reports. It was true in the last report and it is true here. However, in the last report while words were attributed to you that you did not write, I don't think it was in inaccurate representation of your comments in that discussion. I agree one discussion couldn't indict you. But if I am unconvinced by the single best example - and I've been clear that I'm skeptical of the claims Loki is making - then I don't need to think/research further. As it stands I'm not sure due to U4C obligations if I'm going to have time to give that discussion what it deserves - and thus I'm not sure how much I'm going to weigh in on the emerging outcome of this case - but yes I do understand the limitations of what I asked for. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I am responding here primarily as an AE admin active on the previous request, and not because I was pinged - but I don't find the ping inappropriate, as it was of the three admins who handled the previous request, which ended with a warning to Colin. I am not impressed by Colin's language at the DYK nomination: this, in particular "you are an activist SPA" is not acceptable in those circumstances. I don't immediately see anything actionably in the rest of the complaint, though. Colin's language is strong, even intemperate, but it is directed not at editors but a section of the populace engaging in specific behaviors: and while I have not analyzed the entirety of Colin's recent behavior the diffs I looked at suggest he is attempting to rigorously apply our PAGs. We talk often at AE about civil POV-pushing - I would characterize Colin's behavior as the exact opposite, uncivil NPOV-pushing, which I'm much more hesitant to sanction. If there's evidence of aspersions against other editors in recent edits I'm not seeing it. I am not in general willing to codify voluntary TBANs because of the difficulties of applying them. If a sanction is applied it should be an AE sanction: but I'm not convinced we need such. If this had been brought here in February, I would have considered a sanction for the comments at DYK. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
    I have read through the GAR and the FTN discussion. I see more of what I observed before - frustration often turning into incivility, off-topic commentary, and an aggressive defense of what Colin believes to be NPOV. Some of this is inappropriate, as I have noted, but "inappropriate" does not immediately equate to "TBAN-worthy". I do not see aspersions about editors besides the egregious one at the DYK. Indeed the tenor of some of those discussions is better than what we observed many months ago - there is more discussion of substance, and less ad-hominem and off-topic inflammatory commentary, and I find this encouraging. I would like to see comments from other administrators. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    As a matter of principle I'm not in favor of multiple sequential logged warnings: as others have noted, they can make the term lose meaning. But that does not mean automatic escalation either. The sanction still needs to be proportional to the offense. Had I seen the DYK comments at the time they were made I would have supported a block: today that feels punitive. I would not even then have supported a TBAN, and I can't get behind it here.
    I see some scattered diffs about the conduct of other parties, but in the interests of both fairness and practicality I will not consider those - this report has sprawled enough. Anyone is free to file a separate report about another editor's conduct. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I feel like what I'm seeing here is someone who has a hard time not expressing frustration slightly more strongly than is helpful, and as is often seen at CTOPs, that ends up with a gotcha filing here at AE to try to get rid of the person. Frankly this in the DYK by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist looks like baiting. YFNS, were you seriously suggesting that This is a field where both activist sides have indulged in misinformation. is somehow a controversial statement? Colin, I wish you could keep your temper, and it would help hugely if you'd just go back and edit yourself before you hit send with stuff like "butt hurt" and "you are a SPA activist account", which you know isn't helpful and also clearly know can be used against you in ways you'd hate. I do not see the need for a tban. I do see the need for you to either voluntarily get out of this topic -- which is unfortunate for the encyclopedia -- or learn to walk away when you're feeling frustrated rather than responding to people baiting you or even just being obtuse. If you can't do either, you eventually will end up with a tban that, yes, people will assume is for something very much more serious than "can't control his temper when CTOPs intersects with MEDRS".
I would support a logged warning for inflammatory language in CTOP:MEDRS discussions. Valereee (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I also don't find the pings inappropriate. I might have pinged the same admins for the same reason. Valereee (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
YFNS, both activist sides is the key term here. My interpretation of the DYK discussion was not that Colin was advocating for presenting both activist sides but neither. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • 500 words, people. 500 words total. Good grief. -- asilvering (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    I've cut down Colin and YFNS' sections (not as much as I'd've rathered, but as much as I felt I could justify without confusing things) and instructed they and Snokalok to request on talk if they want extensions. As a general reminder to all participants, there is rarely much to gain at AE by arguing with other participants. Concrete rebuttals and new evidence are helpful to us. Repeating the same arguments and arguing the minutiae of others' comments is not. I get that that's hard—I hit double the word limit last time I was in an A/R/C, I think. But even just as a matter of rhetorical strategy, it is more effective to say fewer things, directed toward the people sitting in judgment, than more things directed to the people whose minds you are unlikely to change. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks Tamzin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I only read the first 500 words of each editor's statement. If an editor has already exceeded 500 words, I will not read any additional comments. I generally agree with Tamzin's assessment of Colin's behavior (I don't know enough about his political views to comment on them), and agree with Valareee that a logged warning for incivility and bludgeoning is appropriate. I didn't read far enough in Colin's statement to see this, but I note that some editors have said that Colin has agreed to avoid GENSEX. That seems prudent to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    I'm fine with a TBAN too. I note that Colin pinged me but I didn't read what he wrote. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    I've reviewed the content Tamzin has granted a retroactive extension to and it doesn't change my analysis. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    If a warning is issued rather than a TBAN, it should be a final warning. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't think of a Topic Ban as a "stain" but simply a formalization of editing restrictions of an indeterminate length. I think it is much more straight-forward to impose a topic ban, when it is warranted, rather than have an editor pledge to stay away from a particular subject. It's just neater and easier to manage a logged-in topic ban rather than have a voluntary promise which by its nature is fuzzy and self-imposed. If an editor imposes a topic ban on themselves, well, then they are really in charge of dictating the limits of the ban, what it covers and when it can be lifted. I haven't made a decision about whether or not a topic ban is warranted in this case but I think for accountability's sake, all topic bans should be logged in so they are formalized, easily found and not just a line of text on a talk page somewhere in Wikipedia or User talk space. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I am generally opposed to logged warnings for someone who's already received one for the same conduct (two, if you count the intersecting ArbCom warning for medical topics). If there's misconduct enough for action, then a binding sanction is needed. If there's a sense that there's mitigation, then that should be recognized in the form of the sanction being looser—time-limited and/or narrowed to a subtopic like transgender healthcare and/or one of those ugly-but-sometimes-necessary bespoke sanctions we do like "Cannot make any comments on the motives or affiliations of other editors in the topic area". But it would be better that we do nothing than give a "Stop and I really mean it this time" warning, which would not only be redundant, but make the previous warning seem like an empty threat. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    I've been keeping out of responding to the ping here as I'm on the body of final appeal for AE, but speaking generally I think my thoughts on repeated ineffective finger wagging are well known. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    I have a different feeling on warnings that SFR - and not for nothing was the one who pushed for it to be a logged warning rather than an informal one at the last AE. However, I do agree that "logged warning followed by new logged warning for the same thing" should not happen. Where I'm stumbling in this case is that based on the evidence presented here, I don't think the topic area would be improved by formally removing Colin from it altogether as Vanamonde points out. As a co-author of the original "Being right isn't enough" I definitely support the idea that it isn't enough. But being right matters for something. The consistency with which Colin is attempting to uphold our core content policies - I don't always agree with his interpretation but that doesn't mean it's not legitimate - in this topic area where, from the diffs provided, I don't always see that same commitment from some other participants is context that I'm not willing to completely dismiss either. I particularly note this because at both the previous AE and this one, lots and lots of diffs are provided and while some of them are useful in a context setting way of "here's why Colin's tone is particularly hurtful" many of them just don't, for me, prove what they're alleging. Instead it's one or two clearly egregious comments, combined with the aggressive persistent tone, that has been the focus of each of these last two AEs. The prevalence of so many diffs that don't show what's alleged then is in no small part why this gets more complicated for me than my normal "was warned previously, did it again, time to escalate sanctions." So the best I've come up with so far of threading that needle is a suspended topic ban, which I don't even love because well any editor in this topic already basically could have a topic ban at any time if they don't follow the expectations for those editing a Contentious Topic and that is especially true for someone with a previous logged warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    Vanamonde's opinion above that a timely block is the right response to the actual transgressions made is one that resonates with me and strikes me as an appropriate outcome for this case (that is if Colin makes further offensive comments, report them in a timely manner and an admin should place a reasonable block as a response). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    I've been going back and forth on whether there is a live controversy here. If the only sanctionable issue is the comments to YFNS, then any sanction would be punitive. However, I've now read through the latest Cass Review thread a third time over, at Loki's suggestion. I'm not really convinced of what Loki is saying, that something cataclysmic happens when Colin shows up in a discussion, and even if that were true, how can we say that that's because Colin is the problem, versus the others? However, what jumps out at me in the thread now is this, from Colin's final comment there (emphasis added): If this was on the WPATH talk page, and some gender-critical psychology lecturer, a Musk supporting lawyer, a lab researcher who once admitting enjoying a Harry Potter novel, and a vet who is English (so obviously a TERF) had written a paper criticising WPATH, we'd see highly dismissive comments. And the criticism would extend far more than their lack of experience in conducting such an analysis. It would be an voluminous stream of personal attacks about each an every one of them being a intrinsically hateful person, regardless of their experience or ability or what they wrote. Colin begins by critiquing the (allegedly) poor credentials of the authors, which is reasonable. But his hypothetical continues down a path of outrage about something that has not occurred, fundamentally predicated on the idea that editors at Talk:World Professional Association for Transgender Health are, collectively, activists and not here to build an encyclopedia—the same issue as in the YFNS incident. So I do see a live controversy now.
    First I want to address the obvious question of "What if many of the other editors are activists and not here to build an encyclopedia?" The answer to that is that that is what the dispute resolution process is for. Colin is welcome to bring editors to AE if he feels they are pushing a partisan agenda, in any direction. I would hope that the attitude of admins in this thread shows that the AE team is very much open to the idea that POV-pushing in the GENSEX topic area can come from any number of directions.
    But this needs to stay out of content discussions. So I would like to propose the following suspended sanction:

    Colin is made subject to a suspended indefinite topic ban from transgender healthcare, broadly construed. If, at any point in the next 12 months, an uninvolved administrator finds Colin to have, within that topic area, engaged in personal attacks, cast aspersions, or personalized disputes by (except in appropriate dispute resolution venues) commenting on contributor rather than content, they may unsuspend this topic ban; this will be considered an extension of this AE consensus for procedural purposes. This sanction will lapse after 12 months if the topic ban is not unsuspended.

    @Colin: You are granted 250 words to respond to this if you would like. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    I have some thoughts, disjointed for the sake of brevity. 1) An uninvolved admin can already impose precisely this TBAN, AFAICS: I don't particularly like us giving what is, in effect, a warning in different words. 2) Recent posts have made it clearer that the triggering issues here aren't transgender identity, but more specific issues, and specific editors: most pertinently, the Cass review itself is a nexus of difficulty for Colin specifically. While acknowledging that Colin's rather belligerent input at DYK did eventually highlight genuine NPOV problems, it is possible that a more narrow sanction may be in order. Does a TBAN from the Cass review feel workable to anyone? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with you on your first point, but I don't think a TBAN from just the Cass review would be workable given it's such a central document in the topic area. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    With the obvious caveat that I have not read any of the evidence because I looked at it and said "good grief," as above, I think "transgender healthcare" is clearly enough not "transgender identity" that if the idea is to keep Colin out of only a narrower part of trans issues more broadly, that could succeed. The question is more whether that's actually warranted or if the broader tban from trans issues generally is appropriate. With the obvious strength that I have not read any of the evidence, I think the suspended topic ban is a bad idea - at least as worded, that would make me more hesitant to tban as an individual action, not less, because what it does is flag "this editor has previously been found impossible to tban by a consensus of admins at AE, so, lol, good luck my dude".
    My general opinion is that if someone is being so persistently difficult to deal with in a particular topic area, they should not work there, no matter how good their contributions are; I think editors that are persistently uncivil cause incalculable harm to the project, because they keep away not just editors we know about but also editors who are thinking of participating, take a peek at the backrooms, and give up before they even start. A highly competent editor acting in good faith can still do a lot of damage this way, simply by burning out in public. I think tbans can be useful to protect present and future editors in the topic area and hopefully arrest that slide into deep personal burnout. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    We're broadly in agreement, so I'll try to be brief: I am willing to sanction for persistently uncollegial behavior from people who are right on the substance. My concern as above is with proportionality, and timeliness. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    I see the objections to the suspended sanction, particularly asilvering's point. But if the choice is between no sanction and a TBAN, I think those are both bad options and with some trepidation would have to choose the former, for fear of chilling legitimate critique and perversely incentivizing more partisan critiques. Speaking as an individual admin, though, I am prepared to block or TBAN for any future comment that discusses the perceived motives, affiliations, or hypothetical future actions of other editors, named or unnamed, excluding evidence-based comments at user-conduct venues. (And @Colin, to be clear, my concern above is not with your treatment of the hypothetical maybe-gender-critical authors, but your treatment of the hypothetical editors critiquing them.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Colin: My point is that the comment shows a battleground mentality, because it does. Pivoting to If this were some other page all the other guys would be acting like assholes (not a quote, but a simplification of what you were saying) is seeing things as a battleground. Again, bring user conduct complaints to user conduct boards. Keep content discussions focused on content. That's all I'm asking here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Colin, you're making a case here, but I don't think it's the case you think you're making. My view is that you're a good editor but resort too quickly and too often to heated rhetoric. I'd really like to find a way for you to be able to continue to edit the topics you want to, while causing less of this kind of drama, but the message you're giving is that you have no plans to change. It's up to you where to go from here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
    I was trying to find a way to say this in my response and didn't like any of the ways I came up with so I didn't. But I agree with Tamzin's point here. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
    At this time, I agree. There isn't sufficient evidence of misconduct. That said, I skimmed Colin's contributions since we were last at AE. There isn't much evidence of conduct. In the GENSEX area, I see participation in eight discussions, and exactly one mainspace edit. With such scant participation the argument that Colin is a net positive in the area is weak, and it wouldn't take much for me to support a TBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk)
    After having reviewed further evidence, I agree that a Cass Review topic ban is viable (as would be asilvering's transgender healthcare alternative, though I think the evidence for Cass rather than broader is stronger). I personally don't think it necessary - though as I note here I'm close to changing my mind on this - and instead still support closing this with a something along the lines of "The DYK comments were unacceptable. Had they been presented in a timely manner Colin should have been blocked. In the future such comments should be presented when they happen and responding administrators should place an appropriate block." Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Well, a fine mess this has become. After I've had time to sort through it, I'm certainly not impressed with some of the conduct here, but I'd broadly agree with Barkeep49 that there's not a formal sanction needed right now. But, that could certainly change in the future, so I'd strongly encourage everyone involved to tone it down a couple notches. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't think I see a rough consensus for any kind of topic ban, suspended or otherwise; I think only voorts and maybe asilvering prefer a topic ban outcome. Instead I see some admins in favor of a message about blocking and some people in favor of a final warning (by my count Seraphim, Vanamonde, Valereee, Tamzin, and I fall into one or both of these groups). I suggest the way to rough consensus would be to close with a summary of Colin is warned that the DYK comments were unacceptable. Had they been presented in a timely manner Colin should have been blocked. In the future such comments should be presented when they happen and responding administrators should place an appropriate block. (or something close to that) and to also add this statement to the CTLOG. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
    Fine with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
    Can we call this a final warning in the logged entry? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
    I was trying to skirt that issue truthfully. I think there are mixed opinions on the "final warning part" - I for instance think all warnings at AE should be considered "final" without saying so and SFR expressed similar opinions as did some others who I'm not going to try and summarize here. But yes I wanted something that the final warning people (including you as a second choice) felt reflected the desired outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Voorts does Tryptofish's suggestion satisfy you? My plan was to include the entire statement in the CTLOG entry if I were to close it. So it would read Colin is warned that the DYK comments were unacceptable. Had they been presented in a timely manner Colin should have been blocked. In the future such comments should be presented when they happen and responding administrators should place an appropriate block without further warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
    As Vanamonde pointed out, an admin can already independently block an editor for the type of conduct at issue here. Stating that no further warnings are needed implies that a consensus of admins at AE needs to bless blocking long-standing editors without further warning. I think the community already gives an astonishing amount of leeway to established editors when they act like jerks, and I do not think that AE precedent should reflect that. I propose: Colin is admonished for his failure to assume good faith and act civilly towards other editors. But for the fact that the complaint regarding his conduct at DYK is stale, he likely would have been blocked. This is a final warning. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
    I have no issues with your wording until the part about the final warning. Because that implies that long-standing editors can ignore warnings until they get a final one. Given Colin's warning I would have readily blocked him if the DYK stuff had been timely; Tamzin and Vanamonde have said similarly. So he doesn't need a final warning to have ben blocked for that at all as the existing warning was more than sufficient (as arguably just the fact that it's a contentious topic meant he could/should have been blocked for such comments even if he'd had no warning). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
    I'm fine removing the last sentence. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Colin: You didn't get permission for additional words. I'm granting it for this last statement. It's ironic that your defense is assuming, in bad faith, that I didn't read any evidence. I was quite clear that I adhered strictly to the 500 word limit that you and others blew straight past. The fact that you chose to ignore the rules here is not my problem. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
    Procedurally, Colin got granted various extensions to 1750 and now whatever 1750 plus this latest statement would be with your extension so all of that should be considered "in evidence". This doesn't undermine your point that people shouldn't be blowing past the word limits, and indeed I'm guessing you read it all even if you didn't acknowledge it at the time or in the statement above. Substantively, I do see discussion about Colin above by admins that could be summarized as failing to assume good faith which is why I did not object to it when it was proposed yesterday. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
    Before the extensions were granted, I only read the first 500 words of each statement, as I said above. Once the extensions were granted, I read up to the extent of those extensions. I think the evidence indicates failures to assume good faith on Colin's part. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
    Just to note, Colin posted this on my talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
    No specific preference here as I have not read the evidence. -- asilvering (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
    I get Tamzin's discomfort with 'we really mean it this time' warnings, but I'm going to land here. Valereee (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
    I remain of the opinion that the correct options are nothing or a binding sanction. Colin continues to show that he does not understand the concerns about his behavior, and rather is in (and adjacent to) this thread continuing the same kind of behavior that is at issue. Contentious topics are a place where we need to see patience and compromise, not bludgeoning and battleground mentality. I find I'm left with no choice but to support a TBAN from transgender healthcare, second choice any subset of that that can gain consensus. Despite my impression that Colin is in the distinct minority of editors who edit the area without a partisan agenda (which isn't to say that he's right, just that if he's wrong it's not due to deviation from Wikipedia's purpose), that doesn't exempt him from the behavioral norms incumbent on all editors in the area. This paradox is not uncommon: People who are on a mission to advance some agenda often are more careful in their conduct than people who are just trying to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines (again, correctly or not). I don't know what the solution is here, but I don't think it can be "Let TBANnable conduct slide because other people deserve it more". Instead, I would encourage those who've commented here to please bring GENSEX AE cases much more often. I can think of at least four topic-area regulars who compelling TBAN cases could be made for. (And since I said this to Relm recently, allow me to more publicly make this general offer: If any good-faith editor [construed generously] would like advice on how to compose a good AE case, always feel free to reach out to me. I'm not going to give advice on the specifics of a case [so as not to force my own recusal], but I'm happy to speak in generalities.)
    All that said, my third choice remains no action, for the reasons articulated earlier. Although if we can get a rough consensus for a request for more GENSEX filings, I'd support that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
    Agree with Tamzin on TBAN/subset, but unconvinced that "no action" is the correct third choice, because it gives Colin the defense of "they took me to AE for exactly this before, and nobody thought it was worth acting on". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  • (Moved from Tryptofish's section)Given you took no part in the debates on the articles' talk pages, and came to this conversation late, this intervention gives me the impression that you are keen to settle old scores: If so, please do not do that. Graham Beards (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
    Graham Beards, given that your only two substantive comments at AE prior to this were defenses of Colin, perhaps you should reconsider throwing stones about glass houses? signed, Rosguill talk 20:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
    I stand by what I said. Tryptofish has said above "I have a long and unpleasant history with Colin" and then mentions discussions from years ago that in my view have no bearing here. Colin has been an editor for coming up to 20 years and as the author of WP:MEDRS among many other contributions, as earned the respect of countless contributors. It seems WP is quick to censure and reluctant to thank. I think this all boils down to Colin's making a less than diplomatic comment about a DYK. This should have been quickly picked up at the time. Colin's only motive was to defend one of our core policies (and one he helped to write). Graham Beards (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Rosguill, it looks like this was originally posted to Trypto's section? Perhaps Graham Beards didn't actually intend to comment as an uninvolved admin? Valereee (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I would love to see this closed, however the rough consensus I found received enough pushback from an admin that I decided not to be the one to close it and since then two other uninvolved admin comments from Tamzin and Sarek have weakened that rough consensus, though it was strong enough to begin with that it might still exist. At this point I think I'm too in the weeds to find the rough consensus that exists but encourage someone to find it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
    I'm seeing no consensus. Can we all get behind this closing statement? There is no consensus to impose a sanction at this time. Consensus did not develop to impose a topic ban, and there were strong objections to issuing yet another warning. Several admins expressed the view that Colin would have been blocked and/or topic banned had the complaint regarding his conduct at DYK been timely. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not disagreeing that this seems to be where we are, but I am really uncomfortable with what feels to me like we're saying "we're split between those who think a tban is too much and those who think a warning is not enough, so we're going to do nothing." Valereee (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    I think roughly as Valereee. That's not at all ideal, but I think it is an accurate summation of what we've actually got. Certainly, I don't have a better idea. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    Could we get behind something like There is no consensus to impose a sanction at this time. Consensus did not develop to impose a topic ban, and there were strong objections to issuing yet another warning. Colin has offered to avoid the topic area, so at this point we are taking him at his word and would expect him to come back here himself if he decides to start editing there again. Valereee (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    I don't expect that of him and this would in effect be a topic ban because he'd have to get permission before he edited again. I think Voorts summary is stronger because there was consensus that what happened at DYK was sanctionable. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    I agree. We're not imposing a voluntary TBAN and that just confuses the issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I have been following this discussion on my watchlist over the past two weeks and IMO a TBAN from GENSEX or transgender healthcare is the best course of action here, not because of Colin's viewpoint but because of their mode of participation. Ten days back, it appeared that a close with (1) a friendly nudge to a valued contributor to tone it down and (2) Colin voluntarily stepping back from the area, would be sufficient and sustainable. But seeing that even the strict word limits and admins empowered to enforce rules have not prevented this AER itself from turning into somewhat of a train wreck, I believe clear boundaries are in everyone's best interest.
I realize that my chiming in will perhaps delay even the proposed "no consensus" close and keep this AER open even longer but I believe admins should bite the bullet or we will be back here in a few months with everyone in the GENSEX area more weary. Abecedare (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I think we as admins are jointly more culpable for this being somewhat of a train wreck than Colin is (though Colin's actions have contributed to the difficulties); for instance it was not some action of Colin's which derailed what was then the consensus, it was admins. Which fair enough, it's our responsibility to figure out an appropriate response and to work out varying opinions on the right response to find a rough consensus (and indeed it's still fair despite your comment being one that could have been posted two weeks ago when it opened, a week ago when I proposed closing, or 4 days ago when Tamzin posted her most recent thinking). But holding our collective actions as a reason to sanction him feels unfair to me given this joint responsibility we as admins have. And if Colin is back here, it's not obvious to me the next step is going to be a topic ban, it might instead be a block so doing a topic ban now may be "biting the wrong bullet". Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay so as of now my headcount is:
  • TBAN from transgender healthcare: 3 (me, Sarek, Abecedare)
  • Logged warning / finding of fact that previous conduct was sanctionable:
    • And have commented since I proposed a TBAN: 4 (Barkeep49, Voorts, Valereee, Seraphimblade)
    • And haven't: 1 (Vanamonde93)
  • Have not expressed a conclusive opinion: 4 (Rosguill, Asilvering, ScottishFinnishRadish, Liz)
So I'll ping @Vanamonde93, Rosguill, Asilvering, ScottishFinnishRadish, and Liz, and additionally will invite any lurking admins to chip in. I understand that some of you may not wish to or have time to comment in that regard, but if even one or two do, I think that could get us to a workable consensus in one direction or the other. (Failing that, my meta-opinion is that there's no such thing as "no consensus" between two options with a rough-consensus standard, and that, with all arguments having been reasonable, the warning/FoF would pass by simple headcount.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Further discussion on rough consensus moved to talk page. Any admin can feel free to revert me. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm sticking with no specific responses an AE while I'm on the committee, so don't wait on me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm okay with a TBAN, but I don't feel strongly about it. I hope Colin does stay away from GENSEX for a while; if he doesn't, I think we'll probably see him back here sooner rather than later. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I stepped away from this quite intentionally: I felt I had said my piece, and I lacked the bandwidth to shepherd us toward consensus. I agree that we as an admin body could have handled this better by exercising discipline in when and how we commented, but I will note that Colin had the power to nip this in the bud by showing us he would strive to be a net positive in the topic, and did not exercise it. I am generally loath to sanction for behavior during a discussion of behavior when the behavior that led to it wasn't sanctionable. As such I still prefer a closure akin to BK49's and Voorts's suggestions above: that addresses, specifically, the worst behavior. But I will not stand in the way of a TBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I prefer the TBAN because it is clearer and enforceable, and Colin's responses during this AER, quite apart from the difficulty in arriving at a consensus among admins, make me wonder whether another warning will prevent a reoccurrence of the issues seen at DYK etc. But I am fine with a warning if that is where consensus lies (as it seems to), and if it works out, that would be ideal! Either way, I would recommend closing this relatively soon since Colin's complaint about the stress this is causing them is completely legitimate and understandable. Abecedare (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Wareon

[edit]
Rightmostdoor6 is topic banned indefinitely from all pages and edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, for battleground conduct. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
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 Wareon

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Rightmostdoor6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Wareon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBIPA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 20 May - Falsely alleges Hindustan Times and Mint as poor 'no weighty' sources.
  2. Reverts the productive edit by @Kautilya3:, signing summary as "no improvement". Later causing a pov template on the article.
  3. Politely told to abide by WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN in order to challenge reliable sources. But in turn, the usual combative behaviour followed [80]. In all fairness, the user is engaged in typical stonewalling, which could be frustrating for good faith editors.
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

5 years ago, but also recently

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Asilvering and Guerillero: Boomerang for asking to prove if the sources are unreliable? The user is repeatedly making WP:IDONTLIKEIT statements, you need to look at the given diffs. Another editor has also asked [81] them to either brief their revert or self-revert before it's too late. Wareon, I have likewise responded to the editor and suggested them to follow the same procedure, and you need a course correct in the entire page is full of discussions imposing the rule of discarding Godi media sources, we only recently saw this particular issue surging in. I'd ask you again to prove that these media outlets publish fake and poor news so that we can really avoid using them. I'm pretty much familiar with WP:P&G, surely this is not the general way to discard reliable sources. Hindustan Times has been cited more than 20,000 times, if we go by your way, we may need to remove every citation out there. Lastly, in order to divert this main report, you have completely misunderstood me on Talk:2002 Gujarat riots. There the context of my comment was related to Indian english, which is also raised by another user [82]. For that you need to familiarise yourself with WP:TITLEVAR. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Valereee, no it's not BF, but I don't know how it would affect this report if I'm not an XC user. I can see on top of this page that autoconfirmed+ users can file the report, that would mean the general understanding of our project is that we expect editors like me to be able to file a report. All I can say is that, I'm a quick learner, way quicker that I ended up here this soon. Now, I would again reject Simonm's allegation that I'm knowingly involved in any kind of "kicked off" mentality, when we have two other cases on this board; over ARBIPA. In the last 3 days, since this report was initiated, there were relatively calm or no heated arguments for "Godi media stonewalling" (at least not between experienced editors), which is a good sign of collaborative approach and mutual understanding. Right there in their #3 defence, Wareon is still sharing the UNO-burden problem with the editors in disagreement. Not to mention their disregard [83] to the ongoing talk page discussion. I don't know if these egregious problems are for admin attention but simultaneously, I may not report any such cases from now on. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Asilvering and Guerillero: I have briefed on Firefangledfeathers' talk [84] that why a boomerang is not for me. I have learnt from these recent issues. Should I take a break from filing reports? - Yes. Should there be sanction in order - No, I haven't made any poor contributions. The campaign of "Godi media" resulted in nothing [85], and now editors have moved on with other proposal such as carpet ban over India-Pakistan sources, it only reflects that I was in someway right in noticing this repetitive pejorative label by Wareon and Orientls. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[86]

Discussion concerning Wareon

[edit]

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

Statement by Wareon

[edit]
  1. Yes Hindustan Times and LiveMint are both Godi media sources, and cannot be trusted for offering a neutral analysis on the India-Pakistan conflict. Rightmostdoor6 has already been notified about it by an experienced editor.[87]
  2. Absolutely it makes no sense to blame me if someone else is adding POV template on the article.
  3. Burden is on the person who is using Godi media sources to prove their reliability, especially since the entire page is full of discussions imposing the rule of discarding Godi media sources.

To sum it up, Rightmostdoor6 appears to be just another editor who believes that using systematically biased Indian sources for this conflict is a good idea. He does not respect the actual reliable sources and instead tries to rely on what he feels is more popular in India as clear from his message right here where he says, "I'll tell you a fact. You can choose to disagree out of your bias, no problem. But the locals of the country have always called it a riot and would naturally continue to do so. So even if you succeed in changing it to 'Violence' the locals of the country are still going to continue calling it a riot. Even with all your 'scholarly' 'unbiased' foreign sources..try changing the minds of the locals and good luck with that". Such messages and this report proves this editor is regularly engaging in WP:BATTLE.

I would recommend a topic ban for this editor with just 238 edits so that they can learn the basic policies of Wikipedia. Wareon (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Kautilya3

[edit]

I don't think this should have been brought here. Yes, Wareon made a poor revert, which necessitated a {{POV}} template, but that kind of thing is part of normal editing, avoidable though it was. The talk page discussion is proceeding fine.

As for the "Godi media" issue, the sources I used were not mentioined on that page, but somebody provided evidence of governmental interference. So I think it is fine to question them. That is again part of normal editing.

So we shouldn't be here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

If there is a real fault here, it is the fact that Wareon made an edit, while the issues were under active discussion. The resulting text is now worse than both the previous versions, and it is going to take even longer at arrive at WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by HerakliosJulianus

[edit]

With the large amount of repeated assertions on Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos in labeling sources by denouncing as Godi media. This needs to go through the current ARCA referral, as it's evidently tendentious editing and heated arguments from the multiple parties. A well required ARBIPA2 seems necessary. Heraklios 20:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with Orientls on that ANI filing and also with Firefangledfeathers. The user is actually passing poor aspersions [88] and for that a report may have been warranted. The continuous "Consensus exists" remarks [89] by Orientls is not helping either. The Godi media jargon is really problematic, especially when they fail to cite any consensus that debar such sources, as noted by Gotitbro. At this point, I don't think any boomerang such as T-ban from noticeboards or IPA would be helpful and the ANI report of Ecrusized shouldn't be taken in consideration, because serious problems exist around the user. Nor I have found any poor mainspace editing by the OP. My 4 cents. Heraklios 21:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Captain Jack Sparrow

[edit]

While the statements and aspersions regarding "Godi Media" that were callously thrown around by editors were indeed quite egregious, even with a pattern of somewhat disruptive editing I'm not sure if this would have been sufficient for AE action. However, I note that Wareon's doubling down and their apparent defence of their use of "Godi Media" as a label to try and discredit sources is quite an unreasonable reaction. They are also incorrectly claiming that some sort of consensus exists against using any source they can label with the apparently arbitrary label of "Godi Media" - Indeed, the ongoing thread at RSN notes that users attempting to use the label as their argument can be effectively ignored, and I concur.

At the same time, I doubt that there is a sound basis for any boomerang sanctions. Most of the mainspace edits by the filer seem fairly reasonable, and I cant see any preventative value in a sanction unless a clear pattern of DE is established, which in this case there doesnt seem to be.

Statement by Simonm223

[edit]

Having seen the page at the heart of this dispute pop up at, like, all the noticeboards I went there to see what was going on and found what is, frankly, a dumpster fire. SPAs abound with many editors even openly admitting to managing multiple accounts. The rate of discussion is extreme and the rhetoric is very heated. I've told some editors before I don't believe the term "Godi Media" is particularly constructive but I have noticed a lot of decisions about reliability seem to have been started from the position of "does this source agree with me" and then a judgment on reliability is made on that basis. My first engagement at the page was over several editors who were trying to claim Al Jazeera was unreliable because it reported on details of Pakistan's actions that pro-India editors didn't want to see there.

However there's another problem here which is more apropos to this board which has been the clear WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics of attempting to get opposing editors kicked off the project on minimal or outright inappropriate grounds. That seems to be the case here. Criticizing the reliability of a source is not, absent evidence of some sort of disruption, something we should be disciplining. I would recommend a boomerang is in order here.

And then somebody should probably put extended confirmed page protection on article talk. New single purpose accounts on both sides of this dispute are being highly disruptive in aggregate. At least one, blocked today, openly admitted that they have a second account "for personal and test editing" which I sincerely doubt hasn't been used for socking. As such, and it's ether protect the page or block them all and do it all over again when they sock. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Abecedare

[edit]

Not directly related to this AE report but I have placed the talkpage of the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article under 1 month ECP protection as an individual admin action, in response to it, this ANI discussion, this SPI report, etc. Shouldn't preclude admins applying user sanctions in response to this AE report.

Wondering if there is admin appetite for applying temporary WP:ECR to the "2025 India Pakistan conflict" topic area? IIRC there was a discussion between Valereee and Barkeep about admins as a group having the ability and remit to apply such non-standard sanctions in CTOP area and IMO we need better solutions than playing whack-a-mole. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers and Barkeep49:, you are right about the admin I was intending to ping and thanks for pointing out the topic/pages nuance I had misremembered. I think we can put a pin in the ECR, or even mass-ECPing, discussion especially since it is not really related to AER. Can re-open it, if the situation doesn't settle with a passage of time. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Orientls

[edit]

@Firefangledfeathers and Asilvering: The term "Godi media" is used frequently by the news outlets[90][91] and scholarly sources.[92][93] For more scholarly sources, see the discussion here. While our article on Godi media is ideal, I would also add that this is not a pejorative term but a term used "to illustrate the hyper-collusion between the state and press".[94] It is used for Indian media outlets that actively espouse the ideological talking points of the Hindu nationalist ruling party of India (BJP).

Rightmostdoor6 is not a newish editor but an editor who is misusing noticeboards to get rid of opponents, as clear from his recent filing of this unnecessary report on ANI which also faced much criticism. This is a contentious area and we should not take more risks. Orientls (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Wareon

[edit]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Rightmostdoor6, you haven't really explained how these diffs violate WP:ARBIPA. -- asilvering (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
    Boomerang for asking to prove if the sources are unreliable? No, of course not. That would be normal behaviour. What is not normal behaviour, and indeed not acceptable behaviour, is taking someone to AE for no other reason than because they called a source unreliable and you disagreed. You say you need to look at the given diffs. I did. If you think those diffs are self-evident of an ARBIPA violation, one so egregious or chronic that it requires a trip to AE, it doesn't look like you have enough experience yet to work in contentious topics. -- asilvering (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
    @HerakliosJulianus, you also have not provided any diffs. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to go with a boomerang here --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  • So am I. Having watched that article for a while, however, another one will pop up straight away. But we can only do what we can do. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • This feels a little ABF-y, so apologies if that's what I'm doing, but does it seem odd that an account with 250 edits gets here? I feel like that's unusual. Valereee (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, they're in my WP:ARBIMH AfD data already as well. So they are certainly unusual, as far as new editors go. But as an editor who found myself at AfD before my 10th edit, I prefer to lean into good faith until it really becomes impossible. -- asilvering (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Abecedare, I'm pretty sure you mean Barkeep49. The "any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project" part of WP:CTOP#Contentious topic restrictions that I think you're referring to, in my analysis, is still restricted by the "editor restrictions and page restrictions" mentioned at the top of its section. A consensus of admins at AE could surely apply ECR to a page or group of pages, but not a topic. If ECR is needed for a subtopic of ARBIPA, I think ARCA is the way to go. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
    This was a discussion Valereee and I had recently. There I noted, AE admins can do ECR (or as Valereee was proposing something even more strict than ECR) for specific pages but couldn't do it for a topic area. So yes FFF has it all right in my view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Barkeep49, @Firefangledfeathers, do either of you have an opinion on @Guerillero's boomerang proposal? The sooner we close this particular thread the better, imo, lest we get half of ARBIPA dragged into it. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
    I can review in a few hours Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
    I have no opinion. Sorry, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • My main question is: is it obviously unacceptable to object to another user calling specific sources "Godi media"? I'm unfamiliar with this topic area, but it seems like a pejorative label, and from the discussions I'm seeing it certainly seems to raise the temperature every time someone brings it up. I agree with asilvering that "taking someone to AE for no other reason than because they called a source unreliable and you disagreed" is unacceptable. This filing has the additional color of the "Godi" issue, and I'm not sure how colorful it is. There are certainly other flaws in the report, with points 2 and 3 both being very weakly presented. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    It's certainly pejorative, but at least in my estimation, not "immediately drag someone to AE over it" pejorative. I figure equivalent in tone/politeness to saying something like "that's a garbage, biased source", though that's my own understanding, so caveat lector. Some background: [95]. Recent example in The Hindu: [96]. -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    I do suspect, based on what I know so far, that it's not a drag-to-AE-immediately kind of thing. That puts the dragging somewhere on a spectrum from [this is such an obviously bad idea that we should sanction a new-ish user for doing it] to [this is a mildly bad idea, trout and move on]. That's a calculation I'm having trouble with. In this space of uncertainty, I'd recommend something like a logged warning. I'd also be happy to put out a general, non-logged suggestion that there's almost always going to be a less inflammatory phrasing choice than "Godi media". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I think a logged warning and the accompanying suggestion is a good one. @Guerillero?
    @Orientls, all of those things (scholarly usage, intended meaning, etc) can be true at the same time as the phrase is pejorative. You don't call something "Godi media" when you're about to highlight its positive qualities. -- asilvering (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    Yes. Also the first linked scholarly source is not "using" the term but is describing use of the term by "critics". The second linked scholarly source is not actually a scholarly source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    Forget the logged warning. I had briefly seen the ANI filing that Orientis links but hadn't connected the dots. A boomerang TBAN seems warranted to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    Oh dear. Well, again, I'm with you. -- asilvering (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    I agree -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Cortador

[edit]
Content dispute. Please use dispute resolution --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Cortador

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Hipal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Cortador (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/AP WP:CT/BLP
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 07:24, 14 May 2025 20:38, 14 May 2025 20:55, 14 May 2025 15:11, 22 May 2025 Edit warring that obstructs article cleanup
  2. 07:25, 14 May 2025 08:19, 14 May 2025 21:08, 14 May 2025 Treating WP:CON as a vote rather than focusing on content (WP:FOC) and content policies, WP:BATTLE mentality.
  3. 17:20, 15 May 202518:35, 15 May 2025 WP:IDHT, failure to WP:AGF, failure to FOC, failure to WP:READFIRST - ignores that only the first ten sources had been reviewed at this point
  4. 19:15, 15 May 2025 failure to AGF, failure to FOC, obstruction of article cleanup
  5. 20:49, 19 May 2025 Refusal to address article content problems as described in detail in talk page discussion and FOC, failure to AGF, BATTLE mentality.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 12:49, 29 January 2021 16:36, 31 May 2023 05:40, 2 May 2024 Escalating blocks/bans for edit-warring
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)


Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe that the evidence here, and past discussions with others on his talk page, demonstrates violations of most if not all of Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Editing a contentious topic

Re Black Kite's comment [97]: I agree. Refactored.[98] I shouldn't have mentioned the tag at that point. --Hipal (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

17:10, 22 May 2025


Discussion concerning Cortador

[edit]

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

Statement by Cortador

[edit]

This issue started because Hipal kept adding whole-article tags to Hasan Piker, when this discussion 1 had made it clear that Hipal was the only editor supporting the tags, whereas at least six other editors (LittleJerry, Bluethricecreamman, jonas, CeltBrowne, Alenoach, and myself) disagreed with the addition. The talk page consensus was clear, so I removed the tags. Hipal also made other edits against talk page consensus, as per this discussion. 2.

Following that, Hipal started this discussion 3 where they made it clear that their intend was not assess issues with the article and then add appropriate tags, but instead add tags and then look for a justification afterwards. Evidence for this is is that when Hipal stated that they planned to add the tag again, they only had found one issue with one source, which was missing an author, but speculated that there had to be nine other sources with issues ("That's one in ten, so I'm extrapolating that there are some nine more."). Hipal also falsely claimed that nobody was objecting to this when Ratgomery and myself did, both on the talk page ("As there are no objections based upon the state of the article, the tag should be restored.") and in a diff description 4 ("no dispute over content problems identified"). Lastly, Hipal admitted to this in their statement here, where they stated that "only the first ten sources had been reviewed at this point". It is not appropriate to demand the addition of whole-article tags after only having reviewed ten sources out of (as of the making of this statement) 104 sources. This, in my opinion, further demonstrates that it was Hipal's intend to just have the tag there instead of providing evidence that it is needed.

They also attempted to revert the burden of proof, stating on the talk page that "No one has indicated that no further problems remain to be found". Demanding that whole-article tags be added until proven that they aren't needed is an abuse of tags.

I'm willing to assume good faith with other editors. However, this does has limits, and those include editing against clear talk page consensus as well as openly stating that it is one's intend to simply have tags on the article and search for a reason after adding them, which is disruptive behaviour. Cortador (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by MilesVorkosigan

[edit]

This issue was just discussed at ANI a few days ago.

Hipal was asked to drop the stick and communicate the specifics of their issue with the article using specific examples, not generalities or guesses. The filing of this request for enforcement suggests that this advice was not taken. I believe that the request is a waste of administrator's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesVorkosigan (talk • contribs) 11:36 May 22 2025 (UTC)

Hipal stated on my talk page that they had made (at least) two specific comments about the article and what was needed for it, one was on May 15 and it was addressed. The other diff goes to May 3 and as far as I can tell is Hipal saying that editors who wanted to remove the tag were not displaying competence. I don't see how that is helpful for their position, but there it is. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)  

Statement by (Ratgomery)

[edit]

Commenting because Hipal has also left me an edit warring notice over a revert regarding these tags, and because I was named in the discussion. Incase it's been overlooked, let me point out there are 3 talk page discussions regarding this exact issue in total, as I believe only one of these discussions has been referenced so far. [| POV_and_BLP_sources_tags] , [| Disruptive_Editing_and_Removals] as well as [| Complete_citations_needed] which has already been linked. Hipal has engaged with a large number of editors over these tags.

Statement by (username)

[edit]

Result concerning Cortador

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

CapnJackSp

[edit]

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

Request concerning CapnJackSp

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Azuredivay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
CapnJackSp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 10 April and 12 April - Gamed 1RR rule on Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 by making these two reverts in just 35 hours.
  2. 7 May - Made a problematic revert to restore the information sourced to an Indian magazine, but not an independent source even after knowing that he is required to use only independent sources for India-Pakistan military conflict information as evident from his earlier edit.
  3. 12 May - Resumes edit warring on Indo-Pakistani war of 1965.
  4. 18 May - Calls Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus a "massacre" and reverts another editor to impose this pro-Hindutva view. The sources are not calling it a "massacre".
  5. 21 May - Makes a problematic edit to infobox that waters down the independent claims about Indian casualties, and used France 24, a French state-owned outlet for discussing the loss of their own aircraft.
  6. 21 May - Attacking another editor by inappropriately accusing them of "serious WP:CIR issue" for not giving credence to unreliable Indian outlets due to the requirement of using independent reliable sources.
  7. 21 May - Attacking another editor for backing up their argument with links and is also inappropriately accusing them of stonewalling just because the editor (Slatersteven) correctly reminds editors of past discussions to avoid duplicate discussions.[99][100]
  8. 21 May - Confirms his ignorance of WP:RS by offering his totally problematic defense of the unreliable Indian media sources, frequently called Godi media, by proclaiming, "Most of the sources editors callously label as "Godi Media" are perfectly reliable sources, or as reliable as most news sources get. Them being sympathetic to the government for monetary or ideological reasons does not change that."
  9. 21 May - Using unreliable Indian media sources to make the claims where independent sources are required. Went to use even one of the poorest Indian website called FirstPost which is now well known for conspiracy theories including that "China and the United States have launched a propaganda campaign against India".[101]
  10. 23 May - Makes a misleading claim that the information according to third party sources about the losses of aircraft regarding India are not properly sourced. Does not explain how.

What I find even more ironic is, that CapnjackSp expects others not to commit the very violations he has committed in the diffs right above.[102] Months ago, he was promoting Hindutva POV on Goa Inquisition by claiming that Hindus faced forced conversions and destruction of Hindu temples. He provided 3 sources to enhance his argument and none of them supported his claims.[103]

In the last AE report against him, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive302#CapnJackSp, he was warned by Dennis Brown that "I am going to warn them firmly about copyright infringement in particular, as well as behavior. This means you have a short piece of WP:ROPE and you will simply be blocked without warning for either." To this day, his pro-Hindutva and pro-Indian editing continues even on highly contentious topics like India-Pakistan conflict where his behavior has been absolutely unproductive. Azuredivay (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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)
[104]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I note that CapnJackSp, in his response below, has engaged in selective canvassing, dodged the concerns about a few diffs, failed to address his misrepresentation of sources, and has falsely accused me of violating 3RR.

Outside here, he is now unnecessarily making revert to restore an opinion piece[105] in violation of WP:ONUS saying that consensus exists when the recent discussion discarded the use of opinion pieces at the talk page.[106]

What is more astonishing is, that he is casting aspersions against SheriffIsInTown here, claiming the editor created "the thread" in order "to single out Indian sources". He also made an off-topic comparison between India and Pakistan by falsely asserting that spread of misinformation is higher in Pakistan in comparison with India, despite experts surveying for the World Economic Forum’s 2024 Global Risk Report have ranked India highest over misinformation and disinformation.[107] His jingoistic and pro-Hindutva editing is continuing even after the report. Azuredivay (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  • @Tamzin: CapJackSp's voluntary acceptance of a topic ban from the India-Pakistan conflict addresses the problems with most of the diffs. Without any further ado, the thread can be closed with the topic ban he has agreed to. Azuredivay (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[108]


Discussion concerning CapnJackSp

[edit]

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

Statement by CapnJackSp

[edit]

I would like to respond to the report in a thorough manner - I find the report to be worded extremely deceptively. While I will note that much of this is a content dispute presented as WP:DE, I will still give my rationale for those edits that are challenged.

Going through the content disputes raised, if editors are interested - Collapsed for those who do not want to read through the rather large amount of text

The claim about "promoting Hindutva POV on Goa Inquisition" is a gross mischarecterisation - All I did was modify the material in the sentence in line with the concerns raised (The objection was "Hindus were not the only ones to be prosecuted as per the rest of body ", and I slightly modified to reflect this - After the editor raised concerns beyond the wording, I did not reinstate the material). After my edit was reverted, I did not edit war - I raised my concerns on the T/P and after discussing with the user, I added back the material we agreed on [109]. This textbook example of WP:BRD and collaborative editing being spun as WP:DE is highly deceptive.

  • Point 4 states that I was attempting to impose a "pro-Hindutva view" that RS do not support. I contend that my edit was completely valid - Many killings of Kashmiri Pandits (and Kashmiri Hindus in general) have been called massacres by RS, and editors could cross check any number of sources at 2003 Nadimarg massacre, 1998 Wandhama massacre and 1997 Sangrampora massacre.
  • Point 9 talks about an addition that had been made in wikivoice and removed (correctly). I added the material back, attributing correctly to media reports. Again, this is a content dispute - If the user would prefer "Indian media reports" instead, I woudnt have had any objection. The X link being shared has, as far as I can see, never been put forward at RSN or elsewhere.
  • Point 5 talks about "downplaying casualties". The current infobox uses multiple reports to synthesise something none of them say - My edit was simply an accurate summary of the sources in the article or those raisedon the T/P. After the edit, although the WP:SYNTH-problematic version was reinstated, I took my concerns to the T/P and have been discussing a possible consensus since.
  • Point 2 is about "reliability" of sources - The two edits are not contradictory, contrary to what is implied. There is no issue using RS from either country, especially when backed up by similar reports in reliable international media. It is however, objectionable to try and rush combat loss figures when the conflict is still ongoing and the reports are contradicting each other.
  • Point 10 is a partial quote - And the full quote [110], as well as my explanations in other sections currently open does indeed clarify my argument.
  • Point 6 and 8 are both about the use of "Godi Media" [a] sounces; the arbitrary usage of this inflammatory label by certain editors to discredit sources being problematic and against WP policies is not my opinion alone - I've brought this up a short while back in the filing above on Wareon. [b]

The seventh point is absurd - It is very clearly not a personal attack. I am not sure as to why Azuredivay would consider it a sarcastic remark directed at a particular editor - Especially since the two links of alleged "stonewalling" nowhere resemble stonewalling, and indeed were good responses to frivolous requests. It is common in many pages in contentious topics to cite a "previous consensus" to stonewall attempts at constructive edits, and my experience in the IPA area has taught me that even the weakest semblance of consensus in contentious topics can be used by disruptive editors to derail future good faith proposals. I was noting my dissent, but I had no proposals at the moment so I noted that too.

The only allegation of conduct violations are the reverts on the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. I encourage editors to go through this section (though it is rather long) that I had started after editors kept reverting, without discussion, the use of dubious sources to rewrite the results section of the article. Other editors trying to make changes to balance the "revised" results have also been reverted. I still intent to resolve the issue through an RFC as stated in the discussion; I have lost faith in the T/P discussion resolving itself after the quality of arguments went downhill, like the claim about how ChatGPT found the sources reliable. I have not made reverts post the failure of my two separate attempts to remove obvious POV content from the high visibility page, and do not intent to do so either till we get a firm consensus on the content. I note that this is not the only page where such rewrites of results have happened - many, including Gotitbro [111], Kautilya3 [112] pointed out similar issues.

I also note that while the filer has dug up a three year old ARE case (as a new editor, I had an incorrect understanding of how close was "too close" paraphrasing) and cited it as the "last" AE against me, they have left out the filing from two years ago - Perhaps, since that one was filed by a sock, and mirrors this one in that it was primarily a content disagreement.

I propose a WP:BOOMERANG on the filer - They have made several exceptional claims above, while their recent contribs show clear 3RR vios [113][114][115][116][117]. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Tamzin
I've gone over the edit in more detail. I agree that the number of eighty is unsourced, and overlooking that was lazy editing on my part. If I had to do over, I think the better way would be to list the recognised instances of massacres separately and cite them from their respective articles. The sourcing would, in that case, be much clearer too.
I would like to clarify that the edits above were made in good faith and were not intended to represent any one POV unfairly over another. However, if admins think this editing is one-sided, I am wiling to accept a voluntarily topic ban from the India-Pakistan Conflict topic area. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ The term, while having acquired some legitimate coverage/usage in sources, is still primarily used in converstion as a derogatory term to describe certain media houses as "lapdogs" of the current ruling party in India. For those uninterested in Indian politics, it would be analogous to the usage of "Fake News Media" as a label used in the American political context.
  2. ^ But I would suggest discounting any editor who throws around the term "Godi media" for these news organizations willy nilly, since that's more name-calling than argument and For what it's worth I agree that references to "Godi Media" are, at best, unproductive. are illustrative.

Statement by Kautilya3

[edit]

I am adding my two cents here since the majority of the complaints pertain to 2025 India-Pakistan conflict where I am involved.

The diffs numbered 1 and 3, deal with INFOBOX-warring on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. It is not uncommon for a large number of edits to get made in violation of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and, when an experienced editor runs into them, they have no choice but to revert a whole range of edits wholesale. To their credit, the editor started a talk page discussion where several experienced editors have participated. I don't think it is right to label this as "gaming 1RR".

The edit 4 is problematic in certain ways, but the editor is also right that there were some massacres that were part of Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits as it is called in popular parlance. (That is the version of that page before it succumbed to Wikipedia's systemic bias.) The right thing to do would have been to follow WP:BRD.

Coming to the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict, there are groups of editors trying to exclude any information or analysis that shows that India did well in the conflict. Third-party analysts like Tom Cooper, John Spencer and Walter Ladwig (the last of them an academic in King's College London, War Studies department) have been shot down on technicalities, and a long thread started at WP:RSN to exclude all Indian media from the page. Those efforts continue in this complaint itself, peppered with references to "unreliable Indian media" and "Godi media". They basically amount to partisan censorship and are not in the interest of Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

[edit]

Result concerning CapnJackSp

[edit]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I haven't gone through every allegation yet, but #4 jumps out as particularly alarming. CapnJackSp restored contested content that cited six sources for including Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus (piped as "1990 Kashmiri Hindus killings") on List of massacres in India: [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123]. None of the six uses the word "massacre", and the third one is an utterly unreliable source, a nonbinding resolution of the US House that appears to have never even passed committee, so just the opinion of a few politicians on the other side of the world. Furthermore, the first two, which were stated to support the "30–80" figure, respectively give numbers of "at least 30" and "32 ... [a] plausible figure". CJS' defense in this thread is that the use of the word "massacre" is supported on three other pages. Setting aside that the first isn't in the stated time period of the 1990s, and that sources existing on other pages don't exempt one from citation requirements, the fact that some RS verify that some massacres have occurred against Kashmiri Pandits does not verify the claim of up to 80 massacred, nor explain the references to higher body counts of 219 or 399, nor the link to an article about an exodus that occurred in 1990.
    @CapnJackSp, I would like to see a much better explanation of why you restored this content than what you've given, and I'd like to know whether you stand by that decision still. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Azuredivay: He hasn't quite agreed to it. He's agreed to it if admins think his editing has been one-sided, and so far 1 admin has commented (me) and I haven't decided whether I think there's a systemic issue. I'd like to hear from one or more colleagues first. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

DataCrusade1999

[edit]

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

Request concerning DataCrusade1999

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Wareon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
DataCrusade1999 (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:ARBIPA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 01:28, 5 May 2025: Showing entirely non-collaborative approach towards another editor, saying he will keep making reverts over "Islamist" vs "Islamic" and making accusations without evidence that the another editor is Islamophobic. He said: "First of all, please do not mention my name. I prefer not to engage with you, so feel free to proceed as you wish; I won't mind. However, I will revert any changes if I notice "Islamic" being used instead of "Islamist."" He added: "You can't insert your hatred of a religion in the article in this case the religion is Islam. DO NOT PUSH YOUR POV."
  2. 15:54, 3 May 2025 - Again, showing non-collaborative approach, assuming bad faith and making accusations without evidence. He said "You're violating NPOV by waging a religious crusade and giving the article a Hindutva tilt, so I suggest you remove yourself from this article altogether." He added: "please don’t respond to my comments. I might say something that you probably won't like. Let someone else handle this. I know you’re not fond of me, and I definitely don’t want to talk to you, especially after the whole non-argument you initiated in the Islamist section."
  3. 15:42, 6 May 2025: Failure to WP:AGF and attacking other editors. Says "any objection is just about your ego there's no merit or substance in any of your argument." He added: "there are always individuals who raise the censorship flag when they feel they are not being given the latitude to spread misleading information or impose their point of view on readers."
  4. 12:27, 24 May 2025: Totally disregarding WP:RS. Creates a false balance between "Indian and Pakistani sources" and reliable American news sources over the India-Pakistan military conflict and proposes a retaliatory action by saying "I'll gladly help in removing NYT and WaPo from vietnam war and war on terror or any other USA intervention".
  5. 12:33, 24 May 2025: Continues repetition of his false balance by targeting "every conflict page on Wikipedia starting from USA waged wars or conflicts," only because Indian and Pakistani outlets cannot be used for stating facts on India-Pakistan military conflicts.
  6. 08:24, 25 May 2025 - Again creating a false balance between unreliable Indian media sources and NYT. Engages in WP:BATTLE by wrongly claiming that another user is engaging in advocacy of banning Indian and Pakistani sources.
  7. 11:09, 25 May 2025: Continues his talk page disruption by saying "please don't launch defense for western media houses" and "So western media hosues have shown regret? well that may be how you have perceived things but it's not the case for me." To him, retraction of a story is not enough.
  8. 11:27, 25 May 2025: Sticks to his wrong belief that the RSN thread is demanding "blanket ban" by saying "I don't buy your reasoning I'm of the opinion that this whole thread is about instituting a blanket ban but you're entitiled to your opinion." See WP:BATTLE and WP:IDHT.
  9. 13:34, 26 May 2025: Makes an outrageous claim that "Both India and Pakistan are relatively free compared to Russia or Ukraine", when corrected, he doubles down with his claim, "Ukraine is under martial law. There are lots of things that Ukrainian press can't report most of the Ukrainian press coverage of war has been pretty biased".[124]
  10. 08:59, 27 May 2025: Not even trying to give up his outrageous belief that categorization of an article as "opinion piece" depends on one's own view. As such, he keeps rejecting the fact that this article is an opinion piece and is bludgeoning across the talk page to impose his view. Following diffs show issues with WP:IDHT, WP:CIR and WP:BLUD;
  • "I've said before IMHO RUSI analysis is not an opnion piece. But you believe otherwise and that's fine you're entitled to your opinion."[125]
  • "I've said it before and I'll say it again I don't think RUSI is an opinion piece walter has expert knowledge in this field."[126]
  • "This is your view and at best I can acknowledge it but nothing more than that."[127]
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)
[128][129]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The rampant display of battleground mentality, non-collaborative approach, and the failure to understand what others are telling is very clear here. Wareon (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Let me make it clear, I started this thread but wasn't requesting sanctions on Datacrusade1999. I just found that their conduct at talk pages and noticeboard as being unnecessarily combative. Another user recently was topic banned mainly for their conduct on talk pages.[130] I'd be okay that Datacrusade1999 should be alerted about incivility and other WP:TPG ethics, given it is the first time they have been reported here.

Let me address your points. Yes many editors do state their opinions (no matter how wrong they are) on talk pages, but most of them stop it after some time after becoming familiar with WP:TPG. However, Datacrusade1999 is continuing that, and his talk page comments are either derailing the threads from their actual purpose or they are getting unnecessarily heated.

This article is an opinion piece. It clearly says "The views expressed in this Commentary are the author's, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution." A similar source written by a subject matter expert that was not tagged as an opinion piece yet was removed as it was deemed no different to an opinion piece on the article recently through consensus.[131] Pakistan and India are more "unfree" than Ukraine with regards to reporting of the events. Datacrusade1999 was already told that Ukraine ranks at No.62 at the Press Freedom Index, while India and Pakistan rank below 150. The difference is huge. While we have no doubt over the situation of Ukraine over the ongoing war, the same cannot be said for India and Pakistan. Experts believe that India is going through an undeclared emergency,[132] while there are those including the former PM of Pakistan who says Pakistan is going through undeclared martial law.[133]

I would further disagree that Datacrusade1999 treating "NYT and WaPo" to be as credible as the concerning Indian sources should be considered a mere " hyperbole / a slippery slope argument". He was doubling down and repeating this misleading argument as the diffs show. This betrays the understanding of WP:RS and WP:RGW, and these unhelpful comments turn any talk page discussion unproductive.

The diffs about defending Indian sources in context of this conflict become especially egregious when you consider the fact that Datacrusade1999 was repeatedly referring to Indian sources as "partisan", "Godi media" for spreading disinformation in the context of this conflict,[134] and then suddenly advocates them on the RSN thread while trying to portray them better than the relatively freer outlets from western media and Ukraine while also misrepresenting the thread's motive. Wareon (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[135]


Discussion concerning DataCrusade1999

[edit]

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

Statement by DataCrusade1999

[edit]

A lot has been said about my lack of collaboration. However, "collaboration" cannot mean that I have to agree with every viewpoint put forward by other editors. I have my own perspective and worldview; if I don't believe in something, I won't agree with it.

Regarding RUSI, I've already stated that I don't consider it an opinion, and I acknowledge the differing perspectives of other editors. That is about as much as I can concede on matters with which I disagree. link

Much has also been said about the reliability of Indian media. As Wareon himself has pointed out, I am quite suspicious of "Godi media." This should indicate that I am aware of the issues facing Indian media. However, I also know that there are thousands of other media organizations in India that do excellent journalism.

Some editors are advocating for a ban on Indian sources. They claim they are not asking for a blanket ban, but anyone can look at the noticeboard and see the discussions taking place there. Needless to say, I do not support that kind of policy.

I cannot and will not agree to something that I don't believe in. It's important to note that my opinion is not more valid than that of other editors. If a consensus emerges where my views or sources do not find support or credibility, I am willing to accept that consensus and make my peace with it. I have nothing against anyone, but if I see something that I disagree with, I will speak out.

Statement by Kautilya3

[edit]

I am apparently the editor involved in diffs 1, 2 and 3. I admit that the editor has a bit of an abrasive style but I think their heart is the in right place. Their point was basically that calling a certain group of militants as "Islamic" would smear a religion whereas calling them as "Islamist" would attach them to an ideology. I understood their point perfectly fine notwithstanding all the barbs. Other editors agreed with their position; so I let it pass. Little did I know that it would get cited as evidence at AE by some one else for no good reason.

The majority of the remaining diffs have to do with a completely misguided thread at WP:RSN, calling into question "Indian media" based on a (pretty sloppy) New York Times article. Titled "How the Indian Media Amplified Falsehoods in the Drumbeat of War" it was bascially criticising mainstream television channels calling them "Indian media".

The filer says the editor held a wrong belief that the RSN thread is demanding "blanket ban". It was not a wrong belief. When asked "Did it mention any source we regard as WP:RS?", SheriffIsInTown, the originator of the thread, said [136]: "It raises a gigantic question mark on the reliability of Indian media and sources as a whole. That is why we are requesting that they not be cited in conflict-related articles." That obviously sounds like a blanket ban?

And, what exactly does the filer mean by "false balance between unreliable Indian media sources and NYT"? What are supposed to be "unreliable Indian media"? And why is it a "false balance"?

This whole thing seems to have been an exercise to bait the Indian editors and to get them to trip up so that they can get sanctioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

[edit]

Result concerning DataCrusade1999

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

Diff by diff:

  1. Quite rude. There is nothing wrong with asking someone not to ping you. The difference between "Islamic" and "Islamist" is an important one and replacing "Islamist" with "Islamic" where the latter does not apply could indeed be a form of Islamophobia. Which is to say, the portions you've quoted here are not particularly damning. The overall tone of that conversation, however, is pretty far from civil. I'm not terribly impressed by either participant (DataCrusade1999's tone is certainly worse, but Kautilya3 gets condescending in the first reply), but this is a single incident and Kautilya3 has already responded to this with equanimity.
  2. Not acceptable. Ownership, aspersions, and a bit of a veiled threat. Not good.
  3. See #1.
  4. Not violation. This is hyperbole / a slippery slope argument. This kind of argument doesn't tend to be well-received on Wikipedia, but it's not a conduct violation.
  5. Not violation. This is a more forceful restatement of the above. Editors are allowed to have opinions. This opinion does not strike me as particularly beyond the pale, either.
  6. Not violation. The other editor is indeed saying that there is prior consensus not to use these sources.
  7. Ish. It is not a violation of anything to have an opinion and state it. This is however unnecessarily personalized.
  8. Not violation... however. Having read the discussion, I certainly can understand why this editor has come to this conclusion. However, immediately above this is Man don't do this at this point you're beign rude I don't throw the "r" word around casually but it seems you want to earn it. and... yikes. I'm going to believe that the "r word" here is "rude" and not the word we usually mean when we say "the r word". I will block immediately if disabused of this belief.
  9. Not violation, reflects particularly poorly on the filer. This is again a statement of opinion. You do not violate IPA by having an opinion. That Ukraine is under martial law is a fact. That Ukraine does not have full freedom of the press is also a fact.
  10. Not violation. That is not an opinion piece. It is expert commentary. Whether expert commentary is reliable or not for any given statement is something that is decided on a case-by-case basis.

asilvering (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Conclusion: In my opinion, DataCrusade1999's conduct falls short of the "behavioural best practice" that editors are expected to adhere to in CTOPs. I could easily believe Kautilya3's assessment, the editor has a bit of an abrasive style but I think their heart is the in right place, but I could also be convinced otherwise. I hope a reminder about best behaviour is all we need here.
Regarding Wareon, however, I'm really quite unimpressed. They were the subject of an AE thread that only just closed ([137]), and which resulted in a boomerang for the filer. The situation is extremely similar: one editor is brought to AE by another without merit, for disagreeing that something is a reliable source. I'd be unimpressed by this filing at the best of times. This is less than 48 hours after a similar thread in "the other direction". For Pete's sake. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Asilvering: I haven't looked at the evidence in any detail (and will probably not end up doing so) but with regards to the "r"-word: my guess is that in the context the euphemism was used, it referred to "racism". See the comment they were replying to, which had already been described as racist in the comment immediately above DataCrusader's comment. Abecedare (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
    That too would be far better than the usual meaning. -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Since the filer isn't seeking sanctions but instead a warning and since the admins replying here aren't suggesting a topic ban or block maybe this discussion can be closed with an outcome of a serious caution provided. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

LesIie

[edit]

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

Request concerning LesIie

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Pravega (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
LesIie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Has violated WP:1RR on 2 articles:

  1. 27 May 2025 - Modifying the long-standing infobox without consensus
  2. 17:42, 28 May 2025 - Reverts to restore his edits
  3. 11:18, 29 May 2025 - Violates WP:1RR by restoring his edits.
  1. 17:45, 28 May 2025 - This is the first revert to implement misinformation that only the members belonging to eastern command of Pakistan surrendered.
  2. 18:30, 28 May 2025 - This is his 2nd revert. Still no attempt to discuss the edits.

The problems with his infobox edits are continuing for a long time. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 09:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)


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)

[138] [139]added by Tamzin after report was filed without awareness evidence

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Extraordinary Writ: While Leslie recognised that he violated 1RR, he still made no self-revert. I already mentioned that the problems with his infobox related editing are continuing for a long time. Just 2 weeks ago, he edit warred at the concerning page and used battleground edit summaries which can be seen here. Another example is here where he removed figures from Nawaz Sharif claiming he is from "an Opposition party", despite he was involved in the war. This is after he had got a warning here over his WP:OR in infobox. I would suggest topic ban from making infobox edits in India and Pakistan topics instead of a block for his 1rr violation. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 17:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The specific edit involved removing Nawaz Sharif’s claim. My rationale at the time was that Sharif made these statements after being ousted in a coup by General Musharraf, and that they may have been politically motivated to undermine the military establishment. I now understand that even if I had sourcing concerns or doubts about neutrality, I should have discussed it on the article's talk page rather than editing directly. However, we managed to reach an agreement and Sharifs claims remain, but separate from those of the official Pakistani claims.

I also admit that I wasn’t fully aware of warnings of restrictions at the time — I hadn’t fully read or internalized warnings and messages left on my talk page, which I now recognize as an important oversight.

Looking back, I see how my editing in this area — particularly in infoboxes or sensitive content — may have come across as unilateral or disruptive, even though my intent was to improve accuracy. I regret that and want to assure you that I’m here to contribute constructively, not push any agenda. LesIie (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[140]


Discussion concerning LesIie

[edit]

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

Statement by LesIie

[edit]

On the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 article, yes — it’s under WP:1RR, and I’m aware of that. But let’s be clear: I didn’t just randomly change things. I read the actual sources, I corrected the information to reflect what they really say, and I even added page numbers so anyone could verify it for themselves. My edits weren’t careless — they were fact-based and transparent. It was brought to my attention on the talk page that the information was greatly misinterpreted, I verified these claims to be true. The other editor reverted without addressing the content or even checking the sources. So yes, I reverted back. That may have technically gone over the 1RR line, but I wasn’t edit warring for the sake of it — I was trying to stop unsourced or misrepresented info from being restored.

On the Bangladesh Liberation War page — it’s not under WP:1RR, and there’s a new discussion on the talk page. I'm currently engaged with others there. The claim that I’m spreading “misinformation” is just wrong — My edit was supported by multiple people and the edits are based on what’s in the record, and again, sources are provided. The editor has not participated in this article themselves at all.

If anything, the other editor could’ve taken a minute to read what I actually wrote while verifying the sources using the pages instead of reflexively reverting. I’m happy to step back and talk things through, but good-faith editing with solid sources shouldn’t be treated like a sanction violation.

I’ll admit the WP:1RR breach is on me — I should’ve stepped back and gone to the talk page instead of making that second revert. That said, editors like the one who filed this report need to stop blanket-reverting without reading sources or engaging in discussion. It’s disruptive, it drags people into AE over technicalities, and it discourages actual source-based editing.

P.S. my edit was already reverted so i could not self-revert.

To show good faith and prevent further disruption, I’ll voluntarily refrain from making infobox edits or changing casualty figures on India–Pakistan conflict articles for a considerable period of time or unless I first get consensus on the talk page. I believe that’s a reasonable and constructive step. I realise i need to educate myself more on wikipedias rules and values before making bold moves.

That said, I respectfully ask that a formal topic ban not be imposed. I care deeply about this subject area and want to continue contributing to it — just with more caution and better collaboration from now on. I would like to request a mentor to help me, if possible, so that we can avoid future issues and I can improve in contributing.

Statement by (Worldbruce)

[edit]

I have nothing to add regarding contentious topics and 1RR. But LesIie has opened the door to broader behavioral questions about competence and integrity by claiming that they don't edit carelessly and make fact-based and transparent edits.

A serious counterexample is their 4-5 month old article William Harrison (brigadier), of which they have contributed 97.4% of the text. Every indication is that it is largely if not wholly the hallucination of a large language model. I raised on their talk page questions about why the sources don't support the content, why sources are falsified or fabricated, and why detection tools indicate that it has been generated using an "AI chatbot" or similar application.

They have not responded, other than to remove the part of my post mentioning LLMs, and to furiously rewrite the article.

As of this writing, the article has 39 inline citations. Nineteen are to non-book sources of varying reliability. Of them, two are dead links and only four of the remainder mention Harrison:

  • an internet forum post [141]
  • a blog [142]
  • a self-published collection of copyright violations[143]
  • a news portal with no reputation for accuracy or fact checking[144]

The remaining 20 inline citations are to one book that does not seem to exist (Feroz, Ahmad (2002). The 1971 War: A Retrospective Analysis. Karachi: Defence Publications) and eight real books (A Tale of Millions,[145] Bangladesh at War,[146] Surrender at Dacca,[147] The Betrayal of East Pakistan,[148] The Blood Telegram,[149] The Spectral Wound,[150] The Struggle for Pakistan,[151] and Witness to Surrender[152]). Only one of them, Bangladesh at War, even mentions Harrison – briefly on page 8, not a page that LesIie cites.

If there is an explanation for this article, I would like to hear it. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

[edit]

Result concerning LesIie

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

The Final Bringer of Truth

[edit]

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

Request concerning The Final Bringer of Truth

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Berchanhimez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
The Final Bringer of Truth (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/American politics 2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 5/30 Accusing another editor of vandalism in the edit summary to try and not be accused of edit warring (even though they were)
    1. The edit warring notice they were given.
  2. 5/30 Calling others "too many bad faith editors...who want to lean on their pointless knowledge of wikilawyering to manipulate process".
  3. 5/30 Accusing others of being "right wing editors who think they own the article and that anything not taken from congressional republican press release is NPOV".
  4. 5/31 "Just take your L and move on. You’re embarrassing yourself" - personalizing it and being rude to others.
  5. 5/30 clear admission they're just here to RGW of what they see as corruption in the current/prior Trump administrations.
  6. 5/30 calling something a "propaganda brochure" in the edit summary.
  7. 5/30 claiming their remarks were "humor" (when in reality they were not, but were tendentious).
  8. 5/28 accusing others of being "off wiki coordinators" in their edit summary.
  9. 5/30 creates userpage wanting to "kill all the wiki-lawyers". Also accused people of "cosplaying that this is a court of law". Even if this was "humorous" as they claimed in another edit, this is absolutely unacceptable behavior.
  10. Adding their first and second replies to this notice as diffs. I think they speak for themselves.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 5/25.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is clearly an editor that does not intend to contribute constructively in this topic area. The diffs above show tendentious editing and personal attacks against other users (including calling them vandals). I've collected the most recent diffs, some of which happened after I gave them a clear warning that they needed to stop. They haven't stopped, and they've actually kept going. It's clear this editor is not here to constructively contribute to the AP2 topic area. If they are here to contribute constructively they should be required to display such by editing in other areas constructively first.

There are many more diffs - basically all of their edits either have an edit summary they're attacking others, or they are attacking others on the talk page with the edit. It's clear this user is here to right great wrongs and not to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. I apologize for not going even further back in their edits to get more of them, but virtually their entire edit history is clearly battleground in this topic area. I'm not advocating for a full wiki block at this point, but a topic ban from AP2 would be beneficial until they learn how to contribute constructively. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Adding that I tried to give them one last chance to improve their behavior in the topic area, but they either chose to ignore the massive "you have new talkpage messages" notice, or they chose to ignore my attempt to give them one last chance. Thus, I ended up filing this report. For full clarity, I have not been directly involved with them in any discussions that I recall - I have simply observed their behavior on multiple pages and it is not acceptable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
@The Final Bringer of Truth: you may need to read being right is not enough. Your tone and conduct interacting with other editors is not appropriate. I will have no further comment to you (whether here or on your talk page). I will reply if other editors or admins ask me anything here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not going to reply to the user's rebuttals because I think they speak for themselves - I'll let this user dig their own grave. If any admins or other users have any questions for me, I ask you please ping me because I'll probably stop watching this complaint otherwise. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff


Discussion concerning The Final Bringer of Truth

[edit]

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

Statement by The Final Bringer of Truth

[edit]

I’ve never interacted with this individual in my life. I see nothing here but tone policing. Not once is article content mentioned. Does such a weak case even deserve an answer?

And my god, this is an encyclopedia, learn some Shakespeare

Also, the individual who I “accused” of off wiki coordination had themselves stated they were coordinating off wiki and cited an off wiki discussion as the reason for “boldly deleting an article.” This is very dishonest stuff. Be sure you understand a situation before opining. The editor cited an off wiki discussion as reason for “boldly removing” an article. I correctly advised that this is off wiki coordination and is unacceptable.

As for the accusation of vandalism, you be the judge of whether the following constitutes vandalism. An editor removed 3 reliable sources. After removing the sources, they then tagged the underlying sentence as needing citation. Then they deleted the sentence for needing a citation based on the tag, which they had deleted the citations. If this kind of behavior, like any vandalism, is allowed to stand, you cannot have an encyclopedia. This matter was discussed on multiple talk pages. The author of the enforcement request has had no involvement with the relevant pages and does not appear to have any understanding of the talk page discussions they are mentioning. They hope you will just take their word for what they say instead of actually reading them. Zero of the diffs cited by OP actually say what OP has falsely claimed they say. Again, this arb request has been made dishonestly and in bad faith and WP: Boomerang surely applies here.

You haven’t shown one poorly sourced or false or misleading edit I made to any article. Even someone seething with anger at me is unable to show a single bad edit I made. (Indeed, I always come armed to the teeth with sources and hew scrupulously to their content. I counsel OP to try doing the same.) All you’ve said is “I don’t like this guy’s tone!” That’s tone policing, is carried out in bad faith, and is a waste of time for all involved. Cheers friends

Maybe you need to read wikipedia is not therapy. We’re here to build an encyclopedia, not to soothe fragile egos and heal traumas The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please comment and reply only in this section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
This user’s tone isn’t nice either. I’m here to build an encyclopedia though. OP is here to police tone and has exhibited little to not interest in article content. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Rebuttal All you have to do is learn the content of WP: Synth, Toffenham. What do you mean “let’s assume it was speculation”? I showed you why it is speculation. The articles you cited don’t make the claim you cite them to claim. Hence your addition of that claim is your personal speculation. It isn’t in the sources. In an encyclopedia, we rely on sources and what they say, not the personal theories of editors on what a source might imply. You can’t add in your personal inferences or speculations about the outcomes of hypotheticals. Any editor would tell you can’t do that. Please read the many patient explanations I gave you. The articles you cited don’t mention democrat deaths and hence can’t be used to make your synthetic claim that the democrat deaths did not affect the outcome! That’s your personal speculation! Please Read Synth already!

At no point have I have been “radio silent” you are willfully lying to the Arb board there. Your sources do not claim what you say. Notice also you claim you were suggesting article changes without having read the sources cited. The sources you cited do not mention democrat deaths. Hence you cannot rely on them to make an inference that republicans would have not abstained if Connolly et al hadn’t died. There is no source that says that. That is purely your speculation and has no business in an encyclopedia, and you’ve been wasting everyone’s time because you don’t understand what Synth is. Show me even one article with a direct quote that supports your position. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration isn’t meant for complaints about tone either. This entire discussion is a bad faith waste of time and abuse of process. When you claim that “republicans would have voted differently if democrats hadn’t died” this is not a referenced claim, and this is not a claim that belongs in an encyclopedia. It is pure speculation. Read the sources, learn synth, and make better contributions to article space. That’s what matters. Not “tone” The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC) Moved comments to own section. Please comment and reply only in this section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
These editors have misrepresented edits to you, and have also been uncivil. At least I can say I positively contributed to articles and I was on the correct side. At least I can say I brought sources. All these 2 brought is dishonesty and incivility of their own . I care about improving the articles though not policing their condescension and dishonesty. They should follow my example or make way for editors who use sources in their edits The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Tofflenheim

[edit]

I started an innocuous discussion [[153]] on an (admittedly politics related) talk page stating that I believed a section in the article was misleading. I was not trying to delete, remove, or censor, but call to add context. There are a few proper responses to this, for example 1/ "do you have a source for this claim, or a reason to believe that the current wording is NPOV" or 2/ "I don't agree with the way you've characterized this, for XYZ reason".

Instead, The Final Bringer of Truth comments:

You are speculating. The material was very well sourced, the issue has been discussed in many sources (if you don’t read about the article topic you shouldn’t write about it, your ignorance is showing) and will be returned to the article.

OK. Let's assume I was speculating. This is a really aggressive approach. I'm trying to be civil so I'm replying, giving links and quotes from articles. But no matter what I do, he keeps escalating:

As for your irrelevant and unrelated BBC source it doesn’t say anything about dead democrats. It is also not about the final vote, making its relevance questionable. Hence your connection is synth and your own personal speculation. You may of course add material based on that reference if you like, but you cannot synthesize it with other sources that it draws no connection to, and I hope you understand the topic better before adding material.
Can you describe the policy basis for caring about an editors unsourced speculations and hypotheticals? No? Then stop. You are unequivocally wrong here.

30 minutes later, before I even get the chance to read his reply:

Still waiting on those sources that say the analysis in the cited sources is “misleading”… or was this just your idiosyncratic personal view of no relevance to anyone? Curious minds want to know!
Just take your L and move on. You’re embarrassing yourself

I finally take some time to review all the sources because I realize at this point, this guy is not trying to have a discussion, he is trying to belittle and attack everyone around him. I go to the article, find the passage that in question, and click the first source and find the following: diff1, diff2 So in his personal own source, there are claims that directly support the point I was trying to make. Since then, he's gone completely radio silent on the topic, avoiding admitting that he was wrong and that he needlessly escalated. I should have brought these up at the start, I admit that. but this guys behavior made it impossible to have a good faith discussion with his battleground mentality.

Patterns of behavior:

  • - starts with insults, such as calling others ignorant/misinformed out the game and questioning their ability to understand anything [[1]] [2]
  • - condescends others, then accuses them of being condescending and rude if they react to his aggressive tone [1] [2]
  • - considers all edits that disagree with him to be vandalism, irrelevant, or unsourced and praises himself and anyone who agrees with his judgements [1]
  • - threatens to "report people to the admins for fraud" whenever they edit or adjust his contributions [1]]

this is his pattern of behavior with everyone, not just me. he's literally still doing it, below, in his so called "rebuttal" (note he does not actually address the content of anything I've shared, he just hand waves it all as irrelevant and goes straight to insults. The general thesis is that I came to the talk page to talk, and instead of fostering a discussion that would have quickly led to the first couple of sources that agree with a claim I was making, this user got into an battleground mindset, aggroed on everyone, and then when others take the high ground and provide data and sources he doubles down and calls everything they're saying wrong.

Please reply on the talk page of the actual article, not here, so I can easily prove that you're wrong. This is not the right place, in fact I don't think you're really even meant to be making random rebuttal statements like this. Tofflenheim (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Moved comment to own section. Threaded discussion is not permitted at AE. Please make comments or replies only in this section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

[edit]

Result concerning The Final Bringer of Truth

[edit]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • In these diffs, and indeed in their conduct here, I am seeing that The Final Bringer of Truth has a habit of incivility and nastiness in the AMPOL area, and apparently has no intent of changing that. Given that, I think they need to be removed from the area. I would note to Tofflenheim that editors who participate here can be sanctioned based upon such participation, and calling someone "unhinged" is also uncivil and inappropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CorbieVreccan/Admin_Toolbox&oldid=1279217572"