Back Vikipediya:Arbitraj Komitəsinə müraciət Azerbaijani ویکی‌پدیا:داورلیک/ایستکلر AZB উইকিপিডিয়া:সালিশ করার আবেদন Bengali/Bangla ویکیپیدیا:لیژنەی ناوبژی/داواکارییەکان CKB Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž Czech Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen German Wikipedia:Comité de Resolución de Conflictos/Reclamaciones Spanish ویکی‌پدیا:داوری/درخواست‌ها Persian Wikipedia:Välityspyyntö Finnish Wikipédia:Wikitanácsi indítványok Hungarian

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia   14 June 2025 8/1/3
Capitalization Disputes Motions 26 June 2025 6/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Indian military history (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 08 Jun 2025 22 Jun 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Race and intelligence none (orig. case) 4 July 2025

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia

[edit]

Initiated by Raladic (talk) at 23:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

[edit]
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Examples of the AE cases of editors with pro-fringe/anti-trans views who have been sanctioned for their actions:

Special treatment of WP:UNBLOCKABLE's who are given leeway of endless warnings after warnings and then "offer to step back" to avoid the sanction that admins were discussing if it hadn't been for their offer to keep the "appearance of a clean record"

Further examples of AE cases with leeway given to users promoting pro-fringe/anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia:

Retaliatory filings by users promoting fringe theories and/or opposition to queer rights against users:

Statement by Raladic

[edit]
   Raladic's statement contains 839 words and complies with the 900-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 900 words.

I retired from Wikipedia back in December 2024 due to the negative mental toll it took on me after having repeatedly experienced the systemic bias on the editing experience as a female editor trying to improve underrepresented areas of Wikipedia, such as WiR and LGBTQ+. Even prior to my retirement, the area was fraught with misinformation pushed by a very small, but extremely outspoken group of editors (emphatically echoing each other's fringe views) who have used and abused Wikipedia's processes to promote the fringe agenda of people and organizations that are spreading Transgender healthcare misinformation.

I have been watching the area from the sidelines over the past six months, but see no improvement in its treatment, if anything, it appears more entrenched. Some of this is even despite the organizations having been positively marked generally unreliable in 2022 (1, 2) and more recently fringe (1) by the wider community - these editors continue to perpetuate the lies of these organizations and attempt to whitewash articles of these organizations' proponents and actors, removing content and endless arguing against it.

The area has become an inextricable field of strife and other dispute resolutions appear to have failed (as AE's current board shows) and/or wasted hundreds/thousands of editors hours having to argue and re-litigate. I thus implore ArbCom to take on this case to establish a new CTOP split off from GENSEX for Transgender health care misinformation (or curtailment thereof) and impose sanctions on editors who's primary purpose on Wikipedia appears to be the promotion of misinformation and organizations and people involved in the spread this misinformation in the area. I believe this case may require a treatment similar to ARBSCI to put an end to the mushroom-popping of SPA's coming to disrupt Wikipedia by trying to legitimize their fringe ideas and in some cases outright transphobic hatespeech. This has included literal sockpuppets (such as in the MfD of the WP:NQP essay, which got one user tbanned and another above soon thereafter).

The above collection of relevant discussions showcases the endless amount of time that many editors across Wikipedia had to spend (and honestly waste) arguing with these pro-fringe editors. ArbCom is primarily concerned with conduct over content, this case here presents a nuance where content and the ardent pro-fringe advocacy by certain editors overlap with the problematic conduct these editors exhibit. Some editors who come into this area as SPA's are very quickly found out and censured, some editors have managed to thread the line with successful wikilawyering, but ultimately, to the detriment of the project and as such, I make the appeal for ArbCom to take this case and provide relief.

Above links provide a sampling of some of the cases that have shown the inextricable nature and listed parties involved in the case, both editors who have helped shape the area, several admins who have helped mediate the area over the months/years and the actors in question that are subject of this appeal. Raladic (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@asilvering-The party list is carefully curated from the users that have been at the core of transgender related articles and the arguments of disputes over the past months/years. The editor's privy to the area will recognize the user list in its entirety. The bloodofox ANI is linked as a tangential symptom of what minority editors have to endure on Wikipedia, but not core to the dispute, hence no extra parties (that aren't already).
I do believe @SFR has been too involved not to be party to the case, or else be recused as an arbiter. Of particular note is the reprimand that @Guerillero had to issue here to that effect. Raladic (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel I carefully selected the people as party based on the definition of Arbguide glossary as having an important role in this dispute and believe this to be fully true of those listed. Specifically regarding SFR, I actually messaged them earlier to expand on why I believe they should be a party.Raladic (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel, I agree, this list currently doesn't provide nuance on level (my spreadsheet I made to prepare the case does). The list that @Tamzin just made largely matches my center list (+DanielRigal, SilverSeren). Then some that appear less often, but do play a role in this and then there's parties that have insight (SFR,BK49). Since I stuck to the 500 word limit for the case, I couldn't elaborate on each persons role, but can do so if the case is accepted. Raladic (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scope- I titled this "Transgender health care misinformation" as the core, but the issue does expand to the basic human rights violations[1][2][3] advocated by anti-trans editors who use WP to promote infringement of trans human rights. I note that technically all advocacy from editors that violates/infringes on human rights (transgender or not) violates Wikimedia's Terms of Use (ban for posting content not "in line with human rights principles;"), though enforcement of this is missing in practice as it isn't codified in enwiki community WP:POL (beyond the link) and should be addressed in this case. Raladic (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Transgender People". OHCHR. Retrieved 15 Jun 2025.
  2. ^ "Statement on the occasion of International Transgender Day of Visibility, the IACHR and a UN expert urge States to guarantee the full exercise of the human rights of transgender persons". OHCHR. 29 Mar 2018. Retrieved 15 Jun 2025.
  3. ^ "International Human Rights Law & Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity". United Nations Free & Equal. Retrieved 15 Jun 2025.

Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

[edit]
   Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist's statement contains 324 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Never been at Arbcom before but reading all this I have 3 thoughts:

  1. These issues have two locci. First is trans healthcare (and FRINGE views/misinformation about it), but the second is gender-critical feminism (particularly in the UK).
    • GC Feminism is internationally recognized as a FRINGE sect of feminism entirely pre-occupied with seeking to limit the rights of trans people. It's been condemned by groups such as UN women[1], the UN's independent expert on LGBT rights[2], the Council of Europe[3], etc.
    • Content disputes about GC feminism across the main article and others have involved most parties on the list
  2. The issue isn't 2 "sides". The majority of editors just want to follow the sources - to uphold NPOV and MEDRS and keep the encyclopedia up to snuff. There are respectful content disputes of all kinds. But a small group consistently attempt to POV-push in a WP:PROFRINGE manner.
    • Marci Bowers, president of WPATH said it well: There are not two sides to the story, and everyone who reports on this issue seems to feel the need to present two sides to the story. Now, beneath that, there is lots of nuance, what age, how early we intervene, how thorough the mental health evaluation. But the thing that unifies every person who is knowledgeable ... is that gender affirming care is overwhelmingly efficacious. ... There are subtleties, but there are not two sides. (NYT podcast transcript part 5)
    • MEDRS just don't disagree on the underlying facts that 1) being trans isn't pathological and 2) no other treatment than medical transition has evidence of benefit. As the latest top-tier MEDRS (international clinical practice guideline by dozens of MEDORGS) in the field stated, there's no proven effective treatment alternative without body-modifying medical measures for a [person with] permanently persistent gender incongruence[4]
  3. The recent RFC's we had on this fairly settle the matter. SEGM is known to be a group of fringe activists; they shouldn't be used to try and one-up much weightier MEDRS. The view that trans identities are a mental illness or frequently caused by one is bunk. A while back we had an RFC find ROGD is fringe. I believe the issue is mostly solved at the community level and hope in accepting a case ARBCOM focuses on PROFRINGE behavior that has necessitated RFCs we shouldn't need.

Statement by LokiTheLiar

[edit]
   LokiTheLiar's statement contains 691 words and complies with the 700-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 700 words.

I'd like to push back on Tamzin's implication that there is no scientific consensus in the topic area. There is a scientific consensus represented by many big mainstream WP:MEDORGs, especially WPATH and the Endocrine Society but also regularly supported by (for instance) both APAs and plenty of other large national and international WP:MEDORGs.

There also is, genuinely, a relatively serious challenge to some parts of that scientific consensus, represented especially by the Cass Review and the NHS reaction to it, but not one that has so far overtaken it. And even that challenge is more skeptical of the existing consensus than outright anti-trans. For instance, when asked directly Dr. Cass appears to basically agree with many of the trans-affirmative side's views, namely: that adult transition should be supported, that conversion therapy is not scientifically supported, and that being trans is not pathological.

If I had to locate the deepest point of actual contention here it's whether or not we have strong evidence that allowing kids or teenagers to transition is medically beneficial. But a lot of the stuff the people Raladic is worried about are pushing is not just that, it's all sorts of anti-trans stuff including clearly scientifically unsupported things like ROGD. Loki (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin I think that limited to pediatric trans healthcare your statement is much closer to true. However that's not the only thing that is under dispute here: you can find editors listed as parties arguing on the talk page of ROGD, trans health care misinformation and even at totally non-medical pages like For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers.
If editors A, B, and C are supporting the scientific consensus everywhere, and editors D, E, and F are opposing the scientific consensus everywhere (but in one specific subarea they may have a point), these aren't two equally balanced and similarly activist sides. You can't just carve out that specific subarea without looking at the whole picture. Loki (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW while I think Guerillero's comments linked by Raladic are relevant to this case, I disagree that they mean SFR is WP:INVOLVED here. SFR made only two very short comments, and one was extremely general while the other was literally just refusing to comment. Loki (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned Now you say that, I agree this comes at an awkward time because the community (or at least AE) might be in the middle of dealing with this already.

Background: There was a recent filing against Colin at AE. During that filing, Tamzin suggested more cases in this topic area should be brought to AE. Some have been, like this one against YFNS and this one against VIR (which has been sitting for over a week with no substantive action). I think that it's very plausible that just letting AE work its course could resolve many of the issues in this topic area without a case. It's hard to say that AE can't handle this before they're closed any recent requests on the subject. Loki (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Alanscottwalker: In a case partially about whether editors are pushing fringe theories, ArbCom needs to make some kind of determination of what's fringe and what's not, and as part of that, whether a scientific consensus exists. There isn't a bright line between content and conduct in this case. Loki (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu: Consensus is tricky in a case about whether there's a large contingent of WP:PROFRINGE editors in the topic area. If the contingent is large enough, they could block consensus on whether their beliefs are WP:FRINGE. Therefore, IMO, ArbCom needs to at least look at the underlying research directly. Loki (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also: a good approximation for parties for a case on transgender healthcare would be anyone who commented 3+ times at this GAR. By my count that's me, YFNS, WhatamIdoing (not currently a party), Void if removed, Tewdar (also not a party), RelmC, Aaron Liu, JonJ937, and Sweet6970. (Skipping IntentionallyDense and Trainsandotherthings as reviewers, though their evidence would be appreciated.) I'd also add Colin because his report started the GAR, and Samuelshraga as a frequent editor at Talk:Cass Review who started editing after the GAR concluded. Loki (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

[edit]
   Aquillion's statement contains 116 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

The party list is too broad. ArbCom is supposed to the the last stop, not the first; many of the editors listed above have never had anyone even attempt to raise serious conduct issues with them. The bare minimum for being a party should be that either they've been brought to WP:AE, WP:ANI, etc. for conduct in the topic area, regardless of outcome; or been actually sanctioned or warned; or clear diffs are provided of behavior that obviously raises concerns. The filer mentions "unblockables" as a justification for the long list but you can't reasonably call people unblockables when nobody at all has made even a token attempt to move towards sanctioning them before. --Aquillion (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snokalok

[edit]
  Snokalok's statement contains 579 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

So to start, Tamzin, I agree that pediatric healthcare is a major focal point of editorial conflict (in particular, anything touching the Cass Review), but I don't think it's the only major focal point. In particular, I think that the current active filings against VIR and YFNS display well enough that another major active one is conversion therapy - and in particular, gender exploratory therapy, (Ctrl+F exploratory), which is meant for adults as well as minors, and to my perception a number of fringe editors have pushed back on as being considered conversion therapy on the grounds that the British medical system has now replaced pediatric gender affirming care with it, and therefore it can't possibly be conversion therapy even though we've an overwhelming number of sources clearly demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is, as can be seen summarized rather well by the at the time of posting current version of the conversion therapy article here[5]. That said, GET is not the only conversion therapy that's been made controversial in recent years, with Zucker's 'living in your own skin model' being another (Ctrl+F own skin).

Also I think we should have Silver_seren here. Snokalok (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second @Black Kite's point, I think this issue goes far beyond healthcare. For instance, following the UK Supreme Court ruling which declared trans women to be men and vice-versa, a number of editors came onto various articles including woman, Graham Linehan, and JK Rowling to try to implement this as some degree of fact, saying that it's now the neutral position to call trans women "biological men" in wikivoice or else insinuating that it's a violation of neutrality to call them women.[6][7][8] Snokalok (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree I'll also state in Raladic's defense that Colin pinkie-promised in his most recent AE thread to stay out of topics regarding transgender healthcare, so there's perhaps an argument there why she might not have thought to list him.[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive354#Colin] Snokalok (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to speak to @QEDK's point. AGF. Assume good faith, pretty important to keeping a functioning wiki. The thing is though, a lot of the editors on this list have been having the same arguments in the same article talk pages for quite literally years at this point - to the point where one can look at the list of names in the View History tab, and know exactly what the conversation is going to look like before you even click and dive in. Assume good faith - yes, incredibly important tenet. But "assume" implies that you don't have any deeper info, and I think the reason we're seeing so many of these filings flying back and forth now is that, well, when you've had the same arguments over the same topics with the same people for years on end... there's no assumption there. You know everything you're ever going to. You know who's going to act in earnest, who's going to be rhetorically dishonest, what POV everyone has, where the honest ones stands and what angle the dishonest ones are probably going to take, who's going to do what when it favors them as well as when it doesn't. And the arguments continue, as they have for many years and will for many more. At this point, a reminder to AGF is going to diffuse nothing other than telling the editors on this list to phrase their arguments that tiny bit more politely. We need Arbcom. Snokalok (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Silver seren added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

[edit]
   Tamzin's statement contains 523 words and complies with the 525-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 525 words.

ArbCom should accept a case here, although not quite as Raladic has framed it. The core of this dispute is about pediatric transgender healthcare, a topic on which there is not a global scientific consensus, which two groups of editors are trying to claim the existence of such a scientific consensus on, in two different directions. That is not to say that there is equal misconduct on both sides, but the plain truth is that we have an entire topic area where almost all editors are pushing an activist agenda in one direction or the other. This exchange between VIR and RelmC, and the previous discussions linked from it, is representative: A review found "Quantitative studies [regarding desistence from transition] were all poor quality, with 83% of 251 participants reported as desisting". VIR has repeatedly tried to emphasize the 83% figure. RelmC has repeatedly tried to emphasize the "poor quality" aspect. Both are trying to skew that finding to fit an agenda. Similarly, there's the Cass Review, a non-peer-reviewed report based on several academic systematic reviews: Look on the talkpage and you'll find editors downplaying either half of that sentence.

Both sides acknowledge partisan motivations: To one side, this is about trans rights and fighting trans healthcare misinformation. (This is true in some cases, as we often do need to remove editors from the topic area for pushing transphobic rhetoric. However, in many cases editors like Raladic seem to beg the question, saying that arguments are incorrect because they're transphobic, and transphobic because they're incorrect.) To the other side, this is about protecting children from being turned trans, something VIR more-or-less acknowledges in the aforelinked thread. Neither is a good motivation for contributing to Wikipedia. Accurately reflecting the consensus of sources (or lack thereof) is what should motivate us.

The two-party rule basically makes it impossible for AE to handle these cases, as in each filing we wind up with disputes over the conduct of third parties. That's not to say ArbCom was wrong to impose the two-party rule, but the logical upshot is that in a complex multi-party case like this there is now no suitable venue other than ArbCom. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar: Clarified that I am referring to pediatric trans healthcare. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The parties that seem logical based on recent AE threads are YFNS, Loki, Snokalok, Miles, VIR, Sean, Sweet, Springee, Samuelshraga, Berchanhimez, and Colin, plus Raladic now that she's returned. Not necessarily an exhaustive list, but those are the obvious ones. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez: I put that list together based on people who've been involved in the recent merry-go-round at AE. I included you based on this comment, but I'll acknowledge that that's not as strong a case for party status as with some of the people I listed. My goal here is just to give ArbCom a plausible list to add/subtract to/from, more than something definitive. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I would also include RelmC, who I apologize for not pinging above; I'd just sort of assumed she was a party. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:What AE is not. -- Tamzin[thanks you for] (the|exten|sion) 10:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

[edit]
   Black Kite's statement contains 248 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I presume I am listed here because I made this comment at a previous AE (Wikipedia is very good at combating homophobic, misogynistic and racist behaviour. It does not, at the moment, appear to be very good at combating anti-trans POV pushers (unless they are obviously offensive), because many are civil and policy-compliant. The cynic in me wonders if this is trying to remove an editor who is trying to push back against some of this behaviour.) Three editors, all named here (Sweet6970, Void if removed and Colin) took severe umbrage at this and a sanction against me was requested. Six months later, all three of them brought the comment back up again in an AE against Colin ([9]), to which my reply was this. I still stand by it, and I would strongly suggest that this case be widened to take in the wider aspect of editing of transgender-related topics. This is a long running issue; all the way back to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute and before that. More recently we have had stuff like The Daily Telegraph RfC and a lot of AE reports, most of which don't cover healthcare issues. Don't get me wrong - Wikipedia does deal with some trans issues really well - we stamp on deadnaming people, for example. But as my comment above pointed out, we do have issues with so-called "gender-critical" editing, and it has only got worse since political events in the UK, US and elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to make it clear, if this case is accepted purely in the scope of transgender health care misinformation, I would appreciate being removed from the party list, as I have not been in any disputes in this subject as far as I can remember. Black Kite (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanielRigal

[edit]
   DanielRigal's statement contains 482 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I don't have experience with the arbitration process and I'm not sure what my role as a party would be other than to give an opinion here.

I don't want to say whether this is the correct venue for solving these problems but I do agree that something needs to be done and this sounds like a plausible approach. I broadly agree with Raladic about the nature of these problems. (Whatever the outcome here, I'm glad she's back!) Too often good editors are pushed out of editing in this topic area, or out of Wikipedia entirely, by the climate of anti-LGBTQ tendentious editing and arguing. The editors pushed out are nearly always women, LGBTQ or both.

I agree that fringe ideas are being pushed although I also have to acknowledge that those fringe ideas are gradually becoming more mainstream, at least in popular media, as post-truth anti-intellectualism spreads across the English speaking world with its sustained focus on delegitimising LGBTQ people. Nonetheless, there is much genuine academic consensus and it shouldn't be ignored, shouted down or sealioned to death. There is far too much sealioning on the Talk pages by people who know our rules but use them tendentiously to derail or prolong discussion, to exhaust the other participants and in order to get their way, which is normally to exclude plausibly valid content. In some cases exhaustion seems to be a deliberate tactic although I accept Tamzin's points about there being genuine differences of perception among editors about fundamental aspects of the topics here. Nonetheless, sincerity alone cannot legitimise pushing fringe views. Unfortunately, it is hard to know with complete certainty which specific editors are being deliberately tendentious. That is why I am not naming any names here although I sort of want to. There is a distinction to be made between an editor being naturally exasperating in all sincerity and an editor being deliberately exasperating as a tactic of exhaustion or even hoping to provoke a rash response that they can drag to the noticeboards. If this process can help with these difficult problems then I'm for it.

Sorry if that's not very coherent. I'm not quite sure what is expected of me here.--DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I don't agree with Tamzin that the problems are limited to paediatric transgender healthcare. That's certainly a big part of it but not all. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re Sweet6970's "different universes": Yes, there are editors inhabiting different universes but she fundamentally misinterprets the difference between these universes. All good-faith editors value neutrality but the neutral position differs significantly between universes. Clearly, nobody actually believes that "neutrality is immoral". (Yes, there are trolls but they don't care about neutrality or morality at all!) She seems to take it as axiomatic that her universe's neutrality is the one true neutrality and that's a problem. So how do we bridge these personal universes/phanerons? With Reliable Sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LunaHasArrived

[edit]
   LunaHasArrived's statement contains 95 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Absent anything else, I agree that there's been a chronic underuse of AE for problems (perceived or actual) in editing untill very recently. However I do think we have a problem at AE when someone can file a report and not have any discussion by administrators for a week. That this happened with the recent filing against Void if Removed, is the main reason I believe an arbcom solution might be needed. This is because if admins are unwilling to get involved sorting out disputes or problematic editors something has gone very wrong. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aaron Liu

[edit]
   Aaron Liu's statement contains 346 words and complies with the 500-word limit.
I agree with OsFish. I don't know what the party list's standard of inclusion is but I'm fairly sure it's more than what appears to be "everyone important to any dispute, resolved or not", and perhaps even less as Scottish is included. I don't even remember which RfC Scottish presumably closed as I'm fairly sure he has not engaged in this topic area. Looking at the contributions of autoconfirmed proposed party HenrikHolen, all the subthreads he's involved in seem rather peaceful and I doubt he can attest to the reasons to open an ArbCom case. Tamzin I have no idea even though I know who xe is.
Based purely on recent activity I've seen, the tip of the iceberg, I would make the party list just Neighb, Void, Loki, Jon, OsFish, Chess, Samuel, and others upon their request.
As a side note, I don't think additional sanctions on Colin are necessary as he has stopped. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's simply a backlog at AE. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ScienceFlyer has long resolved itself and yet hasn't been closed. I'm surprised there wasn't an {{admin backlog}} template on the page but there is now.
That said, I feel like a case would be best to resolve the issues here as 1. a backlog still means it won't get resolved soon 2. the two-party restriction would make resolving issues within this topic much more burdensome. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that TarnishedPath's talking about other cases an CTOP scopextension would help but as for this case—already within GENSEX—it would not. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Loki, one could judge whether editors pushed what consensus had found were Fringe theories. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Loki Well, be prepared to present evidence that ProFringe editors have blocked consensus finding things Fringe. That isn't my impression. (Probably do that in the evidence phase instead of here.) Aaron Liu (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this dispute's amount of parties is far more suited for ArbCom but @Leeky FYI Guerilla clarified today The diffs presented by Samuelshraga were found to not be actionable. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Licks-rocks

[edit]
   Licks-rocks's statement contains 95 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Having now thought about it, I don't think there is much for me to add here. Given the number of participants, I think plenty of words will be spent already, and I am a long way from the most experienced or knowledgeable or even competent editor here. What I will say is that I concur with (among others) Tarnishedpath, Roysmith, and Jéské Couriano that, while T-banning a large number of individual editors is far from inappropriate, a more structural solution is needed here to make the topic area habitable in the long term. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

[edit]
   Simonm223's statement contains 286 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Trans topics present some of the most fraught environments to edit within on Wikipedia. I've been concerned about tag-teaming, bludgeoning and WP:CPUSH for quite a while among people who would like Wikipedia to take a more gender-essentialist position regarding trans issues. The WP:FRINGE/N discussions cited by Raladic are informative and show many of the key editors who I feel have made it almost impossible to handle trans topics. In particular, the actions of VoidIfRemoved and Sweet6970 (and I would treat their actions collectively because they constantly tag-team) [10] have made for a toxic environment for queer editors. In the case of SEGM we have an organization referred to as a hate group by expert sources like the SPLC and yet VIR has fought to retain SEGM as a source on Wikipedia for months with few signs they will ever WP:DROPTHESTICK. Bludgeoning is especially evident in Talk:Gender-critical feminism where [11] Void if Removed, Sweet6970 and Colin represent a total of 740 edits or 33% of all comments from among the top-50 editors on the page. The only single editor who has contributed more to that talk page than any one of them is Amanda A. Brant, who appears to have stopped participating at that page (last edit Sep. 2024) and the sheer length of VIR and Colin's contributions vastly eclipse any other editors in bytes. This page is an informative example but, per Raladic, it's far from the only locus of dispute. This creates a chilling environment for LGBTQ+ editors (including myself) and it desperately needs addressing. Please take up this case.Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One note: Like several editors above I think the scope of this case should be expanded to cover more than just healthcare. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoxySaunders

[edit]

Statement by OwenBlacker

[edit]
   OwenBlacker's statement contains 182 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I'm another person who's never been a party to a case, neither ArbCom nor ANI, and I'm not sure what I expect here. But I agree at least something needs to happen to address the hostile editing environment for LGBTQ+ editors around trans topics in general, including DARVO from editors PUSHing anti-trans viewpoints (including in submissions here thusfar). I would hope UCoC §2 will be borne in mind.

Personally, I can't agree with Tamzin that the focus is entirely restricted to transgender healthcare misinformation; anti-trans editors here have been involved in some of the more heated discussions about trans issues more widely, especially around the hostile nature of UK politics for trans people and about key anti-trans figures.

Incidentally, while Sweet6970 said she avoids editing on healthcare matters, I would suggest her participation at Talk:Cass Review (for example) means that is not entirely the case. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: There are certainly some of us advocating for widening the scope here to wider than specifically healthcare, so the mention of Rowling isn't necessarily inappropriate, for what it's worth. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 11:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HenrikHolen

[edit]

Statement by MilesVorkosigan

[edit]

Statement by OsFish

[edit]
   OsFish's statement contains 491 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I’ve never been involved in an arbitration case before, so forgive me if I have misunderstood something, but given that I have never had any procedure started against my behaviour on this topic (or any other), nor any threat of one as I recall, should I be listed as a party? I ask because I see comments that it really should be people who have been named in dispute resolution processes (rather than just voicing opinions in RFCs or on talk pages) that should be parties here.OsFish (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, pending clarity about my status as a party, here is my statement:

I don't think this dispute is limited to transgender health for youth. Some of what I would call bad editorial behaviour occurred during RFCs on broader transgender issues, such as over SEGM, WPATH and the RFC over the pathologisation of being transgender. (Sources and editor comments being misrepresented or twisted, and a lot of not hearing.)

As a challenge for Wikipedia, I would say the issue shares similarities with both climate change and race & intelligence.

It’s similar to climate change in that I would argue (as others here have) that there is actually a good deal of expert consensus in transgender medicine. The non-peer reviewed Cass Report, the source of much contention and MEDRS criticism, is an outlier. Multiple subsequently published national expert evidence reviews (France, Poland, Germany/Switzerland/Austria) have agreed with each other and the reaffirmed positions of US, Canadian, Australian/NZ and world expert bodies, with some explicitly critical of Cass. Ideally, the challenge would just be how to resolve the tensions between Cass (which has status as a formal UK review) and expert reviews in multiple countries.

However, like climate change, this area has become highly politicised, especially in the US and UK, with a few of the same organisations active in the politics here as in climate change denialism. As such, agreed points of uncertainty (eg the weak evidence base for blockers), storms in teacups between experts, mild disagreements, errors in footnotes, and changes in the evidence base over time, can all become points for rhetorical exploitation by political actors. And as with climate change, non-expert RS (here non-MEDRS) can likewise become treacherous as activist or fringe campaigning becomes laundered as some sort of bona fide expert view.

It’s similar to Race & Intelligence in that there has been a generational change in mainstream expert opinion. Once dominant figures have been sidelined and largely rejected as deleterious and/or prejudiced, but they still retain some academic influence and presence in the literature. So there is a challenge about how to manage DUEness.

I don’t intend the above to mean I think all editors on the “other” side are acting in bad faith. Just to say I think these are the similar challenges for the encyclopedia. I’ve only been seriously involved in this topic since earlier this year and simply don’t know enough about the drama that happened before that.OsFish (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr vulpes

[edit]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

[edit]

Statement by Barkeep49

[edit]
   Barkeep49's statement contains 170 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I am hardly shy about suggesting a referral from AE to ArbCom. I did not think that necessary at the time of Colin's AE. Truthfully I think if Colin's AE had been left open a little longer there was a fairly good chance a consensus to topic ban him would have emerged as things were clearly swinging that way (and to be clear I was not supportive of this). I don't think Guerillero's close was wrong per se. There were lots of reasons to close the case and it was clear that Guerillero wanted to scold lots of people though I do think he did so unfairly in his comments directed at the Arbs and said so privately at the time to him. However, I also don't think that discussion suggests an inability of AE to handle this. That said it is possible that the community can't handle this and declining a case now raises the possibility that the community doesn't come when it's clear it can't. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Void if removed

[edit]
   Void if removed's statement contains 275 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

My suggestion for the scope would be to restrict it to transgender medical topics. I agree with JClemens' point that conduct issues are necessarily going to involve some judgement on whether policy is being applied correctly to selecting which sources are used and which are excluded.

I strongly dispute the framing of several of these comments which I believe misrepresent my approach and attitude. I have aimed for a balanced presentation of a topic where medical sources conflict. I believe this is an area that requires more humility about what we do and do not know than is on display across a dozen or so related articles, and what has been left out is as important as what has been added. This is not about two opposing claims of "consensus" or demanding only "one" POV is presented - it is about fairly representing the uncertainty when there is no such consensus and clinicians genuinely disagree, while at the same time the entire subject is inflamed by politics and litigation.

My area of most significant concern is a sustained misuse of FRINGE to circumvent NPOV, RS and MEDRS in a medical subject where legitimate controversy exists, as well as cherry-picking, misrepresentation or selective presentation of sources in a way that does not present subjects with sufficient nuance. It is not our job to pick a "winner", and declare everything else FRINGE.

In some areas this has resulted in overconfident and strongly worded local consensus being used to pursue debatable changes across multiple related articles and noticeboards, and some inflammatory talkpage/edit comments and wikivoice claims about BLPs that (in my opinion) aren't adequately sourced. Void if removed (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell

[edit]
   Sean Waltz O'Connell's statement contains 190 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

In my opinion, the OP of this request, Raladic, is one of the most problematic users in this topic area. If the case is accepted, I will provide detailed information about what has been happening in certain articles and related discussions. For now, I believe the arbitrators may be interested in reviewing the following discussions, in addition to those mentioned by others: [12] [13] [14] In my view, one persistent issue is that Wikipedia’s coverage of pediatric transgender healthcare does not adequately reflect the significant shift in international academic consensus that has occurred over the past few years. A growing number of national and international health authorities and professional bodies have revised their guidelines, often moving toward more cautious or evidence-based approaches. The contentious nature of this topic, and the lack of a clear scientific consensus, has been noted by other users as well. This is a key issue underlying many of the ongoing disagreements. This situation is not sustainable in the long run, as failing to properly represent the differing viewpoints in the global medical and political debate will not make the disagreement go away. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sweet6970

[edit]
   Sweet6970's statement contains 324 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Initial comments/queries:

@Raladic: (1) You have included the case I recently filed at AE against MilesVorkosigan as a ‘retaliatory filing’ i.e. you are accusing me of bad faith in my AE filing. You have provided no evidence for bad faith on my part, and have not commented at AE. I strongly object to your accusation against me.

(2) I avoid editing on healthcare matters. Why have you added me as a party in a case about Transgender healthcare misinformation?

@Tamzin: I avoid editing on healthcare matters. Please explain why you think that I should be a party to this case, which is about Transgender healthcare misinformation. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding OwenBlacker’s comment: As far as I remember, my comments at Talk:Cass Review related to Dr Cass, not healthcare. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Guerillero’s suggested possible solution to this issue - half-dozen or so editors, with diverging viewpoints, could get a vacation from the topic area for at least the next year - involves a misdiagnosis of the problem. I get the impression that Guerillero sees the problem as editors acting like squabbling children, and that they/we need to learn how to behave. That is not my experience of editing in gensex. My diagnosis is fundamentally different. I feel that two groups of editors are living in different universes. In Universe A, neutrality is an essential value for an encyclopaedia. In Universe B, neutrality is immoral. I think that Wikipedia should be in Universe A, but many editors in this topic think it should be in Universe B. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Loki’s suggestion today for a selection of parties: my comments at [15] were about the comments of IntentionallyDense, not about the subject of the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by berchanhimez

[edit]
  berchanhimez's statement contains 514 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

TLDR: I support a case for this topic area, but the party list needs fixing.

I agree that a case is necessary, similar to WP:ARBPIA5. The issues here are too in depth for administrators to have any desire to delve through all of them, and they typically involve many people making AE difficult to handle (with the new two party restriction). There are multiple people in the side that appears to have a majority that are clearly only here to push their POV. And since it has been difficult to get sanctions against those in the majority at AE (see the current thread regarding YFNS and past threads against them and others) even when they are clearly engaging in POV pushing behavior... a case is really the only solution.

I understand the broadness in proposed parties here, but I don't think this indiscriminate "anyone who's contributed to a discussion in this topic area" is helpful. I also think there may need to be time to add or remove parties after the case starts (similar to the ongoing case, and for similar reasons). I seem to be included just because my viewpoints tend to be in the center or on the side of "misinformation" (according to the opener). The opener makes a good comment about unblockables, but I would like to remind them that there's "unblockables" on both sides that have escaped AE (or any) sanctions.

I trust an ArbCom case is the best place to resolve the longstanding issues in the topic area. I would ask that anyone who wants me as a party present specific evidence of behavior from me in the topic area. Else I ask I be removed from the named parties and allowed to participate as a non-party. If arbitrators feel it would be helpful I should be able to find time in the next few days to collect diffs that show the problems (CIVILPOV and the inability of AE to take effective action) I reference above - but I feel that other proposed parties will likely also present them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For full transparency, I agree with Tamzin above - the two party rule is good, but it means ArbCom will necessarily need to accept more cases like this that AE can't handle. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: The most egregious one (and the other one I have in mind) are both on the party list already. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support SFR being able to act as an arbitrator on this case rather than a party - FWIW. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I understand how you got that list, but my participation in the topic area has been minimal aside from commenting on threads I see recently, and I don't think any of those comments have been anywhere near sanctionable. Can you clarify why you think I deserve to be a party to this case for my own benefit? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin - I understand that - see my original comment regarding that - thanks for clarifying. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by springee

[edit]

Statement by JonJ937

[edit]

Statement by Samuelshraga

[edit]
   Samuelshraga's statement contains 233 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

There are a few problems with the request including baseless accusations. The filing starts from the assumption that many of the parties here are promoting anti-trans misinformation. Snce I've been accused of this: (promoting fringe theories and/or opposition to queer rights) without evidence, I can't respond with more than denial.

ArbCom doesn’t rule on content disputes, but there are serious and endemic conduct issues in this topic area. These include frequent assumptions of bad faith[16][17], personal attacks[18][19] and incivility[20], wildly inflammatory rhetoric,[21][22], source misrepresentation[23] and dishonesty as a tactic to “win” procedural discussions[24][25].

I think ArbCom should take up this case. But if they adopt the framing of this request, they should openly declare - as an admin has done[26] - that the GoodTM and BadTM editors here are defined by their POV. My opinion is that there are editors on "opposing" sides who edit collaboratively and productively, even if their POV shows through. It would be a disservice to them to let the content area be hijacked by the editors who won't follow the rules. I think they should adopt the framing that there are serious, ongoing and unresolved conduct issues with this topic area, that have included significant gaming of the system to "win" discussions and eliminate or de-emphasise disfavoured points of view. Obviously not limited to issues of healthcare or misinformation. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Golikom

[edit]

Statement by FirstPrimeOfApophis

[edit]

Statement by Barnards.tar.gz

[edit]
   Barnards.tar.gz's statement contains 243 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I have very little wiki time these days and am unsure what is expected of me here, so I will just share general thoughts. Fundamentally, I believe in the mission of NPOV, and I believe that Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines are bigger than this topic. There is robust disagreement amongst sources - even amongst the highest-quality academic and medical sources. We know this because we have reliable sources saying so[27], so suggestions that there aren't multiple POVs worth covering, or that there is only one true POV and the others are just fringe, seem otherworldly. This is not contention of Wikipedia's making; it's baked into the sources. But: that's not too unusual in a CTOP, and I don't see why we need to handle this particular CTOP in a new way, at least as far as content is concerned. Where behaviour is concerned, what seems to be different in this CTOP is editors going far beyond robust source analysis on talk pages, escalating to 1) a meta-game on boards like WP:RSN and WP:FTN that amounts to gerrymandering sources, so that winning viewpoints may be picked, and 2) attempts to eliminate enemies by filing cases and counter-cases. Particularly worrying is the amount of effort expended by editors to build up diff dossiers on each other, over the course of months, to support these filings. This is battle-mindset, not collaboration-mindset, and I think the dispute resolution process encourages it, to our shame. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Colin

[edit]

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

[edit]
   AirshipJungleman29's statement contains 12 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Can we have the word limit restriction from PIA? Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by asilvering

[edit]
   Asilvering's statement contains 52 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I can't say I understand how this list of parties was drawn up. There is, for example, a link to an ANI thread about bloodofox in the list of "other steps in dispute resolution", but neither bloodofox nor the editor who started that posting at ANI are listed as parties. -- asilvering (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Transgender)

[edit]
   Robert McClenon's statement contains 394 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I don't have an opinion on whether ArbCom should accept this case, but a suggestion that if ArbCom accepts this case, they should take the large number of parties into account, and consider whether they need to make any changes to their usual procedures to reflect the large number of parties. Some dispute resolution procedures are ill-suited to a large number of parties. I have declined case requests at DRN involving large numbers of parties. ArbCom has recently limited Arbitration Enforcement to one defendant in each case. ArbCom has highly structured proceedings that have handled large numbers of parties in the past, but I cannot recall seeing a case with 30 parties. Extending the deadlines is my first thought.

My first thought on seeing this case request was: That's a lot of parties. My second thought was: That's really a lot of parties. My third thought was: ArbCom has a very structured process and can probably handle it. But my fourth thought was: ArbCom should review their procedures because there are a lot of parties in this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum About Case with No Parties

Some editors including RoySmith have suggested a case with no parties. A case with no parties will raise the question of what should be done if specific editors are found to have edit-warred, been uncivil, or otherwise were disruptive. ArbCom has the choice of taking action against those editors, who may not have been able to defend themselves, or of adopting general findings without addressing the misconduct. So I suggest that ArbCom consider a sort of hybrid case structure with two parts. In the first part, evidence can be accepted, and principles and findings of fact established along with a naming of parties. The second part would give the named parties an additional opportunity to present evidence, followed by additional findings of fact and remedies. The disadvantage of the two-part process is that it would take longer, but the advantage is that it would facilitate both a review of the overall problem and action against the most serious offenders.

I think that a two-part procedure, first with evidence and analysis without parties, and then an identification of parties and another evidence phase, is likely to be more workable than either a case with no parties or a case beginning with 30 or 41 parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Relm

[edit]
   RelmC's statement contains 244 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I was not added as a party, but called out directly by Tamzin. I filed the most recent Arbcom case against Colin so I would understand if I were added but I want to briefly respond to the accusation by Tamzin (here). Void if Removed has a lengthy history of promoting a very specific belief that the majority of trans people desist. They then added [28] this to the article which I viewed as not a sufficient explanation of what the source claimed. I removed it and made a talk page topic to discuss why I did so, VIR responded, and a third party came in, made a compromise edit that no one disagreed with [29]. The source explicitly makes clear that because the studies involved used a wide array of definitions that the desistance rate calculated would not be applicable to trans people working under DSM V criteria. The link Tamzin gives is to when VIR brought that same argument back up in the GAR to say, and I quote, "The only MEDRS in the 'desistance myth' section is a systematic review that says best quantitative estimates are that 83% desist - which means it isn't a myth." repeating the claim. YFNS explained what the source states well in [30] [31]. I never tried to introduce a slanted activist view, the diffs will show that I only ever tried to report what the source stated in as much context as is WP:DUE. Relm (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jclemens

[edit]
   Jclemens's statement contains 111 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

The scientific consensus regarding care in this area could not possibly be more contentious or unsettled. The legal, scientific, medical, and counseling landscapes are in states of upheaval and statements representing prior consensus are now subject to an ongoing, multi-venue tug-of-war, of which I believe Wikipedia to be one venue. I believe it will be difficult for the committee to assess conduct without making decisions on content--that is, which sources represent appropriate medical bases for statements made in articles. That's not to say you shouldn't take the case--but realize that the underlying evidence base is contentious in ways that make assessing good faith of participants with differing perspectives challenging. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

[edit]
  Chess's statement contains 520 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

Arbs should take this case because of endemic WP:BATTLEGROUND issues relating to excluding sources for their ideological viewpoints (WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH), rather than actual reliability. This is an attack on our content policies to push a POV. I'm familiar with this through the Daily WP:TELEGRAPH (a British newspaper of record, see The Daily Telegraph) at the WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard.[32][33][34]

In 2022, editors argued at Talk:Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People that, despite British newspapers covering a popular backlash to the guidelines mentioning eunuchs, they should not be covered in the article because "the British media landscape is generally hostile to trans coverage and therefore generally British media reporting on transgender issues is questionable".[35] This wouldn't be acceptable in most WP:CTOPS: I would be taken to WP:Arbitration Enforcement if I started !voting to remove Arab perspectives on the Israel-Palestine conflict because "Arab media hates Jews".

After one failed RfC,[36] we got an WP:RFCBEFORE discussion.[37] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist quoted the song Glad to Be Gay's anti-Telegraph verse as proving this non-exhaustive historical context is to drive the point home: The Telegraph has been recognizably anti-LGBT for over 4 decades now. Propaganda songs aren't a reason to declare a source unreliable.

The real RfC was worse.[38] Leaving aside the source distortion (I'd need too many words to dig into that), here are two arguments I want to call out:

  • They've multiple times alleged directly that trans women are men or trans men are women, which is not in keeping with the opinions of most sources on this topic.
  • Similarly see this article, which appears to just be anti-trans activists whining about a study that came to a conclusion they don't like.

These attacks are because something is "anti-transgender", not because of policy reasons. Note that WP:RSN says in the edit notice "bias is not a reason for unreliability". Other !votes based on it being anti-trans:[39][40] a healthy majority of participants here are getting better in real time at advocating in favor of human decency and against abuse of transgender people[41]

These editors have also targeted WP:FTN. One goal is to describe anti-trans groups as WP:FRINGE, so Wikipedia can ignore articles written by members or fellow travellers of those groups. As an example, LokiTheLiar said that a peer-reviewed British Medical Journal article was unreliable because it relied on anti-trans activists.[42] I brought up that the article was "externally peer reviewed"[43], and Loki denied that this was possible.[44] Multiple editors proceeded to gaslight me that an article containing the words "peer reviewed" was not peer-reviewed,[45] accusing me of being tendentious and not WP:assuming good faith.[46] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees: Choosing a belief system and ignoring sources based on that is the definition of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I avoided the direct accusation of POV pushing by referring to the concept of a list of formally disapproved beliefs as POV-pushing.
I don't have to agree with whatever extremist opinion is initially proposed for banning to think that such a list is a bad idea.
I'm surprised you agree that the RSN discussions are central to the case, since Arbs want this limited to trans healthcare. If added as a party, I will focus on RSN/FTN since I'm not very involved in the rest of the area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

[edit]
   Guerillero's statement contains 168 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I have other things to say in regards to the ping, but I would like to alert the committee to Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive4, which overlaps with much of the same topics and includes many of the same individuals. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend the committee accepts the case to take a look at a larger topic area with a reduced list of parties. From my perch as an AE admin, I have the general impression that trans* related issues, broadly construed, is one of the most divisive topic areas on the encyclopedia second to only the Arab-Israel Conflict. The entire topic area, not just trans* healthcare or pediatric healthcare, needs a close look at by the committee. Battleground conduct is rampant; it feels like most everyone who shows up at AE is a activist of some sort. It is conceivable that a half-dozen or so editors, with diverging viewpoints, could get a vacation from the topic area for at least the next year. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fortuna imperatrix mundi

[edit]

   Fortuna imperatrix mundi's statement contains 40 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

My suggestion is that you add as parties the signatories to this list and also this list. That should be sufficiently comprehensive. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, coat-tailing Guerillo's point on topic overspill, also see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bæddel and bædling/archive1. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

[edit]
   Carrite's statement contains 60 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I would decline the current request as malformed. There are only a small handful of diffs, none of which demonstrate the community is incapable of handling such things outside of the cumbersome and drama-intensive Arbcom process. The proposed list of parties is absurdly bloated, somewhere between a grocery list for a group living facility and a telephone book. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QEDK

[edit]
   QEDK's statement contains 167 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I think that at the very least there is a relatively significant issue in terms of conduct between a few parties but nowhere near as broadly as the filer claims. I also think the committee needs to tread lighter than usual given that a lot of considerations relating to what is actually correct content is dubious at best, and malicious at worst. I think this needs a committee perusal primarily because the current structures have not been helpful and perhaps an out-of-band solution is more helpful. I also think that pertinent parties to this case (and related myriads of discussions) would fare better if they stuck to assuming good faith. Just my two cents. --qedk (t 愛 c) 23:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snokalok: I don't think you're wrong but at the very core of the conduct issue is the refusal of the pertinent parties to assume good faith; which is a core tenet of the Wikipedia community. Also, generally agreed with @Liz:'s comment on the janitorial role of admins. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

[edit]
   Deepfriedokra's statement contains 13 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I think Guerillero above hit the nail squarely on the head. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth

[edit]
   Ealdgyth's statement contains 157 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I'll just chime in here to say that as an admin who occasionally dips her toes into AE, I long ago decided I'd never, ever, ever opine on any AE requests having anything to do with trans-related issues. And that was because I think it's more toxic than Palestine-Israel, where I am willing to occasionally weigh in. And the reason it's toxic is because of the absence of assuming good faith of others and the entrenched positions displayed by all sides. That's why I haven't taken up the YFNS or the VIR AE filings, and it's likely why other admins aren't willing to step up either. While working at AE isn't "fun" at the best of times, this topic area has no reason for me to want to risk being called names for trying to enforce some encyclopedic behavior standards. That's just this one small admin's opinion, but I offer it for whatever it's worth. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

[edit]
   Tryptofish's statement contains 192 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I don't edit in this topic area, and I'm clueless as to what to do about the parties list, but my observation from the distance is that this is, indeed, a topic area where the conduct needs some sort of examination from ArbCom, and where numerous efforts by the community at prior dispute resolution have been insufficient. I was, however, a participant in the recent AE case about Colin, and in my view it demonstrated a significant malfunction of the AE process. It wasn't a question of just needing a bit more time for admins to reach a consensus. It was a question of multiple experienced AE admins collectively failing to take responsibility and put together a decision, perhaps with some element of "unblockables". There was a whole lot of I feel strongly that we should do A and not B, but I want to defer to everyone else, and the deferring-to-everyone-else continued until Guerillero got as fed-up with it as I was. ArbCom should figure out how to prevent that from happening again. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I think that's an excellent observation, and I commented about it here: [47]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parabolist

[edit]
  Parabolist's statement contains 529 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

Nothing here is unsolvable by the community, as long the "community" includes admins. There are users who need sanctions, but the fault here lies with the slow meltdown of AE. The YFNS AE was started because Tamzin (credit where credit's due, Tamzin has been pretty active at AE, especially today) asked for a wider scope of behavioral requests, and then the new standard for AE seems to have kicked in: a bunch of admins gave pretty clear opinions or asked for more information, and then basically everything grinds to a halt. No one wants to take the admin action here, everyone couches their opinions with "but I'm open to other suggestions...", and so admins just stop responding. And in lieu of this, the parties keep adding more diffs and comments, in an attempt to rouse admin support, and eventually someone will go "Well this got too sprawling and large, and has sat here for too long. It's intractable!" without thinking that if it had been closed when all the admins seemed in agreement, it wouldn't have gotten to that point. This is what happened at Colin's AE, and what's happening now. I understand, on some level, why this is, and I'm not trying to excoriate the individual admins here, but there's clearly some sort of strange bystander effect occuring here that isn't something Arbcom's usual "topic ban 'em all and let god sort them out" approach will actually help. Parabolist (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a direct example, there is a clear consensus in the admin comments at YFNS' AE that the report is meritless, but it seems like no one felt comfortable closing it that way. Why? Parabolist (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron the fact that multiple editors got fed up and went to AE to try and kick rivals out of the topic area, by really whatever means necessary, isn't really what happened. Tamzin specifically requested that editors bring GENSEX cases, with a broader scope, to AE during the Colin case. So they did. Again, AE is perfectly capable of solving this! Consensus was reached at YFNS's case and consensus was reached at Colin's case. The only reason they seemed so sprawling and intractable is because no one is closing them or taking action (including no action)! Submitting all of these editors to essentially the even longer and more sprawling process of an Arb case when they were simply doing what was requested of them is baffling. Parabolist (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually pretty firmly disagree with the close at YFNS describing it as no consensus, but felt no need to quibble with Guerillero actually taking action. There was no consensus for sanctions, but the admins were in agreement that there was no misconduct in the evidence. Colin's close had consensus at points, but fell victim to what I described above. Your point about reinventing Arbcom is exactly what's already happening at AE, and causing it to fail: the idea that a single admin can't act on reports, and every report requires three to six admins to all come to the same idea before anything can be done. Fix this, and you'd fix this problem without wasting everyone's time writing the same Workshop proposals that appear in every case, and assembling thousands of diffs. Parabolist (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pinguinn

[edit]
   Pinguinn's statement contains 270 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I agree with Parabolist. This does not seem to be a dispute that normal admins are incapable of solving. There is no private evidence, massive socking, or misuse of tools. To put it plainly, the issue is that admins are hesitant to use their tools in this topic area. I understand why an admin might not want to take an individual admin action when the area is under a CT and instead would prefer that the issue be heard at AE. But when you have many admins unwilling to take decisive action even when backed up by other admins, like at the Colin AE, there is a deeper problem here. I don't know if it's social pressure, fear of being recalled, or just a general aversion to getting involved in "drama", but something has broken down along the way. Before accepting any case, ArbCom needs to ask admins what they need to empower them to begin taking action or else nothing will change. Pinguinn 🐧 02:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion of a case structured like AESH has merit. Perhaps instead of a case with a lengthy list of parties where we try to figure out sanctions for all of them, we need a case with few or even no parties where we workshop how the community can better solve this. Pinguinn 🐧 03:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: isaacl: We can brainstorm ideas on our own at any time but ArbCom are the only ones with the power to change AE since it is their noticeboard. AESH ended with a series of principles passed by ArbCom about the procedures at AE, so that was the model I was suggesting. Pinguinn 🐧 06:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FOARP

[edit]
   FOARP's statement contains 242 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Let me echo what has been said by Ealdgyth, Chess, and Tamzin:

  • This is the ultimate third-rail topic of Wikipedia, far more so than I-P. I will close discussions in the I-P area, but not in the GENSEX area because it is so obvious that the discussions are not good faith and you're painting a target on your back regardless of which way you go. I'm clearly not the only editor who feels like this either.
  • There's clearly an attempt to push one or the other view point in to WP:FRINGE which you can see in the responses above. Even high-quality national broadsheets are attacked for not having the "correct" view point. Personally, I detect an anti-British slant here, which is common online in certain circles because the country that operates a monolithic state healthcare system is also the one where the central government is going to have to get involved most directly with making decisions on treatment and hence the first to be attacked as "TERF island" for making the "wrong" decisions.
  • As Tamzin correctly points out, there is no global consensus here, and as such attempts to edit, for example, Cass Report to state that it is or is not in line with a global consensus are WP:NOTHERE activism - as are the subsidiary discussions trying to attack or defend sources, but this is rife and not being resolved.

For this reason I support the case being taken up. FOARP (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

[edit]
   TarnishedPath's statement contains 91 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I'm not a party to this but I've been looking at this request occasionally and I followed Yasuke a little bit. I think the committee could save itself a bit of trouble in the future if they extended the bounds of GENSEX to be about the Culture Wars. As I see it the extended CTOP would cover GENSEX, the current dispute and it would have covered Yasuke. It would allow AE to take actions on future misbehaviour which arises in culture war topics which aren't covered by the current CTOPs. TarnishedPathtalk 12:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jéské Couriano

[edit]
   Jéské Couriano's statement contains 55 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Given the fact that PIA5, IMH, and now this case are all pointing to problems with handling these sorts of disputes at AE simply due to sheer volume from entrenched partisan users, I wonder if it's time to consider either a closer look at enforcement policy or an AESH 2. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoySmith

[edit]
   RoySmith's statement contains 101 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I've been wondering for a while if there's a way for arbcom to run a case with no parties. It sounds like there's an endemic problem in this topic area, not just certain specific editors. So maybe eliminating the individual people as the focus of the discussion would give the arbs a freer hand to address the broader issues. I almost wrote this a few days ago, but backed away. Reading Worm That Turned's decline statement makes me think my initial feeling was right. Worm talks about "a different scope"; maybe "no parties" is the scope he's looking for. RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

[edit]
   Isaacl's statement contains 40 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Regarding Pinguinn's statement, Perhaps ... we need a case with few or even no parties where we workshop how the community can better solve this.: the community can create a workshop on its own initiative at any time, without requiring an arbitration case. isaacl (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

[edit]
   Alanscottwalker's statement contains 277 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

It's not the committees place to decide whether there is an academic or political or historical or sociological, etc, consensus in the topic (or parts of the topic) -- many topics are complex and nuanced. It is the committee's place to decide whether behavior is either impeding the reaching of an internal consensus on the content-policy-complaint text of the Wikipedia articles, or is preventing content-policy-complaint text from being reflected in the articles. This is behaviour you know well from many preceding cases. I think you should take this case as, although the committee's scope and remedies are limited, it will point the procedural way forward. As should be clear from the forgoing, yes, as always, you need parties because you need to analyse their behavior. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first rodeo of this committee around the WP:FRINGE guideline. As the committee knows, it can't and is not qualified to do a literature review, but the committee knows the 'rules' for identifying qualified literature reviews and qualified sources, and most centrally to its task, the 'rules' for 'how' we do that identification behaviorally (and how we go about meeting or achieving the obligations of V, NPOV and NOR, behaviorally), eg. ad hominem is ad hominem regardless of the topic (that is rather the purpose of ad hominem, focus not on the topic but on you, and among the reasons it is detrimental to consensus making). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note, statements below are not actually very helpful to the committee. They are silent on who, how, and only generally, where. It's this kind of vagueness, ". . .those people . . .", that seems to be a problem in this case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moneytrees

[edit]
   Moneytrees's statement contains 550 words and complies with the 600-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 600 words.

Thinking about opening this case, it seems likely that there will be context and evidence in the GENSEX topic area outside of the trans health care sub-area that would be worth looking at. Would the scope of the case specify something along those lines? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, it now looks as though a case is moving towards being accepted here. From my reading of the background here, most of the "Arbcom worthy" conflicts stem from discussion around FRINGE/RS assessments and disputes around Cass review, The Daily Telegraph, Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, and World Professional Association for Transgender Health (additionally, there is some evidence that only Arbcom is aware of concerning some of the parties here, which has somewhat stymied on-wiki action being taken towards these editors; I'll elaborate on this through an email). These tend to be subjects where the consensus/dispute resolution system has the most problems, so I think the scope and list of parties should primarily focus on the participants of these articles/discussions. Additionally, I think the lengthy discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 392 regarding The Daily Telegraph and The Times are important context for the disputes here.

I helped cut down on the initial party list for The Holocaust in Poland so I'll try to help here. Note discussions on that can be found in the Arbwiki archives around February--March 2023 and may be useful reference for pruning the parties here. Keep in mind that being a party/not being a party is not necessarily a presumption of acting in a sanction-worthy way. My thoughts are:

  • I think the five admins here can probably be removed; if their role is seen as crossing from "admin/closer" to "participant" in the area. There may be more of an argument for Tamzin or Black kite, but personally I believe they're more "leave" than "take".
  • While Licks-rocks have edited around the disputes, their participation is intermittent and less recent than others here; they could potentially be dropped.
  • While FirstPrimeOfApophis, Golikom, HenrikHolen, and MilesVorkosigan have edited around some of the disputes, they're generally newer editors and aren't fully active in the associated topic areas; disruption from them can probably be handled at AE. I would say the same of Samuelshraga, but it looks like they might get a warning at AE right now, so minds may differ on if that's sufficient. I think the same can be said of Barnards.tar.gz to an extent, as it appears most of their edits in the area concern Imane Khelif, who I would say is related but more ancillary to the core disputes here.
  • While OwenBlacker and RoxySaunders are active around the general GENSEX topic area, I'm not sure if they have enough participation in the disputes outlined to actually be parties to the case.
  • Per his comment above, Chess should be included, as he has been involved in the major discussions here as much as the other "key" parties. He was additionally warned by an admin for a comment during a related FRINGE discussion in February.
  • I think the Arbs are aware, but “inactive” editors may return if the “slate is cleaned” here. As indicated by uninvolved editors, involved editors have chilled dispute resolution efforts due to the proliferation of battleground behavior-- that’ll also need addressing.

Let me know if y’all have questions. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LilianaUwU

[edit]
   LilianaUwU's statement contains 65 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

It's beyond time something is done about the rampant misinformation about not only trans healthcare, but also most other trans-related subjects being essentially forced onto us by people who skirt the lines of civility so they don't get blocked or banned. I've said it before, civil POV pushing is POV pushing and should be treated as any other more aggressive POV pusher. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adam Cuerden

[edit]
   Adam Cuerden's statement contains 216 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I think it's worth looking at how this has affected articles a step or two away from the main subject. Take J. K. Rowling, who has "made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona". I'd argue that, as written now, the section on transgender people minimises Rowling's actions as much as possible (whether intentionally or not), and has been used to make sure no such material appears anywhere else in the article.

The first paragraph presents her views without criticism until the end, "These views are often described as trans exclusionary." which is a very wishy-washy label.

The second paragraph begins to describe her actions, but immediately mitigates any blame with the line "(The tribunal found that Forstater had been discriminated against.)

The third paragraph reports more of her attacks, completely without criticism

In the fourth and final paragraph, where all substantial criticism has been moved, what's the first sentence? "Rowling denies that her views are transphobic." and, after a couple wishy-washy crticisms, it ends "Despite the controversy, Rowling's revenue has continued or grown from book and merchandise sales..."

This is supposedly a featured article (I'm going to copy this onto the Rowling talk page, so maybe it'll improve, but it's clear we need guidance that such things are patently unacceptable.)

Statement by 123957a

[edit]
   123957a's statement contains 79 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

ArbCom should accept this case as there has been lots of battleground-like conduct from all sides, dispute resolution outlets have been weaponized against perceived opponents, IDHT responses in the topic area, bludgeoning, distortion of sources, and editors unwilling to compromise or follow consensus, which is disruptive and something the arbitrators should act on. As this behavior is found on a wide variety of pages, the scope should be expanded to include all trans topics, not just healthcare. 123957a (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

[edit]

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

Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia: Clerk notes

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

Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <8/1/3>

[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Hello Raladic, you have provided a huge list of parties and dedicate a paragraph to Colin without pinging or notifying or adding them as a party; is this intentional? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Berchanhimez, regarding 'unblockables' on both sides that have escaped AE (or any) sanctions, if you have specific users in mind that are not currently on the party list, I think these should be added with an explanation as soon as possible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortuna imperatrix mundi, if there are specific users you'd like to propose adding to the parties list, perhaps ideally with an explanation beyond "endorsed or refused to endorse an essay against queerphobia", please do so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to accept this case request. I personally don't view a huge parties list as necessarily problematic; I think it's much more problematic if problems in the area turn out to come from a non-party. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't plan on recusing or being a party to this case as my editing in the topic has been administrative and closing at least one RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept, there's clearly issues here the community has not been able to resolve and asking single admins or the few working AE at any given time the shoulder the burden of handling complex multiparty disputes and the likely backlash won't result in much headway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Parabolist, a single admin can take action, even if there's no consensus at AE. I can tell you from experience that sanctioning established editors and dealing with the fallout as an individual admin can often be more than a volunteer cares to volunteer for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Raladic: extension approved to 700 words. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, the party list is not an accurate reflection of what the party list should actually be if this case request is accepted (and comments to this effect have already started coming in above). I would contend that rather than being "carefully curated", it is in fact far too wide-reaching and captures people who have acted purely administratively, or are otherwise on the fringe of the issue and not core to it. The fact that SFR was listed as a party, later clarified by the filer to be largely based around the most recent Colin AE, speaks to this. I agree with LokiTheLiar here on that particular issue. Daniel (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Raladic: the key phrase being "important role in the dispute", as you identify. That phrase, "important role", is obviously up for interpretation but my view is that it currently captures people who don't meet that threshold. This can all be sorted out in the wash—but flagging to those who might have got pinged to here as parties that the current list, at least in this humble arbitrator's view, is far too wide-reaching. Daniel (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure: I was the admin who implemented the GENSEX topic ban against YFNS (since lifted). I have significantly edited transgender, trans man, trans woman, and their talk pages, chiefly in the context of the their leads. However, those pages/issues do not appear to be the locus of this dispute, so I do not currently plan to recuse. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept With a much shortened party list, and a narrow scope. For better or worse, their are several AE threads involving editors in the topic area that were inconclusive, which seems to leave the issue for us. I admit that GENSEX already seems to apply broadly to the topic area, but if trans healthcare is a pressure point, then we can give that some targeted examination. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been watching AE cases pile up over 2025 and understand the call for a case on this topic. My opinion here generally is in agreement with comments expressed by Daniel. This case request was just posted today so it will naturally be undergoing some adjustments over coming weeks. But I think the list of parties should have a firmer basis even if the final list doesn't have unanimous consensus behind it. I think an editor listed as a party should have played a part in previous disputes and not be listed in a case requet for simply airing a strong opinion on the subject. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortuna imperatrix mundi, those two lists you linked to have a combined total of 41 editors. I'm sure there is an overlap between those lists and the list of suggested parties in this case request but if this request is accepted, we are trying to refine this list of proposed parties, not expand it. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your comment, User:Tryptofish, I see that same hesitancy you refer to all over the project now, not just at AE but at ANI and even AFD. With the admin recall process and some desysoppings over the past two years, I think the message has gotten through to many admins that there can be severe consequences to being BOLD. There is a "Well, what do YOU think?" attitude present among admins before anyone decides to take action. I know this can be frustrating to many editors but it's a pendulum swing against the previous take-no-prisoners, "block 'em all!" perspective of admins who are now long gone or retired from the project. Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was holding back on voicing an opinion about taking this case until the list of involved parties was whittled down and the focus more clearly defined. But I guess this will only happen after a case is accepted so I'll just voice Accept now. Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of those areas where disputes do happen, and are going to carry on happening. I'm not averse to a case, however, I will remind individuals that we need to focus on behaviour not content. What's more, the list of parties is excessive - as has been mentioned before. I do wonder if the case request was more focussed, it would become apparent quickly that it was something that could be handled by the community, and the scattergun nature of this request is making it appear that a case is needed more than it actually is. I'll do a bit more reading before deciding whether to accept. WormTT(talk) 10:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After careful consideration, I'm going decline without prejudice of another request in the near future. I will admit I am absolutely on the borderline here, and may flip-flop to accepting a case. My thinking is that on the one hand, I believe the community is still able to handled these issues, that both the case in question and the general area can still be managed by the community. I've said above that I'm not a fan of the scattergun nature of the request, which makes it appear that a case is more needed than it actually is - and focused on the scope in question, I'm confident we should be declining at this point. What gives me pause, is that I'm hearing AE admins saying they're struggling, saying they're unwilling to work in the area due to entrenched bad faith positions, and the feeling that they will be targeted in response to action - by either side. So, I wonder if a case in the area would help, albeit with a different scope. I will actively continue watching here, and would be interested in my colleagues opinion. WormTT(talk) 10:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recusing. - Aoidh (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept: I think the scattergun nature of the presentation speaks to what I've been seeing from watching this topic area from time to time at AE, RSN, FTN, and elsewhere – if it were anywhere near possible for one editor to summarize the waterfall of conduct and content disputes that have unfolded here, we probably wouldn't need to take this case. For just one example: the fact that multiple editors got fed up and went to AE to try and kick rivals out of the topic area, by really whatever means necessary, speaks to some entrenched battleground editing happening here – and if anyone would have been able to deal with that, it's AE. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The scope of the case should probably be "Transgender health care", although even that skates over some disputes in this area that have spilled into being about the social role of transgender people more broadly. The party list definitely needs to be workshopped. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parabolist: I don't think that's an accurate summary? Colin's case reached no consensus, and YFNS's case closed as "a consensus to act has not emerged", which sure doesn't sound like AE admins had their arms far enough around the case to reach a consensus not to act. Void if removed's case has been sitting with basically no comments on the merits from admins since it was filed two weeks ago. So no, that doesn't seem to me like AE has a handle on it. If admins aren't weighing in, maybe that's because it's not an issue that can be solved that way – AE admins aren't slacking or unimaginative, they're not resolving these cases well because AE isn't designed for that, nor should it be. If they all got together and looked at the threads and all of the evidence as a group and methodically resolved the conflict by considering every facet and party to this dispute, they'd of course be able to handle this, but then they'd just be reinventing the concept of an ArbCom case. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm torn here. I largely agree with Dave that the scattergun approach demonstrates the breadth of issues but not the depth that would normally be required for an ArbCom case and I would be tempted to decline. What pushes me the other way is that this is already closely connected to a designated contentious topic. It has been a recurring issue at AE and there is obviously a bubbling resentment under the surface, so maybe it's time for ArbCom to take a deeper look, so I'm weakly at accept. Nevertheless, the party list will need to be rationalised if there is to be any hope of achieving anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be heading towards an accepted case, so I will just say that I have been trying to decide which side of the fence to lean/fall; I share many of the same concerns as WTT but have yet to come to a firm conclusion, so I will abstain for this portion of the process. Primefac (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I likewise see this as trending toward acceptance but I'm going to be inactive for most of the next two months, so I will abstain for now. Katietalk 22:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an update, the drafters and wider Committee are discussing how this case will be opened (parties, scope, and structure). Sorry for the delay, everyone. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse just to make this official: I am involved in the Rowling FARs. Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept: clear that there's issues the community has been unable to resolve here. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization Disputes

[edit]

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 20:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

[edit]
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[48] is the recent WP:ANI thread

Move Review cases:

Statement by Robert McClenon

[edit]
   Robert McClenon's statement contains 736 words and complies with the 750-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 750 words.

This is a request for arbitration of conduct issues concerning capitalization disputes, after a thread at WP:ANI has been closed as requiring an ArbCom case. That thread was opened on 8 June 2025 and finally closed on 25 June 2025 by Asilvering with the heading of the archive box, "ARBCOM IT IS", after it had become a great monster with tentacles with a total of 75,555 words. The WP:ANI thread was opened by Chicdat as a complaint about two editors, Dicklyon and Cinderella157, who have long been in conflict with many other editors over capitalization, where Dicklyon and Cinderella157 persistently seek to enforce what they see as the Manual of Style to render numerous article titles and headings in sentence case rather than title case. The WP:ANI thread was dominated by debate over sanctions against Dicklyon, who was eventually topic-banned from capitalization. Both Dicklyon and Cinderella157 have made collaborative editing excessively difficult. The history of Move Reviews in 2025 shows multiple cases where Cinderella157 was unwilling to accept consensus for capitalizing phrases commonly used as proper nouns. The length and intensity of the WP:ANI case shows that this is a dispute area that the community is not resolving effectively. The reasons included incivility and bludgeoning by Dicklyon.

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Manual of Style and article titles is a contentious topic, but the contentious topic procedure has not been used during the recent capitalization disputes. Is this due to lack of awareness of the remedy, or is the remedy written too narrowly to be useful?

I am requesting that ArbCom open a full evidentiary case looking, among other issues, at:

The administrators whom I have listed as parties have been involved in an administrative capacity, and I am not alleging any misconduct by the administrators.

The arbitrators may be able to fry pieces of the sea monster and snack on calamari while considering this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answers and Comments

I identified the administrators whom I listed as having taken constructive part in the discussion, and am proposing that they be given the expanded right to enter evidence, or that they have the right to be excused.

It has been called to my attention that I should have also listed User:SMcCandlish as a party. Should I add them, or can a clerk add them?

User:Cabayi - An ANI was concluded, and the close was to refer it to ArbCom, and I knew that I could pull the RfAr together.

I request another 200 words. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC) More Comments[reply]

I was planning to write that, if ArbCom declined this case, the next step would probably be an RFC to change the MOS on capitalization, and that the RFC would be bludgeoned and filibustered. Then the dispute would come back to ArbCom. So ArbCom couldn't avoid taking the case sooner or later. I didn't write that because I ran up to my word limit. I will now instead write that, if ArbCom declines to hear a full case but revises the contentious topic, the next step should be an RFC to change the MOS, and the RFC will be filibustered. The bludgeoning and filibustering can then be dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement. So I think that I will be satisfied with a revision to the contentious topic rule to provide for Arbitration Enforcement. So timely limited action by ArbCom will probably avoid the need for a lengthy case. Can the editors who have made statements in this case, whether or not I named them as parties, be considered aware of the contentious topic?

It was pointed out that this case should be named "Capitalization disputes", but I think of the titles of articles and sections as titles that should be in Title case, and maybe that illustrates what this dispute is about. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this case is about to be accepted, I request permission to add 200 more words to my statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dicklyon

[edit]
   Dicklyon's statement contains 498 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

My interest in seeing this case taken up is similar to Cinderella's: to see someone in authority sanely judge the facts and determine whether some action is needed. In particular, I would propose that the behavior of those accusing me of misconduct also be examined. It is not generally acceptable behavior to make behavior allegations without specific diffs of the alleged misbehavior, yet several of them have gotten away with doing exactly that against me. Every time I asked for evidence in the ANI thread, I was stonewalled, or behavior from well over a year ago was pointed at. I presented a detailed analysis of the cited diffs and such, and of my own moves and RMs, to help people find where the alleged misbehavior might have been mentioned, or might have been missed, but nobody clarified.

It might be apparent, or should be important to note, that the ANI thread and this case are mostly a content dispute related to different interpretations of guidelines and sources. Numerous editors made that point in the ANI thread in opposing putting the blame on me for using normal RM and BRD processes (in particular, comments of

Note most of these are coming from the direction of opposing my suggestions at RMs and such.

  • FOARP (I removed from the above list after his correction below) proposes a different capitalization guideline as the solution.

I would like the arbcom to look at the evidence around this dispute and see if they agree. It is not fair that I have been tbanned for taking a consistent guideline-based and source-based position against over-capitalization.

Not relevant to whether this case should be accepted or not. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Fundamentally, the complaints are from people upset about losing capital letters in RM discussions, moves, and such:

Per my "irrelevant" comments above, I suggest that

be added as involved parties, since they made unsupported behavioral allegations against me, and have been involved for a long time in the underlying content dispute over capitalization.

User:oknazevad has provided some more specific complaints about me below, but he had to go back more than a year to find things to complain about. I've been much more careful since then, and no similar events are in evidence within the last year or so, when I did over a thousand moves, very few of which have been at all controversial, and dozens of RMs, none of which were particularly problematic. He claims it's not a content dispute, but to make it a behavior dispute he has to reach way back in his memory.

User:Newyorkbrad my essay-in-progress at User:Dicklyon/Why I care about over-capitalization is meant to explain some of my thinking; I'm not expecting it to be "persuasive" to editors with other POVs and priorities.

User:Andy Dingley, nothing you wrote here is supported by evidence. There has never been any allegation of a "campaign to add wholesale and inappropriate capitalisation". I do not prioritize MOS over RS. And so forth.

User:Hey man im josh conflates the intransive verb "to lose" with the transitive verb "to lose <something>". Dicklyon (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cinderella157

[edit]
   Cinderella157's statement contains 177 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

(procedural comment) Per initiating post: The administrators whom I have listed as parties have been involved in an administrative capacity. Administrators named have not only acted so, eg [49][50] If that was an objective criterion for naming parties, the list is incomplete. While not so important at this stage, there are many parties identifiable just by perusing the ANI. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a proposal in four parts including: Open a without prejudice (ie no person targeted) request at WP:ARCA to extend WP:CT/MOS to at least cover RMs and MRs, and to codify community expectations for capitalisation moves.[51] There are divergent views on what the expectations are. Codifying these will set boundaries for all. Please consider doing this. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A structured discussion is necessary to resolve the train wreck of the ANI. I supported moving it to ArbCom because it is structured. That is not the only solution nor necessarily the best, given the purview here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the motion, I would suggest that its scope be extended to all matters of capitalisation broadly construed. The contentious nature of capitalisation extends into articles. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by asilvering

[edit]
   asilvering's statement contains 304 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Thanks, Newyorkbrad. If I'd been the one to file this I would have listed myself as one without thinking twice about it, so no worries there. Arbs, please take this case, and not just because I will be very sad if I have to try to reclose that discussion. The community obviously wants action here, but the ANI thread could only reasonably close with action against Dicklyon specifically, and I believe the issues raised are wider than a single person. Most obviously, Cinderella157 was brought up in the original ANI post, but largely left out of the ensuing conversation. Moreover, while there was clear consensus for action against Dicklyon, discussion about the specifics of a possible topic ban took a backseat to discussions about whether misconduct had occurred in the first place. I can't be the only one who thinks a "topic ban from capitalization" is much harder to define and follow than it was to propose. -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Cabayi, as an addition to Super Goku V's ping, see further comments at User talk:Dicklyon#Capitalization ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies to all for complicating things with the ambiguity of my initial close, and with further apologies that this took me so long to do, I've reclosed the ANI thread more thoroughly and firmly: Special:Diff/1298523260. Additional apologies in advance if this cocks everything up further, but I do hope and expect that it will clarify things. @Newyorkbrad, there's your answer, kind of. -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa, you may find User talk:Dicklyon#Capitalization ANI enlightening in that regard. I don't see either close as preventing someone from writing a userspace essay, myself, but Reactions are invited on the corresponding talk page., currently at the top of that essay, strikes me as very unwise statement in the circumstances. -- asilvering (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite (MOS)

[edit]
   Black Kite's statement contains 323 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I'm named here only because I suggested taking this to Arbcom at the ANI thead. Also, I am writing this on mobile as I'm away from home, so there won't be many diffs at the moment.

I think the Arbs that have commented so far are missing the point a little (not to mention considering the issue "lame", thanks for that). Whilst this is superficially about capital letters, the bigger issue is how regular editors are treated by the MOS-focused editors. They work hard on articles, and are then faced with a group of editors who tell them they're doing it all wrong. Not only that, but they're told that their objections will be ignored, because MOS knows better than expert sources, so tough. I think this comment in the ANI by SMcCandlish sums that one up [52] and perhaps tells you the attitude of the MOS enforcers.

This leads to editors being put off from contributing, and it goes back a long time; the first one I noticed [53] was in 2014 (although the saga had started well before that), and look at the first two editors involved (Dicklyon and SMcCandlish) and then how much opposes are bludgeoned - SMcC commented 134 times in that debate. Was there consensus to decapitalise - possibly, but a lot of the supports were weak, and as one veteran editor said there "Support editors who build content, and oppose hectoring. I would have liked to have seen some discussion regarding the issue, but any sensible points are lost — sorry MOS advocates, but repetitive walls-of-text to dominate opponents is not the way to build an encyclopedia in a collaborative project." And as was found at the recent ANI, this is still happening, 11 years later. And it needs to stop.

theleekycauldron Given SMcCandlish's typical attack on others here in their statement, which shows a spectacular failure to understand that they are one of the main problems here, do you think that fiddling around with CTOP definitions is going to work here? I am unsurprised that SMcC supports your idea, because they are quite aware that it won't work either.

Statement by Hey man im josh

[edit]
   Hey man im josh's statement contains 409 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

While I think there are issues in the conduct related to this area of focus, I have no interest in being a party in the matter (nor the diffs to go along with these statements, as I never intended to be involved in a larger matter). Excessive discussions, bludgeoning, incivility, and bad faith assumptions, for what ultimately amounts to something with very little meaning, and my obligation to respond to them, are a large part of what has demoralized me and stagnated any contributions I've been making to Wikipedia (I have made 913 edits prior to between May–June, a number I've surpassed on a single day on 64 times). It's absolutely exhausting, and I just don't have it in me to go through an excessive arbcom case. I don't doubt others have also been exhausted by some of these discussions, and I don't have the answer, but ideally, I'd really like to not be a party in a case when I'm just starting to feel an interest in being active again.

One thing I think that may be important to realize and consider is that most capitalization discussions are linked from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page). I've long advocated for the removal of this section, despite the fact the venue has a vested interest in it. I suspect an evaluation of discussions linked from this location would result in a subset of users often voting together, but this is anecdotal experience and not an accusation of coordinated efforts. I ponder whether this may, at times, overrule subject matter experts, especially in discussion that don't end up with a larger number of voters. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snip from Dicklyon's response: Fundamentally, the complaints are from people upset about losing capital letters in RM discussions, moves, and such... – This is one of the fundamental issues I've brought up in the past. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning, and when discussions are approached in this manner, and when you view people as being upset that they "lost", it's an assumption of bad faith and it taints discussions. Unfortunately, some people are treating it with a view of winning and losing, and that's inappropriate and non-constructive considering we all have the same goal of improving the site. Unfortunately, Dicklyon repeatedly, and routinely, casts aspersions and accuses those of being opposed to them of doing so based on sour grapes. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chicdat

[edit]
   Chicdat's statement contains 267 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I suppose I'm here because of being the OP. Well, the thread ended up being as long as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, and though I opened the thread to discuss the conduct of both Dicklyon and Cinderella157, the discussion ended up being derailed by editors trying to make it about the MOS and not about the conduct of editors (contrary to the whole point of ANI). The non-MOS portion, apart from one retaliatory filing by Cinderella157 against Sammy D III, basically entirely discussed Dicklyon. Robert seemed to have opened this ArbCom with the intent to impose the same topic ban on Cinderella157 and SMcCandlish. I am thoroughly tired of the toxic battleground called NCCAPS. I am tired of getting my comments blown out of proportion and called personal attacks. I am tired of having editors changing the MOS to suit their views and citing that same text at move request after tired move request. >80% of sources supporting uppercase matters not when faced with a tiny minority lowercasing (i.e. NFL Draft). But I digress from the point: I am just tired of this. If topic banning will make discussions smoother, then do what you see fit. If the evidence finds me worthy of the same ban inflicted on Dicklyon, fine, I no longer really have any interest in battling over whether a page has an uppercase or lowercase letter. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 08:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella157 just opened a thread on my talk page accusing me of casting aspersions above. I was not expecting quite as explicit a validation of my above comment. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 15:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

[edit]
   Newyorkbrad's statement contains 303 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

The ANI closure observed that by numbers alone we have a supermajority in favour of a tban of Dicklyon from capitalization issues, but added: [t]his is an arbitration case without word limits, and that is where it is going to go. Because so many of the comments came from just a handful of editors, the sheer number of comments shouldn't necessarily mean that arbitration is needed. However, the closure included that [i]n the meantime (that is, not indefinitely), Dicklyon is topic banned from (de)capitalization. Question: What happens to the topic-ban if the Committee resolves this RfAr by adopting a motion but declining a full case?

I was an arbitrator in the 2012 "Article titles and capitalisation" case. At least one of my comments in voting on that case remains relevant:

Wikipedia is built on the strengths of its editors, and one of the strengths that many Wikipedians have is attention to detail: for example, noticing inconsistencies of form or style, and being willing to expend time and effort to rectify them. Good judgment is required, however, to draw the line between useful work, such as ensuring that titles of articles on parallel topics have parallel names or that the best title for each article has been used, and pointless, destructive bickering that most outside observers would characterize as arguing about nothing that matters, especially given the robustness of the redirect system. Emerson famously said that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," but that doesn't mean we don't strive for consistency; it means we maintain a sense of proportion about these things....

More recently, while I did not cast a bolded !vote in the recent ANI discussion, I commented:

While I understand the basic point that Dicklyon and others have made in [the thread], the fact remains that more than two-thirds of the editors who have commented in a very substantial discussion have opined that Dicklyon's "case fixing" efforts are problematic. For myself, if more than 35 people suggested that I change my approach to one of my hobbies, or even step away from one of its aspects, I would very seriously consider doing so, and indeed would not be shocked if told I had to.

And I later added:

It is my firm impression, shared by others who have posted above, that unnecessary decapitalization crusades have been demoralizing various groups of editors for close to 20 years. Why would any editor want to be associated with such a thing?

Interestingly, Dicklyon is currently in the process of explaining his focus on decapitalization in some detail, in an essay he's drafting in his userspace. (And let's agree that his writing a userspace essay not be deemed to violate the interim topic-ban.) The essay-in-progress is an interesting one, and develops a novel argument that I had not seen or considered before. Thus far I find its argument unpersuasive, but it isn't finished yet, so I'll leave it at that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Should this be accepted, I propose that it be known as the "case" case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Compassionate727

[edit]
   Compassionate727's statement contains 304 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I have dealt with this issue a little; I closed two of the MRs mentioned in the initial filing, as well as a second RM at one of the related articles (which brought me some attention from an editor who strongly believed my closure was wrong but couldn't quite explain why). I don't have enough experience to really speak about the behavioral problems, but the underlying controversy here reminds me of the dispute over WP:NCROY a year or so ago: there was a global consensus for one particular article titling convention (as demonstrated by a recent amendment to a guideline) that encountered massive local opposition when people attempted to implement it. ArbCom declined to hear a case about WP:NCROY because of a lack of evidence, and to my knowledge, subsequent attempts to fix the problem with more RfCs trainwrecked and the issue was never actually resolved. I hope ArbCom will keep that in mind when considering how to proceed here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little more research on the NCROY stuff. This is the discussion that trainwrecked. I do see one subsequent RfC which reached a consensus to strengthen the portion of the guideline that was controversial. I do not know what, if anything, else of significance transpired between these two discussions. To my knowledge, the question is no longer hotly contested. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A simple thing I think would help: expanding CT/MOS to include RMs and MRs. Any controversy over article title policy inevitably spills into these venues, so including them would be logical and give administrators more tools to combat disruption. (I personally broadly construe it as already applying to them, at least insofar as article title policy is invoked and discussed therein, but I don't think many others share that interpretation, which makes sense given the explicit carve-outs.) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Super Goku V

[edit]
   Super Goku V's statement contains 276 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

@ToBeFree:

Because we need you, Arbitration Committee! Our guilty conscience may force us to attempt to vote for a consensus, but deep down inside, we secretly long for a group to lower the temp, brutalize editors, and rule us like a king! That's why we want this, to protect us from ourselves.

— Sideshow Bob, The Simpsons, (Supposedly. I think it went something like this. Maybe...)

@Cabayi: ARBCOM IT IS (...) But look at these numbers. 756 comments. 104 participants. This is not an ANI thread. This is an arbitration case without word limits, and that is where it is going to go. From asilvering's close of the ANI discussion. I don't believe there is an issue with anyone bringing it here. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have yet to respond, I will add here for clarity that I don't believe there is an issue with asilvering's actions. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@All: Jokes aside, this is the first time I recall having heard of WP:CT/MOS and I wish I had known about it sooner given the move debate that finally somewhat concluded last week over if we should have a lowercase w or an uppercase W for a particular article title. As an aside, I say somewhat as now the debate is currently focused on how things should be ordered in the article's title... Personally, I support Compassionate727's suggestion that CT/MOS be expanded a bit, because the issue described above by Robert McClenon doesn't appear isolated to the mentioned articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, if CT/MOS can be expanded upon with just a motion, then that would likely be the best option. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TurboSuperA+

[edit]
   TurboSuperA+'s statement contains 363 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

ArbCom should decline this request. The problem here is not user conduct, but the way Wikipedia policies and guidelines on capitalisation are written. From what I have gathered interacting with the topic, the sources of the problem(s) are the following:

  1. There is an assumption written into the guidelines that everything is lowercased by default (sentence case), and that to uppercase something one must prove that it is "consistently capitalised in the majority of reliable sources".
  2. a) No agreement on the definition of "proper noun", "proper name" and "proper adjective"; b) When MOS:CAPS or WP:NCCAPS say "proper noun" or "proper name" editors are in disagreement how that guideline should apply to a particular term.
  3. Over-reliance on Google Ngram results, which are opaque at best and misleading at worst.
  4. Lack of participation in MOS:CAPS and related discussions, as well as lack of interest in editing of the guideline itself (The ANI thread had over 100 participants. How many editors came to WT:MOS/CAPS during or after to argue for changes to the guidelines? Very few, if any.)

None of those things are the fault of particular editors. If all ArbCom can do is hand out warnings and bans, reiterate CT for MOS:CAPS and extend it to all move/caps discussions, then I don't see the point. That will not bring us any closer to resolving the issues. If anything, it will make it harder to resolve them. If ArbCom is able to moderate (with word limits and all) a discussion that evaluates and changes MOS:CAPS then I'd welcome it.

@ScottishFinnishRadish I have had disagreements with Cinderella157, but I never had issues with his behaviour and I do not think he should be singled out. While Cinderella157 has successfully pushed for some changes to guidelines and templates I do not agree with, he has never tried to prevent me from arguing for the changes I want made, even when those changes meant reversing his own. I blame my failures on lack of compelling arguments and lack of editor participation, not on Cinderella157. For example, Cinderella157 started an RfC on the meaning of "usually capitalised" in MOS:MILTERMS 23 days ago, I count 7 editors participating in that RfC. TurboSuperA+(connect) 06:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoySmith (MOS)

[edit]
   RoySmith's statement contains 19 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

WP:BRIE

CaptainEek you could call the first one the lower case and this one the upper case. RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jessintime

[edit]
   Jessintime's statement contains 201 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Statement by Thryduulf

[edit]
   Thryduulf's statement contains 133 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

re Cabayi: The ANI was opened to consider only the actions of Dicklyon, and that is what it focused on (despite evidence being presented of a wider dispute). This is not a case of Robert McClenon attempting to re-run the ANI until he receives a favourable outcome. I intend to present evidence regarding SMcCandlish but it will take me more time to compile it than I have at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is going to be dealt with by means of extending CTOP, it would be helpful if uninvolved administrators could be authorised to impose word limits (on either specific individuals or on all participants in a given discussion) at AE to reduce the bludgeoning and filibustering that happens in many contentious RMs and other discussions related to capitalisation. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

[edit]
   SarekOfVulcan's statement contains 98 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I haven't seen any obvious links to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation (WP:ARBATC), so supplying it here.

@CaptainEek: - yeah, that's how it eventually wound up as a CTOP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I originally filed the ARBATC request, I wasn't looking specifically at capitalization - it was the interaction between the MOS in general and the WP:AT policy that seemed to me to be the issue. The evidence just focused in on capitalization really quickly. (See also The Comet That Shall Not Be Named.) Over on WP:ANI at the moment, the argument du jour involves applying MOS:GEOCOMMA to titling. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ModernDayTrilobite

[edit]
   ModernDayTrilobite's statement contains 214 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

No comment on whether this situation merits a case, but I figured it was worth mentioning that there's been a high volume of capitalization-related RMs in recent months, most of which have been long, vociferously argued, and featuring a similar set of users. As the MRV logs shared by Robert indicate, several of these discussions have continued to be contentious even after their closing, more consistently than in most other topic areas. Whether it rises to the level of an ArbCom case or not, I think the capitalization of article titles is at least a lowercase-c contentious topic. (For full disclosure, I made one such contested closure myself at Talk:Galactic Center (diff), but subsequently withdrew that close after a discussion on my user talk page persuaded me that I'd been weighting some of the policy arguments wrongly.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the proposed motion to impose word limits in capitalization-related RMs/RFCs: given that these discussions are generally largely unstructured (contra ARC/AE where each user has their own section), what would the mechanism be for monitoring users' word count? Is there a tool akin to ACWordStatus that could do it? Would we be imposing ARC/AE-style user sections for such RMs? Or would users just have to count everyone's comments word by word? ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

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

If this proceeds to a case, several additional parties need to be added (not limited to Thryduulf, Randy_Kryn, Andy_Dingley, Oknazevad). These are mostly WP:ICANTHEARYOU fomentors of constant discord at RM. Some are in particular topics, insisting (regardless how often they don't get consensus) on pushing over-capitalization for emphasis/aggrandizement, to match the style most common in non-independent sources – a MOS:SIGCAPS and WP:NPOV failure. A few others go topic to topic (where they seem to have no editorial involvement) and oppose most attempts to normalize typography to regular English per MOS:CAPS or other principles (sometimes MOS:TM, etc.). There is a major, multi-party behaviorial problem, but the pillorying of Dicklyon as if the source of the conflict is a snowjob.

An editor following guidelines, sources, and evidence isn't problematic (perhaps houndable into temporarily incivility, a "get rid of our opponent" trap). The problem is an enforcement-of-unnecessary-capitalization WP:FACTION who increasingly devote their energy to trying to walled-garden their pet topics, and engage in a protracted war of attrition against WP:P&G they don't like for "their" articles (against WP:EDITING, WP:CONLEVEL, and ArbCom decisions regarding wikiprojects and other would-be article WP:OWNers).

Last year, this culminated in an attempt (at VPPOL RfC) to deny the community's ability to examine the matter, including weeks of proven canvassing (and enabling from an admin who, when presented with canvassing evidence, instead went on the offensive against Dicklyon et al., in a longterm pattern of bad-faith assumption, which has even moved offsite); and won't-drop-the-stick relitigation at AN; and when they still didn't get their way, right back to RM stonewalling at every opportunity, and abusing process to try to AN[I]-eliminate editors who object to their behavior. It's a "We'll never stop pushing for capital letters no matter what the cost" pattern. Costs are mounting.

This campaign is certainly disruptive – a demoralizing, corrosive drain on editorial goodwill and productivity. But neither Cinderella157 nor Dicklyon are the cause; they're scapegoats put up as distraction by those demonstrably responsible for the disruption. This case has been coming for a decade, but I don't relish it, as diffing all the evidence about these parties will be a time-consuming drag. All for damned typographic trivia. Very WP:LAME, but the ridiculousness of battlegrounding against others for following our evidence-based capitalization guideline is itself a solid reason to T-ban these parties from capitalization disputes/changes. A handful of editors being loud, incessant, and demonizing in their demands, while striking victim poses, doesn't make them right, and they mustn't be appeased.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron's CTOP refinement proposal below may be sufficient remedy; AE could handle things expediently. Years ago, I asked WP:ARCA to clarify that AT/MOS CTOP (then DS) apply to RM, which was declined. Better late than never. The locus of MOS/AT-related dispute for the last 9 years has been RM, not P&G talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron's now-flagging proposal is reparable by addressing opposition: keep MOS/AT CTOP and just extend it to cover MOS issues at RM and other venues, instead of only the policies/guidelines and their talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

[edit]
   Isaacl's statement contains 304 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Regarding the motion "Replace CTOP designation": If I understand Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log § Manual of Style and article titles (CT/MOS) correctly, there is no current restriction in force for this designated area (or at least none were logged). In my opinion, it would be out of scope to transfer restrictions to a new, narrower designated topic area, if the restrictions weren't about capitalization. Either way I think procedurally the better approach is to treat the two separately: consider if a new contentious topic area should be designated, and if the existing one still should be in place.

Regarding whether or not a new contentious topic area for capitalization is warranted: it's hard to know until evidence is presented of conduct issues that can be dealt with using the standard enforcement actions. isaacl (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding word limits: I had raised concerns about the practicality of tracking word counts across all of the comments made by one editor in a discussion (which could span multiple sections and pages), and the effect of an ever-changing set of participants in a discussion as the earlier ones hit their word limits. I feel that before expanding the use of word limits for unstructured discussions, the current usage should be examined regarding these problems. (In particular, I don't think it's a good idea to make it a standard enforcement action for designated contentious topics without more info on its effectiveness.) I would like to hear from admins and participants for discussions for the "Arab-Israeli conflict" topic area about how they're monitoring word counts for all participants across all interactive threads across multiple sections on an ongoing basis, how individuals are monitoring their own word counts, how much operational overhead has increased, how much turnover is being seen in discussions, and if there have been discernable effects to discussion efficiency. isaacl (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

[edit]

I don't see specific allegations of behavioral issues sufficient to merit an arbcom case regarding behavioral issues. What remains is in essence a widespread content dispute fueled by the guideline wording and perhaps editors who have probably gotten too serious about which way edge case capitalization questions should go or enforcing edge case guidelines. And possibly a review of the current restriction from the ANI. Probably the best solution is to zap the guideline wording on this as it seems to be doing more harm than good. Or to get the involved editors to ease up on this. I'm concerned that this could turn into a "guilty by groupthink" without evidence of significant behavorial issues. IMO if Arbcom takes this as a case it should be on those narrow questions and not on general behavioral issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

[edit]

It's disappointing that most of the arbs, especially CaptainEek, seem to be taking this to be a content dispute. It's not. It's not what WP:NCCAPS or MOS:CAPS says that's the problem it's how certain individuals choose to "enforce" it. There is a connection between the what and the how though. The "enforcers" tend to circle back to the guidelines to make sure they're written in a way that can support their behaviour. Look who dominates the content of those guidelines and their talk pages in the last 10 years: [58], [59], [60], [61]. Ignore editors that feature in the rankings but haven't edited those pages in the last 10 years. This area has become a toxic environment. But if CAPS were "solved" the toxicity would just move on to some other area of "style", which is why the CTOP motion doesn't address the root of the problem. ArbCom needs to investigate the underlying behaviours. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for ToBeFree: are you saying that regardless of how disruptive, toxic or intractable the behaviours are around a content dispute, it is reasonable for an arbitrator to not take seriously a case request on those behaviours if the associated content dispute is, in itself, trivial/risible/meaningless? DeCausa (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon's TBAN is summarised in the ANI thread closing as This is an arbitration case without word limits, and that is where it is going to go. In the meantime (that is, not indefinitely), Dicklyon is topic banned from (de)capitalization.[62] Now, WP:TBAN says Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". Since his TBAN, Dicklyon has created and expanded his page User:Dicklyon/Over-capitalization and me. Why is it ok for him to pursue this topic (65 edits, 25 kb of text) contrary to the TBAN and outside of this ARBCOM page? Leeway is one thing, but, if you read it, it's just a vehicle to continue his arguments and deprecate those he sees as his "opponents". DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks asilvering. I was aware of that thread. I raised this in response because I disagree. It needs express wording to take out "broadly construed" not vice versa. DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SnowFire

[edit]

I think Arbcom should finish what the ANI thread started and verify the necessity of the topic ban of Dicklyon, whether it be done by motion or by taking the case fully.

I am mostly here because I was pinged and Dicklyon has catastrophically misinterpreted my comments in the ANI thread (which is not surprising, I suppose). It's true, I did mention that I disagreed with Dicklyon on capitalization discussions - and I said that precisely to weaken my !vote, precisely because I wanted to be up-front about any potential biases. It made me more hesitant to comment as I personally think ANI is at its worst when it becomes a vehicle to re-litigate old grudges. I even explicitly said that I don't think Dicklyon should be fully banned there (diff, when I hadn't yet voted and was hoping Dicklyon would step back from the cliff). I !voted anyway to topic ban Dicklyon, yes, but said outright it was not about my disagreement with Dicklyon on the matter (diff). Rather it was his behavior in general, both from diffs provided in the ANI threads, as well as his behavior within that very ANI thread that confirmed all the worst things about his conduct - that he perceives all disagreement as an unsupported attack, no matter how supported it is, and generally has behaved in an uncollegial, counterproductive manner that has taken what should be a sleepy, boring, technical thing and made it contentious and disspiriting. I would support similar sanctions against editors "on my side" who have also behaved uncollegially (I can think of two editors who were/are banned and were RM regulars who made arguments I often agreed with, and I think their bans were still merited). The "behavioral allegations" seem plainly supported, not unsupported. If Dicklyon chooses to see all the behavior cited in that thread as "only opinions", so be it, but that was and is my rationale for a topic ban, not personal disagreement. SnowFire (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Izno

[edit]

I would encourage a full case here. Proposed parties from "both sides" have thrown a lot of accusations around either without (seriously) employing consensus seeking procedures to change policy/guideline (on the one hand) or of simple bad faith (on the other). It's tiring and it needs to stop in both directions, and a case is the better mechanism to deal with that problem than punting a scope change to AE to resolve. I think several of the suggested parties so far are the right ones.

Statement by L235

[edit]

I agree with Izno that a full case seems appropriate, and would discourage the Committee from resolving this request by merely designating a broader contentious topic.

A CTOP designation is often a useful tool. As two-year drafting arbitrator in the 2021-22 DS/CT revision process, I would know. However, I am concerned that the Committee has come to view it as the default or primary remedy resulting from a case. If a CTOP designation in itself was actually sufficient to resolve significant interwoven conduct issues, we might as well designate the entire project as a CTOP (or the community GS equivalent).

As the body charged to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve, ArbCom is the only body positioned to determine and resolve the underlying root causes of this dispute – root causes that the community has clearly been unable to resolve.

I suggest that in a full case, ArbCom should:

  • Assess the issues laid out in the ANI thread and issue sanctions on editors interfering with the consensus process, and
  • Attempt to actually resolve ongoing issues the community has not been able to resolve, by e.g. considering mandating some sort of structured RfC to definitively resolve some of the underlying questions of policy interpretation/development, including the "philosophical dispute" that HJ mentions, within this specific capitalization context.

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Regarding ArbCom-mandated RfCs don't have a great track record but we can try and provide tools to keep the discussion on track: this is true. To some extent, we should expect a fairly high failure rate, because we only get ArbCom-mandated RfCs if community discussion has already badly fallen short – the situations are bad to begin with, and the failure rate without an ArbCom mandate would be something like 100%.
ArbCom-mandated RfCs tend to be more successful when the RfC question is more narrow and focused, which might be the right kind to resolve the issues underlying this case request – the philosophical question you pose can be answered with a "yes" or "no" (or "sometimes"), for example. But I'm not actually asking the Committee to mandate an RfC here and now. All I'm asking is for the Committee to open a full case to consider what kinds of solutions might address the actual root of this "serious conduct dispute[] the community has been unable to resolve", so I'm grateful for your vote to accept the case. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Isaacl's point on the practicality of tracking word counts across all of the comments made by one editor in a discussion, the Committee may find this tool that I am in the process of developing to be helpful. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by oknazevad

[edit]

Well, since I'm being dragged into this just for making a comment at the ANI thread, I'm going to comment. (If Dick thinks everyone who supported the ban deserves to be dragged in to this discussion, he's got a lot more people to tag. Feels a bit personal to me.)

I stand by what I said. "Rubs people the wrong way" means plainly that many other editors find Dick's behavior to be non-collaborative and pushy. It's not what he does, it's the way he does it and the attitude he gives off while doing it. This is a behavior issue, not a content dispute.

As for evidence, its pretty much sealioning to ask when he knows his own edit history better than anyone. But the one that always jumps out at me is this. On February 25, 2023, Dick opened an RM for NHL Conference Finals. The RM was closed as no consensus. On February 25, 2024, exactly one year later to the day, he unilaterally moved the article anyway. Objection was immediately raised and the move reverted. He claimed he forgot. Which I find ludicrous. Not only was he the one to make the previous RM in the first place, it was still the most recent thread on the talk page, clearly indicating that he just didn't bother to take due care before barreling through. That's the issue. The fact that it was subsequently moved in a proper RM (one, for the record, I supported) is irrelevant to the at the least careless, at the most uncollaborative behavior. WP:BRIE and all that.

Not the first time I've seen him ignore objections, either; unfortunately since I'm not an admin I cannot supply the deleted redirect diffs related to Sun Bowl (stadium), but I clearly recall one time at that page I reverted an undiscussed move he made and instead of opening a talk page discussion first he moved the article back to his preferred title then edited the newly created redirect immediately so the move couldn't be reverted again. Struck me as petty, arrogant, and pushy, and most certainly was not collaborative. He also made a unilateral move at Rose Bowl (stadium) shortly thereafter, which was roundly rejected in the subsequent RM (restoring the longstanding title) which carried over into the RM fixing the Sun Bowl article title. That he tried again to get his preferred title, albeit via RM this time, five years later also speaks to an inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK, another behavioral issue. Because the issue is not the capitals, it's the way Dicklyon acts in regards to them. oknazevad (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dick's latest comments. The age doesn't matter when the behavior is still largely the same. More importantly, I also mean what I said at the ANI thread. Dick can do other stuff, he doesn't need to work in this area where there's been so many issues over the years. In some ways this is like an intervention. He's literally admitted to feeling addictive attachment to Wikipedia editing. It may be time to take a break on your own. oknazevad (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fortuna

[edit]

Apropos the locus of this dispute, shouldn't this case be titled Capitalization disputes . —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth (MOS)

[edit]

SFR: "I also think the committee should add the first impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions to the standard CTOP enforcement tools." ... (makes Bambi Eyes) PLlllleeeaaseee..... if you mean that at AE we can impose a "word limit to all comments anywhere/specific topics" on editors as a CTOP measure. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FOARP

[edit]
   FOARP's statement contains 256 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Firstly let me say that anyone who has done closes over at RM will have seen what a massive time-suck capitalisation has become. There are clearly two entrenched set of partisans with deep WP:OWN problems when it comes to the topic. This is also a deeply pointless dispute of the kind that has only lasted so long and gotten so big because uninvolved editors have sensibly essentially looked away and concentrated their efforts elsewhere. The question of whether an article should be entitled New York City Subway or New York City subway, something most readers are not even going to notice, and if they did notice would not care about - that is to say a question that is objectively minor - should not result in a ~100k character discussion, followed by a number of the people active in the discussion trying to brow-beat the closer in to changing their close, followed by a ~30k character move-review. We should not treat this uncivil, time-wasting, pointless battleground as something that Wikipedia needs to host indefinitely simply because it's a quirky thing that some editors care about a great deal. It is time to end this intractable zero-added-value behaviour and get on with something constructive. For this reason I support Arbcom taking up this case.

Secondly, let me correct the record: I neither support nor oppose Dicklyon's view on capitalisation. I have closed discussions where the consensus was against his view, that is all. I also neither supported nor opposed his being topic-banned from the area of capitalisation. FOARP (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andy Dingley

[edit]
   Andy Dingley's statement contains 313 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

If Dicklyon insists that I be dragged into this:

  • There is no broad disagreement over the spirit of MOSCAPS. Nobody is looking to "rule the MoS null and void". Despite the allegations thrown, there is no campaign to add wholesale and inappropriate capitalisation. Both sides agree that capitalisation is restricted to proper noun phrases.
    • MOS, as currently stated, does require 'consistent capitalisation' in sources. This is being used to remove all capitalisation, through an interpretation that as no sourcing ever agrees entirely unanimously, that is not 'consistent'. This interpretation is ridiculous, albeit convenient to those who wrote it, and who are looking to remove capitalisation.
  • It is characteristic here that a large number of separate editors interested in narrow topics have advocated to capitalise particular terms, frequently alone. A single, consistent and much smaller group has advocated against across every topic. Tag-teaming has been much to the fore.
  • Dicklyon persistently prioritises WP:MOS over WP:RS.
  • Dicklyon is incapable of distinguishing specific and generic uses. Their research technique in particular confuses the two, leading of course to overemphasising the uncapitalised generic form. This has even led to articles that were rightly written on a narrow, specific topic being renamed and then suffering topic drift to some genericised version instead. Even when, in a few cases, there was no such generic concept.
  • Ngrams are not any sort of reliable source for judging capitalisation.
  • Bludgeoning, filibustering and outright abuse are par for the course. Dicklyon is not the worst here, that would be SMcCandlish, who likes to threaten future ANI and Arbcom action against anyone who disagrees with him. Despite that though, Dicklyon couldn't even halt the abuse whilst in an ANI thread about his behaviour.
    • Yes, this is one of the reasons I pretty much stopped editing here a few years back. There is no point if we abandon our commitment to accuracy.

Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facetious statement by Tryptofish

[edit]

I think the case name suggestions by Newyorkbrad and Roy Smith are capital ideas. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by P.I. Ellsworth

[edit]

Humor is good! Hopefully everyone here will be able to capitalize on it. We sometimes roasted an animal in Ethiopia upon which we would feast. The man who killed the beast had an important first priority: cut out the heart, open it and check for blood clots. If there were clots, then the slayer was evil; no clots meant he was a good man. Such is a long-term tradition in parts of Africa. I'll leave the practicality and science of it to the reader. That is metaphorically what editors must do, get right to the heart of this matter. If an ARBCOM case gets us to the truth, then support it by all means. I think it's definitely a capital idea! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BarrelProof

[edit]

Support consideration. The initial ANI closure basically said the dispute is difficult, and imposed an explicitly temporary tban to expire when discussion here concludes. After that started here, the closure was changed. The new closure imposes a permanent tban covering even discussion by Dicklyon. The rationale and evidence for that is weak, and the current outcome should not be permanent. Further, a new statement was added saying "Almost universally, editors agree that the topic area is a mess." The "topic area" seems vague whether the alleged mess is a matter of messy guidelines or contentious editing and discussion. Please count me outside of that "almost universal" assessment. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

[edit]

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

Capitalization Disputes: Clerk notes

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

Capitalization Disputes: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <6/0/0>

[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Have there been any attempts by the community to address Cinderella157's alleged behavioral issues? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is a place where a group of adult humans believes they need a central arbitration committee to find a peaceful answer to whether the title of some articles should be capitalized or not. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    DeCausa, is it a content dispute now? I'm not saying this doesn't need administrative intervention, I'm just saying it shouldn't need arbitration. And if administration fails at a level of "we can't deal with people fighting about the capitalization of article titles", I personally fail to take the project seriously in this aspect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is hardly the first instance where a general policy is being used to override local consensus--and creating serious friction between local and general editors in the process. But if anything, that points to policy reform as the solution, not ArbCom intervention. I'm more than happy to extend the MOS CT to RMs by motion, and could even be convinced to tban Cinderella by motion if that would help put the issue to bed. But a full ArbCom case because some people are angry that some words are Slightly Bigger than others? That would surely go down as one of the Lamest ArbCom Cases of All Time, and I am very skeptical about accepting. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Sarek, I didn't realize we had heard a case about capitalization, with Dickylon as a party no less. I guess would make this case Capitalization II. How lame. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you mean CapitaIIs. this joke doesn't work as well in a sans serif font. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept The community wants us to take this issue. The various motions below suggest a more comprehensive solution is warranted, and I think evidence and workshopping would help make said solution robust. There are also several editors besides Dickylon whom we could examine; I am hesitant to relitigate Dickylon's case though and am open to ideas on how to ensure this doesn't become focused on him. I still think this case will be very LAME, and that the ultimate issue is a content decision, but folks are treating it like some sort of holy struggle, which makes it equivalent to the setup of the infobox wars case. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking there are conduct issues here, but ArbCom can't solve the underlying problem, which is a philosophical dispute over whether we should follow a prescrptive guideline (which is normal in many publications but Wikipedia has tended towards a slower evolution of descriptive guidelines in most areas) or treat the guidelines as suggestions and allow editors or groups of editors leeway. That is an inherent conflict in the wiki model and not one that ArbCom can make go away. That's not to say that we can't look at the conduct issues but it's important to manage expectations from the beginning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept. The motions are fine as far as they go, and I expect to support them, but I don't think they will do much to resolve the ill will and the feeling that one side isn't playing fair or playing by the rules which permeates every discussion related to capitalisation in article titles. I don't think we can kick the can down the road—there has already been one case about this issue and not only has the issue not gone away but it's festered and we're back here with several of the same participants. ArbCom is the best-positioned of our processes to evaluate long-term patterns of editor conduct and attempt to get to the bottom of the accusations and counter-accusations.

    I would still caution all those wanting a resolution, though, that ArbCom can't and won't declare one side or the other "right" or "wrong". We won't rule the MoS null and void, nor will we decree that all articles must follow a particular title format. But if editors are subverting consensus or bludgeoning the process (for example), that is something we can deal with. And in reply to Kevin specifically, ArbCom-mandated RfCs don't have a great track record but we can try and provide tools to keep the discussion on track. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • My first quick reading Robert McClenon is that an ANI has just concluded in which Dicklyon (talk · contribs) was sanctioned and Cinderella157 (talk · contribs) was not and you'd like us to re-do the ANI 'til we come to an outcome you prefer. Am I missing something? Something that was not considered at the ANI? If it wasn't, why? Cabayi (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of a mind to accept this issue, although I'm not settled just yet. The issue here is even if the topic is a CTOP, we're still asking AE to handle a long running dispute where some of the involved parties are long-term editors with significant social capital. AE has proven to be not-so-great at handled disputes with such editors in the past. It also, again, puts the committee in the position of handing off a complex case with quite a few parties back to a venue with fewer participants than the committee has. I've added the word limit remedies from ARBPIA below, as I think those would probably help out in this topic. I also think the committee should add the first impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions to the standard CTOP enforcement tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept, and the word count tool Kevin is putting together works great so far. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon, as you said, the case is already going to be accepted so there's no reason to further expand statements at the case request. Your request for more words is declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept - Aoidh (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. My preference as noted below was to try and implement some editing restrictions and bludgeoning restrictions by motion, and give AE a chance to clean this up first; if that didn't work, I'd have been keen to accept a case on the basis that "everything has been tried". Developments in the past few days have seen my colleagues leaning towards accepting the case, and therefore I'll remove my support for two of the three preliminary motions in favour of joining them and assessing this as a full case, where that and other remedies can be considered in full. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am, somewhat hesitantly, in support of accepting this case request; I went to vote on what I thought was a singular motion and found three, and if we are at the point where multiple motions are possible we should probably take the time to actually look at the underlying causes (especially if some of them could have broader CTOP-wide implications). I do have some of the concerns expressed above about there being intractable issues that simply cannot be overcome, though. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Replace CTOP designation

[edit]
Replaced with a clearer wording. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The capitalisation of article titles, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic. The existing contentious topic designation for the Manual of Style and article titles and all active sanctions under it are merged into the new contentious topic regime. The new designation has no restriction preventing it from being enforced at discussions on the capitalisation of individual articles, and it does still apply to discussions on article title capitalisation policy.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support:
  1. Putting the above idea to the test: CT/MOS hasn't been used in five years. It's both overly broad (the entirety of the article titles policy is not a battlefield anymore, let alone the entirety of the MoS) and overly narrow (limiting it to policy-based discussions makes it useless to address the actual hotspots we've seen in recent years). We should give admins the tools to address the problem in conjunction with the wishes the community has already made clear. It's not strictly necessary to change the existing designation, we could always just extend it, but I don't like the idea of building on top of a cracking foundation – this best be a teardown job. Full disclosure: I blocked Dicklyon last year for personal attacks as a non-CTOP individual admin action, although the conduct was related to this area. I'm of course recused as to the validity of that block, but I'm not involved as an admin or editor with CT/MOS overall. I did create the page on the Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate, though :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with leeky above. This was an ANI referral, not an AE referral, and I think the two are somewhat different in terms of how I weigh them as an assessment of intractability. I'm keen to give the AE/CTOP structure a chance to solve this before we dive into it, and this motion would be a neat way to do that. Daniel (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. On the right path, but the wording is imprecise. CTMOS already covered article capitalization, it just only applies in RfCs about policy itself, which is a good thing to have. The right approach here is to remove the restriction excepting requested moves and move reviews, while still excepting talk pages, so that we don't accidentally make every discussion about grammar on Wikipedia a CT. The merge aspect is the most unclear here, because capitalization and the MOS CT are different scopes, so it's unclear what would happen if we merged a broad CT into a narrow CT. Also, by keeping it under the broader MOS, we don't have to decide whether it's capitalization or capitalisation ;) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, to clarify: the scope of CTMOS wouldn't appear in the new. I guess it'd be more accurate to say that existing sanctions under CTMOS are transferred to CTCAPS and then CTMOS is rescinded. Or that CTMOS is rescoped entirely to "capitalisation of article titles, broadly construed" – which i did want to be with a 'z', but unfortunately ArbCom already has precedent on that front 😄
    The reason I went for this instead of just striking text in the original CTMOS is that just removing the restriction would open up every requested move to CTOP restrictions, which is waaay broader than the scope of the case before us (the vast majority aren't about capitalization). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Procedurally, as it is looking more like we are going to have a case and will then be able to make a more informed decision regarding this question. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
@Daniel, CaptainEek, and ToBeFree: I want to update the wording of the motion to clarify that the scope of CTMOS wouldn't be preserved in CTCAPS under this motion. Is that all right, or would y'all rather I write up a take 2? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)
Thanks for asking – I didn't analyze the motion that thoroughly because the dispute is too absurd for my personal liking yet I appreciate and wouldn't want to block the efforts of arbitrators who can take this more seriously than me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm easy with either rewriting, or alternatively (and maybe preferably, to keep things easy to understand for all) you could hat this motion and propose a v2 as a separate follow-up motion with fresh S/O/A section? Daniel (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We may also want to consider if applying word limits might be of benefit, given the issue of alleged filibustering. Daniel (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalisation of article titles, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic. The contentious topic designation for the Manual of Style and article titles is rescinded, but all active sanctions under it remain in force. The new designation has no restriction preventing it from being enforced at discussions on the capitalisation of individual articles, and it does still apply to discussions on article title capitalisation policy.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support:
  1. Second try at the above motion, for largely the same reasons: CTMOS hasn't been used in ages and isn't equipped to address the problem here. Just tinkering with CTMOS to remove the requested move/move review restrictions would make every requested move and move review subject to CTOP restrictions, which is totally out of left field coming from a case request that represents only a small fraction of RMs. It'd also invite litigation about how much the restriction would apply in discussions that aren't RMs but are related to RMs. Starting over with a clearer and more enforceable CTOP seems like the best way to make sure the community has a way to address this going forward. (I can make a third motion that doesn't touch CTMOS at all, but again, I think it's important to build on a solid foundation and not leave old CTOPs around when they've served their purpose.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my support above. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Per my accept vote here, while my preference was to try a couple of motions in lieu of a case to explore alternative resolutions, it seems like we're going to be opening a case. At that point, I'd prefer we look at this in full at that time. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is worthwhile, even if there's no case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't think it's wise to remove the CTOPs designation from the MoS at the precise juncture that we're considering hearing a case on a closely connected issue. There's a risk that disruption will spill over from capitalisation of article titles into capitalisation within articles and other parts of the MoS, and it would be beneficial to have tools in place to deal with it if that happens. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Getting rid of CT MOS is a bad idea. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I also don't think rescinding the MOS CTOP would be beneficial. - Aoidh (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Procedurally, as it is looking more like we are going to have a case and will then be able to make a more informed decision regarding this question. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the topic of article title capitalization. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support:
  1. This would certainly help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments above, filibustering and/or bludgeoning has been identified as an ongoing issue. Daniel (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I still support this motion passing, even in parallel with a full case being opened. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This has the potential to help address the bludgeoning issues, even if a case isn't accepted. - Aoidh (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Procedurally, as it is looking more like we are going to have a case and will then be able to make a more informed decision regarding this question. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. For one, this assumes we're creating a Capitalization CT sans case, which I'm currently voting against. Second, I'd rather us take a case to see if bludgeoning is a problem before implementing this, but I agree that this is a generally useful remedy to add to the toolbox. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) related to the capitalization of article titles are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support:
  1. This would certainly help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my comments above, filibustering and/or bludgeoning has been identified as an ongoing issue. Daniel (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Per my accept vote here, while my preference was to try a couple of motions in lieu of a case to explore alternative resolutions, it seems like we're going to be opening a case. At that point, I'd prefer we look at this in full at that time. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I have a hard time voting for this without seeing evidence. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Procedurally, as it is looking more like we are going to have a case and will then be able to make a more informed decision regarding this question. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:


Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
  • Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132

Clarification request: Race and intelligence

[edit]

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

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

  • Diff of notification of Lewisguile [63]

Statement by Sirfurboy

[edit]

Requesting clarification as to whether Grooming gangs scandal is covered by the Race and Intelligence CT, per the reasoning of Lewisguile, who wrote "Race and intelligence" doesn't just cover race and intelligence. Per the arbcom decision, it extends to the "intersection between race/ethnicity and human ability or behaviour". In other words, claims that ethnic group x is more likely to engage in behaviour y should be covered by that policy. [64]. The grooming gangs issue is described by one academic source [65] thus:

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

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

Supplementary to the answer, if "no, it is not covered" I would like to request amendment such that it is included, or else addition of a new CT, as it is clearly a contentious topic, having attracted multiple press coverage (on Wikipedia's coverage alone) and comment from Elon Musk that has yielded personal attacks on Wikipedia editors on and off-site (off wiki evidence available but cannot be linked owing to WP:OUTING concerns. Please let me know if and how that evidence should be submitted. On-wiki, please see [66]). Supplementary if the answer is yes, I'd like to request WP:ECR in this topic area owing to deliberate and sustained off-site disruption (the support of which will require me to supply off-wiki evidence with OUTING concerns, but which states explicitly that such disruption has taken place and been successful). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CarringtonMist A source that indeed sees this issue as a gendered crime is [67] although I feel GENSEX is still a push, personally. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lewisguile

[edit]

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

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

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

In response to @ScottishFinnishRadish, see above. If you read the responses detailed in the article (take the "Research" section, for example), you'll see that a large amount of space is dedicated to the argument in the media and politics that men of British Pakistani origin are particularly overrepresented among perpetrators of "grooming gangs". That's clearly a putative link between ethnicity and behaviour. See also the second paragraph of the lede, where we talk about the moral panic around Muslims and the claims made about British Pakistani men. The first clause of the first sentence of that paragraph isn't exclusive—it's intended to mean that media discussion has focused on ethnicity, as well as said ethnicity apparently impeding investigation. The second and third sentences of this paragraph state this more clearly anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In response to @CarringtonMist, @Thryduulf, and @Riposte97, and the trickiness of CTOP categorisation in general:
I take the points about WP:GENSEX and rape/CSE, but WP:R–I seems more applicable. I agree IPA is perhaps also stretching things a bit too far, unless that were worded to cover people of Indian, Pakistani and Afghan descent.
I note that Race and crime, however, is explicitly covered by R–I, and that was why the wording was broadened here. I think the issue is that "Race and intelligence" suggests a certain narrow reading, which appears at odds with the broader topic designation. "Race and behaviour" might be better (or, in line with GENSEX, something much broader like "Race and ethnicity" in general, since all these topics end up being controversial in practice). I don't think an explicit link to such behaviours being inherited is necessary for R–I to apply, though, as the wording says "the intersection of" (i.e., where the topics meet), "race" is an invented social category rather than a purely biological one anyway, and "ethnicity" is cultural as well as lineal.
To Riposte97, specifically: if you read my statement above, I suggested that any PP that gets added could be done so after the RM to avoid any impression of discounting !votes. I think we all pretty much found consensus on there anyway, which included keeping the page and adding a new one, so I don't think it's fair to say this is about overriding any closure result. Rather, I think there is genuine concern among many editors about outside influence (which may be emboldened if it pays off/goes without challenge here), which has led to one editor being doxxed already, and accounts with <500 edits can be a symptom of that influence. In general, inexperienced accounts aren't advised to take part in contentious discussions, but I don't think it would have changed the consensus we reached on that page (as most editors were more experienced), which was more productive than a list of "support"/"oppose" !votes. Lewisguile (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CommunityNotesContributor

[edit]

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

Statement by CarringtonMist

[edit]

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

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

Statement by Hemiauchenia

[edit]

I do think that the topic is covered by the current contentious topic wording: intersection between race/ethnicity and human ability or behaviour, because the central issue of the controversy revolves around whether British Pakistanis are more predisposed to group-based child sexual "grooming"-based abuse than other ethnicities, not just whether police did/did not act upon such gangs based on their ethnicity as suggested by SFR. See for example Cockbain and Tufail 2020: [68] "The central argument of the ‘grooming gangs’ narrative is, in short, that a ‘disproportionate’ number of Asian/Muslim/Pakistani-heritage men are involved in grooming (mostly) white British girls for organised sexual abuse. These claims are often substantiated with reference to a spate of high-profile prosecutions of so-called ‘grooming gangs’ in towns and cities such as Rotherham, Rochdale, Derby, Telford, Oxford, Huddersfield and Newcastle" Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: who was involved in protecting some of the redirects e.g. [69]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

[edit]

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

Statement by Thryduulf

[edit]

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

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

Statement by Riposte97

[edit]

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

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

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

Procedurally, I also note that most of the editors involved in the various discussions that Sirfurboy has contributed to or opened regarding this topic have not been notified of this filing. I only happened upon it by chance.

Statement by Dimadick

[edit]

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

Statement by {other-editor}

[edit]

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

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

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

Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

[edit]
  • I don't think we should interpret ARBIPA as covering anyone of any of those nationalities anywhere in the world. It's already overbroad, and broadening it further isn't the fix for that. Gensex also doesn't really fit, since that's about gender and sexuality disputes, not about responses to child sexual abuse. Race and intelligence is the closest, but I think that's targeted towards discussions of x race displaying y behavior, not a scandal about how law enforcement handled a situation potentially being affected by the ethnicity or nationality of the perpetrators. Race and intelligence isn't meant to cover anything involving race, ethnicity, or nationality. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed covers the article, as I think that the scope covers race x being allegedly more likely to do y; see the ARCA that introduced that language too, as the intent was to cover race and crime. I don't think that this is a real gender-related dispute or controversy (it would be one if the dispute was framed on the gender of the perpetrators instead of the ethnicity) and think that IPA would be a stretch (it would be covered if the location was in one of those countries instead of the UK), though maybe it could be covered by broadly construed.
    @CarringtonMist: As long as the topic area does not have a extended-confirmed restriction (list of topics), you are free to participate here. As for whether one should be imposed, I would really need extraordinary evidence of our normal processes failing to contain disruption. I see very few logged enforcement actions regarding Race and intelligence this year and last year. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

[edit]

Requests for enforcement

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Göycen

[edit]

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

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

Appealing user
Göycen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed
Indefinite block for topic ban violations, see block log and see enforcement log
Administrator imposing the sanction
Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
I'm aware. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Göycen

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

[edit]

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

Hoping this can get a little attention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, I'm sure there's no written rules about consideration of more than one AE unblock request. I'd suggest to you that we'd be better off without an unwritten rule. We don't have such an abundance of AE admins that we can afford the attrition of multiple unblock requests, and this sort of appeal is not at all a review of the previous decline's merits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by asilvering

[edit]

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

Perhaps not fully to the same degree, but fully enough that I don't think it's right to take part in the main discussion. I wouldn't touch a regular unblock I'd already declined either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, @Firefangledfeathers. We're now at 2:1 on this, which isn't exactly WP:1AM, but I'll take my lumps. I Don't Like It, but I like leaving editors hanging for two weeks even less. Will have another look. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Göycen

[edit]

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

[edit]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

[edit]

Result of the appeal by Göycen

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

RememberOrwell

[edit]

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

Request concerning RememberOrwell

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
RememberOrwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBCOVID-19
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 02:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Adds image taken from Ivermectin misinformation site c19ivm.org to COVID-19 misinformation. This image has formed part of previous WP:AE report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive350#RememberOrwell
  2. 03:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC) I revert it
  3. 10:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Starts discussion arguing for inclusion of misinformation from c19ivm.org
  4. 10:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC) "What is up with your and TarnishedPath's apparent aggressive attitude and obsession with this article/topic? Seems to be something you have a close connection to. Do you?"
  5. 10:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC) "You asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty. Do you use logical tricks like that intentionally?"
  6. 10:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC) "As you refuse to answer and are using logical tricks, I choose to disengage. You have made it clear I am not welcome here."
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive350#RememberOrwell RememberOrwell warned for personal attacks
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

RememberOrwell has previously been warned for personal attacks in relation to discussions of the topic area nothing has changed. TarnishedPathtalk 11:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the discussion which occurred at Special:PermanentLink/1296905548#Your submission at Articles for creation: Haro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (June 22) is covered by WP:ARBCOVID-19 as the page the discussion is about (Draft:Haro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals) is covered by the CTOP. In that discussion RO argues that WP:GNG is something different than what experienced editors understand it to be and that AFC reviewers are misrepresenting policy. TarnishedPathtalk 09:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1296965136


Discussion concerning RememberOrwell

[edit]

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

Statement by RememberOrwell

[edit]

Statement by Alpha3031

[edit]

I was kinda wondering what kind of fights Orwell has been getting up to since January. Claiming an AfC decline is against 5P1 apparently (the one about being an encyclopedia). Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with fiveby's comment which seems to imply both, or any of the other editors involved have acted inappropriately in any way. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fiveby

[edit]

An AE report for this? Looks like a couple battleground editors trying to bait others into "civility violations". Happens often at LL article, it's boring because most editors are transparent and tedious about it—at least they could try for a bit of style. For the supposed civility issues TBAN both or tell both to grow up a little.

However, per BC's WP:NOTDUMB comment the third time trying this with the image should go a long ways toward a TBAN for RO. fiveby(zero) 14:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

[edit]

Something's off here. Why a dogged insistence on inserting a screenshot from a site which isn't even discussed in the target article? It is, in contrast, discussed at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic#Misleading meta-analysis websites where RememberOrwell has also tried to insert it. I am sure there is no failure of intent here, but going to DEFCON ONE on editors for disagreeing isn't wise, especially on a WP:CTOP. Likewise to AfC reviewers.[70] Some toning-down is needed. Bon courage (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby: Expecting "a bit of style" at AE? You want the Moon on a stick, you do ... Bon courage (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

[edit]

Result concerning RememberOrwell

[edit]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • A topic ban for RememberOrwell would probably make sense at this point --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous AE thread was closed without formal action, but with an informal warning, as the underlying dispute was moot. Here again RememberOrwell has made personal attacks and then ended the underlying dispute. That shows that this is capable of repetition yet evading review, so I do think some formal action is merited here. That said, I'm not convinced as to a TBAN versus a formal warning. @RememberOrwell: I'd really like to hear from you. Unlike a lot of FRINGE-related disputes we get at AE, this does seem like a situation where both sides are trying to portray misinformation and misinformation, rather than one trying to legitimize it. On the other hand, it's not okay to accuse people of a COI without evidence. So I'd appreciate your thoughts. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As RememberOrwell has had notice of this request and plenty of time to comment at it, I think we should proceed with the presumption that they do not intend to do so (though of course they remain free to do so if desired). Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the previous informal warning, I could get behind a topic ban. I might have been persuaded to a formal warning but the ignoring of this isn't giving me good feelings that a formal warning will get through to the editor. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're choosing not to participate in this AE thread, then they should not be participating in the topic area, especially given that Jack McCoy—style withdrawn personal attacks are part of the issue here, and this furthers that pattern of evading accountability. I favor a COVID TBAN. In the event of an appeal, what I'd want to see is a credible commitment to avoid personal attacks and take accountability in this topic area. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, not showing up here is a complete refusal to communicate, which means they shouldn't be editing in contentious topics. Valereee (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editking100

[edit]

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

Request concerning Editking100

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Azuredivay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Editking100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


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

Account created only 28 days ago, and is being disruptive across Wikipedia.

  1. 17 June - Making false accusations of racism for this comment
  2. 23 June - Removes maintanence tag with misleading edit summary
  3. 23 June - Restored largely unsourced material removed by Cerium4b.
  4. 23 June - Minutes later editor then hounds contributions by Cerium4b and reverts them in multiple places without any rationale [71][72][73][74][75]
  5. 23 June - Never edited this article before,[76] but is edit warring here by falsifying the established consensus found on talk page.
  6. June - 26 June - Not assuming good faith. Writes: "Clearly the motive to raise this deletion is highly questionable, outright biased and definitely not in a good faith."
  7. falsifies this Wire source as "selective addition (especially quoting the Wire source) which says it's not a official gov confirmation but a personal opinion of someone". He also makes a misleading claim that the figure has to be officially from the government then only it can be included.
  8. 26 June - Repeats his problematic claims that he made above.

This editor is thoroughly problematic. Their creation of Draft:Piddi Media should leave no doubt. Azuredivay (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
[77]


Additional comments by editor filing complaint
   Azuredivay's statement contains 406 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

@Seraphimblade: Regarding #4 , I have linked many diffs in its analysis, the overlap is at over five pages and in quick succession and the reverts themselves are not constructive, as these two diffs which I already cited above about restoration of unsourced content (tagged with cn as well) prove.[78][79]

That said, a warning could be necessary only if Editking100 was sincere, however, he is abiding by nothing contrary to what he promised here, or what he said on the ANI report earlier.[80] He has resumed edit warring on Shubhanshu Shukla by making 2 reverts[81][82] after making multiple reverts on the same article just a few days ago,[83][84][85] and is rapidly making false accusations of casting aspersions against another editor on talk page.[86][87] Azuredivay (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: I would like to bring to your attention that Editking is still edit warring and has made 2 more reverts[88][89] since my message above. He made a total of 4 reverts in just 32 hours and is making rude messages on talk page by assuming bad faith such as:
  • "let alone with me and straightaway choose to mass revert content in bad-faith"[90]
  • "Both IP are doing non-constructive and disruptive mass-reverts here."[91]
I don't think a simple warning is going to work given the continued problematic editing by this user even during this report. Azuredivay (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[92]


Discussion concerning Editking100

[edit]

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

Statement by Editking100

[edit]
   Editking100's statement contains 915 words and complies with the 920-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 920 words. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to respond to the allegations with facts and transparency, backed by sources and contributions that clearly reflect my constructive intent.

1) The issue raised against me has already been addressed in great detail here: [[93]]. Even administrator Rosguill noted that such matters should not be escalated to ANI. I gave a prior explanation on the article talk page, and I’ve worked constructively across hundreds of pages. My editing history does not align with WP:NOTHERE behavior as per said by them.

2) There was nothing misleading in the edit here: [[94]]. I removed a maintenance tag citing improved grammar and based on this wikilink. The same page linked before and after this edit is: [[95]]. It contains sourced data, and the same is supported by this third-party source: [[96]]. I never knew that changing 'Asian airline' to 'airline in Asia' and backing the claim based on a already attached wikilink would land me into huge trouble.

3) Here: [[97]] — a valid Deccan Herald source was already present. The complete removal by Cerium4b lacked justification, so I reverted it to preserve the referenced version. Currently i got sources to back the same data and are attached as can be seen here [[98]].

4) Cerium4b made several deletion requests and removals from Hinduism-related articles. See their contributions here: [[99]]. Their deletions were denied or reverted by others, as seen in the page histories of [[100]], [[101]], and [[102]]. I only restored content that had previously existed; I added nothing new.

5) The discussion here: [[103]] concluded there was no consensus to merge. My edit was unrelated to merging and concerned the fact that there’s no formal confirmation of party dissolution. See edit: [[104]]. I reverted just once to a previously established version, which does not amount to edit warring as also confirmed by Toddy1 below.

6) In this AFD: [[105]] — over 10 users made similar points before me. I highlighted inconsistency in nominating this page while other astronauts from the same mission (with similar or fewer sources) were not. I also correctly referenced misuse of WP:NEWSORGINDIA clause. The closing admin also confirmed that my points were valid: [[106]].

7,8) I made my reasoning clear here: [[107]]. The Wire article cited says “India has not disclosed how much it has paid” in the lead making it speculative. This supports my objection to including unsourced figures. Other editors agreed here too: [[108]]. Here, I suggested an RFC to resolve the disagreement about cost info in the astronaut article, because most similar pages don’t include such speculative claims. This was reverted by a first edit of a IP editor. Another new account: [[109]] and an IP [[110]] made edits suggesting prior involvement and later re-added arbitration warnings to my talk: [[111]]. I also received personal attacks here: [[112]].

This is the summarized version of my statement, for the previously attached long version including reply to user Toddy1, see [[113]]

Thank you! Editking100 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Seraphimblade I got your points completely and have looked into WP:V as you suggested. I'll adress the first 3 Diffs here, as the remaining (4-8) were found to not-violate anything by you and Toddy1 above.

In the case of Diff 3, i would like to inform you that, i along with another editor have already put references to the edits that i reverted back to original (which needed citations). [[114]] As you can see i mentioned in the talk page that the already attached Deccan Herald (source 39) attached above also has the same content (that needed citations) here. I also suggested another source of historyofodisha.in which was latter used by another editor to cite the previously unreferenced information. It can be clearly confirmed in the edit history page given below, that the references are now added to the content i reverted back. [[115]].

In the case of Diff 2, i removed citation needed tag based on the already attached wikilink [[116]] that has sources to back the claim, as i mentioned above (and also in the edit summary). Later on i knew that it wasnt a correct way and so i have never repeated it again. This was merely a one-off incident and i have never removed citation tags neither before nor after this, as you can see from my other 1500+ edit contributions.

In the case of Diff 1, i appolozised not once but twice in the talk page, before the ANI was raised against me. Look at this for confirmation [[117]] here i said "So sorry, I take my comments back and will not come to this page ever again", [[118]] here i also said "Sorry...Sorry, Peace for all...". Even after that an ANI was raised against me. But i also want to add on that my talk page suggestions in the Disney+ Hotstar and Disney Star were constructive, I had sources with facts and data to back my claims like [[119]] and i also provided detailed explainations and counter explainations with previous such cases like in the case of Twitter/X as can be seen on both the talk pages, and i provided the reason as to why i raised the allegation previously here [[120]] which even an admin confirmed in my ANI [[121]] and said that i never repeated it again.

To sum it up. I vow to follow WP:V and be civil forever in addition to the constructive editing i am doing in my topics of interest like sports, travel, aviation etc in wikipedia. Thank you all. Editking100 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toddy1

[edit]
   Toddy1's statement contains 302 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

@Editking100: You said both here and at WP:ANI that you have a clean history. What do you mean by that?

You proved that you are capable of spotting and reporting a suspicious editor - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1191#User:ইমরান ভূইয়া suspicious mass edits - the editor you reported got blocked as a sock.

It is surprising that an account that is about a month old is editing at a rate of 46 edits/day. Did you have previous experience with Wikipedia?-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the complaint is an over-reaction to a series of minor and non-existent problems. For example:
  1. Editking100 was wrong to talk about racist statements on Talk:Disney Star;[122] it was the wrong page to do this on. He/she should have done it at WP:ANI or WP:AE.
  2. Editking100's edit-summary described his perception of part of his/her edit, but did not mention deleting the maintenance tag.[123] He/she probably did not realise that deleting the maintenance tag was important. A warning on Editking100's talk page explaining this was all that was needed.
  3. A reasonable edit by Editking100, with a sensible edit summary.[124] Nobody reverted Editking100's edit. Nor is there discussion of it on the article talk page. So why are you complaining about it here?
  4. Having spotted what Editking100 perceived to have been a bad edit by an editor, Editking100 looked to see whether the editor had made other questionable edits and reverted them. Experienced editors and admins do that all the time.
  5. You call making one edit[125] an edit war! I could have understood that, if other editors had been edit warring, and Editking100 had joined it on one side. But that did not happen.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

[edit]

Result concerning Editking100

[edit]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Editking100, if this is your first time at AE, you should really read the instructions at the top of the page that are in the pink section. AE has word limits and diff limits, both of which you have exceeded. Also, you should note that The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported which means that you should not use your limited number of words talking about other editors here as no action will be taken against them. This discussion is about your editing and that of the complaint filer. Also, keep your comments to your own section. I have moved some you made to Toddy1 to your own section. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editking100, the word limits are not suggestions, and you have had plenty of time to trim your statement. If you have not done so shortly, it will be truncated at the 500 word mark; I presume you would probably prefer it to look differently than that. If you really feel you need more than that, you may request an extension after you have trimmed it to 500 words or less. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's at least substantially better. Given that I'll give an extra 120 words, but please don't add to your statement unless you request more. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, having a look through the provided diffs:
    Diff 1 ([126]) is concerning. It is not "racist" to simply state the geolocation of an IP, and that's a serious accusation that should not be made lightly. This appears to be casting aspersions.
    Diff 2 ([127]) is indeed inappropriate, as a "citation needed" tag is removed but no citation was added. If that's the only time it happened, I'm willing to presume it was mistake rather than malice, but Editking100 will need to be careful not to do that again. The only time you remove a citation needed tag is if you have actually added a citation that confirms the fact in question, or if you are removing the challenged material as well.
    Diff 3 ([128]) is again concerning. When material is challenged as unreferenced, the burden is on any editor who wishes to restore it to find and cite a source which confirms the challenged material. Editking100 did not do so; they just added the material back, "citation needed" tag and all.
    Diff 4 ([129]) is a revert of an edit that Editking100 apparently disagrees with, and there was no further edit warring after that. One overlap does not hounding make, either, so I don't see anything actionable here.
    Diff 5 ([130]) was not any kind of edit against consensus, as the cited discussion, first, had a "no consensus" outcome (in the interest of full disclosure, I closed it as such, but I was not a participant nor do I have any opinion regarding it), and secondly, that discussion regarded an article merge, not article editing. One edit is not edit warring. So, again, I don't see anything actionable here.
    Diff 6 ([131]) could do without the hyperbole, but it's pretty mild as AfD comments I've seen go, and the AfD indeed did close with an overhwelming "Keep" result. I wouldn't sanction based on something like that.
    Point 7 has no diff link to an on-wiki edit, so I'm not sure what's being claimed here.
    Diff 8 ([132]) is a discussion of a source; this is a content discussion and not for AE to settle.
In sum, I think Editking100 needs to carefully review the verifiability policy, especially as regards challenged material. If they will agree to do that, I would not impose any sanctions at this time, but I think an informal warning that continued breaches of that policy are grounds for sanction is in order (and if you're going to call someone racist, you better have very solid evidence for that claim; else knock that off). AE requests are limited to discussion of the filer's and respondent's conduct, so I do not and will not address claims made against any third party here; if anyone thinks it's necessary, file a separate request regarding them. I'll give Editking100 an additional 300 words (above the current 620) for the purpose of replying to this; please keep your response confined to what you intend to do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zanahary

[edit]
Not a 1RR violation. (De minimis non curat lex.) No other allegations of user conduct issues. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Zanahary

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Zanahary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:PIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 01:32, 8 May 2024 and 01:29, 8 May 2024 About a year ago removes a sentence “When used against Jews, it may take the form of the pejorative claim of "self-hating Jew"”, together with all four of its sources. Rationale was disputing whether the sources were clear enough.
  2. 07:13, 29 June 2025 After sources were strengthened, returns to remove an equivalent sentence, again with all its sources, this time with the rationale Lead must follow body; no mention of this anywhere but in lead
  3. 08:29, 29 June 2025 After it was added back and a section was then added to the body, removes the section added to the body, removes three sources, and cuts a quote.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 19 Oct 2023
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
   Onceinawhile's statement contains 152 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

See the discussion at Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#1RR_and_removal_of sources. Zanahary refused to self-revert, and stated You’ll have to take this to a noticeboard if you want to settle it as a 1RR violation—I just don’t agree with you that my first edit in contention was a revert.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[133]

Discussion concerning Zanahary

[edit]

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

Statement by Zanahary

[edit]
   Zanahary's statement contains 457 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

This morning I removed a clause from the lead of Weaponization of antisemitism as being a violation of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. After Oiaw restored it with a new piece of body text, I reverted his change and replaced it with different body text, keeping the lead phrase I’d earlier removed (with fewer citations attached to it—I removed those that didn’t support the prose or even relate directly to the article topic). Oiaw indicated on the article Talk that my initial removal was a reversion. I told him that I don’t agree. New to his argument is the first diff linked from last year, showing me removing similar content once before. The latter diff from 2024 doesn’t appear to be relevant.

I don’t see how the first 2024 diff implies that this morning’s removal was a reversion. My edit did not restore the page to a previous version or undo an edit—it was just the removal of old content. Unless Oiaw is arguing that my edit reverted the page to this state, which it obviously did not. It would be appreciated if he clarified whether that is the argument he is raising with that diff. As I see it, I performed a non-reverting edit (removing the lead clause), then reverted Onceinawhile, then self-reverted (for technical reasons; Oiaw is not talking about this edit) to adapt what Oiaw had written using some of the sources in the previously reverted material. That’s four edits, in order:

1. Removing a lead phrase, not undoing anyone else’s edit nor resulting in the restoration of a previous page version.

2. Reverting the phrase’s restoration along with the addition of new body text by Oiaw.

3. Self-reverting the previous edit, so that I could…

4. Write a bit of prose in the body, allowing the lead phrase to remain (as now reflecting the body).

That’s one reversion.

Just for clarity, the self-revert was so that I could cite some of the sources attached to the removed lead phrase in my new piece of text. It was easier to work from that version of the article than it would have been to copy over the Wikitext from the old version. This is, again, not one of the reverts Oiaw is alleging. Oiaw says that the first two edits above were reversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanahary (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that context Aquillion—my answer to your question is yes: I took that text to be longstanding and status quo when I edited it (though I hadn't gone in the history to look at how old it was; I just remembered it having been there awhile (probably from a combination of its latest monthlong tenure and its previous life)), and I still believe in this assessment. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

[edit]
   Aquillion's statement contains 80 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

For reference, the text removed in the first 29 June diff above was added a little over a month ago, here. I can understand the frustration around how any removal is notionally a revert and how easy it can be to brooch the WP:1RR as a result (I even wrote an essay about it), but I guess I'd ask Zanahary this - do you believe the text you removed is longstanding (and therefore represents the status quo) or not? --Aquillion (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Zanahary

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

Jonathan f1

[edit]

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

Request concerning Jonathan f1

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Jonathan f1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:PIA5
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 2 July 2025 edits here sum up to at least 1000 words
  2. 27 May 2025 I'm counting at least 1000 words here, up to about 1.5k words
  3. 6 June 2025 at least 1.5 k words here again too
  4. [134] warning from SFR about the word limits as well in yet another section in the Gaza Genocide talk page.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. November 2020 Article-space ban due to Jonathan F1 doing WP:TE
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)


Additional comments by editor filing complaint
   Bluethricecreamman's statement contains 496 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Significant reports by multiple users to ask to stop foruming in general (myself included) on many contentious topic areas. Generally engaging in WP:TE regardless.

Pinging @Sameboat, saw they were thinking of doing an ANI thread on User_talk:JzG#Request_for_talk_page_topic_ban_for_Jonathan_f1. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: apologies, I could have been more clear about stating that Jf1 is violating the 1000 word limit sanction that was passed between PIA4 and PIA5 [140]. Its my first time filing a report here, and I don't know how to show word counts easily for these types of reports

  • [141], the word count for his contributions when posted into a google doc is 1214 words [142]
  • [143] word count here in a google doc is 1825 words [144]
  • [145] the word count here is 1774 [146]
  • [147] the word count here is 1805 [148]

Though the wordcount in the google docs would not reflect the carveout for quotes, links, and refs, most of these would probably surpass the 10k limit. Sidenote:Is there a better way to show word counts in the future? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC) Moved to already existing section for filer; please don't open a separate one since you already use this one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

to Liz, i agree. additionally, the word count is most certainly exaggerated, some of the links and quotes in the google docs are being counted as multiple words. but in lieu of any other way to present a count, and as im certain at least some of these are way past the word limit even with limitations of google docs, i didnt know what to do. apologies if there is a better way to have done it Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


SFR suggested a wordcount tool on my talk page, but I can't make it work. As SFR has been warning JF1 for awhile, i'll assume that other could verify the word count vios. Here are more traditional diffs characterizing behavior in the topic area.

  • forumy post - As an analogy, imagine if a group of right-wing academics invented a field called "critical woke studies," invented their own journals, reviewed each other's work, and were demonstrably involved in political activism. I doubt Wiki editors would deem such research reliable. [149]
  • forumy post - I need a verifiable source do I? Where is the evidence that has moved whole academic fields to consensus, anyway - [150]
  • passive aggression about trying to disqualify a source because its not "science": I'm also going to asusme this NRC article uses a very European definition of "science" (ie a system of knowledge) and is not using the term as most English-speaking people understand it.[151]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[152] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion concerning Jonathan f1

[edit]

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

Statement by Jonathan f1

[edit]
  Jonathan f1's statement contains 1315 words and exceeds the 1000-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 1000 words. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was offered a chance to respond to some of these accusations, but I don't know how many additional words I'll need. I suppose I'll try to address some of the more serious allegations in 3/4 bullet points, namely that I "misrepresent sources" and "assume bad faith" against editors/"outside parties":
  • The academic paper on genocide studies (linked here[153]) concludes on two big points: that 1) GS has a promising future; but 2) there's a problem with activism in the field that needs to be corrected. The second point is made clear when the author says "severe methodological and ideological implications hamper the further development of the field.... There is no consensus on how to define genocide... Activists and profit-oriented actors have entered the stage and dominate the external perception of the field... Whereas scholars are bound to scientific standards and objectivity, activists want to mobilize public opinion through the spread of simple truths... we need more Lemkin and less Clooney...the influence of activism in the realm of genocide scholarship must be clarified."(p.254). When I raise these issues in talk and suggest that perhaps we should consider reducing weight in the article (considering how contentious the subject is), there are editors who act like I'm making it all up, when in fact it's exactly what the source says, and seems to be supported by other academic work (I want to say more about this but I'm trying to make this brief as possible).
  • I assume bad faith against other editors do I? Notice no names were mentioned, and that's because I never directed bad-faith sentiment at any particular editor. If you read that entire discussion, and not just the cherry-picked segment, a group of editors were concerned about the potential of "far-right" canvassing during the next move request, and I simply responded by saying there's no evidence of any "far-right" manipulation anywhere in the I/P space, and if anything the problem is coming from the other direction. In the past year at least 8 editors were topic-banned from I/P and 6 of them were the so-called "Pro-Palestine" side. One of the editors even apologized for using the term "far-right" when I reminded him that disputing the genocide allegation isn't far-right or even right-wing -it's the mainstream position of the Democratic Party in the US, and was the position of the previous Biden government and, last I checked, the majority of EU and Western governments.
  • I don't know what it means to assume "bad faith against outside parties," but Amnesty is an advocacy organization and I'm far from the only editor who's had reservations about this source in controversial topic areas. I've nothing more to say about this as this is getting too tedious.
  • This is already a lot of text so I'll wrap it up. A final point I'd make is that assuming good faith applies to me as well as my accusers. That means that if you're faced with three possibilities -an editor misinterpreted a source, you misinterpreted a source, or the editor deliberately misrepresented the source -you give the editor the benefit of the doubt. Assuming that someone who disagrees with you is "lying" or "misrepresenting" or doing something underhanded isn't good faith. And piling on baseless accusations mixed in with accusations that are not entirely baseless but happen a million times a day on here and particularly in the I/P area seems to me to be an abuse of this process. This noticeboard does not exist to act out personal vendettas, but is rather for serious and consistent conduct violations. I did not derail any talk page, edit war, harass anyone, or disrupt any process.
Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I request a word count extension? I tried doing this last night but never heard back, don't know how this process works. I also need to respond to more accusations that have just been made...I'm just going to delete the first part and leave the relevant responses up. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More cherry-picking by Blue...
  • Discussions about the reliability and weighing of sources is not forumy -it's exactly why talk pages exist.
  • Nor is it forumy to ask for evidence that every academic field that studies genocide has reached a consensus, as claimed by another editor.
  • If you had bothered to read that entire conversation, it was about 2 sources that were seemingly at odds with each other. I wasn't really trying to 'disqualify' the source, but it contradicted another source published a few months prior, and my point was that there wasn't any new info in it. The way that you are cherry-picking these statements and characterizing them is completely inconsistent with the way these conversations went down.
I tried removing superfluous text to reduce the word count but I'm still probably well over the limit and hoping I don't need to respond to any more of this type of allegation. All I see here is multiple editors scanning everything I've said to see if something sticks, but there's nothing of any significance. I also see Sean Hoyland has produced evidence backing my claim that I'm not very involved in I/P articles -more than 90% of my revisions have been outside the I/P topic area (which sounds about right), and I'm going to guess the ~8% in this area are on the same article, which just happens to be a current event and not anything I'm passionate about or personally connected to (I'm not Jewish, Muslim, a Christian Zionist, a religious believer or 'right winger'). Not a good look for this space when newcomers who don't conform to the status quo are ganged up on like this. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but there have been more accusations, now from an uninvolved editor, and I need an opportunity to respond. I'm requesting another extension on my text, but do not know how much I'll need, only that I'll have an opportunity to respond around lunch time (a few hours from now). Hopefully this will cover everything important and we can put a cork on people jumping up with more allegations. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sameboat, for whatever reason, is still struggling to make sense of the conversation I had with DavidA. It's very simple: Dave was concerned about 'far-right' activists trying to rig the next requested move (which is inevitable there), and all I did was remind him that I/P doesn't have a far-right problem. Neither Dave nor I directed our remarks at any particular editors.
  • I also take exception to the claim that my response was any more inflammatory than the characterization 'far-right.' The far-right are associated with racism, antisemitism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia -all things I reject. Whether the phrase "Hamas sympathizers" is worse than "far-right" is completely subjective and irrelevant to the fact that neither description was directed at any editor in particular.
  • An ADMIN named 'Ealdgyth' has now joined in with an observation that I've never produced any value for this encyclopedia, before or after my article space ban. A couple of things to say about this...
  • I've actually managed to contribute more to Wiki post-ban than pre-, mostly because I was banned almost immediately after joining or getting active ~5 years ago, a decision that was unreasonably punitive and unnecessary (I was new and unfamiliar with the rules and processes). I was able to manage this by, for example, writing out text for an article on the talk page and having another non-banned editor insert it into the article for me, which would count as his edits and not mine. I was ready to cite examples of this, but on second thought, I think I'd rather not waste more of my time.
If you want to ban me, then do it. It won't affect the encyclopedia one way or the other, but Sameboat and Blue will sleep well tonight, and my life will go on completely unscathed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

[edit]
   Objective3000's statement contains 22 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Having just read Jonathan f1's statement here, this is an attitude that is simply not compatible with contentious articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sameboat

[edit]
   Sameboat's statement contains 437 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Misrepresenting sources:

  • not every woman and child killed is a civilian[154][155].
    • The Amnesty report from 2004 about "a 16-year-old Palestinian child was found to be carrying explosives" has no bearing to the Gaza Genocide topic.
  • Research on genocide studies has described the role of these academics as "scholar-activists,"[156] which would explain why they all have the same political profiles[157]
    • The cited source does not condemn that activism-motivated study exaggerates certain genocides, rather it argues that activism "plays down other instances of mass violence".
  • another news report offering more evidence that the IDF has been evacuating civilians from bombing targets before commencing[158]. Note also the Palestinian man shouts "we're tired of war!" -implying that he recognizes what's going on around him as a war and not an extermination[159]
    • The news report merely cited the IDF's statement of order of evacuation, nothing remotely "evident". Citing anecdotal evidence by quoting a random civilian's opinion, even if it was being reported by a reliable source like Channel 4 News. Civilian opinion is only considered having sufficient weight when it is conducted through academic polling, not interview with a random civilian on ground. Not to mention that the interviewee in question did not deny that he was experiencing a genocide/ethnic cleansing/systemic displacement by Israel.

Assume bad faith against Wikpedians and outside parties:

  • respected NGOs like Amnesty have jumped on this [Gaza Genocide] bandwagon[160]
  • NGOs like Amnesty are at this point no more or less reliable than a think tank or other advocacy group[161]
  • there is also some evidence that 'far-left' activists (or whatever you'd call Hamas sympathizers) are coordinating on and probably off Wiki[162][163][164].
    • Then proceeded to cite ADL and repeat ADL's accusations against Wikipedians, despite knowing it is banned on the IP topic on Wikipedia.

-- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC) 02:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC) (minor grammar change)[reply]

For context, Jf1’s remark referring to 'far-left' activists (or whatever you'd call Hamas sympathizers) was made in response to a comment by @David A. While David A did use the term "far right", his usage was explicitly directed at external sources and public figures, not fellow editors. Although I do not endorse the use of such labels in general, Jf1’s invocation of "Hamas sympathizers", even without naming specific Wikipedians, is far more inflammatory. It constitutes a serious breach of WP:CIVIL. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take the [I] will sleep well remark personally, as it implies that I’m pursuing some kind of vendetta for personal satisfaction. This is an example of the kind of incivility that Jf1 should take time to reflect on. I’m not calling for an indefinite ban, but a short-term talk page restriction would be a proportionate and constructive measure. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by guninvalid

[edit]

I can't speak much to Jf1's behavior on PIA pages since I don't typically follow that area for my own sanity. But I can speak to Jf1's behavior at the Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson page, where Jf1 veered straight into WP:NOTFORUM off of a tangent multiple times despite multiple warnings, and potentially violated WP:BLP several times in his characterization of Mangione. While this conduct could be tolerably problematic on a merely BLP page, I am disappointed to see that their conduct is no better in an active arbitration area. guninvalid (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My statement is already a bit off-topic so I won't bother to provide diffs. If diffs are wanted nonetheless, let me know and I can provide. guninvalid (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

[edit]

Maybe talk page chattiness is an unintended consequence of blocking an editor from article space. Anyway, Jonathon made some statements about 'involvement in the I/P conflict space'. You can measure this. The number is 8.6% of revisions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jonathan f1

[edit]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Bluethricecreamman, if you're requesting us to sanction someone for some particular behavior here, please show specific diffs actually indicating that behavior, rather than diffs of claims of it. Especially in this topic area, it is, shall we say, far too common to see baseless accusations of misconduct thrown around (I'm not saying these either are or are not baseless, just that I'm not going to accept them at face value without backing evidence). I would agree that the thread in diff 5 ([165]) drifts into NOTFORUM territory by the time it was concluded, but the responsibility for that lies with several participants, and it looks to me more like it just drifted off track than that any individual deliberately derailed it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Sameboat, specific diffs are a lot more helpful. I'll take a look at those as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonathan f1, if you need an extension to word count to reply to claims against you, you're able to request one, just say about how much you think you'll need. As long as you're going to use it to respond and not just continue the underlying dispute, I'm generally inclined to grant additional words to the respondent to, well, respond. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Will grant the extra 500 words accordingly to Jonathan f1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't spend a lot of time at AE but since when do we take Google docs diffs as evidence of behavior done on the project? I'm not sure what these links are meant to represent with their word count displayed. These are user-generated, I don't think we can take them as reliable indications of edits an editor has made here. Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • So from my reading, the ban on article space was supposed to help J1 learn how to collaborate with others to form consensus for desired edits. Frankly, I'm not seeing that they've learned a thing about trying to collaborate. Instead, what I'm seeing is a bunch of forumy posts that don't do much to advance actual editing. Some attempt it, but most are borderline battlegroundy. It looks like J1 just gets to hang around and make the same sort of talk-page posts they did before Nov 2020, without any change. Therefore, it's unclear to me what benefit they provide to the encyclopedia. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jonathan f1, if by "there have been more accusations, now from an uninvolved editor" you mean my observations, those aren't accusations, but the observations of an uninvoled ADMIN, who is one of the people deciding what, if anything, will come from this filing. I suggest that you take that into account, if you were referring to my observations. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jonathan f1, you're asking for yet another extension, but you're wasting your words. Things like I was offered a chance to respond to some of these accusations, but I don't know how many additional words I'll need. I suppose I'll try to address some of the more serious allegations and This is already a lot of text so I'll wrap it up. give zero info, yet use nearly 10% of your original 500. Write, then edit to make shorter by removing anything that isn't necessary. You don't need to tell us it's hard to write short. We know. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer

[edit]

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

Request concerning TenPoundHammer

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
JFHJr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing#TenPoundHammer_topic_banned_(1)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Each diff invites a deletion discussion of some sort at WP:BLPN. Note that the topic of notability and wording as such to avoid saying deletion does not mean it's not about deletion.

  1. 4 July 2025
  2. 10 June 2025
  3. 7 June 2025
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive339#TenPoundHammer 29 August 2024: "By consensus of uninvolved administrators, TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is reminded, as presently topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed, to not make comments on noticeboards or elsewhere on Wikipedia that suggest editors take an article to AfD."
  2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing#TenPoundHammer topic banned (1) 2 August 2022: Initial.
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • I WP:NACd the threads at BLPN linked above with commentary to the effect of renotification.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning TenPoundHammer

[edit]

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

Statement by TenPoundHammer

[edit]

Statement by (username)

[edit]

Result concerning TenPoundHammer

[edit]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia · View on Wikipedia

Developed by Nelliwinne