Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive355
Cortador
[edit]| Content dispute. Please use dispute resolution --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Cortador[edit]
I believe that the evidence here, and past discussions with others on his talk page, demonstrates violations of most if not all of Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Editing a contentious topic Re Black Kite's comment [1]: I agree. Refactored.[2] I shouldn't have mentioned the tag at that point. --Hipal (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Cortador[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Cortador[edit]This issue started because Hipal kept adding whole-article tags to Hasan Piker, when this discussion 1 had made it clear that Hipal was the only editor supporting the tags, whereas at least six other editors (LittleJerry, Bluethricecreamman, jonas, CeltBrowne, Alenoach, and myself) disagreed with the addition. The talk page consensus was clear, so I removed the tags. Hipal also made other edits against talk page consensus, as per this discussion. 2. Following that, Hipal started this discussion 3 where they made it clear that their intend was not assess issues with the article and then add appropriate tags, but instead add tags and then look for a justification afterwards. Evidence for this is is that when Hipal stated that they planned to add the tag again, they only had found one issue with one source, which was missing an author, but speculated that there had to be nine other sources with issues ("That's one in ten, so I'm extrapolating that there are some nine more."). Hipal also falsely claimed that nobody was objecting to this when Ratgomery and myself did, both on the talk page ("As there are no objections based upon the state of the article, the tag should be restored.") and in a diff description 4 ("no dispute over content problems identified"). Lastly, Hipal admitted to this in their statement here, where they stated that "only the first ten sources had been reviewed at this point". It is not appropriate to demand the addition of whole-article tags after only having reviewed ten sources out of (as of the making of this statement) 104 sources. This, in my opinion, further demonstrates that it was Hipal's intend to just have the tag there instead of providing evidence that it is needed. They also attempted to revert the burden of proof, stating on the talk page that "No one has indicated that no further problems remain to be found". Demanding that whole-article tags be added until proven that they aren't needed is an abuse of tags. I'm willing to assume good faith with other editors. However, this does has limits, and those include editing against clear talk page consensus as well as openly stating that it is one's intend to simply have tags on the article and search for a reason after adding them, which is disruptive behaviour. Cortador (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by MilesVorkosigan[edit]This issue was just discussed at ANI a few days ago. Hipal was asked to drop the stick and communicate the specifics of their issue with the article using specific examples, not generalities or guesses. The filing of this request for enforcement suggests that this advice was not taken. I believe that the request is a waste of administrator's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesVorkosigan (talk • contribs) 11:36 May 22 2025 (UTC) Hipal stated on my talk page that they had made (at least) two specific comments about the article and what was needed for it, one was on May 15 and it was addressed. The other diff goes to May 3 and as far as I can tell is Hipal saying that editors who wanted to remove the tag were not displaying competence. I don't see how that is helpful for their position, but there it is. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by (Ratgomery)[edit]Commenting because Hipal has also left me an edit warring notice over a revert regarding these tags, and because I was named in the discussion. Incase it's been overlooked, let me point out there are 3 talk page discussions regarding this exact issue in total, as I believe only one of these discussions has been referenced so far. [| POV_and_BLP_sources_tags] , [| Disruptive_Editing_and_Removals] as well as [| Complete_citations_needed] which has already been linked. Hipal has engaged with a large number of editors over these tags. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Cortador[edit]
|
The Final Bringer of Truth
[edit]| Indeffed as a non-AE action. I would recommend a TBAN as a condition of any unblock. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning The Final Bringer of Truth[edit]
None.
This is clearly an editor that does not intend to contribute constructively in this topic area. The diffs above show tendentious editing and personal attacks against other users (including calling them vandals). I've collected the most recent diffs, some of which happened after I gave them a clear warning that they needed to stop. They haven't stopped, and they've actually kept going. It's clear this editor is not here to constructively contribute to the AP2 topic area. If they are here to contribute constructively they should be required to display such by editing in other areas constructively first. There are many more diffs - basically all of their edits either have an edit summary they're attacking others, or they are attacking others on the talk page with the edit. It's clear this user is here to right great wrongs and not to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. I apologize for not going even further back in their edits to get more of them, but virtually their entire edit history is clearly battleground in this topic area. I'm not advocating for a full wiki block at this point, but a topic ban from AP2 would be beneficial until they learn how to contribute constructively. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning The Final Bringer of Truth[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by The Final Bringer of Truth[edit]I’ve never interacted with this individual in my life. I see nothing here but tone policing. Not once is article content mentioned. Does such a weak case even deserve an answer? And my god, this is an encyclopedia, learn some Shakespeare Also, the individual who I “accused” of off wiki coordination had themselves stated they were coordinating off wiki and cited an off wiki discussion as the reason for “boldly deleting an article.” This is very dishonest stuff. Be sure you understand a situation before opining. The editor cited an off wiki discussion as reason for “boldly removing” an article. I correctly advised that this is off wiki coordination and is unacceptable. As for the accusation of vandalism, you be the judge of whether the following constitutes vandalism. An editor removed 3 reliable sources. After removing the sources, they then tagged the underlying sentence as needing citation. Then they deleted the sentence for needing a citation based on the tag, which they had deleted the citations. If this kind of behavior, like any vandalism, is allowed to stand, you cannot have an encyclopedia. This matter was discussed on multiple talk pages. The author of the enforcement request has had no involvement with the relevant pages and does not appear to have any understanding of the talk page discussions they are mentioning. They hope you will just take their word for what they say instead of actually reading them. Zero of the diffs cited by OP actually say what OP has falsely claimed they say. Again, this arb request has been made dishonestly and in bad faith and WP: Boomerang surely applies here. You haven’t shown one poorly sourced or false or misleading edit I made to any article. Even someone seething with anger at me is unable to show a single bad edit I made. (Indeed, I always come armed to the teeth with sources and hew scrupulously to their content. I counsel OP to try doing the same.) All you’ve said is “I don’t like this guy’s tone!” That’s tone policing, is carried out in bad faith, and is a waste of time for all involved. Cheers friends
Rebuttal All you have to do is learn the content of WP: Synth, Toffenham. What do you mean “let’s assume it was speculation”? I showed you why it is speculation. The articles you cited don’t make the claim you cite them to claim. Hence your addition of that claim is your personal speculation. It isn’t in the sources. In an encyclopedia, we rely on sources and what they say, not the personal theories of editors on what a source might imply. You can’t add in your personal inferences or speculations about the outcomes of hypotheticals. Any editor would tell you can’t do that. Please read the many patient explanations I gave you. The articles you cited don’t mention democrat deaths and hence can’t be used to make your synthetic claim that the democrat deaths did not affect the outcome! That’s your personal speculation! Please Read Synth already! At no point have I have been “radio silent” you are willfully lying to the Arb board there. Your sources do not claim what you say. Notice also you claim you were suggesting article changes without having read the sources cited. The sources you cited do not mention democrat deaths. Hence you cannot rely on them to make an inference that republicans would have not abstained if Connolly et al hadn’t died. There is no source that says that. That is purely your speculation and has no business in an encyclopedia, and you’ve been wasting everyone’s time because you don’t understand what Synth is. Show me even one article with a direct quote that supports your position. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Tofflenheim[edit]I started an innocuous discussion [[3]] on an (admittedly politics related) talk page stating that I believed a section in the article was misleading. I was not trying to delete, remove, or censor, but call to add context. There are a few proper responses to this, for example 1/ "do you have a source for this claim, or a reason to believe that the current wording is NPOV" or 2/ "I don't agree with the way you've characterized this, for XYZ reason". Instead, The Final Bringer of Truth comments:
OK. Let's assume I was speculating. This is a really aggressive approach. I'm trying to be civil so I'm replying, giving links and quotes from articles. But no matter what I do, he keeps escalating:
30 minutes later, before I even get the chance to read his reply:
I finally take some time to review all the sources because I realize at this point, this guy is not trying to have a discussion, he is trying to belittle and attack everyone around him. I go to the article, find the passage that in question, and click the first source and find the following: diff1, diff2 So in his personal own source, there are claims that directly support the point I was trying to make. Since then, he's gone completely radio silent on the topic, avoiding admitting that he was wrong and that he needlessly escalated. I should have brought these up at the start, I admit that. but this guys behavior made it impossible to have a good faith discussion with his battleground mentality. Patterns of behavior:
this is his pattern of behavior with everyone, not just me. he's literally still doing it, below, in his so called "rebuttal" (note he does not actually address the content of anything I've shared, he just hand waves it all as irrelevant and goes straight to insults. The general thesis is that I came to the talk page to talk, and instead of fostering a discussion that would have quickly led to the first couple of sources that agree with a claim I was making, this user got into an battleground mindset, aggroed on everyone, and then when others take the high ground and provide data and sources he doubles down and calls everything they're saying wrong.
Result concerning The Final Bringer of Truth[edit]
|
LesIie
[edit]| Blocked indefinitely (as a non-CTOP action) by Asilvering. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning LesIie[edit]
Has violated WP:1RR on 2 articles:
The problems with his infobox edits are continuing for a long time. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 09:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
[4] [5]added by Tamzin after report was filed without awareness evidence
@Extraordinary Writ: While Leslie recognised that he violated 1RR, he still made no self-revert. I already mentioned that the problems with his infobox related editing are continuing for a long time. Just 2 weeks ago, he edit warred at the concerning page and used battleground edit summaries which can be seen here. Another example is here where he removed figures from Nawaz Sharif claiming he is from "an Opposition party", despite he was involved in the war. This is after he had got a warning here over his WP:OR in infobox. I would suggest topic ban from making infobox edits in India and Pakistan topics instead of a block for his 1rr violation. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 17:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning LesIie[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LesIie[edit]On the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 article, yes — it’s under WP:1RR, and I’m aware. But let’s be clear: I didn’t randomly change things. I read the actual sources, corrected the info to reflect what they say, and added page numbers so anyone could verify. It was brought on the talk page. The other editor reverted without addressing content or checking sources. So I reverted back. That technically went over 1RR, but I was trying to stop misrepresented info from being restored. On Bangladesh Liberation War — it’s not under WP:1RR, there’s a new discussion on the Tp. My edit was supported. The editor has not participated in this article at all. The other editor could’ve read what I wrote while verifying sources using the pages instead of reverting. I’m happy to step back and talk, but good-faith editing with solid sources shouldn’t be sanctioned. I’ll admit the WP:1RR breach is on me — I shouldn't have reverted. But editors like the one who filed this need shouldn't revert without reading sources or discussing. It discourages actual source-based editing. P.S. my edit was already reverted so I could not self-revert. I’ll voluntarily refrain from making infobox edits on India–Pakistan conflict articles for some time or until there’s consensus on the TP. That’s reasonable. I'll also learn more on the rules. I request that a topic ban not be imposed. I care about this subject and want to continue contributing to it, with caution and collaboration from now on. I request a mentor to help, if possible, so we can avoid future issues and I can improve. The edit involving Sharif’s claim: Sharif made these statements after being ousted by Musharraf; claims were politically motivated to undermine the military. Those claims remain, but now separate from official claims. I also admit I wasn’t fully aware of warnings — I hadn’t fully read warnings and messages, which I take accountability for. I see how some of my editing may have come across as disruptive, though my intent was to improve accuracy. I regret that. I’m here to contribute constructively, not push agendas. On the William Harrison article, Worldbruce rightfully raises concerns. I didn’t use any LLM to write the article or comments, I know you'd assume that because my credibility is dented. For Harrison, I used DeepSeek, another editor mentioned it, to find rare sources, but much was paywalled or inaccessible, so I pieced together what I could. After reading Worldbruce's comment, I realized I hadn’t checked the content properly. I unintentionally added fake sources and tried to fix things. Some books don’t mention Harrison directly but cover operations and areas he was involved in. That might cross into WP:SYNTH. I haven’t used LLMs any other time, none are as shadowy as Harrison. My intent was just to bring a lesser-known figure to light. This has been a wake-up call. I see I got carried away and made serious mistakes, I didn’t mean to. I genuinely care about these topics and want to do better. Apologies, Worldbruce for not replying to their comment. I was shocked to see how inaccurate some of my work was and panicked, not knowing how to respond. LesIie (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (Worldbruce)[edit]I have nothing to add regarding contentious topics and 1RR. But LesIie has opened the door to broader behavioral questions about competence and integrity by claiming that they don't edit carelessly and make fact-based and transparent edits. A serious counterexample is their 4-5 month old article William Harrison (brigadier), of which they have contributed 97.4% of the text. Every indication is that it is largely if not wholly the hallucination of a large language model. I raised on their talk page questions about why the sources don't support the content, why sources are falsified or fabricated, and why detection tools indicate that it has been generated using an "AI chatbot" or similar application. They have not responded, other than to remove the part of my post mentioning LLMs, and to furiously rewrite the article. As of this writing, the article has 39 inline citations. Nineteen are to non-book sources of varying reliability. Of them, two are dead links and only four of the remainder mention Harrison:
The remaining 20 inline citations are to one book that does not seem to exist (Feroz, Ahmad (2002). The 1971 War: A Retrospective Analysis. Karachi: Defence Publications) and eight real books (A Tale of Millions,[11] Bangladesh at War,[12] Surrender at Dacca,[13] The Betrayal of East Pakistan,[14] The Blood Telegram,[15] The Spectral Wound,[16] The Struggle for Pakistan,[17] and Witness to Surrender[18]). Only one of them, Bangladesh at War, even mentions Harrison – briefly on page 8, not a page that LesIie cites. If there is an explanation for this article, I would like to hear it. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by Lt.gen.zephyr[edit]I am coming here after seeing Leslie's user contributions page. I've seen Leslie’s work before, some edits definitely didn't land with some, but I really don’t think there was any bad intent behind them. It comes across more like someone who cares about a lesser-known subject and got a bit carried away trying to flesh it out. A lot of us have made similar missteps when starting out on complex topics. They appear to me a relatively new contributor, who can contribute much effectively if they get proper guidance. It wouldn't be a good thing to lose someone who clearly wants to contribute. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by Abecedare[edit]Not involved but commenting here since I am bringing up new issues I spotted, rather than evaluating existing evidence
@LesIie: if I am somehow mistaken about (2), (3) or (4) and the book, citation or awards are legit, please let me know and I'll strike the particular claim. Abecedare (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by caeciliusinhorto[edit]Re. abecadare's fourth point (re. the barnstars): this is really minor but I had a look and it's weird enough that I had to comment. The chevrons from Lt.gen.zephyr were originally genuine. LesIie changed the date it was awarded for reasons entirely unclear to me, before completely rewriting what it says 9 days later. Lt.Casper is a registered user with zero edits, who didn't register until May 5 this year. LesIie added the barnstar "from" Lt.Caspar to their userpage nine minutes after Lt.Casper created their account; they have since changed the date of the timestamp at least twice (when it was originally added the timestamp says May 5; that diff shows LesIie changing it from 5 March to 11 January, which is the date shown currently. LesIie added the Distinguished Service Star from 9Ahmed on 10 May; 9Ahmed has so far as I can tell never edited LesIie's user or talkpage. They made six edits on 9 and 10 May, none of which are related to this award. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde[edit]Indef this user per Abecedare: any one of
Result concerning LesIie[edit]
|
CapnJackSp
[edit]| Auto-archived without action in June and now stale. (CapnJackSp hasn't edited since May.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning CapnJackSp[edit]
What I find even more ironic is, that CapnjackSp expects others not to commit the very violations he has committed in the diffs right above.[22] Months ago, he was promoting Hindutva POV on Goa Inquisition by claiming that Hindus faced forced conversions and destruction of Hindu temples. He provided 3 sources to enhance his argument and none of them supported his claims.[23] In the last AE report against him, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive302#CapnJackSp, he was warned by Dennis Brown that "
I note that CapnJackSp, in his response below, has engaged in selective canvassing, dodged the concerns about a few diffs, failed to address his misrepresentation of sources, and has falsely accused me of violating 3RR. Outside here, he is now unnecessarily making revert to restore an opinion piece[25] in violation of WP:ONUS saying that consensus exists when the recent discussion discarded the use of opinion pieces at the talk page.[26] What is more astonishing is, that he is casting aspersions against SheriffIsInTown here, claiming the editor created "the thread" in order "to single out Indian sources". He also made an off-topic comparison between India and Pakistan by falsely asserting that spread of misinformation is higher in Pakistan in comparison with India, despite experts surveying for the World Economic Forum’s 2024 Global Risk Report have ranked India highest over misinformation and disinformation.[27] His jingoistic and pro-Hindutva editing is continuing even after the report. Azuredivay (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning CapnJackSp[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CapnJackSp[edit]I would like to respond to the report in a thorough manner - I find the report to be worded extremely deceptively. While I will note that much of this is a content dispute presented as WP:DE, I will still give my rationale for those edits that are challenged.
The seventh point is absurd - It is very clearly not a personal attack. I am not sure as to why Azuredivay would consider it a sarcastic remark directed at a particular editor - Especially since the two links of alleged "stonewalling" nowhere resemble stonewalling, and indeed were good responses to frivolous requests. It is common in many pages in contentious topics to cite a "previous consensus" to stonewall attempts at constructive edits, and my experience in the IPA area has taught me that even the weakest semblance of consensus in contentious topics can be used by disruptive editors to derail future good faith proposals. I was noting my dissent, but I had no proposals at the moment so I noted that too. The only allegation of conduct violations are the reverts on the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. I encourage editors to go through this section (though it is rather long) that I had started after editors kept reverting, without discussion, the use of dubious sources to rewrite the results section of the article. Other editors trying to make changes to balance the "revised" results have also been reverted. I still intent to resolve the issue through an RFC as stated in the discussion; I have lost faith in the T/P discussion resolving itself after the quality of arguments went downhill, like the claim about how ChatGPT found the sources reliable. I have not made reverts post the failure of my two separate attempts to remove obvious POV content from the high visibility page, and do not intent to do so either till we get a firm consensus on the content. I note that this is not the only page where such rewrites of results have happened - many, including Gotitbro [31], Kautilya3 [32] pointed out similar issues. I also note that while the filer has dug up a three year old ARE case (as a new editor, I had an incorrect understanding of how close was "too close" paraphrasing) and cited it as the "last" AE against me, they have left out the filing from two years ago - Perhaps, since that one was filed by a sock, and mirrors this one in that it was primarily a content disagreement. I propose a WP:BOOMERANG on the filer - They have made several exceptional claims above, while their recent contribs show clear 3RR vios [33][34][35][36][37]. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Notes
Statement by Kautilya3[edit]I am adding my two cents here since the majority of the complaints pertain to 2025 India-Pakistan conflict where I am involved. The diffs numbered 1 and 3, deal with INFOBOX-warring on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. It is not uncommon for a large number of edits to get made in violation of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and, when an experienced editor runs into them, they have no choice but to revert a whole range of edits wholesale. To their credit, the editor started a talk page discussion where several experienced editors have participated. I don't think it is right to label this as "gaming 1RR". The edit 4 is problematic in certain ways, but the editor is also right that there were some massacres that were part of Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits as it is called in popular parlance. (That is the version of that page before it succumbed to Wikipedia's systemic bias.) The right thing to do would have been to follow WP:BRD. Coming to the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict, there are groups of editors trying to exclude any information or analysis that shows that India did well in the conflict. Third-party analysts like Tom Cooper, John Spencer and Walter Ladwig (the last of them an academic in King's College London, War Studies department) have been shot down on technicalities, and a long thread started at WP:RSN to exclude all Indian media from the page. Those efforts continue in this complaint itself, peppered with references to "unreliable Indian media" and "Godi media". They basically amount to partisan censorship and are not in the interest of Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning CapnJackSp[edit]
|
DataCrusade1999
[edit]| Valereee gave an informal warning in the results section. There is a consensus for nothing more to be done at this time. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning DataCrusade1999[edit]
The rampant display of battleground mentality, non-collaborative approach, and the failure to understand what others are telling is very clear here. Wareon (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC) @Asilvering: Let me make it clear, I started this thread but wasn't requesting sanctions on Datacrusade1999. I just found that their conduct at talk pages and noticeboard as being unnecessarily combative. Another user recently was topic banned mainly for their conduct on talk pages.[50] I'd be okay that Datacrusade1999 should be alerted about incivility and other WP:TPG ethics, given it is the first time they have been reported here. Let me address your points. Yes many editors do state their opinions (no matter how wrong they are) on talk pages, but most of them stop it after some time after becoming familiar with WP:TPG. However, Datacrusade1999 is continuing that, and his talk page comments are either derailing the threads from their actual purpose or they are getting unnecessarily heated. This article is an opinion piece. It clearly says "The views expressed in this Commentary are the author's, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution." A similar source written by a subject matter expert that was not tagged as an opinion piece yet was removed as it was deemed no different to an opinion piece on the article recently through consensus.[51] Pakistan and India are more "unfree" than Ukraine with regards to reporting of the events. Datacrusade1999 was already told that Ukraine ranks at No.62 at the Press Freedom Index, while India and Pakistan rank below 150. The difference is huge. While we have no doubt over the situation of Ukraine over the ongoing war, the same cannot be said for India and Pakistan. Experts believe that India is going through an undeclared emergency,[52] while there are those including the former PM of Pakistan who says Pakistan is going through undeclared martial law.[53] I would further disagree that Datacrusade1999 treating "NYT and WaPo" to be as credible as the concerning Indian sources should be considered a mere " hyperbole / a slippery slope argument". He was doubling down and repeating this misleading argument as the diffs show. This betrays the understanding of WP:RS and WP:RGW, and these unhelpful comments turn any talk page discussion unproductive. The diffs about defending Indian sources in context of this conflict become especially egregious when you consider the fact that Datacrusade1999 was repeatedly referring to Indian sources as "partisan", "Godi media" for spreading disinformation in the context of this conflict,[54] and then suddenly advocates them on the RSN thread while trying to portray them better than the relatively freer outlets from western media and Ukraine while also misrepresenting the thread's motive. Wareon (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning DataCrusade1999[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DataCrusade1999[edit]A lot has been said about my lack of collaboration. However, "collaboration" cannot mean that I have to agree with every viewpoint put forward by other editors. I have my own perspective and worldview; if I don't believe in something, I won't agree with it. Regarding RUSI, I've already stated that I don't consider it an opinion, and I acknowledge the differing perspectives of other editors. That is about as much as I can concede on matters with which I disagree. link Much has also been said about the reliability of Indian media. As Wareon himself has pointed out, I am quite suspicious of "Godi media." This should indicate that I am aware of the issues facing Indian media. However, I also know that there are thousands of other media organizations in India that do excellent journalism. Some editors are advocating for a ban on Indian sources. They claim they are not asking for a blanket ban, but anyone can look at the noticeboard and see the discussions taking place there. Needless to say, I do not support that kind of policy. I cannot and will not agree to something that I don't believe in. It's important to note that my opinion is not more valid than that of other editors. If a consensus emerges where my views or sources do not find support or credibility, I am willing to accept that consensus and make my peace with it. I have nothing against anyone, but if I see something that I disagree with, I will speak out. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by Kautilya3[edit]I am apparently the editor involved in diffs 1, 2 and 3. I admit that the editor has a bit of an abrasive style but I think their heart is the in right place. Their point was basically that calling a certain group of militants as "Islamic" would smear a religion whereas calling them as "Islamist" would attach them to an ideology. I understood their point perfectly fine notwithstanding all the barbs. Other editors agreed with their position; so I let it pass. Little did I know that it would get cited as evidence at AE by some one else for no good reason. The majority of the remaining diffs have to do with a completely misguided thread at WP:RSN, calling into question "Indian media" based on a (pretty sloppy) New York Times article. Titled "How the Indian Media Amplified Falsehoods in the Drumbeat of War" it was bascially criticising mainstream television channels calling them "Indian media". The filer says the editor held a And, what exactly does the filer mean by " This whole thing seems to have been an exercise to bait the Indian editors and to get them to trip up so that they can get sanctioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning DataCrusade1999[edit]
Diff by diff:
asilvering (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
|
ÆthelflædofMercia
[edit]| Tamil genocide, List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ECPed --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning ÆthelflædofMercia[edit]
Discussion concerning ÆthelflædofMercia[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ÆthelflædofMercia[edit]Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards[edit]ÆthelflædofMercia is a SPA who does POV pushing deserves a topic ban for diff #15 alone .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC) Result concerning ÆthelflædofMercia[edit]
|
ScienceFlyer
[edit]| The conduct aspect of this—a brief edit war—seems to have resolved on its own. Closing without action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning ScienceFlyer[edit]
Users is a multiyear contributor to the topic as well as the recent RfC. They are aware of the restrictions.
There was a three month long RfC over the inclusion of material from several German and German/English sources which ScienceFlyer participated in. The closing statement noted a supermajority for inclusion of the material. Additional, the closure of the RfC indicated a substantial consensus for the proposed language. After this language was included in the article, it touched off an immediate edit war for it removal. I would also like to request Bon courage, at a minimum be warned for contributing to the edit warring on this article. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : both users have been notified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk • contribs) 20:59, 11 June 2025 Statement by WhatamIdoing[edit]For those who haven't followed COVID-19 lab leak theory: There was a huge RFC that concluded yesterday with the result that the existence of an unpublished German government report should be mentioned somehow in the article. Editors are currently discussing "how" to mention it, but, at a glance, everyone seems to accept "whether" to mention it at this point. I think the basic underlying complaint here is that the initial WP:BOLD attempt to mention the report was reverted as inappropriate/NPOV (by multiple editors). The OP is not yet WP:XCON and so was not/could not be involved in the reverting. MasterBlasterofBarterTown, each individual editor requires a separate section here at WP:AE. You'll either have to remove one editor entirely, or split it into two separate complaints (even if they mostly duplicate each other). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Statement by Aaron Liu[edit]I would not call that edit warring. Editors are currently discussing on the talk page, productively or not. Procedurally, this is just standard WP:BRD. I'll also note that the long "RfC" was in fact a discussion turned into a pseudo-RfC and never listed at RfC, and that ScienceFlyer never received any {{alert/first}} templates, not even under their "Discretionary" iteration. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC) Statement by Bon Courage[edit]One of the unintended consequences of the introduction of WP:ECP was that, although it tamped down the damage caused by WP:NOTHERE POV-warrior editors in article space, it meant they had to find an outlet elsewhere. Launching waste-of-time AEs to try and take perceived opponents 'off the table' seems to be one of those outlets, as evidenced by this filing. Bon courage (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC) Statement by Aquillion[edit]The RFC close specifically stated that no particular wording was endorsed, and reasonable objections were made on talk that the version ScienceFlyer reverted went beyond what the RFC agreed to. But more importantly, while AE requests are only supposed to focus on one person, the filer undermines their own point by objecting to Bon courage's edit, which was clearly a valid interpretation of the RFC's results, at least to the point where it can't reasonably be said to be editing against consensus. ( Statement by Objective3000[edit]It’s difficult to classify ScienceFlyer’s June 12th edit as edit warring as their previous edit to the article was two months and about 90 article edits earlier. The close of the survey (I don’t see where it was an RfC) states further discussion is warranted. So let the discussion continue without further disruption. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC) Result concerning ScienceFlyer[edit]
|
Eliezer1987
[edit]| No action taken. Eliezer1987 is reminded that it is generally expected that editors provide reasoning for a revert upon request, and all editors involved are reminded that the same applies to placing maintenance tags on an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Eliezer1987[edit]
User reverts others edits but refuses to discuss.
VR (Please ping on reply) 17:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC) Discussion concerning Eliezer1987[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Eliezer1987[edit]Unfortunately, I don't have much time these days when missiles are flying over us. So I haven't gone through every edit that appears here.I will write in general:
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Eliezer1987[edit]
|
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist
[edit]| After roughly 2 weeks, a consensus to act has not emerged. Everyone is requested to keep statements within the 500 word count in the future. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC) The diffs presented by Samuelshraga were found to not be actionable --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist[edit]
Added since filing:
 These diffs above show within 3 weeks that YFNS misrepresented discussions a bunch of times to try and get her way. To try and get the DYK passed, YFNS repeatedly dismissed and misrepresented the ongoing discussions as insignificant or vexatious. To counter claims in the FTN RfC, YFNS claims that the implications are narrow, the point of the exercise was solely to be able to point editors to site consensus about a group and not to disqualify sources. At the same time YFNS is using SEGM-affiliation of authors as their first (though not only) argument to disqualify sources. YFNS says that there is a longstanding consensus that ROGD is WP:FRINGE linking to an RfC on an article talk page (i.e. local consensus). YFNS says that she's never seen a SEGM MEDRS source before and yet has - including in extremely recent discussions. I saw at the ongoing close review an admin state that the proper place to address rhetorical dishonesty in GENSEX was here. I had already tried to address it on this editor's talk page, and received denial, justification, followed by a repeat of the behaviour. It's just not reasonable to expect editors to have to double-check every time an editor references a previous discussion because they may not be telling the truth.
Additional diff 2 is on its own a clear misrepresentation, and should dispel doubts about whether diff 5 was an incidental overstatement or part of a pattern. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist[edit] 1-2) This is a misrepresentation Samuel has been making for a week. He says 3) I shouldn't have said that at DYK. I was admittedly vexed as the first DYK was derailed by comments admins just agreed were sanctionable[75], which led to a GAR and second GA assessment, which found it fine and let me re-open the DYK, and I was frustrated to see it derailed again.
4) I don't think any of those other editors engaging would have supported scrapping the DYK because of a discussion of sourcing unrelated to the hooks. I'll note the comment I make after, where I clarify my frustration[77] 5) There is absolutely long-standing consensus across dozens of articles that ROGD (kids are catching trans from the internet en masse) is a fringe theory. Snokalok already quoted that RFC close noting it's got no scientific support. But the full statement is 6) That is not some top-tier MEDRS, it's a primary source analyzing another primary source. Some editors wanted to disprove the former based on the latter. In that linked thread, I note that top-tier MEDRS/MEDORGS (the British Medical Association and the AWMF's latest clinical practice guidelines) 1) make the same accusations the second source says isn't an issue and 2) and cite the former source. Conversely, I note that the only people who've given any weight to the source authored by SEGM is commentary/opinion pieces from other SEGM members.
I'm not sure what to make of this filing apart from what Snokalok said. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
To save words/time - I'll try to only respond to admins after this. First:
Statement by Snokalok[edit] So, if what I’m reading here is right, you’re taking her to AE because you perceive minor inconsistencies in arguments presented across different discussions tirelessly over the course of weeks? Because that sounds like something completely reasonable for any flawed human being with a life and limited energy to have when they’re volunteering as tirelessly as YFNS does, again, over the course of weeks. Additionally, the FTN thread on SEGM came to a consensus of You seem to argue here that she misrepresents the closure of the ROGD RFC, and yet the closure she cited was in regards to the actual wording of content in an article, in which the consensus was
Statement by Void if removed[edit] Transgender healthcare is an area where MEDRS are genuinely contradictory and the best we can do is represent all views according to weight. YFNS has very strong views about which views are correct, and has spent the 18 months since the lifting of her TBAN bludgeoning many discussions insisting that sources which don't accord with her POV are invariably FRINGE. I think there are many examples of source misrepresentation, cherrypicking, and disregard for sensitivity to BLPs as well as BATTLEGROUND and RGW behaviour. Some examples: (Copied here for clarity)(1a,1b) 1 - 08/03/2025 - Misrepresenting a source about the Cass Review 2022 interim report as applicable to the 2024 final report in the GA3 review of their article (see here for why). 2 and 3 - 26/05/2025 -WP:BATTLEGROUND - responding to a simple FYI with two comments doubling down on incorrect information.
5 - 26/05/2025 - Removing balancing MEDRS. 6 - 29/09/2024 - Removing material on historic desistence rates from one article, prior to creating a new article here where historic desistance rates are now framed as a "myth". 7 - 04/03/2025 - Source misrepresentation/cherrypicking. Removing the best quantitative estimate of desistance from a systematic review - appropriately caveated - to continue to portray historically high rates as a "myth". 8 - 10/05/2025 - Source misrepresentation. Same source, presented as if 80% is definitively a myth. Personal attacks here 9, directed at me on an admin's talk page, which I only became aware of last week. More BATTLEGROUND and dubious assessment of sources here 10 and exactly the problem with her longstanding misuse of FRINGE, in that YFNS seeks to discount MEDRS that say the wrong thing (in the linked original comment, dismissing respected neuroscientist Sallie Baxendale, for one). 11 WEASEL-worded "concerns" a BLP may have far-right links, using one weak source citing a blog. 12 Taking attributed material from the body of a BLP and placing it in the lede in wikivoice. Void if removed (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Silverseren[edit]This entire filing just appears to be fringe-pushing editors in the transgender topic area purposefully misrepresenting and misleading both past RfCs and consensus on various topics, not to mention doing so with source discussions. Which Snokalok has clearly pointed out above for what the filer claims. As for the statement just above mine and its continued argumentation with diffs of article and source content disputes (and still pushing fringe subjects like desistance), I can 100% wholeheartedly say that Void if removed is a perfect representation of an fringe-pushing WP:SPA editor in this topic area from their very first edits, which involved an interaction with me on Talk:Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet and Talk:The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes and they have continued pushing anti-transgender information ever since. It is their entire edit history. The entire thing outside of very rare edits on anything else. With tendentious talk page arguing making up over 50% of that edit history. In short, I see nothing actionable here other than furthering content disputes in a dishonest manner. SilverserenC 23:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC) Statement by DanielRigal[edit]There is a lot of verbiage here but the core allegation is that Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist shows a pattern of dishonest behaviour. That is a very serious, even blockworthy, accusation but the material purporting to back it up doesn't even begin to support it. What I see here is a load of largely unconnected gripes that fail to form a narrative. It is an attempt to make a mountain out of whatever molehills can be found and most of them aren't even real molehills. There is no dishonesty here. Well, none that can be pinned on Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, anyway... --DanielRigal (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC) Statement by LokiTheLiar[edit]I'd like to suggest a WP:BOOMERANG here for VIR (not Samuelshraga, their concerns are IMO incorrect but in good faith), because many of their diffs are themselves extremely misleading. 1. This diff is to YFNS explicitly distinguishing between the interim and final report. She also didn't even mention the source that said the interim report wasn't peer reviewed. She says that neither was peer reviewed because that's common knowledge and we all agreed including in the second discussion linked. 2/3. It's true Pubmed said it's a letter, and it's true policy says we shouldn't use things Pubmed says are letters. I agree this is likely a mistake in context, but it's not a lie. 4. James Esses was expelled from his program after campaigning against a ban against conversion therapy. This is literally the first source for "James Esses conversion therapy" on Google, BTW. 5. YFNS explains in the edit summary in detail why she thinks the text she removed is an WP:NPOV violation. 6. Here is the discussion on the talk page where that edit was discussed and reached consensus. In fact, VIR themselves participated, so they know full well why the talk page didn't like that edit. (Also the second article linked here passed GA review just recently.) 7. Trimming an overly-detailed description of the methodology of a study is not a bad edit. We don't need to describe why the review thought those 5 studies were bad, and we definitely don't need to describe what the conclusions of 5 studies the review thought were bad were. 8. It is a myth that 80% of children with gender dysphoria or who identify as trans will not grow up to be trans. That is very well-sourced, and the article including that section passed GAR just recently. The studies that found the 80% number were studying something much broader and then were used to claim that specific thing, which is false. That's almost the definition of a myth. 9. Admittedly, this should have been brought to AE instead of someone's talk page. But especially in the context of the previous points I think it should be clear why YFNS thinks you're a POV-pusher. 10. Evaluating the reliability of sources is a thing you're supposed to do in discussions, especially about WP:MEDRS sources. I also think that YFNS's evaluations of sources tend to be pretty good, FWIW. 11. TBH I don't like the first sentence of this either. The rest is well-sourced, though. 12. It's almost a direct quote from her. The recording is publicly available. It was a major controversy at the time. I don't know what else you'd want. For 1, 4, 6, and 8 especially I don't think any good-faith editor could have reasonably claimed what VIR claimed about those diffs. All of these descriptions strike me as biased, but those four especially strike me as just lies. Loki (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Sweet6970[edit]I am astonished that SarekOfVulcan says that Void if removed is Regarding VIR’s diff 4 - the comments on James Esses and exploratory therapy - I initiated the discussion with an objection to a link in a quotation. Here is the whole discussion: [107] Sweet6970 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC) In reply to YFNS about diff 11- the BLP violation which I objected to was this: Reply to YFNS:It is plain that the BLP violation I objected to was the reference to ‘far-right’. As I said in the 2nd diff I provided: SarekOfVulcan I had thought it was too obvious to mention that I was not counting vandalism. Are you saying that you don’t think it is a problem that Wikipedia should defame an eminent paediatrician by suggesting that she is connected to far-right politics? Also, note that YFNS has made a misleading statement on this page – saying that the discussion Another ‘quack’ example, from May 2025 [108] and the subsequent discussion [109]. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC) @Extraordinary Writ: @Valereee: Don’t you care that YFNS lied about the ‘far right’ smear on this page? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC) @Valereee: Void if removed’s comment on his diff 11 is As I have already said, and contrary to what Loki has just said, the consensus to keep did *not* include the far-right smear. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC) Statement by MilesVorkosigan[edit]Obviously, support closing with no action taken regarding YFNS. I understand that reports here are supposed to involve only the two original editors, but VIR should still be cautioned about making sure that their claims of what a diff says need to be much more accurate than they are here.MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Springee[edit]This is not an area I do much editing in but I’ve noted YFNS’s low level battleground/activist approach to the topic area. YFNS was tbanned shortly after joining Wikipedia in part because they were making, in effect, attack articles aimed at BLP subjects and groups they disfavored. Since requesting a lifting of that block they have maintained a POLEMIC section on their homepage “Honorable mentions” where they brag about the public reaction of people/groups who’s articles were edited by YFNS. This sort of taunting article subjects serves no encyclopedic value and only would add to external views that Wikipedia articles aren’t be edited impartially. Recently Colin decided to step away from this topic area due to conflicts with YFNS among others. The loss of Colin from this subject area is the sort of collateral damage that YFNS’s attitude has on the topic area. It becomes toxic and few want to deal with the heat. One admin noted a YFNS appeared to bait [111] Colin. Unfortunately, Colin couldn’t keep their cool and decided to leave the area for their own good. That is unfortunate as they were a great example, as editor put it, of one of the most truly nonpartisan editors in this topic area. At this point I don’t see anything red line item that warrants a sanction/tban (other than removing the POLEMIC content from their home page), but I do think this is a return to the 2023 form and I think in the long term it will hurt Wikipedia by discouraging divergent views from working in this topic area. Who wants to get in the constant fights? Springee (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Statement by LunaHasArrived[edit]With regards to YFNS sourcing the 80% part of the myth to the Karrington review, this figure and people describing that figure as a myth is a lot older [113] [114]. Both of the above were used in the section when YFNS added "approximately 80%" in brackets. The main problem here seems to be proper citations. LunaHasArrived (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell[edit]I have concerns about this user too. Despite the community reaching a consensus on the source’s reliability, YFNS continues to reject it, making inaccurate claims about the the source's type and veracity: Claims that the Economist article is an opinion piece: [115] Consensus at WP:RSN that it is not: [116] Repeats the claim that the Economist article is an "anonymous op-ed": [117] Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Another example. Is it appropriate to characterize living persons as "anti-trans" in a wiki voice just for expressing critical views on the appropriateness of medical gender transitions for minors or critical reporting on the subject? The edit in question [118] introduces a highly charged label without adequate sourcing, and reflects a partisan and tendentious interpretation rather than neutral encyclopedic writing. This is a serious concern, especially when applied to Singal, a journalist who has written for The New York Times (a publication considered a reliable source under WP:RSP.) Labeling him as "anti-trans" in a Wiki voice, without clear attribution to a backed-up reliable source that makes this claim explicitly, violates the principles of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Them that is used as a source is an advocacy website that cannot be regarded as a reliable source for such contentious labels, which should be avoided per WP:BLPSTYLE and MOS:LABEL, unless they are widely used by reliable sources.Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC) Statement by berchanhimez[edit]When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforcedand Administrators should seek to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment within contentious topics. I implore admins reviewing this to consider the effect YFNS has had on this topic area with their behavior as a whole - rather than expecting specific diffs.As Springee says, Colin left this topic area partially because of the lack of support in enforcing CTOP "scrutiny". I add that I feel the same way - while I keep some articles in this area on my watchlist, I do not typically intend to edit them or their talkpages unless expressing my opinion once - specifically because of behavior like this. I understand editors, including admins, are volunteers and never obligated to act. But there's ample evidence YFNS is not part of an "acceptable collaborative editing environment" - from diffs and history as a whole. It shocks me to see admins opining they see no problematic behavior from YFNS at all.I understand transgender related subjects are a hot-button political topic now. But that does not excuse bad behavior just because people agree with the person who is behaving poorly. The topic area has already lost enough long-term/good-faith editors who were either forced out or who chose to leave because this type of behavior isn't being addressed. Specifically, SPAs whose sole purpose contributing to Wikipedia is to further their viewpoint. YFNS' userpage makes clear their sole purpose here is to push their POV on transgender subjects:
YFNS is clearly only here to push their POV. It doesn't matter if they are mostly civil. In CTOPs, CIVILPOV should be considered even more so than in other areas. I implore admins to consider one question - Is YFNS a net positive in this topic area, or not? There's many other editors who can "take over" making constructive edits. YFNS' contribution is not a net positive, nor is it necessary, and should be dealt with accordingly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Statement by HenrikHolen[edit]My impression is that these allegations are, at their core, primarily content disputes, and that they warrant no action. I do, however, believe the arguments by Samuelshraga are problematic. One example, in your recent edit 05.06.2025, you claim that at a discussion at NPOVN, no one mentioned fringe. This is misleading. Editors characterized SEGM as “alt-med”, “outside the medical mainstream”, “anti-trans activists” and “political/culture-war org dressed up in science-y clothing”. These comments clearly support calling SEGM fringe. The discussion also revolved around whether the SPLC, which supported the characterization of SEGM as fringe, describing it as a hub of pseudoscience, was reliable. Editors agreed that SPLC was reliable for this claim, with no editor arguing against this. It is dishonest to suggest that this discussion did not indicate a clear consensus that SEGM is fringe. Statement by Black Kite[edit]I wonder if ArbCom is a good destination for this dispute. There are clearly a lot of editors with WP:BATTLEGROUND issues here, and whilst I am loath to suggest ArbCom because they sometimes get things very wrong, they do get things right more often than not. Otherwise we are going to have more and more filings where pro and anti-trans editors are trying their best to remove their ideological opponents from the area. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC) Statement by FortunateSons[edit]I'm seconding the suggestion by Black Kite. I'm mostly uninvolved here, but from the outside looking in, it seems less like individual problematic editors (though there are enough of those too) and more so the topic area's dynamic, which should be addressed as soon as possible. The sooner ArbCom takes a look at it, the better. FortunateSons (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist[edit]
|
