Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive357

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

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

Appealing user

Flavor of the Month (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Flavor of the Month (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Banned from discussing American politics on any Wikipedia page for a period of one year by User:SarekOfVulcan for posting "excessive contrafactuals" on an article Talk page. (His words, not mine.) [1]

Administrator imposing the sanction

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• Notification

Review my diffs. I am fully prepared to back up every word I've said with sources that anyone, even the most rabidly partisan editor of Wikipedia, will agree are reliable. I ask that the ban be lifted for this page, so that I can prove my case. Sarek put me in a Catch-22. My defense is that everything I post is 100% true, but I'm not allowed to prove it -- because that would violate the topic ban. Flavor of the Month (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you haven't heard a particular fact yet, or if your favorite sources have called it a "conspiracy theory," perhaps you need to find some more reliable sources. The most notorious "conspiracy theory" that turned out to be 100% true is "Hunter's laptop is NOT Russian disinformation." That happened in October 2016. The FBI had already authenticated the contents of the laptop in 2015, but chose to remain silent. And we finally found out that yes, it was authentic .... 2-1/2 years after October 2016. Take careful note of the very, very careful timing.

• Then there was "COVID vaccines are NOT safe and effective."

• And "The COVID virus DID come from the Wuhan lab."

• And "If you take the vaccine, you CAN get sick, you CAN die, and you CAN spread the virus."

And there were many more, focused on politics rather than public health (so they're affected by the topic ban), all labeled as "right-wing conspiracy theories" until they turned out to be 100% true. You may believe that what I've posted are "conspiracy theories." To that I would respond, "Wait six months, or a year or two. Even your favorite, allegedly reliable sources won't be able to deny it any more." Flavor of the Month (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• They're not "conspiracy stories," and I say again, I'm prepared to prove every word I've said, with sources that even you will agree are reliable. But Sarek has put me in a Catch-22 here. I'm not allowed to discuss it, so how am I supposed to defend myself? Flavor of the Month (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to respond? Because Boasberg's starting point -- that district court judges can issue nationwide injunctions against the entire executive branch and are, therefore, the de facto co-presidents of the United States -- has, in fact, been reversed by the Supreme Court. [2] And if I may say so, Justice Barrett's smackdown of Justice Jackson was epic. Legendary. Several legal observers, on both left and right, have made the same observation. Boasberg's conflicts of interest are fully discussed in that diff, and the "appearance of impropriety" standard is well-known. Flavor of the Month (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC) Comment moved to own section. Please only comment or reply in this section; threaded discussion is not permitted at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

I didn't say the left "applauded" it. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Legal experts on the left recognize that it was a smackdown of epic proportions, and that we've seldom seen anything like it before between two Supreme Court justices. [3] Here's MSNBC, since it appears you like that source: [4] Flavor of the Month (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were trying to make it sound as if they thought it was a good thing. Comment moved to own section. Please only comment or reply in this section; threaded discussion is not permitted at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Boasberg's starting point was, in fact, overruled. He can no longer issue nationwide injunctions against the president to prevent the deportation of dangerous criminals. Read the CASA, Inc. decision. I decline to engage in greater detail, since the topic ban is still in place, even on this page. So if you continue, please bear in mind that you're beating up a guy in handcuffs with duct tape over his mouth. Not very sporting. Flavor of the Month (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC) Comment moved to own section. Please only comment or reply in this section; threaded discussion is not permitted at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

The clearest argument against revoking the TBAN is the user’s own words. In response to being asked to not put their own commentary into an article, they posted *this*:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFlavor_of_the_Month&diff=1282562336&oldid=1282359864

Personal attacks, extreme NPOV, several different conspiracy theories, plus it is almost all opinion, not the claimed “facts”. The editor claimed that this diff shows they’re a MODERATE.

And as SCOTUS said, clearly wrong on the law.

I see no sign that they’ve learned to put less trust in disinformation and conspiracy theories since. We’d just have to go through this all over again.

I would suggest trying to get a reputation for quality work in non-controversial subjects before appealing again.MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re just providing further proof that you are incapable of even *attempting* to edit with a neutral point of view. And confirming what I said about how much of your posting is editorializing instead of facts.

The weird choice to bring up a “smackdown” (and lie that people on “the left” applaud it!) is more of the same. You are here to “win” for your ideology. We are here to write an encyclopedia.

If you can’t even avoid such extreme partisanship an ANI, how could you be trusted as an editor? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you could not, which is why you lied just now and claimed that this video supported your (then) claim. Don’t assume people won’t check citations.

Or when you claimed that SCOTUS over-ruled Boasberg. Misinformation like this doesn’t work as well on Wikipedia as it does on Twitter, people read the sources. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as I said, you got two entirely different cases confused and are now appearing to admit that you knew this, and lied deliberately.

If you can’t stop lying even while appealing a ban, then the ban should not be overturned.

We are not here to be a debate club, or be “sporting”. We are here to write an encyclopedia and you have made clear that you Are Not. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I was always a bit unsure as to whether the reasoning given by SarekOfVulcan for the ban ('"excessive contrafactuals') had rather missed the point. The actual issue at Talk:Jared Lee Loughner wasn't so much the random 'contrafactuals' but the total failure of Flavor of the Month to acknowledge that Wikipedia policy is built around sourced content, rather than politically-motivated speculation accompanied by demands to disprove the same. What was supposed to be a discussion on content turned into an exercise in soapboxing, driven by someone with an obvious agenda, and an equally obvious urge to impute sinister motives on anyone who disagreed. Time and time again, we got the same facile because-I-say-so refusals to contemplate any evidence beyond that supposedly 'proving' their exercise in mind-reading. This didn't come as the slightest surprise to me, having already been on the receiving end of exactly the same thing on my talk page. [5] In my opinion, Flavor of the Month got off lightly with a topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding starship.paint's offer below to "engage Flavor of the Month on their talk page to explain what went wrong", while I can understand the thought behind it, I would have to suggest that this would very likely devolve into a discussion clearly in breach of the topic ban. I'd also add that even if such explanations were appropriate, they might be better coming from someone who hadn't just chosen to involve themselves in the Loughner content dispute at the same time. [6] Starship.paint is naturally as entitled to discuss such content as anyone else, but doing so while engaging with FOTM, topic-banned for their behaviour in the same place, seems less than optimal, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I reverted FOTM twice at James Boasberg [7] [8] I will recuse from the resolution, apart from removing FOTM's inappropriately placed response in the administrator's section and to remind them that they may not post in sections other than their own, and to limit their total responses to 500 words. I placed the contentious topics notices on their userpage after that revert, and I don't see that they have made any effort to take the notice seriously, or to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground. That this conduct continues into this appeal to me confirms that the topic ban is necessary. Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a CT notice for Covid, since it has come up here. Acroterion (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The fact that FOTM spends nearly 100 of their allocated 500 words relitigating Hunter Biden's laptop, which has absolutely nothing to do with their behaviour on Talk:Jared Lee Loughner for which they were sanctioned, does not give a great deal of reassurance that they are not going to treat this topic area as a battleground. Especially given that, despite repeatedly making claims that they are just noting "facts" (e.g. [9], [10], [11]), and specifically making note of the very, very careful timing, all of the dates they give are wrong. The Hunter Biden laptop controversy did not break in October 2016 but October 2020; the FBI investigation into the laptop was not in 2015 but 2019. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try to engage Flavor of the Month on their talk page to explain what went wrong. It will be necessary to examine their past actions and I hope admins will grant that latitude despite their topic ban. Thanks. Disclaimer that I've edited James Boasberg before but I have never engaged with this user. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I haven't really interacted with our appealing editor nor the areas they have edited in, but I must say that if the dotpoints mentioned in their appeal indicate the next CTOP they intend to edit in, I'd expect it to be equally poorly received. BANEX covers the limited exception of discussing a topic for the purpose of appealing a ban. It does not mean that one should drop a... let's say "learned discussion or discourse", on how one is actually completely factually correct on a matter and it is the allegedly reliable sources that are wrong, while complaining about how one is not being allowed to prove it so. The intent of the exemption is for the appealing editor to make a case that they will not be disruptive in a topic area. Whether one is allowed to make a statement does not make commentary on how "epic" or "legendary" a "smackdown" is relevant (the editor is evidently aware of the concept of editorialising given this edit summary) and such comments are unlikely to engender confidence on one's likelihood to adhere to expected standards of behaviour, at least in my opinion, which is the actual matter at hand. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it appears to be true that sources did a poor job initially with Biden's laptop, I'm not sure how that's relevant. This is a good block as the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is intense. There's also more WP:SYNTH here than in a 1983 album; when FotM uses a reliable source, it's used to support or link to conclusions they personally draw and argue for. This is most apparent on the Zeitgeist discussion. By design, we don't connect the dots, but report the reliable sources connecting the dots. FotM may become a net positive, but while they learn how Wikipedia works, it's clear there's zero benefit to the encyclopedia from their involvement in WP:AMPOL. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It's a sad state of the world that there is a large-scale (social) media landscape supporting these conspiracy stories. Flavor of the Month, I would recommend a website like groundnews to you which tries to find coverage from different political leanings. In the meantime, I do not believe you can constructively edit this topic area when you seek to right great wrongs using conspiracy stories. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I would agree with Femke. Flavor of the Month, I think you need to gain some experience editing in less controversial areas before you return to this particular contentious topic. I would decline the appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, the editor needs significantly more experience editing before editing in this highly contentious topic. FotM, learn to edit by editing something noncontentious; other editors in those articles tend to have a lot more patience with newbie mistakes. Valereee (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Absolutiva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

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

1. 18:51, 8 January 2025 helpful links (violates MOS:GEOLINK)
2. 00:34, 31 March 2025 helpful links (violates MOS:GEOLINK again)
3. 21:27, 07 May 2025 MOS:INFONAT
4. 17:19, 25 May 2025 no consensus
5. 10:37, 13 June 2025 MOS:INFONAT
6. 10:43, 13 June 2025 no consensus that we should replace "Russian Empire" with "Russia"
7. 16:59, 14 July 2025 no consensus

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite block for topic ban violations, see block log and see enforcement log

Administrator imposing the sanction

Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear asilvering, it could be any edits, excluding good faith mistakes, that disrupt the Wikipedia articles, it could be obvious and major or hidden. Besides major and obvious ones, writing unsourced information, removing sourced information, disrupting a page to align with certain political agenda or POV. For sockpuppet, as I already referred in my case, I would gather evidence and as I did before I would create a report in the necessary board. In case of big disruptive edits I would ask for temporary or permanent page protection in ANI. I know my topic ban also covers sockpuppet investigations in AA topic area. Göycen (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC) Copied reply to asilvering from user talk page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Guerillero, Göycen already has an indefinite tban from AA, placed in June 2024. Topic ban violations led to a 1-week block in June 2024 and the indef block placed last month. One issue with their last AE appeal was that they did not initially mention the tban; this time, they do mention it in their second bullet point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping this can get a little attention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, I'm sure there's no written rules about consideration of more than one AE unblock request. I'd suggest to you that we'd be better off without an unwritten rule. We don't have such an abundance of AE admins that we can afford the attrition of multiple unblock requests, and this sort of appeal is not at all a review of the previous decline's merits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade, TBAN already exists. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fair enough, @Firefangledfeathers. We're now at 2:1 on this, which isn't exactly WP:1AM, but I'll take my lumps. I Don't Like It, but I like leaving editors hanging for two weeks even less. Will have another look. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It sounds like this user has identified specific, concrete actions that he or she must refrain from performing in the future, and it seems from admin replies that the user has identified them correctly or close enough to correctly. I note that the user offers an informal arrangement rather than a formal topic ban, and at least two admins want a formal one. I offer this: A topic ban with an expiration date, one year, five years, doesn't matter so long as it is automatic and long enough for the user to have established a proven track record. That would probably be the smoothest scenario for all parties. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Will they be able to, though? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: In theory. In practice, eeeeeeh... Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Procedural comment responding to asilvering I disagree that AE admins who decline a request are as INVOLVED as the admin who placed the block. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I am open to this appeal, but the topic ban from AA needs to be real and not an informal agreement. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Just posting to prevent bot archiving; I'll try to dig into this more when I can. I don't want to see an appeal get archived without a decision actually being made on it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I would agree with Guerillero's suggestion, an unblock with an actual topic ban from AA, not just an informal agreement. And a clear understanding that any further misconduct is likely to lead to the indefinite block being reinstated. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the response, I'm withdrawing my support for an unblock. None of writing unsourced information, removing sourced information, disrupting a page to align with certain political agenda or POV is vandalism. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if everyone else supports an unblock, I suppose I won't stand in the way. Göycen, I certainly hope you'll take on board the advice you've received here; "vandalism" has a much narrower definition than you seem to be under the impression of. Adding random profanity to an article is vandalism, but even an obviously POV edit is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Göycen, sorry for the "pop quiz" questions after you've already written such a lengthy unblock request, but: can you explain a) what we mean by "vandal"/"vandalism" on Wikipedia, and b) what you would do if you spot an account/IP that you think is a sockpuppet? -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade, hold on, I think we can work with this.

  @Göycen, I'm glad to hear this about sockpuppetry, in particular that you understand that you can't deal with AA related sockpuppets while under a topic ban. Regarding vandalism, you say it excludes good faith mistakes, which is good. But it's very important to be aware that vandalism excludes good-faith editing of any kind. If someone is here because they are attempting to improve the encyclopedia, even if they are pov-pushing, removing sourced or unsourced information, etc, they are not engaged in vandalism. I asked the question about vandalism partly because you had previously given this as a reason for intervening in behaviour you found disruptive, and this is part of what led to your earlier problems. But the other reason I asked this question is because I hoped your response would also answer a much more important question, namely, "what does WP:AGF mean to you, in practice?"

  You don't need to respond - I have more to say here and I think we can work with this appeal, but I have to step away from this and I wanted to get at least this bit up so that your appeal doesn't close as declined before I make it back. -- asilvering (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, back. I'd be happy to support an unblock with AA topic ban this time around, if you believe you can make a real, genuine attempt to change your relationship to WP:AGF. It looks to me like you understand the meaning of AGF perfectly well, but that you allow your assumption of good faith to drop far too easily. It's easy to AGF when people aren't doing things that look disruptive or like pov-pushing, but it's when they are doing that that it's most important to AGF. You don't need to accept bad edits and do nothing about them, but you do need to believe that they're bad edits made for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. That means engaging politely and helpfully with other editors, and only giving up on communication when they make it very clear that they're just here to trash the place. -- asilvering (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Darkfrog24, if this editor ends up with a proven track record, they will be able to appeal the topic ban. I don't see any reason to make it time-limited, especially when all of us in support have supported with some form of "support, but..." -- asilvering (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Darkfrog24, yes? Why wouldn't they? No one's handing out unappealable bans. -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support unblock, as the topic ban if followed should suffice and this editor seems to be sincerely trying. But Goycen, you really, really need to get clear on what constitutes vandalism before you revert anyone on any page as "vandalism". In fact, if you still believe adding unsourced content, removing sourced content, or pushing a POV is vandalism, you should not be reverting vandalism at all. I also want you to be very clear: if you see an AA edit that you believe to be a sock, you cannot report it anywhere, you cannot open an investigation, you cannot ask anyone else to open an investigation, and if an investigation is opened, you cannot comment. I know that sucks, especially when you're probably the expert in that sock. I have placed all of the food-related articles you've edited on my watch. Valereee (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this with an unblock (the existing topic ban will remain in place). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was hoping to get a response to my 6 July comment that would make me more confident in "support unblock", but right now I'm at "doesn't oppose unblock", so don't let me get in the way. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:GENSEX / WP:3RR

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

1. July 2-10 - 3RR vio to describe a form of conversion therapy as a "controversial treatment"[12][13][14]. Did not go to talk when asked
2. Jul 1 Removal of sourced material with forumy comments
3. June 21 - July 1 - 3RR vio to remove material about false claims about desistance[15][16][17]
4. June 2024 - Edit warring / 3RR at conversion therapy about gender exploratory therapy[18][19][20]
   • July 1 2025, puts similar material in again[21]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Warned for edit warring at puberty blockers June 2024[22]
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Jul 2 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Simply put, Anywikiuser has a long history of edit-warring in GENSEX to push WP:PROFRINGE content. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth I forgot about the 24 hour aspect. But I would character AWU's behavior as edit warring in violation of the spirit of 3RR - seemingly deliberately attempting to skirt it. Also, points 1 and 3 each have an additional revert I missed

1. For Zucker
   • July 1 AWU rewrites section[23], I revert noting talk, July 2nd adds it again[24] without summary, @Snokalok reverts, July 2nd adds it once again[25], I revert asking him to stop edit warring and take to talk, then he redoes the change July 10th with no intervening edits[26]
   • There was also a discussion at talk on the material I'd already participated in and I was not the only to revert his changes
2. The snarky comment isn't AE-worthy, this is mostly about edit warring, other poor behavior is additional evidence not the focus
3. Same issue as 2, skirting 3RR and I missed some diffs. After the June 21st edit[27] removing the note on desistance, makes 4 gnoming small edits to other articles the same day, before immediately reverting June 30.[28] Then he deletes the whole section July 1st[29], then he deletes a larger section containing the whole section[30]
   • Ie, he removed the same content he objected to one on June 21, once on June 30, then twice on July 2nd
4. That's 3 reverts in ~36 hours, followed by giving up, followed by reinstating the same change a year later. I don't think edit warring is acceptable if you just wait in between trying to push the same edit

Also, there was past edit warring at the puberty blockers article June 2024, so this has been a problem for a while. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note AWU's recent argument he doesn't know which sources can support an allegation of conversion therapy is novel. He never raised this issue before or with present sources. And Zucker has gone on record stating the goal is preventing "transsexualism" repeatedly... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anywikiuser not trying to get users you disagree with banned. - I am reporting you for edit-warring, for repeatedly reinstating content you want (usually without edit summaries) while ignoring editors asking you to use the talk page. And for, when you're up to 3RR, waiting and then going back to the same edits. Not because I disagree with you. The fact you're edit-warring to introduce FRINGE content is secondary to the fact that is unacceptable editing practice from anyone in any situation. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified

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.

My response to the allegations:

• July 2-10 "3RR vio" - this allegation is false. The 3RR rule is not to revert within 24 hours. I made only two reverts on 2 July, then made a similar but different edit a weak later. This is serious allegation to put on a WP:BLP article, especially as he ran his practice in Canada, a country where conversion therapy has since been made a criminal offence. I actually understand why some would see Zucker's methods as conversion therapy, but this is a complicated case because Zucker also supported gender transitioning for children. Instead, his methods are being proclaimed as conversion therapy based on primary sources.
• "Did not go to talk when asked" - The user actually said "See WP:FRINGE and the talk page" (emphasis added). It was not a request to have a discussion on the talk page. Even if it had, my earlier experience with the Conversion Therapy page in June 2024 was that the ensuing talk went absolutely nowhere.
• July 1 - This is simply an edit they disagreed with. Fair enough if the "forumy comment" was inappropriate.
• June 21 - July 1 "3RR" - this allegation is false. I reverted once, then made an alternative edit, and another to a separate section. As sources like the Cass Review and this one note, it is uncertain as to how gender dysphoria in children results in persistence/desistance.
• June 2024 "3RR vio" - this allegation is false. I reverted twice within 24 hours, then tried a smaller edit. The other edit I made to the page ("July 1 2025") was not until over a year later.
• "Warned" - The warning and alert came from users, not moderators. Any user can post such a warning, though it's not something I do myself.
• "push[ing] WP:PROFRINGE content." There is legitimate scientific uncertainty about gender dysphoria in children, hence why medical institutions have come to differing views in different countries. From my perspective, having seen UK medical institutions take a cautious stance, Wikipedia's coverage does not acknowledge the uncertainty, but it may appear different to users in other countries.

I'll lay my cards on the table: I think that trans people should be accepted in society and able to live their lives, free of harassment, discrimination and shame. I oppose the inflammatory politics of the Trump administration and have concerns about the recent UK Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act.

I'm more than happy to work with users who have differing opinions on the subject matter to me, but that requires flexibility and willingness to compromise on their part, not trying to get users you disagree with banned. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

AWU's edit warring at Kenneth Zucker included multiple reverts with no edit summary (1, 2), and no engagement with the talk page discussion. When I dropped the CT alert template, I remember being surprised that he'd been around for years and thousands of edits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@anywikiuser

Regarding Kenneth Zucker: By technicality it's not 3RR, but reverting three times without engagement or a genuine attempt to resolve the conflict is still edit warring in every meaningful sense. Additionally, they're not primary sources, they're two books and an academic paper, those are secondary sources. And lastly, according to the sources in the body, it's therapy the explicit goal of which is to make transgender children identify with their AGAB because cisness is directly seen as the preferable outcome. That's conversion therapy, flat out. Wikipedia is under no obligation to soften that.

Regarding desistance: Again, it's still edit warring.

Regarding conversion therapy: Again edit warring, and also this is such a false balance rewrite.

Regarding The Cass Review: The Cass Review is not a reliable source for anything but what The Cass Review says. That's why the entire global medical community outside the UK has openly rejected it. It cannot be cited for contentious or MEDRS claims, and it's not helpful for editors to take it as an indicator of what a page should say.

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

• Looking at the diffs:

  Point #1: First diff is 15:40 1 July 2025, second diff is 12:12 2 July 2025, third diff is 11:04 10 July 2025. This is not a 3RR violation. 3RR is "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Even if all three diffs were in the same 24 hours, there are only three, not more than three. While Anywikiuser didn't go to the talk page, neither did the OP.

  Point #2: The edit comment is definitely snarky and not really a good look, but I'm not seeing that a one off snarky comment not even directed at a specific editor is something worth bringing someone to AE. Just removing sourced content isn't against the contentious topic rules.

  Point #3: First diff is 21 June 2025, second diff is 15:00 30 June 2025, and third diff is 12:45 1 July 2025. So we have two edits within 24 hours, but the first edit is nine days previous, and there aren't four diffs within 24 hours, so I don't see the 3RR violation in these diffs.

  Point #4: First diff is 17:19 19 June 2024, second diff is 13:29 20 June 2024, third diff is 9:39 21 June 2024 which again, isn't a 3RR violation. The fourth diff is from 1 July 2025, so over a YEAR after the third diff. Still not a good thing to be edit warring, but it's not a 3RR violation.

• I'm not opposed to an informal warning to drop the snark, use edit summaries, engage with the talk page more (I do see they did some engagement), and stop reverting quite as much, but it's most definitely not a 3RR violation. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• To me, the response by awu is not satisfactory, and does not seem to recognise that edit warring short of a 3RR violation is problematic. Instead, they indicate they've given up on discussion as one discussion was frustrating to them. Dismissing an edit warring warning because it didn't come from an admin is also not great. For the edit warring, I would think a sanction might be appropriate (WP:1RR limit?), or, if we see recognition here about how disputes should be resolved, a logged warning. In terms of pro-fringe pushing, is there on-wiki consensus that the Cass report is unreliable? Or even fringe? To me uninitiated eyes, the edits do not fall squarely into this bracket, but that might be because I'm not sufficiently familiar with the sourcing. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Cass report is reliable for stating what the Cass report says. The issues with it are threefold. (1) its findings have been strongly and widely criticised, and not just by advocacy organisations, but also by clinicians and clinical bodies (2) Its findings have been misreported, eithe accidentally or deliberately, and misinformation about what the report actually says has spread into even other reliable sources (3) As even Cass herself has admitted, it has been weaponised by transphobic people and organisations against trans people. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion seems to be the most recent one at RSN, and there is no clear consensus here on overall reliability, even though many urge caution. I don't see any closed discussions on the topic however. I don't consider referring to Cass as a sign of FRINGE pushing.

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

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

  Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this request as above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

DragonBrickLayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Between_work (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/CASENAME#SECTION

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

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation
3. Date Explanation
4. Date Explanation

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)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Date (see the system log linked to above).
• Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
• Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
• Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
• Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At @asilvering request I'm posting this here. I'm a novice editor and very new to this side of Wikipedia and not at all familiar with it and rather overwhelmed with this, so please forgive any errors on my part. I noticed Asilvering helped Between work get unblocked after a sockpuppet investigation and contacted them with my concerns after noticing the users latest edits. Between work and an IP user have recently been busy editing the Shinchō Kōki article. Their edits/sources feel very WP:COATRACK (compare the section on the Maeda version vs. any other version), especially with his inclusion of articles from Alaric Naudé (a professor and pop historian whose wikipedia article he helped edit under his previous IP and which was later deleted and whose work was found to be WP:Fringe previously* that he has repeatedly tried and failed to get included in the article on Yasuke), among other questionable sources that I'm sure would get shot down on most well edited articles if he tried to include them there. Their timing on their editing of the Shinchō Kōki article feels rather suspicious as well (no idea if it's the same guy working from yet another new IP or what's going on there).

*In the time since the the study was not deemed reliable by that RSN, the Publisher has apparently completely given up the illusion of being unconnected to Alaric Naudé. It's listed as operating from 301 Nosong Building, Geumho Rd., Suwon, Republic of Korea (the city Alaric currently lives and is registered in his birth country of Australia) and it's Editorial Review Panel is made up almost exclusively of University of Suwon/Suwon Science College staff. The only one listed not from there is listed as a professor from "Jungbu University" (I'm sure they mean Joongbu University).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

• DragonBrickLayer, first, you would need to complete your report, with specific diffs showing edits you believe to be an issue (if you need advice on linking to a diff, that is here). That said, you are not generally going to find people impressed with taking a matter to AE before you have even opened a discussion on the article talk page, except in extremely egregious cases. I would strongly suggest that this be your first step; if the other editor refuses to discuss or does not do so in good faith, then we might be able to discuss other remedies. If discussion just reaches an impasse, dispute resolution can also help with that. Please also note that AE cannot and does not decide content matters; we cannot make a finding that one person is right and the other wrong. We only handle behavioral issues. So for now, I'll close this request; you can come back with a completed one if need be. I would strongly suggest that if you do, the talk page of the article should not be empty then. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:GENSEX

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

1. 05:35, 12 July 2025 Makes a WP:POINTy thread on WP:FTN arguing for a position he does not believe (and which it's not clear anyone believes as stated) specifically to mock it.
2. 16:56, 12 July 2025 Admits he's making the thread explicitly because he finds the position "absurd" and "McCarthyist".
3. 19:29, 12 July 2025 The full discussion, after being hatted because it was clearly not intended as a serious proposal.
4. 04:09, 19 February 2025 A previous time Chess made a similar WP:POINTy thread at WP:FTN to argue for the opposite of the positions he actually holds.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• I am not aware of any previous relevant sanctions.

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

• Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page: [52].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

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

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

As it happens, we now have an RSN thread saying that a source should be disqualified because it was co-authored by an activist. Ultimately, merely knowing the primary author of a study in question is nowhere near enough for them to not be independent. If it is determined to be so, then sources need to be re-evaluated across multiple topic areas, including multiple CTOPs such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, for one.[53] I was considering leaving a similar remark that "this would be inconceivable in any other topic area: we wouldn't start declaring US government sources as unreliable because of their affiliation with a group pushing WP:FRINGE scholarship", and thought maybe it's a better idea to create an WP:FTN thread. That was a mistake, and I apologize for it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I obviously knew it was a questionable post at the time because I edited it 3 times over 30 minutes to "clarify" my thinking that this was hypothetical and not a real proposal to blacklist the Republican Party. [54][55][56] At that point I went to bed. Then I woke up and started arguing with people. It was obviously a bad decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Cass Review at RSN is useful because an admin at WP:Arbitration Enforcement#AnyWikiUser asked yesterday is there on-wiki consensus that the Cass report is unreliable? and cited that discussion.[57]
• The "RM during an RM" in PIA was me working out a compromise with another user to try and resolve the interminable conflict on Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre.[58] Proposing compromises during contentious moves can make them easier to close and aren't disruptive.
• "Starting an RfC w/o a WP:RFCBEFORE" was because two users were fighting and an admin told them to start an RfC.[59] I started the RfC for them to try and end the fight.
• The NPOVN thread was to get a focus on policy for the Rafah aid distribution incidents -> Rafah Gaza Humanitarian Foundation massacres requested move, because editors wanted to correct for bias in sources. Nobody called the thread itself a strawman, EvanHallBear called an essay I wrote (WP:TITLEWARRIOR) a strawman directed at them.[60] It's not targeted at them: it's an essay I've written that is broadly applicable to the area and is the result of me spending years trying to get people to use better arguments at requested moves, and the essay was appreciated by uninvolved admins.[61] Also, that RM successfully ended on-time because I proposed a compromise wording of Rafah aid distribution killings in the middle of the existing RM that got wide consensus.[62]
• The thread on "What definition of antisemitism should we require sources to have?" is my response to the WP:ADL and Times of Israel RfCs where editors accused both of making false accusations of antisemitism against pro-Palestinian protestors. I believe that argument was unhelpful at the WP:ADL RfC and distracted from the ADL's factual errors on other, more important topics. An explicit commitment that editors should not apply their own definitions of antisemitism was acknowledged by others as being potentially helpful.[63]

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

@Moneytrees:

• "Trolling" = making a "based" userbox for me. Maybe my generation uses it differently than yours.
• Consensus at the article was to avoid "they/them" or "he/him".[64] Some editors also agreed with the DEADNAME point.
• Shifting "gender identity" up by a header level in the MOS is fair because it's treated differently than other forms of identity on Wikipedia in that we almost always accept it.
• I try to take myself to ANI so admins can tell me if I'm being too abrasive. The first time with Locke Cole, Colin said I made accusations against Locke. The second time, I tried to avoid mentioning others and focused on myself. It's hard to have nuance in my framing when I'm asking an admin for help because I believe I'm starting to get overly heated.
• I don't think it's a FRINGE issue for editors to assert "trans children should be aborted". That's a user-conduct issue. I don't want a list of FRINGE opinions building up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Bluethricecreamman: Sorry for misunderstanding.

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

@Moneytrees: I was one of the people defending Nableezy.[65] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

@Tamzin: Moneytrees seems to disagree, as they said Mia Khalifa (straight cisgender sex worker) was covered by WP:GENSEX when providing diffs.[66] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• He starts a discussion on Puberty Blockers without an RFCBEFORE and with a plainly poorly worded question [67]
• He started a discussion on the reliability of the Cass Review at RSN[68]
  • He says many editors in the transgender topic area believe it promotes misinformation and quotes me and Simonm noting false claims in the Cass Review. Importantly, he doesn't mention any of the RS we used for our claims.
  • RSN is about use in context. He leaves out any context for how it will be used, to center on abstract reliability (which other's pointed out, calling it poorly formatted, POINTY, etc)
    • I will note, that editors who argued diametrically opposed positions at the FTN threads thought it was an unhelpful RFC

At these FTN conversations, he said we should debate FRINGE theories not organizations. Then when we had an RFC on if the view that transgender identities are, in themselves, a mental illness or otherwise frequently caused by mental illness [is] WP:FRINGE, he says Value judgements don't make a source WP:FRINGE[69] and This is just about banning bad opinions, in my view.[70], then strawmans that this means it's FRINGE to say autistic people are more likely to be transgender and we're trying to declare the NHS Fringe.

On a personal note, his POINTY behavior at the last few threads seemed targeted towards me. He accused me at ARBCOM[71] and RSN[72] of duplicitous behavior - arguing I said SEGM authorship wasn't disqualifying previously but did now. As multiple editors noted at RSN, I never said this, as the discussion he linked was about a journalist positively citing SEGM. Not members of or, as is this case, the founder of SEGM.

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

But this POINTY behavior seems to extend to PIA too:

• He starts an RM during an RM[73] and RFC's without RFCBefores[74]
• He started a NPOVN thread on Should we try to correct for reliable sources being systematically biased against Palestinians?[75]
  • Those he pinged said he was strawmanning their arguments
• He starts an RSN thread which puts forward as an option Wikipedia editors create or adopt one definition of antisemitism and determine if sources are abiding by it.[76]
  • Which multiple people tell him is not for this board[77]

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

• He starts a thread on the Palestine Chronicle, opening with a laundry list of reasons not to like it[78]
• Shortly after, he starts a thread strawmanning criticism of the Times of Israel[79]

I found all this by experience and/or searching for new topics he created[80]. From what I've seen, Chess has a habit of starting POINTY threads where he strawmans those he disagrees with. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y Extension granted to 1100 words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Note that my initial comment was at 497 words)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

noticed this statement from the arbcom trans healthcare case request. [81], Participation of myself in the case is mooted by the AE thread which will likely end in my topic-ban. I concede/retract everything and no longer want to engage in this area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Confining my comments solely to this discussion [82]. As Chess noted above, my accusation of straw-manning was related to his (since deleted) title warrior essay and not to the original NPOVN discussion. His characterization of my comments was definitely uncharitable, but I interpreted this as an attempt at reductio ad absurdum instead of straw-manning. While a more direct approach might have been better, this did ultimately cause me to reconsider my arguments. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chess' overall attitude has already been highlighted by multiple people, including an admin ([83]). Yet nothing has been done about it. I don't think a "formal warning" will do much at this point. He was already warned about filling groundless or vexatious enforcement requests yet he did that to me and another editor recently, knowing that the case would fail, just to be able to then use that as "proof" of Lf8u2 and myself being part of a supposed canvassing operation. He has been spamming every PIA discussion for months whenever any shoddy outlet talks about it, sharing zero concrete proof of various allegations, yet he uses them as justification to, for example, re-litigate RMs. We are talking about someone who has been here for almost 15 years. People with less experience are not afforded such grace. There is a limit to WP:AGF and I think this has been weaponised by Chess, as you can see in this discussion when someone expressing legitimate concerns is then accused of being obsessed with him. One can argue that I am not a neutral party, since I have been accused by Chess of being impartial, biased, a sock, a canvasser, etc. I have already talked about his toxic behavior in the ARBPIA5 case last year, well before those accusations. Nothing has changed since then. Even when I obviously disagree with others, I can usually find a level of compromise, and we can work on finding a common ground. That hasn't been my experience with Chess so far, and this seems unlikely to change, so I believe a t-ban for PIA and GENSEX is warranted here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• WP:POINT actually lists exactly this type of behavior (seemingly ridiculous proposals for something one does not really believe or want to happen) as a textbook example of disruptive behavior to make one's point. I think Chess has been around long enough to be fully aware of that, and as such, I would question whether his participation in the GENSEX topic area should continue. My answer is leaning toward "no", as the two "proposals" in question both wasted a substantial amount of volunteer time, and that is our most valuable resource. That said, since I'm proposing a sanction, I'll grant Chess an additional 300 words to respond. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Chess, honestly, I'm not sure it's any better if you intended these as serious proposals. But really, why is it that you did propose them? Did you really think a major US political party would be wholly considered "FRINGE", or...what, exactly, was the thought process? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Based upon what we've seen so far, unless an uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I would close this with a GENSEX topic ban on Chess. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like some narrower areas have been proposed (and in fairness, GENSEX is a very broad area), to either transgender or LGBT related topics. Asilvering or anyone else, what would be your thoughts on a restriction like that? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to hear from @Moneytrees first (go ahead and take the 1100 extension). To half-answer the question, I'm not sure that narrowing the tban makes much sense when what we're hearing is that the issue is "culture-war topics". -- asilvering (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That was along the lines of my thoughts too, but I wanted to get some more input before finalizing anything. I also think we tend to be relatively reasonable regarding interpreting GENSEX; it doesn't mean you're prohibited from editing about people across the board or anything of that kind, just on areas where gender/sexuality is actually part of a controversy or the like. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• But Chess, that's... that's not what WP:NOTPOINT is about. It's saying that it's not pointy to say, in a discussion, "but if we did that, we'd have to do these other things". Starting a wholly new discussion that presents itself as a modest proposal to in fact do those things is classic WP:POINTY behaviour. -- asilvering (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chess you're nearly three times over your already extended word limit, stop posting. But to answer your question, no, a tban would not prevent you from taking part in an arbcom case. -- asilvering (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Having followed some more of these diffs and poked around for others (to see if this is overblown compared to their "normal editing"), I have to say that I'm sympathzing more with @Parabolist's Part of the problem here is the the habitual pattern of trying to skirt up to the line of being disruptive, but not so egregious that it's worth bringing here. than @EvergreenFir's We should use this sanction only for intractable cases and not for cases of minor trolling.

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

  I don't have any idea how to tban someone from "culture wars topics" in a way that doesn't promote endless wikilawyering. We could at least hand out tbans for PIA and GENSEX as two particularly heated topic areas in which this kind of disruption has occurred. -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not substantively engaged with this report, but I find minor trolling incompatible with the expectation that Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia and Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced. So I'm a bit surprised that "it's only minor trolling" is what is being used as a defense here. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chess let me reveal the extent to which I haven't substantively engaged: I didn't realize you started the minor trolling piece. I saw it from comments of Loki and Evergreen (and Money). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Chess, [e]ngaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution... is an exception to bans. If you were not a party to the case, I think participating in it would be questionable, but if you are I cannot imagine anyone taking issue with your participation. Of course you could ask ArbCom yourself to be sure, but I know I wouldn't sanction someone for that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems to be a behavioral issue that isn't limited to a single CTOP, although it looks like GENSEX is the CTOP where it's most disruptive. I wouldn't object to a tban from GENSEX/a subset of GENSEX/some reasonable crafting of "culture wars" with the understanding it can be appealed after six months if Chess has avoided starting pointy discussions anywhere. But as an alternative solution, I'd also support a logged warning against starting pointy discussions anywhere. Valereee (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, we're going to eventually have to figure out how to bring this to an end. As far as I can see as of this writing (please correct me if I'm wrong): Valereee would be okay with a GENSEX/GENSEX subset topic ban or a final warning (I'd agree with Asilvering that we can't just topic ban from "culture wars", though some days I wish we could), Asilvering considered topic bans from both PIA and GENSEX, and I was in favor of one from GENSEX (I don't think we've discussed PIA enough here that I'd be comfortable with that sanction; if anyone thinks Chess should be sanctioned in that area as well, I'd prefer that be handled on a separate report as this one is already huge). Barkeep49 said he hadn't participated much; unless something has changed there, I don't believe he's either proposed or opposed any type of sanction. So, I think a topic ban from GENSEX is fairly broadly supported and could be implemented to close this out, but interested in other thoughts as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection. Valereee (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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