The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 sectionsbut 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).
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]
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.
âą Then there was "COVID vaccines are NOT safe and effective."
âą And "The COVID virus DID come from the Wuhan lab."
âą 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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:52, 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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:52, 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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The clearest argument against revoking the TBAN is the userâs own words. In response to being asked to not put their own commentary into an article, they posted *this*:
Personal attacks, extreme NPOV, several different conspiracy theories, plus it is almost all opinion, not the claimed âfactsâ. The editor claimed that this diff shows theyâre a MODERATE.
And as SCOTUS said, clearly wrong on the law.
I see no sign that theyâve learned to put less trust in disinformation and conspiracy theories since. Weâd just have to go through this all over again.
Youâre 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 âsmackdownâ (and lie that people on âthe leftâ applaud it!) is more of the same. You are here to âwinâ for your ideology. We are here to write an encyclopedia.
Of course, you could not, which is why you lied just now and claimed that this video supported your (then) claim. Donât assume people wonât check citations.
Or when you claimed that SCOTUS over-ruled Boasberg. Misinformation like this doesnât 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 canât 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 âsportingâ. 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]
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 âą 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. âFemke đŠ (talk) 20:42, 5 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]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
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.
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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 sectionsbut 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).
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 investigationsÂčÂČ, 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:
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.
I will be cautious when dealing with disputes and interactions, especially those involving sockpuppet concerns.
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.
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.
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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:20, 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]
@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]
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]
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]
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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:13, 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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:44, 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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:23, 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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:35, 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]
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]
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]
Anywikiuser, and other editors involved, are reminded that editors can be sanctioned for edit warring even if they do not breach an xRR restriction, and xRR is not an entitlement to revert that number of times. Editors are also reminded that it is generally expected that one will, upon request, discuss their objections after they make a revert. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
@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
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
The snarky comment isn't AE-worthy, this is mostly about edit warring, other poor behavior is additional evidence not the focus
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
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
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 ⧠ⶠ(talk) 21:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anywikiusernot 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 ⧠ⶠ(talk) 22:40, 10 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.
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.) â Preceding unsigned comment added by Anywikiuser (talk âą contribs) Moved from admin section, again. Please comment and reply only in this section. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 pageâwhether involving the same or different materialâwithin 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.
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. âFemke đŠ (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). âFemke đŠ (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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
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.
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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
25.6.2025 MjolnirPants asserts that six sources Slate, the CJR, The Economist, the Social Market Foundation, The Atlantic... GLAAD described a BLP as 'anti-LGBT'.
28.6.2025 MP reiterates I've already given you a whole list of sources. Additionally and relating to a second issue, flagrantly goes after another editor, explicitly casting aspersions on their motivations.
29.6.2025 After being asked twice to substantiate the claim with links to the articles, says Every example I mentioned was used as a source in Jesse Singal, and I had every expectation that anyone who disagreed with me would go there, first. Apparently, my expectations were too high.
8.7.2025 After I did go and check the sources there and didn't find the descriptions MP claimed, MP replies If you're trying to ensure I stop taking you seriously, that's a damn good tact to take. I dunno what to tell you. Maybe read the sources?
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
#21.2.2019 I don't know how much of this user's block log is relevant and I don't understand all of it, but this indefinite block for personal attacks I would think is relevant.
Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. This notice with reference to American politics. I don't know if MjolnirPants is specifically aware of the other CTOPs
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The key fact is that the sources listed by MP don't carry the claimed description 'anti-LGBT' (with the sort-of but not really exception of GLAAD, which as discussed in the talk page section includes 'anti-transgender' in an article tag). Given this was a discussion about whether to retain a description of a BLP as 'anti-trans', this claim was important to the discussion.
MP claimed another editor was ignoring this evidence (diff 2), and when I asked for the specific citations doubled down (diff 3 and diff 4). They since stopped responding on this issue, while continuing to engage in other parts of the discussion.
There's a separate issue of MP's tone and behaviour throughout the talk page section, of which diff 2 includes a fairly blatant example.
If MjolnirPants can substantiate the claim quoted in diff 1, that Slate, the CJR, The Economist, the Social Market Foundation, The Atlantic... GLAAD described [Jesse Singal] as 'anti-LGBTQ', I will of course withdraw this complaint. I have asked them to already of course. Otherwise I'd like them to answer for misrepresenting the sources.
Re: Parabolistâs point about the ellipsis and simple misreading of the sentence, the effect is that Mjolnir is saying the sources describe Singal as transphobic/anti-trans rather than 'anti-LGBTQ'. It makes no difference, as the sources say neither. Especially in the context of a discussion on MOS:LABEL and describing a BLP as "anti-trans" in an article.
The main thing I asked MP to substantiate [31][32][33] and where they doubled down (diffs 3 & 4) were the references to the Atlantic and Economist. If those outlets described Singal as transphobic or anti-trans (or any synonym), I'll withdraw the complaint. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector I wasn't familiar with the context of the block. I simply looked at MP's block log when filling out the filing, and saw a reference to personal attacks in the description - personal attacks form part of this filing. I'll strike that if it's definitely not relevant here. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to Loki's comment about Mjolnir's behaviour being bad but not AE-worthy, I'll just say this - Mjolnir was clearly not amenable to polite correction on the behavioural side, and doubled down repeatedly on claims about the sources that are simply untrue. Misrepresenting reliable sources is listed as an example of disruptive editing. Assuming bad faith is against behavioural guidleines.
What I want out of this filing is for Mjolnir to accept that their claims about the sources and their attitude to other editors fell short on these - especially in CTOPs - and to change their behaviour. I support the minimal administrative action required to achieve this. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade you say I should be topic banned at least in part because I am being (at best) obtuse regarding what sources say. Please can you explain what the sources say that differs from what Iâve claimed? My reading of what the sources say is mostly the same as Lokiâs below. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth please read "If MjolnirPants can substantiate the claim ... I will of course withdraw this complaint" as a reference to the fact that Mjolnir had never specified which articles they were referring to when making their claims, so I couldn't be 100% sure that I had read the right ones. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
Samuel is upset that I refuse to engage with their sealioning and wants to punish me for it.
This filing is laughably dishonest. Look at the diff cited above, where I very explicitly (looking at you, Void if removed) said one thing about several sources and something different about the GLAAD source, yet Samuel deliberately cut off half of the first sentence to make it look like I said one thing about all of those sources. I mean, I literally used quotes to indicate the label GLAAD applied to him, did not use quotes when referring to the others, and I said the others "...described him or his works as anti-trans or transphobic..." Samuel is literally and obviously misrepresenting what I said.
Samuel's logic is so fundamentally warped that it's literally the same as taking the quote He was taller than any of the others and he outweighed any two of them combined, and concluding that quote does not, in fact, describe the subject as being 'large' because the word 'large' doesn't appear in it. This is logic that's not worth engaging with, let alone entertaining as if it stands on its own.
That's not the extent of the dishonesty here, either. The entire argument is about whether to quote a reliable source, not whether to go around calling Singal 'anti-trans' in wikivoice, yet every single bit of the pearl-clutching happening here is about whether it's okay to 'label' him. Nobody's suggested labeling anyone as anything, only reporting on what a reliable source said. And this is information that's unarguably relevant to the subject at hand, not some POV-push to use this as a coatrack to call poor wittle Singal a nasty name.
As if that weren't enough, the argument against it (including some of the arguing down below among the admins) is blatantly ignorant of the basics of the English language and basic verbal or written communications. Since when is "anti-X" a pejorative statement? I'm proudly anti-Nazi. Everyone on this project who's ever fixed a spelling error is anti-misspellings. The whole purpose of this project is anti-ignorance. The assumption (upon which all the bickering here rests) that saying someone is anti-trans is actually some kind of slur, instead of a simple statement of easily-verifiable fact is wildly stupid. Whether that stupidity is assumed or inherent is not something I'll speculate about. But make no mistake: It's a profoundly stupid assumption, with no basis in fact.
Or perhaps you don't want to argue that it's a slur. Do you want to call it 'controversial' to preserve your precious BLP argument? Fine, find me some sources saying that he's pro-trans. Shit, find me some sources that say he's not anti-trans. Show me the actual controversy. (Hint: there is no controversy. Because it's neither a pejorative nor a controversial statement. It's a neutral, factual summary of his views.)
Anyone who takes this seriously is either ideologically motivated or too blinded by their pearl-clutching about the possibility of the Sacred Rules (hallowed be their invocation, and glory be upon their initialisms) being violated in letter, if not in spirit, (and by the big meanie, MjolnirPants no less!) to actually have any business editing this project. Yes, I'm looking at you, Guerillero. I know you've been around for a while, but if you're trying to make sure you lose the respect of any rational person who doesn't want WP to be an ideological battleground, you're on the right track below.
Don't ping me here again. (All of you are capable of typing my username without making it a ping.) I could not care less what happens here. And the reason I didn't respond sooner is, frankly, because I can't be bothered to check WP every day. I actually have a life outside of WP.
Here's a fun fact: I spent this past weekend hanging out with trans women, doing my little side-gig. Some of y'all know what kind of work I do as a side gig. I'll give the rest a hint: It ain't drag. The world is simply not ready to meet Scarlett O'Hairy yet.
But as the piece goes onânotably without a single happy, well-adjusted trans teen among its host of central characters for the first 9,000-plus wordsâit becomes apparent that certain voices and fears are privileged over others. This, unfortunately, is a trend that can be seen throughout Singalâs history of biased reporting on trans lives. - First paragraph
This is not the first time he has disregarded inconvenient accounts from trans peopleâand in the absence of these voices, he is responding to a strawman - Sixth paragraph
Implicit in Singalâs body of work on trans children is the sense that he is telling a difficult but essential truth that others are unwilling to acknowledge, but neither the media landscape (which is littered with pieces exactly like this one, down to the same subjects) nor the medical one reflects this. - Ninth paragraph
That this was instead the story the Atlantic chose to tell, and that it was entrusted to a man whose own neuroses leave him so unqualified to tell it, is a loss for cis and trans people alike. - Literally the last sentence of the article
Loki: Also, the things you're saying should have been said at the original discussion. MP's refusal to discuss prevented any kind of convincing or compromise. Alas! You've caught me in the act of committing the grave and unforgivable sin of [checks notes] failing to handhold other editors through such arduous tasks as [double checks notes] reading the sources before arguing about what the sources say. How dastardly! How despicable! My mustache shall be twirled like no mustache has ever been before in the wake of this villainy... MUAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! áááááŸáá±PantsTell me all about it.03:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Valeree: And of course anti-trans is a pejorative; it's not true that it's the same as anti-Nazi. I don't even know how to respond to this beyond asking what in all of god's green earth you think would be a neutral word to describe someone who insists upon writing misinformation in opposition to a topic with no connection to that topic themselves, if not anti-whatever. Why don't you read MOS:LABEL and show me where the prefix (and it does, in fact, explicitly discuss prefixes and suffixes) 'anti-' is mentioned. I can't find it.
Clearly the writer thinks he's anti-trans, but they stop short of calling him thatReading comprehension is a well-written article we have which explains in detail why your whole argument is wrong. I mean, you stated yourself that the authors of the articles clearly believe Singal is anti-trans (and I'll remind you that some of those sources did, in fact, explicitly call him that), so you clearly have some reading comprehension. Why, then, would you choose an argument which not only assumes we collectively lack it, but actively rejects the practice?
I mean, I haven't explicitly stated a premise in an essay longer than a single paragraph since I was in middle school, because doing so is generally just bad writing. The only times when you would do so is when the passage in question is part of a larger work, and you need to convey the premise quickly and succinctly. But when your entire 2000 word (or more) article is about that premise... Well, anyone with any competence in writing will tell you that explicitly stating your premise is generally not very useful. Indeed, it's often counter-productive, because most such articles are argumentative in nature. They're trying to convince the reader. Telling someone what to believe is usually entirely ineffective, whereas telling them why they should believe something is widely understood to be far more effective.
The example I gave which you find 'unconvincing' used actual, competent literary devices to convey an idea without spelling it out the way I would if I were writing for literal children. That's exactly the same thing the authors of the various sources raised here did. This whole side of the discussion -which you've clearly now placed yourself down into- is premised on the notion that anything not obvious to a moron -whether or not it's obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills- is verboten. You might want to raise your standards a bit. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia. áááááŸáá±PantsTell me all about it.20:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding MjolnirPants and notifications for Contentious Topics: On 11 June 2025 I started a new section on his Talk page headed Gensex, saying: I see that at the top of this page you say that you are aware of all D/S topics related to politics. Presumably this means there is no need to serve you with a Contentious Topics alert for gensex.[35] His response was to revert this, with the edit summary: No room for creeping on my talk page.[36] Iâve no idea what he meant by this. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, this diff of 23:52 11 June 2025 by MP [37]cited by Void if removed is a response to this diff of 21:52 11 June 2025[38] by me. We had previously come into contact on the Talk page of the essay Wikipedia:No Nazis. [39] I find the tone of MPâs comments objectionable, but I am much more concerned about the impossibility of engaging in reasoned argument with this editor. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a simple misreading of the sentence? The only source he's saying uses the term "anti-LGBT" exactly is the GLAAD source. That's why the ellipsis is there. It's two separate sentences. And having only read the Slate article, I think you would be hard pressed to not say that the article paints Singal as anti-trans broadly. Parabolist (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start by stipulating that I consider myself to be a wiki-friend of MPants, and I am not objective here.
That said, I've looked at everything in the complaint, and what I am seeing is a content dispute in a very sensitive area, where tensions are high, and nothing that the complaint attributes to MPants rises to the level of disruptive conduct. This is indeed a sensitive area (by which I mean GENSEX, although in this case it hits the jackpot by being intertwined with AMPOL and Trump), one where ArbCom is in the process of starting a case, so I can sympathize with editors on either side who feel slighted by comments. If you read the linked talk page section from the beginning, editors on both sides are to some extent talking past one another. Here is MPants' first comment there: [40]. Aside from the last sentence, which in context is a fairly mild request to read before posting, the comment is entirely one that is about sources and content, and that seeks to identify areas of agreement while arguing against disregarding reliable sources. As the discussion goes along, there's ongoing WP:IDHT from other editors, and MPants becomes increasingly blunt, it also looks to me like MPants is taking a position that looks like the consensus in the discussion, with Samuelshraga taking a partially different content position than MPants, and, as I said, MPants is not being disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside my personal feelings, I think that Seraphimblade has summarized the situation accurately. I admit that MPants didn't help his case with the tone of his statement here. I would just ask that this be dealt with via mutual topic bans or mutual logged warnings rather than site bans, so that editors can still do work in other, less heated, topic areas. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone very carefully through the talk page discussion that led to this filing, and I struck some of what I said above. Damn, this is difficult, and I don't blame any admins for finding it difficult. I could write a lot more to substantiate what I'm going to say now, but I would need a word extension, so here is the tl;dr, and admins can ask me for more if they want.
Nowhere in the discussion did MPants advocate for calling Singal "anti-trans" in Wikipedia's voice. Nowhere! MPants supported including that term with attribution to a source, and there is a ton of discussion about whether the source was WP:DUE for including that way in a BLP. I'm seeing admins saying that MPants did otherwise, but you need to get the facts right.
There's another editor in that discussion, who is not Samuel, who kept engaging with MPants in what looks to me like a seriously WP:IDHT way, arguing in effect that no sourcing should be cited, even with attribution, and disparaging reliable sources as advocacy etc. That editor has commented here at AE. But with the 2-parties rule, AE shouldn't act on that without a new thread. MPants became increasingly heated in replying to that other editor, and it's understandable. Samuel agreed with some of the things that the other editor was saying, and got caught in the middle. But it's really that third editor who was the problem. Go through the discussion, and you can see it.
I can't agree with Parabolists' reading at all, and even if we could stretch charity to that interpretation, it could have been cleared up in one reply - but it wasn't. If asked to source specific wording, editors should do so, yet every reply doubles down. This sort of behaviour in a CTOP is exhausting and serves only to raise the temperature.
The citation is a philosophical essay arguing the opposite of what it was given in support. The other two citations on talk are:
An article about a film which had been alleged as constituting hate speech, not the phrase
A link described as from The UK Parliament which is actually not at all, but an unvetted consultation submission by a single-sex prison campaigner which complains that some people have described it as hate speech
And then handwaving that literally countless others exist. The general tone of comments on talk is unnecessarily inflammatory and provocative too. Eg. this. And this after failing to acknowledge WP:RSEDITORIAL concerns over sourcing a statement of fact. And thisWP:BATTLEGROUND comment.
A CTOP is the last place to make unsourced and badly sourced assertions while insisting they are just very obviously true, nor to misrepresent sources, nor to make WP:POINTy comments and demand other editors do their homework instead of simply responding to questions civilly. An instruction to be WP:CIVIL and stick to what sources say would not go amiss. Void if removed (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT, in this precipitating comment MP did not provide a single citation for their claims. I can't actually see a single RS given by MP in the entire thread. SS bent over backwards to WP:AGF with someone who was uncivil, did not back up their claims, and expected others to put in legwork to try and find the actual sources MP may have referred to. The accusation of being obtuse about what sources say is surprising when MP has at no point provided one. SS had to go dig them up themselves, and other editors agreed with SS' reading of those sources. Void if removed (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Protestations about wikivoice are beside the point, since the exchanges with Samuelshrega are whether the label is DUE withattribution. The merits of the label are irrelevant - the behavioural issues are: claiming to have provided sources while not actually providing sources, and responding with WP:BATTLEGROUND when questioned on it - behaviour which has unfortunately continued here. Void if removed (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. All of the diffs offered in the initial report are edits to Talk pages? This isn't about BLP violations in an article at all? Am I missing something? Oh, and we are digging up an unrelated block from 2019? This looks like an attempt to shut down discussions. All I see here is MjolnirPants getting slightly frustrated at people trying to use the "Card says 'Moops'" type of argument. Is there any actual substance here? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say some of this perhaps strays into a degree of rudeness, but as for BLP, MP is making a reasonable argument based on extensive sourcing in thread about a figure who is more or less entirely notable for his journalistic and social media advocacy against trans rights. To me, trying to deny or reduce that when it is so central to his personal brand, reads at best as grasping at straws. â Preceding unsigned comment added by Snokalok (talk âą contribs) 14:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that, Samuelshraga previously filed a thread against YFNS that was described by admins at the time as throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks and was closed with action.[42] Before it was formally closed but after it became clear no action would be taken, SS then crashed out about YFNS in another thread.[43]
This debacle was shortly followed by an arbcom case proposal on GENSEX (which has the votes to be picked up but which has not formally been picked up yet) where editors trying to remove other editors with opposing POVs became a major topic of discusion.[44].
While I make no statements on the character of this filing, it is worth noting that - extensive crashout aside - Mjolnir is worth hearing out in this light. Snokalok (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I think Samuelshraga is correct about the sourcing here, this feels like going to AE to get MjolnirPants to produce sources in a content dispute to me. I don't really feel like this is AE-worthy.
(Just for context of why I think Samuelshraga is correct about the sourcing: based on the state of Jesse Singal's article at the time of the comment, the sources in question are probably: Slate, CJR, The Economist, the Social Market Foundation (yes, this is the same source), TheAtlantic, GLAAD. Most of these say that one specific article written by Singal was incorrect, and usually also say that it was stigmatizing or transphobic. Only the GLAAD source directly calls Singal himself "anti-trans", though Slate does call him biased in general. Especially because of the duplicate source I think MjolnirPants was not properly checking whether the sources said what he needed them to say, and this is bad and troutworthy, but IMO not AE-worthy.) Loki (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarek: Not to pile on here, but the sources don't support even the first statement. The sources are very critical of that one specific article by Singal, but even when you get to "his works" in general there just isn't a lot of reliable sourcing. Loki (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MP: Initial objection withdrawn (I did not originally parse any of those as meaning what you said they mean, but now you point it out I'll grant it), but it's replaced with a new one, which is: Why not just say that during the original discussion? Why did you have to be dragged to AE to explain what you meant? Loki (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait no. Those are all from one source, that I already said says Singal is biased generally. What about the other sources? Loki (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MilesVorkosigan: CJR/The Economist is still about one article Singal wrote: saying the story was transphobic and wrong is not the same as saying that Singal is transphobic generally. And the Atlantic is saying that Singal is biased against the kids in his article transitioning, which is not the same as saying he's anti-trans generally. I realize these are somewhat nitpicky distinctions, but they're important: Singal's a living person and to say something about him that he'd dispute, we need to have it sourced clearly and unambiguously.
(Like, to be clear: I believe Singal is anti-trans generally, because I've read his tweets. But tweets aren't reliable sources. A fact can be true but not verifiable because it hasn't had good sources written about it, and I believe that's happening here.)
Also, the things you're saying should have been said at the original discussion. MP's refusal to discuss prevented any kind of convincing or compromise. Loki (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that MjolnirPants' behavior is concerning. He has been persistently uncivil throughout the discussion, made personal comments about other users, and failed to provide sources to support the claim that reliable sources widely or commonly refer to certain individuals and organizations as "anti-trans", as required by MOS:LABEL and WP:BLPSTYLE. Instead, he advised other users to check the sources he mentioned by name, without providing any links. This may also be a WP:CIR issue. After other users conducted research to identify the sources MjolnirPants was apparently referring to, none were found to explicitly use the label, except for the advocacy group GLAAD, which alone is not sufficient to justify the use of such a contentious label about a living person. Telling other users to "do better," "spend a tad bit more time on self-reflection", etc. while failing to explicitly cite any sources to support his position is not acceptable. The diffs have already been provided by other users, so I will not repost them. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that compliance with the rules is important, and WP:BLPSTYLE advises us not to "label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." Similarly, MOS:LABEL cautions against using value-laden labels for any individual or group unless such labels are widely used by reliable sources, and only then use in-text attribution. To quote: Value-laden labels â such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion â may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. In my understanding, the use of a contentious label such as anti-trans by one or two sources, especially opinionated or advocacy-oriented ones, is not sufficient to justify its usage. "Common" implies widespread usage by top quality sources. I don't believe Samuelshraga was wrong to demand compliance with the rules, as they are in place for a reason. It is up to those who seek to use such labels, even with attribution, to demonstrate common and widespread usage in reliable sources. Jesse Singal is a journalist who has written for highly respected and reliable publications such as The New York Times and The Atlantic, neither of which considers him a transphobe. While some may disagree with his reporting, his perspective remains a legitimate one in a deeply polarizing debate, and we should not dismiss it by applying contentious labels. Generally, I don't think labels add any useful information beyond carrying implicit value judgments and oversimplifying complex issues where no scholarly consensus exists.
Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You would have thought that with an ArbCom case about to start on transgender-related disruption, the usual suspects would have stopped trying to remove people that they feel are their ideological enemies from the topic area, but clearly this appears not to be the case. It is certainly something I wouldn't have done in the circumstances. Black Kite (talk)18:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: MP has not edited at all since this AE was filed, and if you look at their contribs they regularly have long gaps between activity. It would be incredibly harsh to sanction them on the basis of this, barely 48 hours later. Black Kite (talk)18:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A block I made is being referenced here, and so I feel the need to point out that the block occurred in the context of MjolnirPants being harassed by a vicious racist troll, who later admitted (bragged, really) that they were only here to get MjolnirPants blocked, and abandoned their account immediately after leaving an "own the libs" style parting shot. Much more happened behind the scenes via oversight and arbcom, and from what little of it I was privy to (I've never been an oversighter nor an arbitrator) there was a general consensus that they would be unblocked immediately if they just asked, and in fact that's what happened even though it was two years later. I was pushing to lift the block symbolically without a request, and would have unilaterally if oversight hadn't already taken it over. Still, if we were able to scrub entries from block logs, this one would be top of my list to purge, per WP:NONAZIS.
It's absolutely not relevant here, other than that having picked this particular block out of all the entries in MPants' log calls into question the motivation of the filer. I suppose we'll have to take them at their word that they simply aren't familiar with the context. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't familiar with the dispute nor with the BLP subject before coming here, but I did have a look at the discussion from which the complainant provided diffs, and I personally don't see the problem. I see an experienced editor trying to discuss the proper framing of a BLP subject known for their transphobic writings and becoming frustrated at being stonewalled with repetitive WP:GREENCHEESE arguments, and then being tone policed. And now having an enforcement process weaponized against them. This should be dismissed with no action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: here are all the times I could find in the linked discussion where MjolnirPants said something to the effect of "nobody is arguing for Singal to be described as anti-trans in wikivoice":
[45] "Nobody has suggested the use of the word 'transphobic' in this discussion [...] Nobody curently involved is advocating for labeling any individual or group in wikivoice as 'transphobic' or even 'anti-trans'."
[47] "Once again, Wikipedia is not labeling anyone as "anti-trans"."
[48] "You are continuing to argue against labeling him that in Wikivoice which nobody is endorsing here." (emphasis in original)
The complainants here repeatedly accused MjolnirPants (and others) of wanting to call Singal disparaging terms in wikivoice despite MPants having literally argued against that exact point at least four times. If this is not sealioning I don't know what is. How embarrassing that you're now repeating the same sealioning arguments; you should recuse from this discussion.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee and LokiTheLiar: there is a difference between discussing a subject's controversial views on a talk page in the interest of improving an article (see WP:BLPTALK) versus writing those views into an article without proper sourcing. MjolnirPants was trying to do the former, but was repeatedly shouted down by editors who misinterpreted their comments (whether willfully or not) or just didn't read them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I presume to have been granted an extension, having been invited to clarify when I'm already over the limit. I meant to partly address your comment about MPants' statement dealing with labelling Singal, and partly Loki's comment that labelling with attribution requires sourcing, as both comments seemed to be calling out malfeasance on MjolnirPants' part. The point I intended to make, and my interpretation of BLPTALK, is that discussing contentious information about a BLP subject on a talk page in the interest of improving our coverage of the subject (within reason) is fair comment, and does not require inline citation (though WP:MINREF probably disagrees). Thus, having engaged in such a discussion on a talk page or on this page should not be held against MjolnirPants. This does not appear to be a point on which we disagree, however. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this listing with some alarm but, after seeing yesterday's developments I decided to post a brief comment.
First, regarding MPants' reply above. When I look at the diffs that led to this filing what I see is an editor dealing with WP:CPUSH. Civil POV pushing turns Wikipedia into a game of who can make their opponent lose their cool first. It is a method of argumentation designed to frustrate and antagonize. Having admins at AE look at obvious civil POV pushing and suggest that MPants needed to defend themselves was likely an additional irritant. With that in mind, it's somewhat unsurprising they came in and said some angry things. They had been provoked to anger.
Second, regarding calling Singal anti-trans, there are sources. In fact there are peer reviewed sources such as: The Politics of Transgender Health Misinformation. By: Billard, Thomas J, Political Communication, 10584609, 2024, Vol. 41, Issue 2 which says of Singal much of this misinformation enters public discourse via "mainstream" media sources that are "invested with various forms of social, cultural, political, and economic power" (p. 237). Misinformational claims such as those listed above appear frequently in feature articles and op-eds in The New York Times and The Atlantic, with a consistent stable of misinformation-peddling authors including, among others, Jesse Singal and Abigail Schrier; moving into media and we have pieces like NY Times hires anti-LGBTQ columnist in appalling move: Newspaper continues to platform harmful voices. By: ELLIS, SARAH KATE, Washington Blade, 02789892, 1/20/2023, Vol. 54, Issue 3 which says of Singal writer Jesse Singal, who is not transgender or LGBTQ but who has built a career inaccurately writing about trans issues and targeting trans people, reviewed and supported his friend's inaccurate anti-transgender book. It also says of Singal that he makes false and harmful exclusionary innuendo about transgender women and safety.
I could easily burn through my 500 words with such examples. The point is that it is easy to find reliable sources that call Singal a misinformation peddler on trans issues, that say he writes inaccurately on trans issues and that he targets trans people, that he engages in false and harmful exclusionary statements, etc.
Civil POV pushers like to demand a very high specificity of language that goes against Wikipedia's summary style. And so they will point to the fact these articles describe Singal's anti-trans activities rather than summarizing them and then claim they are not evidence he is anti-trans. But we do have a summary style. And the clearest and most accurate possible summary of Singal's career is to call him anti-trans.
@Valereee if we are to treat ourselves as not permitted to summarize the unpleasant views of people who hold them because those summaries are treated as pejorative then the best case scenario for BLP articles will be a preponderance of terrible prose. The more likely scenario will be hagiography of people with unpleasant views. Simonm223 (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there are several issues here. One seems to be a bit of talking past each other. That is an unfortunate thing that sometimes happens in these long discussions. Editors misinterpret a comment/statement or confuse the claim of editor A with editor B who is saying something similar. That isn't an indication of bad faith or incivility. In fact, civility is one of the best ways to undo such a situation. Certainly that could have been helpful here. CPUSH seems to be one of those things that is thrown out when editors can't convince someone else that they are "Wrong(tm)" But why bother proving they are Wrong(tm)? No one is required to reply to someone on a talk page. If the Wrong(tm) editor isn't changing the article, what's the problem? If they are stonewalling a change then a RfC is a clear way to establish that consensus isn't with them. Above it's argued that CPUSH results in otherwise good editors loosing their cool and becoming uncivil. Yes, that is an issue, with the editor who fails to follow civil. Again, there is no rule that says we have to reply to someone who is Wrong(tm). Civil, unlike CPUSH, is a policy for good reason. When an editor uses language that, even it not a direct insult, is clearly rude, inflammatory etc they make it harder to reach an amicable consensus, discourage other editors from being willing to engage in the discussion and potentially start an escalation that can lead to good editors being blocked. Clear incivility is not something that good faith editors, even ones who are Wrong(tm) should have to tolerate. I suspect, absent the incivility, the content disagreement in question would resolve itself either via continued discussion or a civil RfC on the topic. Springee (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jesse Singal, who is widely considered to have created the blueprint for anti-trans activism today[49] - starting with this academic article to drive home who we're talking about.
Others have already noted:
1) SamuelShraga's past history of weaponizing AE and reading things in the worst possible light
2) Mjolnir supported attribution, not putting "anti-trans" in wikivoice. I am disappointed admins fell for the strawman he wanted it in wikivoice.
the report cited debunked and discredited anti-transgender sources and
the document cites notoriously anti-trans sources throughout its âanalysis,â including the U.K.âs widely disputed Cass Review, the âSociety for Evidence-Based Gender Medicineâ (SEGM), and long-discredited writer Jesse Singal.
MP said . Slate, the CJR, The Economist, the Social Market Foundation, The Atlantic, apart from the Economist/Social Market Foundation (same source), each of these was indeed heavily critical of his bias against trans people. Which indeed makes an attributed description along those lines more due.
@MjolnirPants: is not a GENSEX regular, generally focusing on FRINGE[51]. I think he should have just linked the sources instead of referencing them and his reply here was too confrontational (MP, I would advice you strike/tone down your AE statement). But I have some sympathy for not knowing how to handle GENSEX WP:PROFRINGE activism - frankly this is a topic area where admins never deal with WP:PROFRINGE editors who've learned to WP:CPUSH. I think a warning might be called for.
SamuelShraga, on the other hand, absolutely has been attempting to weaponize AE (and consistently advocate citing SEGM...). I'd describe his behavior at the talk page as baiting and willful ignorance. I think a GENSEX TBAN or at least AE post ban would be helpful. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⧠ⶠ(talk) 15:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MilesVorkosigan: I have removed your section as a violation of WP:BLP. Since your commentary so far has not been helpful, I am advising you to not post again in this thread. This isn't just a matter of you being wrong on policy; per WP:BLPTALK, your edits themselves violate the policy. Nor does it matter whether maybe some source could be found to support your view; your insistence that this is so obvious as to not need sources is part of the BLP violation. Please also take this as a warning that future statements like thisâabout any living or recently deceased person, about any alleged hateful viewpoint, without clear sourcing explicitly making the same claimâwill result in a block or TBAN under WP:CT/BLP (of which you should consider yourself aware). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|đ€·) 12:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I believe that the header on MjolnirPants' talk page clearly indicates awareness, so I would not consider that an issue here. Awaiting a statement from them before I go into this any further than that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I would sanction just for failure to respond; no one's required to. That said, we can't wait indefinitely either, so at this point I think we should just evaluate the complaint as it stands. Of course, should MjolnirPants want to add their input at any point, they're still welcome to do that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. BLP doesn't let us SKYBLUE negative information about a living person, especially when the sources brought up to support that negative fact fact don't actually day that, see Lokitheliar's statement. People need to start with what Reliable Sources actually say and work from there rather than starting with a truth and trying to justify it. --GuerilleroParlez Moi07:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As MP points out above, those were two separate sentences saying different things, so it's inaccurate to say that he's misleading when a statement about GLAAD doesn't apply to the first five. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)16:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that they're both right. MjolnirPants' attitude, even as demonstrated here, is certainly not one conducive to keeping things calm in a very controversial area, and Samuelshraga is being, even at the most charitable, rather obtuse regarding what sources say and seems to engage in I didn't hear you and similar disruptive behavior. I don't really see a good reason that either of them should continue editing in this highly contentious area. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sensitive to issues of sealioning, but I don't think that's what I'm seeing here from Samuelshraga. I don't find Mpants' analogy or assertion ("quote He was taller than any of the others and he outweighed any two of them combined, and concluding that quote does not, in fact, describe the subject as being 'large' because the word 'large' doesn't appear in it") convincing. Calling someone anti-trans in Wikivoice is not the same as saying the person has been described as having anti-trans bias, and asking for RS calling the person anti-trans is reasonable.
And of course anti-trans is a pejorative; it's not true that it's the same as anti-Nazi. Unless a person is calling themselves anti-trans, or the label is widely being used in RS (and in the case of GENSEX, I'd agree we need those RS not to be biased) we shouldn't use the label. Mpants, all of the passages you quote are saying his writings about trans subjects are biased. Clearly the writer thinks he's anti-trans, but they stop short of calling him that, so WP would need to also if that's what we're basing our description of him on. Valereee (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MilesVorkosigan, Everyone already *knows* that Singal is (at best) anti-trans, that's the basis of most of his notability is not good enough for calling someone anti-trans in Wikivoice. When it comes to negative labels, it is seldom BLUE that "everyone knows" this about a living person. We need a reliable source, preferably multiple and of very high quality. Valereee (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector, I was responding directly to Mpant's statement. I actually considered adding, "I know early in your statement you said this wasn't about the label, but your entire statement following that dealt with whether or not labelling Singal as anti-trans was fair based on their writings being described as biased, and whether anti-trans was even a pejorative, and then in your reply to Loki, all of your examples are in support of Singal being anti-trans." I didn't because I felt like was I was saying was long enough, but I guess it's necessary here to have made that clear. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MJP, what would be a neutral word to describe someone who insists upon writing misinformation in opposition to a topic with no connection to that topic themselves, if not anti-whatever. Generally, we see arguments to call them someone who has done X, Y, and Z, and leave it at that until RS are calling them the pejorative term.
It doesn't really matter that by my reading and yours and everyone who read that Slate/Outward piece, the author of that piece clearly thinks Singal is anti-trans. You're of course right that in a lengthy opinion piece criticizing another article, he's unlikely to start out with "Jesse Singal is a big fat anti-trans, and here are all my reasons for thinking so." But when we're talking about a pejorative label at a BLP, unless the highest quality RS are calling him that -- often it's done in passing, like the Them piece -- it's reasonable to object to labelling a BLP with a pejorative term. Valereee (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223, re: summary style. It's a reasonable argument to say that if RS aren't using the pejorative term, our summary style doesn't justify it either. It's not sealioning to demand RS who are using that pejorative term. I am aware that puts editors at an article in a position where it's hard to find consensus. I'm also aware that there are editors at any number of GENSEX articles who would not be arguing nearly so hard about that if their own opinions weren't in the mix. That's what makes GENSEX so difficult. Valereee (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223, of course you can summarize their unpleasant views. "X has argued X, Y, and Z." <---summary of what the source says at greater length. "X is anti-trans." <---conclusion drawn from the fact you know anti-trans people often make similar arguments. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to side with Valeree here about BLP. Sourcing for calling a BLP "anti-trans" in wikivoice needs to be ironclad, not a "everyone knows it" sourcing situation. I'm very unimpressed with the line of reasoning that "anti-trans" isn't a pejorative and so thus it doesn't need sources that explicitly state a BLP is "anti-trans". I'm also not impressed with the amount of aspersions/battlegrounding being used here: "Samuel's logic is so fundamentally warped" "blatantly ignorant of the basics of the English language and basic verbal or written communications" "stupidity is assumed or inherent is not something I'll speculate about". None of this is necessary or helpful at all. It's possible to make arguments without this sort of ... I'm struggling to find a word that isn't "invective" to describe it, so I'll just re-use "battleground behavoir."
This isn't to say I'm not unimpressed with Samuelshraga bringing this to AE - the way I'm reading their "If MjolnirPants can substantiate the claim ... I will of course withdraw this complaint" is that they are using AE as a step in the underlying content dispute, and that's not what AE is for - it very much feels like they brought this here not so much because of what MJP is doing is wrong but as an attempt to "win" also.
Frankly, I find this whole filing an excellent example of how this CTOP is toxic. The fact that we have editors willing to overlook BLP policy or blatant battleground behavior (from all sides) is not good at all. Not sure what we here at AE can do to solve either the micro or the macro problem though. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it's getting worse, too. Even with an active ArbCom case request, it seems like nearly everything we're seeing is GENSEX. This is at least the second one in recent memory (For Ivan: that at least one side is characterizing as) over the use of the label anti-trans, alone. Valereee (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, MJP wasn't arguing at article talk to call Singal anti-trans in Wikivoice. They were, by my reading, arguing that quoting with attribution a source that other editors are saying is biased was okay if RS who weren't using the term nevertheless were saying things that would tend to support the idea that using that content wasn't undue. MJP, if you need more space to respond to that, please take up to 100 words. (Or anyone else can feel free to correct me, please ping to make sure I see it, I'm traveling and busy but want to be clear on this.) Valereee (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector, could you clarify the point you're making with there is a difference between discussing a subject's controversial views on a talk page in the interest of improving an article versus writing those views into an article without proper sourcing. To me that's an "of course", but maybe you have some nuance you're thinking of? Valereee (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
05:35, 12 July 2025 Makes a WP:POINTy thread on WP:FTN arguing for a position he does not believe (and which it's not clear anyone believes as stated) specifically to mock it.
16:56, 12 July 2025 Admits he's making the thread explicitly because he finds the position "absurd" and "McCarthyist".
19:29, 12 July 2025 The full discussion, after being hatted because it was clearly not intended as a serious proposal.
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 thesediffs 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]
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.
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]
@Parabolist: It seems unlikely I get a logged warning, but I'm getting out of GENSEX-adjacent culture warseverything 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]
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.
@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.
@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: 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]
"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.
@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 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.
@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.
@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.
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]
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]
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]
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 articleâs talk page to keep the âdeadnameâ 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 12345) Given his statements above and elsewhere, why should any of what heâs said be taken seriously?
Letâs get real. Itâs tasteless, time-wasting trolling. Locke Cole and Chess argue on the talk page. Chess goes to ANI with the header âLocke Cole accusing me of being disruptiveâ. 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 Colinâs message; while long, it contains invaluable advice for editing in a CT. Note Colinâs points about âgoing nuclearâ, making accusations, and titling of ANIs. Note Chessâs short response.
In 2024, during an RSN discussion, Chess accused editors, such as Void if removed, of âdownplayingâ the findings of the Cass report. Chessâs 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 doesnât seem to really understand the topics at hand and rarely editsrelated articlesâ 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 Colinâs previous advice. I donât 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 itâs RGW to dismiss editors talking about how trans children should be aborted.
@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.
A time limited one would not be proportionate, given the evidence presented so far. I donât have any feelings right now on the scope of one, although I will point to my discussion on Lokiâs talk about the âDecolonizationâ article. And it does not seem like this isconfined to LGBT topics in Gensex. Otherwise Iâll reiterate everything Iâve said so far. Moneytreesđïž(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 âgender related controversyâ. But no matter; even if not in GENSEX, as Tamzin says, it is further evidence of disruptive editing around âculture-warâ type issues. Moneytreesđïž(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). Moneytreesđïž(Talk)19:41, 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. Moneytreesđïž(Talk)20:26, 18 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]
@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|đ€·) 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|đ€·) 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]
@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) buidhe06:58, 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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:15, 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? SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:49, 14 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? SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:52, 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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:14, 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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:21, 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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
