|
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indefRedirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
{{Redirect|WP:AE|the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae|MOS:LIGATURE|the automated editing program|WP:AutoEd}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|Requests for enforcement]]=</includeonly>
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 290358
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d14d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive index
|mask=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive<#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=no
}}</noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
{{no admin backlog}}
== Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST ==
==CutePeach==
{{Moved from|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment}}
'''Initiated by''' [[User:IdanST|IdanST]] '''at''' 10:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
;Case or decision affected
[[User_talk:IdanST#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban]]
; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard [[WP:AC/CN]]-->
*{{userlinks|IdanST}} (initiator)
; Information about amendment request
*[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement]]
* I followed step #1 ([[User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban_appeal|contacting the administrator]]), which was rejected, and I'm now following steps #2 and #3.
=== Statement by IdanST ===
Hey,
Since I was topic banned nine months ago, I’ve made over 500 substantial edits on English Wikipedia, as well as more than 18,000 edits across Wikimedia projects.
I apologize for my past behavior and acknowledge that I wasn’t ready to contribute constructively to contentious topics at the time. However, I now believe I’m better prepared and could contribute more effectively if the topic ban were lifted.
: [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]], sure. Prior to the topic ban, I was blocked twice for WP:ECR violations. Then, I translated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapid_Response_Unit_(Israel)&action=edit&redlink=1 Rapid Response Unit (Israel)] from its [[:he:כיתת_כוננות|Origin[he]]] in he.wiki, which resulted in a fast deletion and topic ban for WP:ECR, reviewing RS of Air Force articles and using the word "terrorist" in that translated article . I specifically disagree with the latter part, since there are dozens of articles that use that word, and in this case it was simply a cross-wiki translation.
: After I was topic banned, I began editing in he.wiki, where I have made over 20,000 edits and translated more than 300 cross-wiki articles. A lot of my work has focused on aviation-related articles, but I have also translated a few politically sensitive articles, such as [[Basel Adra]], [[We Will Dance Again]], and others. All of my articles have been received in good faith. While some of the political ones were later edited by other users who felt they were not fully NPOV, not a single article I translated there has been deleted — whereas all of the cross-wiki articles I translated here were deleted.
: As for what I have learned: almost all of my blocks and sanctions were due to WP:ECR, but I have long since moved past that, so it cannot be repeated. In addition, when I first started editing, I did not always behave well because I was new, unfamiliar with procedures, and unsure how to remain polite in difficult situations (as SFR once wrote, I "must assume good faith"). Since then, I have learned these lessons while editing in he.wiki. Furthermore, due to my past experiences with translating articles here, I will no longer translate articles into en.wiki. [[User:IdanST|IdanST]] ([[User talk:IdanST|talk]]) 08:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:BTW, although all the articles I translated were deleted, [[Bybit]] was later recreated by another editor, but none of my earlier edits were restored. The rest of the deleted translated articles remain deleted. [[User:IdanST|IdanST]] ([[User talk:IdanST|talk]]) 08:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
: [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]], I never said I had "run into POV issues" in he.wiki, nor was I ever involved in such. Also, please elaborate on your conclusion that I am "still having content faulted on hewiki for not being neutral by their standards," because I was never accused of not being neutral in he.wiki. All I said is that some editors made edits to a few articles I translated. To elaborate, some of them believe en.wiki articles themselves are not neutral. So, do you mean by your words that en.wiki is not neutral?
:: [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]], Anybody on he.wiki can edit articles; that doesn’t necessarily mean they are in bad condition or have NPOV issues. [[User:IdanST|IdanST]] ([[User talk:IdanST|talk]]) 09:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
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 amendment request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
{{hat|Arbitrator response from when this was originally filed at ARCA}}
=== IdanST appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* {{yo|IdanST}} the Arbitration Committee generally isn't the right body to appeal a CTOP restriction to, if it's on the basis of changed behavior. We only overturn CTOP actions [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics#On Arbitration Committee review|under very narrow circumstances]], usually having to do with the CTOP action being problematic when it was placed. Like the sanctioning administrator said, a better place to plead this case would be at [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:AE]], if that's the path you're looking to take. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 09:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
* Agree with leeky above; [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics#On community review]] (ie. AN or AE) allows for an appeal on the grounds that "the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption" which seems to best align with the purpose of this appeal, while the three criteria ARCA can consider does not include this. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 10:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
* Recused, as I placed this sanction. I do agree with what was said by my esteemed colleagues though, which is why I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&diff=prev&oldid=1304332231 said to appeal at AE or AN] in my response. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 10:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
{{hatb}}
===Result concerning IdanST===
*It seems nobody wants to comment on this, so I guess I'll tackle it. The appeal is a bit lighter on details than I would like, but at the same time IdanST seems to have gotten into no trouble at all in the hundreds of edits and many months since their most recent block expired in February, so we may as well give them a chance, and if there is recidivism a re-ban is always a possibility. (Other admins may well see differently; my positions on user conduct matters are idiosyncratic at best) [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 18:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*{{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} Would you like to comment (as the sanctioning administrator, not as an arb) on this appeal? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:My thoughts are roughly what I expressed at [[WP:ARCA]] recently, the topic is still to "hot", for lack of a better term, to unban editors in this topic right now. In this case, the behavior was less severe and there's recent editing that looks constructive, so I wouldn't be strongly opposed. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 00:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*{{u|IdanST}}, can you give us a bit more to go on? For example, can you explain in your own words why you were banned, what you've learned since, and how you'll avoid the same problems? Thanks. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 14:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*I appreciate Idan's candor in acknowledging having run into POV issues on hewiki, but to me that sounds like a pretty big deal. Idan's POV is closer to what hewiki defines as neutral than to what enwiki defines as neutral; if Idan is still having content faulted on hewiki for not being neutral by their standards, that bodes poorly for letting them back into the topic area here on enwiki. And the fact that there's no engagement with this issue—no introspection into why their edits were seen as non-neutral there—bodes even more poorly. I don't see grounds to unban. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 08:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:IdanST|IdanST]]: I'm just going off of your own statement that {{tqq|some of the political ones were later edited by other users who felt they were not fully NPOV}}. If what you mean by that is that you were copying enwiki content blindly without regard for whether it complied with local policies, than that would seem to just be the mirror-image situation of what you describe happening here leading up to your TBAN. The English and Hebrew Wikipedias have different policies, guidelines, and norms, and an editor translating from one wiki to another is expected to ensure that their article is in compliance. You take responsibility for every edit you make to a wiki, even if it's derived from something elsewhere. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 08:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
==Gianni888==
{{hat|reason=Closing without further action - editor has now been properly warned about ECR [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 03:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning CutePeachGianni888===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Bakkster ManPppery}} 1315:2620, 2210 JulyAugust 20212025 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Gianni888}}<p>{{ds/log|Gianni888}}</p>
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|CutePeach}}<p>{{ds/log|CutePeach}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:ArbitrationContentious topics/Requests/Case/COVID-19South Asia#DiscretionaryGSCASTE extended-confirmed sanctionsrestriction]]
[[Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19#Application notes]]
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Appropriate sources]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sagoo&diff=1305178802&oldid=1305109959 10 August 2025] turns an article on a surname into a clan in violation of ECR
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034549899&oldid=1034548193 20 July 2021] Added a proposed explanation of COVID-19 origins based on an unreviewed pre-print, which I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034562334&oldid=1034562228 selectively reverted], in addition to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&type=revision&diff=1034562228&oldid=1034557584 cleanup to other paragraphs].
# 1-7 August 2025: Created [[Draft:List_of_Kamboj_Personalities_and_Families]]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034706963&oldid=1034661022 21 July 2021] Re-added with no commit comment. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034830501&oldid=1034830342 Reverted again] with clearer comment of policy concerns and reference to ArbCom sanctions in effect.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034900923&oldid=1034835417 22 July 2021] Returned content with more context, but prior to receiving Talk page consensus.
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
None I'm aware of
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DSContentious topics|discretionarycontentious topics sanctionsrestrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DSCTOP#Awareness andof contentious alertstopics]]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gianni888&diff=prev&oldid=1303733858 1 August 2025] by {{admin|Agent VII}}.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1029698502 21 June 2021].
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
See also [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1195#User:Kambojahistory is engaged in disruption only]] which discussed Gianni tangentially. I've already ECP-ed [[Sagoo]] as an AE action since it's been subject to a long, long history of hijackings of that sort, bringing this here to discuss sanctions for Gianni888, which is an area I prefer to stay out of as an admin (and promised I would in my RfA). [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 15:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
: In response to SilverLocust, at least the edits to Sagoo were disruptive on their own merits (unilaterally attempting to overturn [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagoo]]) [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 04:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Per COVID-19 GS (now included under DS): "Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page."
:: Bump to prevent this from being archived unanswered. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 18:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
Per Pseudoscience ArbCom decision: "4a) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such."
===Discussion concerning Gianni888===
Editor appears to have violated both counts, despite explicit reminder of sanctions.
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
:{{re|Mr Ernie}} I'll note that I went one step further, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&curid=66692273&diff=1034907857&oldid=1034907481 removing that entire paragraph] for the same reason as above: the claims about the origin were entirely based on statements which had not been peer reviewed. The dispute is not merely over the [[WP:GEVAL]] rebuttal of an unreviewed claim (about which I would have agreed with you and self-reverted), but the initial claim itself. [[User:Bakkster Man|Bakkster Man]] ([[User talk:Bakkster Man|talk]]) 14:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
::{{re|Mr Ernie}} I'm uncertain why you suggest I am imposing a "requirement, against consensus, that such material come from WP:MEDRS compliant sources". I have not mentioned MEDRS in this dispute a single time, because it does not apply as you rightly point out. I've referred specifically to the much lower threshold of merely being a peer-reviewed claim, rather than [[WP:PREPRINTS]]. I'm unaware of a consensus decision on this topic, and my current understanding of [[WP:ONUS]] means we should reach consensus on it ''prior to'' re-adding content sourced by it. [[User:Bakkster Man|Bakkster Man]] ([[User talk:Bakkster Man|talk]]) 15:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
:Regarding comments by {{u|Francesco espo}}. I reverted the change prior to even seeing that a Talk page comment had been made by CutePeach. While I do not believe my policy concerns were directly addressed by them on Talk, more importantly '''consensus had not yet been reached for the contentious addition''' which leads me to believe the correct course of action remained reverting until that consensus was reached. [[User:Bakkster Man|Bakkster Man]] ([[User talk:Bakkster Man|talk]]) 22:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|El_C}} Perhaps you can explain [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1035196272&oldid=1035169046 your aside] more thoroughly? While I generally consider this noticeboard to avoid handling the content disputes themselves, I'm interested what role you consider a newspaper editorial to play in the discussion of reliable sourcing in an article about a scientific hypothesis. I'd appreciate any clarification you could provide in case my understanding of reliable sourcing policy is mistaken. [[User:Bakkster Man|Bakkster Man]] ([[User talk:Bakkster Man|talk]]) 13:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|El_C|HighInBC}} I'd like to note an additional recent instance of CutePeach [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=1033247516&oldid=1033125282 seeking time to make a proposal], before moving on to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=prev&oldid=1033375836 other] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gain-of-function_research&diff=prev&oldid=1033564474 substantial] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=prev&oldid=1033714921 edits] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK&diff=prev&oldid=1034181218 relating to] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=1034502648 COVID-19] without informing others (including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=1034549899 the edits at the center of this dispute]). In that instance, I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=1034618528&oldid=1034604182 in favor of removing] a paragraph which no longer appeared to be related to the topic, and postponed my edits pending their proposed rewrite (which never came). While I hope this is simply good-faith forgetfulness or a lack of time management/prioritization, it does appear to be a pattern of behavior and one I've found disruptive to improving articles. Not disruptive enough for me to suggest sanctions in isolation, but I believe it's relevant to the delay seen in their response to this case. [[User:Bakkster Man|Bakkster Man]] ([[User talk:Bakkster Man|talk]]) 13:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
:Note regarding admin {{u|wbm1058}} raising concerns over whether or not admin {{u|ToBeFree}} is "involved" in the dispute. I'd like to point out that while both admins have edited CutePeach's essay [[User:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK]], ToBeFree's edit was to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK&diff=1034191345&oldid=1034186131 move the essay to the correct namespace], wbm1058's edit was to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK&diff=prev&oldid=1035440257 correct capitalization], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK&diff=prev&oldid=1035441896 twice], approximately one hour [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1035449572 prior to their statement] on this AR/E request. I'm mildly concerned, as this appears more like a case of being an involved administrator (wbm1058's edits were not purely administrative in nature, while ToBeFree's were) than the original allegation made by wbm1058. I'd like other admins to weigh in whether recusal would be appropriate, particularly given the original allegation being made despite the undisclosed edits immediately prior to joining the AR/E discussion. [[User:Bakkster Man|Bakkster Man]] ([[User talk:Bakkster Man|talk]]) 19:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
:*{{re|wbm1058}} Tinybubi's concerns about {{u|ToBeFree}}'s neutrality [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=118346290 got them banned] (by another admin) for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AToBeFree&type=revision&diff=1026722302&oldid=1026721161 personal attacks/harassment] in that talk section. Each allegation raised by you concerns me that you're unwilling or unable to be neutral in this case. Your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABakkster_Man&type=revision&diff=1035660465&oldid=1035642076 comments on talk] did not adequately resolve my concerns. [[User:Bakkster Man|Bakkster Man]] ([[User talk:Bakkster Man|talk]]) 18:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
====Statement by Gianni888====
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CutePeach&diff=1034904107&oldid=1034802592]
Sorry if i broke any laws of wikipedia but i was just trying to associate the saggu/sagoo page with caste identity because my grandmother is a saggu/sagoo
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
and to find out her history ask my father and therefore i thought that it would be useful to show that Saggu/Saggoo Lineage belongs to Jat and Ramgharia
And for the Draft:List_of_Kamboj_Personalities_and_Families, my fathers lineage is Kamboj and whenever i meet a Kamboj they never know anything about
===Discussion concerning CutePeach===
the history of the Kamboj community so i thought it would be a bright idea to show people and my family the notable Kamboj/Kambohs of history
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by CutePeach====
The three diffs that Bakkster Man provided in his case filing - as others here have noted - do not show any violations, as I only added high quality secondary sources which cited the prepreint, and not the preprint itself. The list of 21 diffs provided by Shibbolethink which allege a number of violations - as others here have noted - are spurious. I have been advised by one very well meaning administrator to just explain that I always meant well and to express regret for being too insistent [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CutePeach#Please] - which I was planning on doing - but a senior editor participating here accused him of advising me to {{tq|feign contrition}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CutePeach&diff=prev&oldid=1036425595], so I might as well just speak my mind instead. To date, six admins here have proposed to TBAN me before even hearing my statement, citing the allegations made against me, without checking to see if they are even true, besides for ToBeFree who cited diff #20 - a struck comment that I offered an apology for, which that editor accepted. A seventh admin visited my talk page advising me to voluntarily step away, saying also that any explanation of events preceding this case wouldn’t help either. This has lead me to believe - perhaps falsely - that the problem here is that of '''unequal enforcement''' - an issue I questioned the OP of this very case about before [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bakkster_Man#Request_for_Clarification]. Perhaps the one positive outcome of this case will be a heightened awareness of this problem, should it arise again.
the main reason i origninally created my wiki account was to edit the Kamboj page
I joined Wikipedia at a time [[WP:MEDRS]] was being abused by some editors as a sourcing restriction to [[WP:CENSOR]] the lab leak hypothesis from Wikipedia, and as this case indicates, there now seems to be an effort to use [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]] to {{tq|get the same result}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information&diff=prev&oldid=1025275340]. In the discussion that led to this case, I told Bakkster Man that he could seek clarification from ArbCom on the application of WP:SCHOLARSHIP to this part scientific part political subject [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=1034901157], but instead he filed this case alleging that my edits violate [[WP:COVIDDS]] and [[WP:ARBPS/4A]] - which again, no admins proposing to TBAN me have actually addressed. When {{u|CaptainEek}} joined this AE, his first comment was that this dispute is {{tq|emblematic of a deeper issue that lacks appropriate guidance}}, yet I have not seen any admins other than him, {{u|DGG}} and {{u|Wbm1058}} provide any such guidance or attempt to de-escalate the dispute in a helpful manner. Instead, summary presumptions of guilt were made of me, and {{u|HighinBC}}’s proposal to TBAN me last Saturday - just as I was about to post my explanatory and apologetic statement - had an extreme chilling effect which made me throw up my arms in despair. If you guys are going to ban me, can you at least provide some guidance on the issues at hand, as filed by the OP of this case? This could perhaps help the next guy, and prevent the apparent need for further cases like this.
Sorry if i broke any rules on Wikipedia
As a final note, I would also like to apologize to anyone who truly felt offended by anything I said, as I was quite harsh to some editors, including some who have changed their mind on covering the subject. I would like to give a special thanks to DGG for being kind throughout this process, and to {{u|ProcrastinatingReader}} for changing his mind on covering this subject. I wish you all the best. [[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]] ([[User talk:CutePeach|talk]]) 04:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Sincerely Gianni888
* {{re|Valereee}} I always prepare my edits in Evernote and the update I made to [[COVID-19 investigations]] was (mostly) prepared before this case was opened. Contrary to what RandomCanadian claims, the contribution was received well, though my deletion of some text was a mistake. [[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]] ([[User talk:CutePeach|talk]]) 03:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
:*{{re|Valereee}} I managed to read and write quite a lot today, so next I need to make some clarification requests and translate my statements from Tagalog to English. Please can you give me an idea of the expected close of this case? What is the average duration of AE cases? [[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]] ([[User talk:CutePeach|talk]]) 14:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
* {{re|HighInBC}} please see my note addressed to Valereee. Please note also that {{u|Shibbolethink}} has changed the text of his complaint since I saw it yesterday, and I haven’t even managed to read it in full. It is a very lengthy complaint, which he says he has been preparing for a long time. It would only be fair to give me time to formulate a response. [[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]] ([[User talk:CutePeach|talk]]) 03:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
* {{re|CaptainEek}} if you are familiar with my account, you will know I make most of my edits on weekends, and that includes writing a lot of notes for pages and edits I have yet to publish. I am a [[public health policy]] professional in a country with the highest rate of [[vaccine hesitancy]] in the world, due to the [[Dengvaxia controversy]]. This is my chief concern, but I now I can make time to reply. [[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]] ([[User talk:CutePeach|talk]]) 03:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====
* {{re|Shibbolethink}} You accuse me in your complaint of personal attacks. This is a very serious accusation which needs to be supported with evidence, so that I can either admit to it or counter it in the statement I am preparing. Please can you provide diffs to the [[WP:NPA]] violations you accuse me of? Please don’t include the time I questioned your [[WP:COMPETENCE]] for missciting papers here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak#Discussion_re:_additional_WIV_manuscripts_(PMIDs_27170748_and_29190287)] as that was legitimate criticism, and not a personal attack. If it is found by an discerning admin that you had those papers mixed up to argue a point, and that you were continuing to argue that point countering the expert opinions given in reliable source - without providing a reliable source of your own - then my criticism should be considered legitimate, and your NPA accusations false. Please also don’t include the time I asked you to go back to China to learn how the government there works when you suggested checking the minutes of their lab, as that was in clear reference to your first visit to China, which you mentioned in your paper that you have asked me and everyone else to read. It was certainly not complimentary, for which I should apologise and not do again, but it was certainly not a personal attack. [[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]] ([[User talk:CutePeach|talk]]) 16:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning Gianni888===
* {{re|Colin}} {{u|ProcrastinatingReader}} used to be anti lab-leak and if you read here in this earlier AE, I directed extremely sharp words at him [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1029698502]. Since then, ProcrastinatingReader has obviously read some of the reliable sources describing the hypothesis in some detail, and as a good Wikipedian, he has come around to the fact that it should be covered neutrally. You will see in that AE, an editor was banned for the sin of not engaging in the BRD process with the [[WP:NOLABLEAK]] editors, quite simply because they are abusing it in their favor, which we clearly see here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Edit_proposals]. You seem to be completely unaware of the ploys some editors have gotten up to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1007334728]. I have '''never''' proposed for the hypothesis and rationale to be covered as scientific theory and for that rationale to be presented as evidence, yet all the discussions I am forced to participate in are as if I am doing that. [[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]] ([[User talk:CutePeach|talk]]) 17:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
* Since Gianni888 apparently had not been specifically told about [[WP:ARBECR]] before this, I wouldn't sanction them merely for violating ECR (beyond a warning). The alert templates {{tlxs|Alert|2=topic=sa}} and {{tlxs|Alert/first|2=topic=sa}} have since been updated to include ECR information. ~ Jenson ([[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]]) 22:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==Tiny Particle==
* {{re|ToBeFree}} you didn’t tell me I couldn’t participate in discussions while preparing my statement. I am a public health policy professional and these are very busy times for us types [https://thehill.com/opinion/international/564511-covid-was-a-boon-for-autocrats-future-pandemics-must-prioritize]. I work over 10 hours a day 5 days a week - which entails a lot of reading and writing - and in the little spare time I have on my weekends, I like to cook and watch a few [[List of ABS-CBN drama series| shows]], and not just read and write for Wikipedia all day. I have managed to read all of the diffs in Shibbolethink’s complaint but unfortunately most of them are illusory, misguided, or simply false. For example, Shibbolethink’s 20th diff which you cite [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1027528850&oldid=1027524984&title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard] (a comment I struck), and the diff you provide [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1026476170] (a pre-strike comment), creates the illusion of a serious conduct issue, when in fact I apologised to that editor for my remarks [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy_Macon&diff=prev&oldid=1027532183] - which he accepted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy_Macon&diff=prev&oldid=1027532183] - and I subsequently rebuked him very sharply for dirty tactics [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy_Macon&diff=prev&oldid=1030038838] - which he accepted too [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy_Macon&diff=1030040448&oldid=1030038838]. By passing judgement before having material evidence, and failing to acknowledge mine and DGG’s concerns about dirty tactics - which I complained to you about right before this case [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToBeFree#Rewriting_COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis] - you are absconding your administrator responsibilities. Does it really make sense to you that the rewriting of an article should be left to a small group of editors who have been campaigning for over a year to delete it and ban editors who want to include it? I am truly disappointed in you and I hope you reconsider your position. [[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]] ([[User talk:CutePeach|talk]]) 04:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
{{hat|reason=Tiny Particle tbanned from "transgender healthcare, broadly construed". [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 13:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning Tiny Particle===
* {{u|El_C}} I spent over six hours yesterday reading all the diffs and writing my statement, and even longer on Saturday. I asked Valeree how much time I have, and she didn’t answer. Please can you advise how I request more time? I’d like till next Monday please. I’m not editing talk pages. [[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]] ([[User talk:CutePeach|talk]]) 13:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|LokiTheLiar}} 00:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Tiny Particle}}<p>{{ds/log|Tiny Particle}}</p>
====Statement by ToBeFree====
*Procedural note: The cited text "Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page." is from [[Special:Diff/957951138]] ([[Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19]]; referring to [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive320#Proposal.|AN-Archive 320#Proposal.]]) and has not been copied to [[WP:COVIDDS]]. [[WP:ONUS]] is part of the verifiability policy, not specific to these sanctions. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 13:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
*[[Tu quoque|Tu-quoque]]-style arguments have a capability to distract from the topic and tend to be unhelpful. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 14:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
*:The requirement to follow relevant policies when editing in such controversial areas is not dependent on one's willingness to report others for violations. There are two sentences beginning with "If Bakkster Man" below that contain such a condition, unnecessarily. Complaining about editors' conduct with relevant diffs is fine; doing so to weaken, question, or distract from the report is not. If the reporter's conduct is questionable, this can be worded in a neutral way without a tu quoque accusation. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 15:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:GENSEX]]
====Statement by Mr Ernie====
If Bakkster Man is going to report editors for allegedly failing to follow ONUS, then they should probably not also be doing the exact same [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034907481&oldid=1034905696 thing]. So let's just cut right to it - this is nothing more than an attempt to remove an editor with an opposing viewpoint from the topic area. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 14:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
:You made those edits in discrete steps. So what's important? The process? Then you also didn't follow what you're reporting CutePeach for. The result? Well that's the same too since your version is currently what the article says for both the content CutePeach and me were concerned about. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 14:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
::Can you please link to the discussion where consensus dictated that only peer reviewed sources apply to the claims about the origin of COVID? From what I can find the latest RFC actually [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#RFC:_Disease_/_pandemic_origins. opposed] that. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 14:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
:::I'm not exactly sure how tu-quoque is relevant here. I'm going by the text written under "Important Information" that's at the top of the page, saying {{tq|If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it.}} If Bakkster Man is serious enough about the restrictions in place to report editors here, then they ought to follow them as well. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 15:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
::::Selective enforcement of sanctions in controversial areas is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, especially between editors having different opinions on content. Bakkster Man is reverting on the grounds of sourcing claims which have been rejected by the community several times in several places, placing unnecessary burdens upon editors to gain some (already existing) consensus for inclusion. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 16:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
{{ping|CaptainEek}} re: {{tq|Oh lableak, what problems thou dost cause...can anyone point me towards what the current consensus on covering it is? Or provide the key RfC's on the matter? It seems this dispute is emblematic of a deeper issue that lacks appropriate guidance.}} which is such a great question, and I'm really glad you asked it. There was a recent [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#RFC:_Disease_/_pandemic_origins. RFC] which determined that it was fine to source content regarding disease and pandemic origin to normal RS (aka the normal RS policy applies). There is also a current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis AFD] where there's overwhelming consensus that the lab leak hypothesis is a valid article. If you look closely you'll notice that a couple editors (who also happen to have commented here) take an opposite position to CutePeach. HighinBC refers to a "time sink" supposedly caused by CP, but a simple glance at the many COVID origin topics (in addition to this very filing) will reveal again those same names dropping walls of texts (in this filing alone more than 3000 words excluding the filer) of civil POV pushing about why this topic (despite overwhelming consensus) is a problem. So in essence here we have a very simple content dispute, that is, edit warring, reported by an editor who has also edit warred ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034907481&oldid=1034905696 1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034830501&oldid=1034830342 2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034562334&oldid=1034562228 3]). The bottom line here is that the initial reversion by Bakkster Man [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034562334&oldid=1034562228 here] (which they followed up with 2 more reversions) is an invalid rationale for removal, as the normal RS policy applies because the content is sourced to two RS. The main issue is the requirement, against consensus, that such material come from WP:MEDRS compliant sources. I think that Bakkster Man should receive a sanction for editing against community consensus.
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
I think CutePeach should consider not posting a response here, as the same involved editors are openly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bakkster_Man#ArbE_case collaborating] about this filing with the same wall of text tactics that are deployed in the topic areas directly. This is a simple issue and quick look at the diffs reveals 2 editors in a minor edit war. As a final point, ToBeFree, can you please indicate your status as involved or uninvolved, given your comments in the discussion area here (the tu quoque comments), admin area here (the request for diffs which were never given and the block), talk pages, and user talk pages (the de facto topic ban) and recent admin actions? I will close by saying that we really ought not to succor weaponized content DS filings. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 03:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
:I'm (ironically) requesting an extension to the word limit. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 03:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Steensma&oldid=1306077714 15 August 2025] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peggy_Cohen-Kettenis&oldid=1306010193] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annelou_de_Vries&oldid=1306021946] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henriette_Delemarre-van_de_Waal&oldid=1306083888] Copies text from likely-to-be-deleted article [[Dutch Protocol]] to four other articles
AE is a confusing and often Kafka-esque process even for experienced editors. CutePeach is a promising editor with only 4 months tenure here so far. There’s an overwhelming amount of words to respond to from editors loquacious both here and at the relevant article talk pages. CutePeach’s statement is sure to be picked through with a fine tooth comb so I am willing to cut them some slack for any delays. (Post made 11:41 25 July but unsigned)
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Steensma&diff=prev&oldid=1306094698 15 August 2025] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annelou_de_Vries&diff=prev&oldid=1306094914] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peggy_Cohen-Kettenis&diff=prev&oldid=1306095003] Reverts change with edit summary including text {{tq|You are actively trying to salt the Dutch Protocol, so the depth is needed here.}}
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=1306434686 17 August 2025] Makes strange comment linking to all the new articles at an ArbCom case.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=1306449032 17 August 2025] Another strange comment linking to comments made by several of the article subjects.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=1306456799 17 August 2025] Yet another strange accusatory comment, this time implying he's doing this for anti-trans POV-pushing reasons.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=1306462176 17 August 2025] When the above comments predictably get one of the people at the [[Dutch Protocol]] AfD to notice and bring the new articles to AfD also, accuses her of meatpuppetry for notifying the [[Dutch Protocol]] AfD of the other AfDs. (Update: this diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=1306617793 has been struck] at the urging of other editors.)
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
A handful of talk page posts coming off the top of the head are easy and fast. Imagine being a new editor and seeing these massive, over the word limit walls of text. Where are the admins and editors who help new users? Where are the admins who help clerk AE? [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 12:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
N/A
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
====Statement by Atsme====
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiny_Particle&oldid=1306428694#Introduction_to_contentious_topics 16 February 2025] (see the system log linked to above).
I agree with Mr Ernie for the most part, and I'll add that I'm not seeing any justification for removal of the material that was added in GF by CutePeach, aside from IDONTLIKEIT by the reverting editor. Did I overlook something? Tagging the material with {{cn}} or something similar instead of removing it would have been a better option, or better yet, taking the time to cite a better source, rather than bringing a case here. I consider such behavior the antithesis to collaboration. The article in question is not a BLP that requires immediate removal of material without any attempt to find a better source, or to at least discuss it amicably. The reverting editor should neither have first advantage, nor should we consider their revert automatically justified based on a technicality without first considering IAR, and CONTEXT which is paramount when determining a source's reliability. It has been argued that the lab leak hypothesis is politically motivated, and that possibly media "has fallen victim to a misinformation campaign" as stated in [https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1656/rapid-responses this BMJ] article. Regardless of what side of the argument one is on, the hypothesis is notable, and so are the substantial views that have been published by reliable media. The sources used do not have to pass WP:MEDRS in this case, and I think the claim of unreliable needs closer scrutiny. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 16:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
====Statement by RandomCanadian====
On [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Protocol|12 August 2025]] an AfD was opened for the article [[Dutch Protocol]], which Tiny Particle was largely responsible for writing based on the Dutch wiki's version. The issue, as pointed out by the opener, was that the article largely served as a [[WP:POVFORK]] to [[puberty blockers]]. As an apparent attempt to circumvent the AfD, Tiny Particle then created a bunch of other POVFORK articles about all the names mentioned in the [[Dutch Protocol]] article, explicitly copying text from [[Dutch Protocol]] to do so. When challenged on some of this new text they admit that they're doing it as a reaction to the AfD.
Then, a few days later, they made a series of strange comments at an ArbCom case they're not a party to. In these comments they linked all the new articles and made a bunch of weird comments seeming to assert that being trans is a mental illness (against [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 106#h-RfC about the pathologization of trans identities-Pathologization of trans identities-20250217010100|an explicit community consensus to the contrary]]). They also linked to several articles on a trans activist site saying the subjects of the new articles are anti-trans or gatekeepers, though they did so in apparent approval of the article subjects' (alleged) gatekeepiness. Another comment of theirs supportively quoted [[Wes Streeting]] saying that trans women are not women, which suggests to me they're doing all this for anti-trans POV-pushy reasons.
Beyond the rather mundane edit-warring, in clear violation of expected standards, especially in an area under DS, CP's persistent uncivility and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality - evidenced both by their actions on articles and their recent ramblings on Tobias' talk page (where they accuse me, {{u|PaleoNeonate}}, and unspecified admins of conspiring to silence them... [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AToBeFree&type=revision&diff=1034746181&oldid=1034669812] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AToBeFree&type=revision&diff=1034910323&oldid=1034898154]), as well as their refusal to follow the most basic content policies (AGF applies to behaviour not to article content: unsourced, poorly sourced or non-neutral and undue content must be challenged, as per [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]], no matter what one thinks of the intentions of the editor who included it - what applies here is [[WP:ONUS]]).
Shortly after, probably because of the attention that these comments drew to the new articles, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Steensma|those were listed at AfD as well]]. In reaction to a notification of this new AfD on the original [[Dutch Protocol]] AfD, Tiny Particle accused the lister of meatpuppetry (which isn't even the right policy, I think they mean [[WP:CANVASSING]]).
Additionally, I note that CP is well aware of the issues with their editing, having notably been warned of it previously by {{u|Shibbolethink}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CutePeach&diff=prev&oldid=1033642230]) Them continuing on this path despite this is evidence they are [[WP:HOLES|digging their own hole]], and, unlike Jule Verne or Dante, their voyage into the abyss is unlikely to have any redeeming literary quality. A full, prolonged topic ban is likely in order. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 17:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
:Talk of much ado about nothing, Francesco. I've already explained my edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=1034933503 here], and your take on it is not any less misleading than CP's. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 22:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|ToBeFree}} I was going to add diffs, but in the time it took me to take care of what I was doing IRL, Shibbolethink seems to have done the leg-work, and I don't think duplication is necessary. If I can add one more, though, it would be what brought about the recent flare-up, which was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1034189301 this] problematic restoration of basically the same content as the previously deleted, POVFORK draft under the same title. That, and the AE I had filed before this was an AE issue (link provided below by Shibboleth), which shows that the accusations and [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] started right from the beginning, as I was saying. Cheers, [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 23:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Dervorguilla}} But that's not what CP is doing. They're not using run-of-the-mill reporting to support "Y said X". They've frequently linked to opinion pieces ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&diff=prev&oldid=1034148394], and, for example, back in April, they made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic&diff=prev&oldid=1018305144 a post full of newspapers sources] to dispute statements sourced to [[WP:NOLABLEAK|academic journals such as those given here]], and also the long ref-list after the statement in relevant articles. They repeated a very similar exercise [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=prev&oldid=1027674687 in June], based notably on their own interpretation of a primary source and similar quoting of opinion and news writing... [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Dervorguilla}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACOVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&type=revision&diff=1034908011&oldid=1034907287 This] is a very recent example of CP using an opinion piece to dispute more acceptable sources. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 11:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
::::{{ping|DGG}} One of CP's very first edits was to come on my talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RandomCanadian&diff=prev&oldid=1012779045]) and tell me how my "brinkmanship on the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is alarming", accusing me of censorship and so on so forth. That is not "experienced editors trying to push their less experienced opponents into doing something unreasonable" - that's CP being unreasonable right from the start, and they haven't stopped since (compare with the recent edits on Tobias' talk page). Their behaviour is nothing short of caustic, and unbearable. Getting frustrated when your favoured outcome is rejected might be understandable, but long-term uncivility, and routinely accusing others of "[[WP:ASPERSIONS|misbehaviour without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations]]" in particular, is unacceptable. I could just as easily accuse CP and others of being Russian trolls or something - disregarding the fact there is more concrete evidence of off-wiki canvassing. I haven't, because that is unbecoming of the behaviour one should have in polite society, and we shouldn't accept persistent infringements of such basic standards simply because "it's a heated debate". [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 11:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC) edited 21:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
:CP's latest edits at the investigation page are quite objectionable, if not sanctimonious. They make [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInvestigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&type=revision&diff=1035088264&oldid=1035027757 a post explaining their edits], claiming that "Editors are reminded that deleting content for [[WP:NPOV]] concerns is [[WP:POVDELETION]]" (which by the way, doesn't say that removing such material is prohibited, is just a supplement, and in no way overrides [[WP:ONUS]]), having previously gone on to do [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&type=revision&diff=1035086360&oldid=1035085638 exactly that]. As shown by the flurry of activity afterwards [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&action=history], that sparked a lot of improvement (by other editors). But CP's edits were done for the wrong reasons, were done in spite of previous conversations on the same subject, and they prove that they're a high-maintenance editor who is not contributing collaboratively in this area. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 21:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
::I was going to leave a note about the recent canvassing ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KristinaLu&diff=prev&oldid=1035259149] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeralOink&diff=prev&oldid=1035259451]), but that already appears to have been done by Shibbolethink. CP apparently having enough time to make a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CutePeach&diff=prev&oldid=1035256161 long post on their talk page], where they continue their similar, IDHT arguments, but not taking the time to engage here, despite multiple requests to do so, is also an intriguing way to go about this. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 22:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
:::@Sgnpkd: What was said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_COVID-19&type=revision&diff=1026007630&oldid=1026001618 here] (excuse the intervening diff) about such accusations of sealioning still holds: making unsubstantiated accusations is not unique to CP, I see. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 23:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
::::{{ping|ToBeFree}} So CP, accusing others of censorship (on your talk page), is now the one threatening others unless they don't self-censor? Very ironic, as in "the rules of Wikipedia apply to others but not to me (or my viewpoint)", which seems a decent take on CP's attitude here. And also yet more evidence of the difficult environment which they are creating in this already messy enough topic. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 17:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACOVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&type=revision&diff=1035441518&oldid=1035280432 Yet another] long post by CP, where, notably, they directly accuse {{u|Shibbolethink}} of lying. I quote: {{tq|The particular nature of this matter also puts the [[WP:LIE]] to point #19 in Shibbolethinks’s AE post, which should tell you something about the rest of his points.}}. That, and the fact they're using these article talk pages to continue arguing and accusing other editors, ex. from that same diff, {{tq|certain bias editors who demand to go through the [[WP:BRD]] on every little comma and discuss their [[WP:SELFPUB]] opinions lest you get dragged to AE on trumped up charges of misconduct}}... That's all from me here, I think the point has been made and if this isn't enough evidence to warrant action then I don't think there will ever be enough. Cheers, [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 18:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
*{{ping|Wbm1058}} What do you do of the fact that, besides that single filippino singers page, the next four most edited pages by CP are [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/CutePeach/1 COVID talk pages]. The reason they have so few edits to mainspace pages in the area is because they're a relatively new account and most of the relevant pages have long been ECP. In fact, disregarding their edits to that one page (which [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/CutePeach/0/List_of_Filipino_singers aren't that impressive] - this is the good old "edit count doesn't mean anything"), the vast majority (upwards of 90%) of their activity has been in the COVID area. What do you do of the fact that one of their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RandomCanadian&diff=prev&oldid=1012779045 very first edits] was to come to my talk page and accuse me of various things, which they were still doing as recently as last weekend on Tobias' talk page... [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 22:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
*FWIW, I think the wiki-lawyering about what constitutes involved or not (none of the admins accused of doing so seem to have significantly edited in the topic area) is nothing more than a pedantic waste of time. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 22:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
*{{ping|Francesco espo|Johnuniq}} That, excuse me, is blatant cherry-picking. The full quote, is:
{{Talk quote block|In light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2, Andersen et al. theorize about the virus’ probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence (Andersen et al., 2020). ''[[Immunity (journal)|Immunity]]'', May 19, 2020<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Graham|first=Rachel L.|last2=Baric|first2=Ralph S.|date=2020-05-19|title=SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7207110/|journal=Immunity|volume=52|issue=5|pages=734–736|doi=10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016|issn=1074-7613|pmc=7207110|pmid=32392464}}</ref>}}
:[[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 00:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
*Strawmen and false equivalences seem to be present in this AE just as much as they are present in the actual topic area. JPxG's comment seems to paint this as a witch hunt, while in actual case ignoring all the evidence of long-term disruption, canvassing, personal attacks and soapboxing by the reported user. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 03:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
*Even further cabal accusations by CP, now on {{u|L235}}'s talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AL235&type=revision&diff=1036178549&oldid=1036029393]. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 01:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
*{{ping|Dervorguilla}} Thanks for noticing that. I had removed it from my comments since it seemed to have attracted no attention whatsoever, but I still think it's an alternative/additional measure the closer could consider if they so wish. Cheers, [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 11:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Basically I think this person is showing huge [[WP:OWN]]ership behavior and is generally trying to circumvent AfD to push a POV through a bunch of POVFORKs.
{{reflist-talk}}
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
====Statement by Francesco espo====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiny_Particle&diff=prev&oldid=1306484769]
{{u|RandomCanadian}} inserted a secondary source (Science Based Medicine) citing an unpublished preprint (Sørensen et al), and {{u|Bakkster Man}} did not object to it, as he wasn’t aware it was an unpublished preprint. When {{u|CutePeach}} pointed this out to defend her inclusion of secondary sources (MIT Technology Review) citing a preprint, {{u|Bakkster Man}} had already reverted her edit and opened this case. {{u|Mr Ernie}} then removed the Sørensen et al as undue [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034905696&oldid=1034901984], but Bakkster Man reinstate it as due [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034907481&oldid=1034905696], but then Bakkster Man realizing his mistake and delete the whole paragraph [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034907857&oldid=1034907481]. Bakkster Man reverted CutePeach seven seconds after she explained her inclusion on the talk page, so he couldn’t have possibly read it, and he made a fool of himself here. It is clear for all to see this was premeditated.[[User:Francesco espo|Francesco espo]] ([[User talk:Francesco espo|talk]]) 20:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
===Discussion concerning Tiny Particle===
This is hilarious, RandomCanadian is in the house [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1034933503], but he still doesn’t realize the Science Based Medicine source he cited cites Sorensen et all (same as Deiglish's preprint). I wonder if {{u|ToBeFree}} knows what’s going on. I don’t think he does. {{u|DGG}} are you seeing this?[[User:Francesco espo|Francesco espo]] ([[User talk:Francesco espo|talk]]) 20:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Tiny Particle====
* {{re|Johnuniq}} i think you must make your argument based on policy and not just mimic other votes otherwise it may be ignored by the closer of this AE. Just a few days after you joined the conversation with {{u|CutePeach}} that was started by {{u|FeralOink}} [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gain-of-function_research#Re_conspiracy:_Possible_connection_between_SARS-COV-2_and_GoFR_now_in_public_Congressional_hearings]], CutePeach provided a few reliable sources including a paper from Baric and Graham which say the {{tq|possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2}} concluding that {{tq|Transparency and open scientific investigation will be essential to resolve this issue, noting that forensic evidence of natural escape is currently lacking, and other explanations remain reasonable}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gain-of-function_research&diff=prev&oldid=1033724485]. As you see CutePeach provided this paper from [[Ralph Baric]], one of the most eminent coronavirologists in the world, yet {{u|Colin}} and {{u|Shibbolethink}} didn’t respond at all, and instead voted here to ban her. A few days after you joined the conversation, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial saying that Americans like Fauci who dismissed the lab-leak theory have a conflict of interest on this matter and they quote [[Richard Ebright]] saying that the NIH funded work at the WIV {{tq|was—unequivocally—gain-of-function research}} [https://www.wsj.com/articles/anthony-fauci-rand-paul-wuhan-lab-leak-11627240720]. I see now Shibbolethink is also [[WP:BITE]]ing a new editor called {{u|Nascence411}} and closing their conversation on the talk page. Why so much hostility?--[[User:Francesco espo|Francesco espo]] ([[User talk:Francesco espo|talk]]) 23:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
{{ACWordStatus|page=AE|section= Tiny Particle|user= Tiny Particle}}
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Steensma&oldid=1306077714 15 August 2025] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peggy_Cohen-Kettenis&oldid=1306010193] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annelou_de_Vries&oldid=1306021946] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henriette_Delemarre-van_de_Waal&oldid=1306083888] Created Four articles, each one of which is [[WP:Notable]] so "building the encyclopedia"
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=1306434686 17 August 2025] This is a Arbcom workshop '''Comment by others:''' which I am perfectly entitled to make
* {{re|ToBeFree}} We are not surprised that {{u|Bishonen}} votes the way he does after he called us "bastards" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RandomCanadian#Don't_let_the_bastards_grind_you_down], and we will deal with that separately in private with Jimmy Wales. i am curious to know why you decided to vote before hearing CutePeach, even though you didn’t tell her she can’t continue in talk pages. In your vote to ban you didn’t address the initial complaint from Bakkster Man about CutePeach adding a preprint, because as we all know, he did the exact same thing. You banned me for saying he makes a fool of himself in this matter. You also banned {{u|Empiricus-sextus}} and {{u|Gimiv}}, and now you want to ban CutePeach. I have just read the [[WP:INVOLVED]] essay and I believe you are involved. I think you should recuse yourself from this case. It is for the good of the project.--[[User:Francesco espo|Francesco espo]] ([[User talk:Francesco espo|talk]]) 00:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FTransgender_healthcare_and_people%2FWorkshop&diff=1306440684&oldid=1306439106 I was asked a question. The OP post was in three parts and contained a question directly addressed to me]
====Statement by FeralOink====
Hello, [[User:Francesco espo|Francesco espo]] and Mr. Ernie (or is it Dr?) and other somewhat sane people here. In the interest of transparency, I am replying here rather than on your talk page, lest I be accused of canvassing or such. Yes, that is hilarious. (Imagine an emoji with rolling eyes and another with lol face). I didn't realize that [[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]] was another lady like me. We are NOT WP:CHEESE! (Thank you for using proper <s>adjectives</s> pronouns, Francesco. I do appreciate that.)
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=1306449032 17 August 2025] I address point 3
They, the random Canadian {{redacted}} et al are being horrible to CutePeach! She has to translate these INTERMINABLY LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG walls of text from English to Tagalog and back. I gave up on making appeals to DGG after reading what he said on the [[Talk:Gain-of-function_research#What_is_this_argument_about?|GoF article talk page here]]:
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=1306456799 17 August 2025] I address point 1&2
:"How likely is it that this is a deliberate Chinese program to cause disease in the ret of the world, especially the US'. This is the easiest--it's a pure conspiracy theory..."
that it was absurd to suggest that the government of China does bioterrorism (or maybe biowarfare?) research. The US government does bioterrorism/biowarfare research, as do most of the G7 countries. If we have to edit Wikipedia based on the assumption that China is like, um, Monaco regarding self-defense and hegemony, then it is hopeless to make any meaningful contribution at all.
The remaining diffs presented:
The gap between the real world and Wikipedia is becoming vast. Dr. Fauci is being written up for lying to Congress while giving sworn testimony about Dazak, EcoHealth, and funding to WIV, yet Wikipedia is still bickering about even mentioning the possibility that the coronavirus was a lab leak or a (unintentional or intentional) release of GoF research. Meanwhile, the article about [[ZyCoV-D]] <s>(what an awful name, as it immediately made me think of Zyklon B, and yes, I am allowed to say that because I am Jewish)</s> the new DNA vaccine from India, uses BusinessWire and company press releases, yet ToBeFree <s>and NovemLingae</s> seem to think it is totally okay with that on the [[Talk:ZyCoV-D#Issues_with_revert|ZyCoV-D talk page]]. And EVERYONE worships Shibbolethink! It is embarrassing cringe! Have you seen his user page, that photo standing on the ramparts of a citadel as a brave COVIDWarrior? What's with everyone's deference to him? It isn't as though there aren't other people on Wikipedia who have more experience than a third year med student who has a PhD in virology. Also, there's a blatant COI as he is co-contributor on LOTS of journal articles about humanized gerbil lungs and other chimerical experiments that sound very much like GoF research. I don't even a moral objection to GoF research per se. One day I might be thanking Shibbolethink for bio-engineering something that saves my life. It is just the context of control here that I object to.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Steensma&diff=prev&oldid=1306094698 15 August 2025] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annelou_de_Vries&diff=prev&oldid=1306094914] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peggy_Cohen-Kettenis&diff=prev&oldid=1306095003] I believe the Reverts follow [[WP:BRD]]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=1306462176 17 August 2025] The accusation of meatpuppetry is due to blatant [[WP:Canvass]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDutch_Protocol&diff=1306419785&oldid=1306104430 Here]
It is nonsense that the [[dutch protocol]] is a [[WP:POVFORK]]/duplicate article to [[puberty blockers]]. I have never read or commented on the [[Puberty Blockers]]. The links I added were by means of CtrlF. Also the administration of PBs is just one disipline in the multi-displinary [[dutch protocol]]. [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion|Problems which don't require deletion]], including articles needing improvement, duplicate articles, or POV problems. The [[Dutch protocol]] AFD is malformed claiming that the dutch author is banned. I believe this is untrue.
I am extremely disgruntled and am ranting here. This isn't WP:IDONTLIKEIT or what-about-ism. It is absolutely necessary to apply consistent standards regarding sources and fairness. That has all flown out the window. Lots of editors are being intolerant and horrible, uh WP:TENDENTIOUS and will not relent. Look, y'all got your way about Donald Trump, and inserted ridiculous redundant verbiage e.g. "false disproven conspiracy theories" or continuing to say that <s>Bat Lady the</s> (oops) Li-Meng Yan (she is admittedly less credible than Bat Lady but still) can't be believed because she was associated with Steve Bannon and he is fraudulent, evil, and wrong (citing the Daily Kos articles from 2015 as proof), so she is too. Maybe it is better that you just banish me forever now, as the cognitive dissonance dial regarding all things COVID19 on Wikipedia is dialed up to 11 on a dial that only goes up to 10. AND it is your loss, as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cuhs I found Chinese IP addresses vandalizing (see sockpuppet investigation)] of Genetic code, Codons, Stokeslet, and Incomplete Bessel Functions articles, and complain but no one wants to do a check user because China. How many women editors does Wikipedia have who edit Bessel Function articles?! But I have to trumpet that I know what I'm talking about on GoF talk page, and feel like I'm Donald Trump saying, "I'm a very stable genius". That is all for now.--[[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]] ([[User talk:FeralOink|talk]]) 12:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::And I heard you, Shibboeththink! I am NOT WP:CHEESE.--[[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]] ([[User talk:FeralOink|talk]]) 12:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
::::Fine, then just continue banning everyone that you object to. Don't think it hasn't been noticed! Whenever I edit anything now, I notice users with tens of thousands of edits, whose names are familiar to me from 10 um 11 years of editing Wikipedia, are now greyed out. Good luck with that. What DGG contributed here (see "3.2.11 Statement by DGG") was very reasonable and you disregard his wise words at your peril.--[[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]] ([[User talk:FeralOink|talk]]) 12:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes I am not party to the current ArbCom case which is why I left my comment at '''Comment by others:''' I believe I clearly made the point that, no matter what the consensus, [[You can't have your cake and eat it]]. If there is no illness then there will be no (free) medical care as it is not needed by definition.
====Statement by Shibbolethink====
'''Addressing YFNS below''' I asked AI how to do an ''author-link3'' I also asked for a reliable source link for [[Peggy C-K]]'s dob to start the article. I find AI to be too verbose and inaccurate to be much use for a content writer. I copy alot from other articles because there is so much overlap. If someone has already written a sentence about say a football/soccer match there are potentialy 11x2=22 articles where that article could be incrementally improved.
I think {{u|Bakkster Man}} is frustrated with this editor's activity in general. The specific diffs he has offered don't encapsulate all of {{u|CutePeach}}'s problematic behavior. See below ArbE I was preparing:
That you have a Phd does not change the fact that "[[Medication]] is a drug used to diagnose, cure, treat, or prevent disease" Your document [https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/service-specification-gender-dysphoria-services-non-surgical-oct-2022.pdf] mentions "Non-Surgical Interventions". Per wiki [[Intervention (disambiguation)]]: [[Medical intervention]], therapy to treat ''health problems''.
=====Diffs of problematic behavior by CutePeach=====
They are [[WP:Notable]] by the sheer influence they have had outside their own country.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gain-of-function_research&diff=1034744736&oldid=1034694302 15:26, 21 July 2021] User escalates dispute about gain-of-function into dispute about all of COVID origins. As they have done before. Disrupting consensus-building to [[WP:WIN]] an argument, against a hard-won agreement among editors who rarely agree (pro-leak, anti-leak, moderates). <small>(to paraphrase)</small> "{{!xt|Why can't Shibbolethink just do what I want so I can move on?}}"
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&diff=prev&oldid=1034742380 15:10, 21 July 2021] Long, rambling SOAPBOX about how "{{tq|a group of editors have banded together to…Co-opt Wikipedia’s [[WP:MEDRS]] and [[WP:FRINGE]] policies to [[WP:CENSOR]] the [[COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis]] from Wikipedia}}” Repeating their [[WP:YESLABLEAK]]. Which [[User_talk:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK#Does_WP:NOLABLEAK_say_we_should_remove_these_mentions?|is a straw man the size of Nicholas Cage’s Wicker Man tomb]]. We are the ones trapped inside. No one is trying to “{{tq|remove}}” the lab leak theory from Wikipedia. Many editors are trying to '''contextualize it within the mainstream scientific view''', namely that '''it's not as likely as a natural origin.''' This is exactly what [[WP:FRINGE]], [[WP:RSUW]] tell us to do. I have not tried to “{{tq|masquerade [[WP:NOLABLEAK]] as policy in numerous talk page discussions}},” I and others have quoted it as a way to package [[WP:RS]]es together. This is in line with [[Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus)|the consensus we have established in numerous talk page discussions]]. CutePeach wants to forego that consensus. E.g. "{{tq|Please note also that Wikipedia may need to change its policy on the Daily Mail, which quotes a White House scientist on the matter}}". User also says this gem: “{{tq|These discussion require editors like myself, who have actually read the sources to engage in the WP:BRD process, instead of giving the little time I have to create content.}}” '''How dare we ask users to engage in consensus building?'''
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=1034502648 06:37, 20 July 2021] Editor removing mention of mainstream scientific view [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=1034372728]. Contravening [[Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus)|established consensus]]. Similar: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=1031332367&oldid=1031331860] asserting individual minority opinions "{{tq|outweigh all MEDRSs published on the subject to date}}"
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak&diff=1033505655&oldid=1033386867 03:10, 14 July 2021] “{{tq|If you are going to promote your own literature as policy or guidance on Wikipedia, then you have to be able to demonstrate [[WP:COMPETENCE]], which you have failed to do on this issue.}}” Again, a straw man in which I am incompetent.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gain-of-function_research&diff=1033535982&oldid=1033535474 08:39, 14 July 2021] “{{tq|Regarding the Hakim paper, it is a case of [[WP:MISINTERPRETATION]]. Have you actually read the paper?}}” I gave exact quotes several paragraphs prior [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gain-of-function_research&diff=1033290002&oldid=1033286339]. User exemplifies [[WP:IDHT]], [[WP:SEALION]].
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak&diff=1033368810&oldid=1033292815 07:48, 13 July 2021] “{{tq|On your next trip to China, you might want to learn a bit more about how the Chinese government actually governs.}}” I then tell the user to please not implicate my “competence” and intelligence in their edits, as it is not AGF, something this user has been warned about before ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CutePeach&diff=1033386550&oldid=1033386373]<ins> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CutePeach&diff=1029356311&oldid=1029354397]</ins>). User then then tells me I am incompetent for accusing them of PA/ABF [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shibbolethink&diff=1033537821&oldid=1033523844], creates an essay about it ([[Wikipedia:CRYNPA]]). I attempt to bridge divide by offering an olive branch [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CutePeach&diff=next&oldid=1033537728]. User ignores and continues to accuse me of POV [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gain-of-function_research&diff=prev&oldid=1033724485]. This is something I have tried to do before, failed before. This user will not listen, and is very convinced that [[WP:TINC|the cabal]] is out to get them.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gain-of-function_research&diff=next&oldid=1033541853 13:41, 14 July 2021] “{{tq|We should not be presenting the [[WP:OPINION]]s of scientists on either side as facts in Wikivoice.}}” Speaks for itself re: mainstream POVs. User is responding to admin ({{u|Johnuniq}}) asking for clarification on their extensive soapboxing (my interpretation). Admin still cannot figure out what user is asking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq&diff=1033692238&oldid=1033649904]. A common occurrence.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1033373911&oldid=1033373640&title=Talk:Gain-of-function_research 08:45, 13 July 2021] User accuses me of intentionally using a non-RS that is a syndication [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gain-of-function_research&diff=next&oldid=1033391087], I retract the source ''again'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gain-of-function_research&diff=next&oldid=1033391087] (having already retracted it earlier, after mistakenly citing it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1033268147&oldid=1033268004&title=Talk:Gain-of-function_research]), user accuses me of intentionally using the source ''again'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gain-of-function_research&diff=1033511099&oldid=1033506976], then beating a horse that is not only dead, it has been set on fire [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1033511099&oldid=1033506976&title=Talk:Gain-of-function_research].
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HighInBC&diff=prev&oldid=1031925920 14:23, 4 July 2021] One of several instances in which user tries to get an admin to reverse a mopping action (in this case removal of BLPvio) that disagrees with their POV. They tie up a lot of admin/editor time with SOAPBOXes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=1031495963&oldid=1031495410].
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=1031181317&oldid=1031176626 06:26, 30 June 2021] Months into nearly daily accusations of problematic sourcing, they say: "{{tq|I do not think "WP:RS evidence" is a requisite policy for inclusion or exclusion.}}"
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:POVOMISSION&oldid=1031181728 06:29, 30 June 2021] User creates many CAPITAL_LETTERS redirects/essays to use more effectively as a bludgeon. (e.g. [[WP:MISINTERPRETING]], [[WP:POVOMISSION]], [[WP:CRYNPA]], [[WP:POVDELETION]]). I'm actually not sure there is a policy against this, but it does feel pretty BATTLEGROUND-y and exemplifies how this editor escalates disputes and tries to change policy rather than striving for consensus or persuading others via discussion.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1030040933&oldid=1030038035&title=Talk:Bret_Weinstein 14:29, 23 June 2021] adversarial attitude, not AGF.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1030037494&oldid=1029462222&title=User_talk:Guy_Macon 14:02, 23 June 2021] Casting [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] about a user “{{tq|scheming}}” to edit in a way that “{{tq|provokes}}” a response.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1029469066&oldid=1029468940&title=Talk:Gain_of_function_research 05:28, 20 June 2021] frequently requests citations for obvious summary, not synth, [[WP:SEALION]]. When presented with quotations, defaults to [[WP:IDHT]].
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1029466573&oldid=1029465636&title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 05:07, 20 June 2021] alleges all virologists have a COI. A clear case of [[WP:FLAT]]. [[WP:CPUSH|CPUSHing]] user's POV and trying to “neutralize” editors who disagree.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1029355606&oldid=1029225545&title=Draft:Alina_Chan 13:24, 19 June 2021] Frequently adds primary-sourced promotional material to drafts/articles to push user’s POV.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1029354318&oldid=1029351836&title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 13:12, 19 June 2021] Brings content disputes to non-content dispute areas often. Casts [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] and cites ‘coordination of other editors’ as if there is a [[WP:TINC|cabal]].
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1029352604&oldid=1029352531&title=Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 12:56, 19 June 2021] Edit war brought on by user.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1027113767&oldid=1027096703&title=Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information 05:40, 6 June 2021] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=1031170936&oldid=1031170706] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=1031172015&oldid=1031170936] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=1031175101&oldid=1031172015] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=1031175965&oldid=1031175101] Frequently cites [[WP:FRINGE]] claims: “{{tq|US government maintains the claim that the WIV was doing bioweapons research, which was perhaps for defensive purposes}}” for which there is no evidence. A case of [[WP:IDHT]] applies when user is challenged, or more simply, the user never admits being wrong. Simply changes the subject or emphatically declares their correctness.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1027528850&oldid=1027524984&title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard 12:56, 8 June 2021] Adversarial accusations against another editor for being “{{tq|completely confused}}” about a topic and then becoming “{{tq|a real expert with all the right sources}}” as if this somehow invalidates the user's argument.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1027674687&oldid=1027673357&title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 09:38, 9 June 2021] [[WP:OR]] to push [[WP:FRINGE]] ideas and cite preferred primary sources instead of secondary sources in the scientific literature. Also [[WP:IDHT]] as the user asserts over and over again that certain scientists support their POV even when presented evidence to the contrary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1027907142&oldid=1027903525&title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19].
I can see one editor blocked for 9 months. By repeating an error it becomes a lie
=====Summary of thoughts on CutePeach=====
{{ping|User:asilvering}}:I commented above ''I asked AI how to do an ''author-link3'' I also asked for a reliable source link for [[Peggy C-K]]'s dob to start the article. I find AI to be too verbose and inaccurate to be much use for a content writer.'' I am not aware of the ''elsewhere'' that you mention?
In summary: <ins>'''CutePeach has engaged in [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]]''', as shown by the following:</ins> A) USTHEM SOAPBOXing asserting “a campaign” exists against them/their opinions, B) General SOAPBOXing about COVID origins and how Wikipedia is not reflecting the “truth”, because of our reliance on policies that CutePeach disagrees with, C) casting ASPERSIONS in multiple directions in a pattern that appears targeted to discourage certain POVs from contributing, D) personal attacks against editors (including myself), belittling a lack of “competence” and intelligence, E) escalation of many disputes to an overall dispute about the topic and consistent BATTLEGROUNDing, F) a consistent, unrelenting argument that the mainstream scientific POV about COVID origins should not be included in our articles.
====Statement by YFNS ====
{{ACWordStatus|page=AE|section= Tiny Particle|user=YFNS}}
I raised issues with Tiny Particle's editing on their talk page which they never replied to[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tiny_Particle#Recent_GENSEX_editing]
Some particular issues include:
* Using the "A Wider Lens" podcast by pro-conversion therapy group [[Genspect]] as a source despite being told repeatedly that's not good
** TP knew this was a bad source - at [[Dutch Protocol]] I removed poor sourcing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dutch_Protocol&diff=prev&oldid=1304174933], TP reverted and asked me to do it source by source, which I did, particularly noting the AWS podcast[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dutch_Protocol&diff=prev&oldid=1304526639]. '''''After'' that''', TP makes an edit just to add the AWS podcast to a BLP[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peggy_Cohen-Kettenis&diff=prev&oldid=1306014201], redirects the podcast name to it's host so knows who created it[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Wider_Lens&oldid=1306014475], and then adds the source to another BLP[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annelou_de_Vries&oldid=1306021946]
* Really weird / POV redirects (improperly redirecting terms about populations to medical articles)...
On a more personal note, dealing with this user has made me step back from Wiki, in an exact encapsulation of [[Wikipedia:Expert_retention#Cranks|WP:QUIT]]/[[WP:RANDY]]/[[WP:CHEESE]]. The user has argued repeatedly that my PhD in Virology is a reason why I should not be trusted to edit these articles (see above). While many of the other pro-leak editors and anti-leak editors have come to consensus editing the new [[COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis]] article, this user has not. As I have described above, they, at some point, decided consensus was not the goal, and instead the goal was pushing their POV.
** Redirects [[transgender children]] from [[transgender youth]] to [[gender dysphoria in children]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transgender_children&diff=prev&oldid=1304495681]
** Redirects [[transgender and gender diverse]] to [[Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transgender_and_gender_diverse&oldid=1304978813]
Further, I want to flag the use of AI, these articles where apparently written using ChatGPT as the UTM codes for chatGPT where present in the citations[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Steensma#c-Flounder_fillet-20250818003800-Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist-20250817164700]
To make this abundantly clear: '''I have no problem with people who believe in the lab leak'''. I am happy to edit alongside such users. Several such editors and I have come to agreement in how to achieve consensus via compromise, working together. CutePeach appears ''emphatically''...''vitriolically''...''indignantly''... '''not interested'''.
Regarding what TP has said here:
'''Recommend indef topic ban and short-term block'''.--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 22:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)<small> (edited 17:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC))</small>
* They are not [[WP:Notable]], I explicitly said as much, noting the articles are written almost entirely based on OR of things the subjects wrote with little to no independent coverage[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tiny_Particle#Recent_GENSEX_editing][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Steensma]
* The comment left at ARBCOM was espouse a FRINGE view that the community has found MEDRS don't support[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=1306434686]
** Moreover, they claim the NHS endorsed this view. I quote the NHS saying the opposite[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Workshop#c-Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist-20250817194300-Tiny_Particle-20250817185800], Loki notes they're getting the definition of gender dysphoria backward[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Workshop#c-LokiTheLiar-20250817202300-Tiny_Particle-20250817185800]
** They claim {{Tq|Yes there is "Gender dysphoria with mental illness comorbidity" - we have a patient for treatment. "Gender dysphoria without mental illness comorbidity" - no taxpayer funded treatment necessary.}} - this seems like an LLM hallucination? I've written about trans healthcare for half a decade now, and am getting a PhD in it, I have no clue what this means.
** They then claim that an unelected health minister is the one we should look to, and accuses me of removing evidence {{Tq| The UK Health Minister has said those who used to argue “trans women are women” should have the “humility” to admit they were not right. He changed his mind when presented with evidence. The evidence is out there but YFNS likes to remove from this encyclopedia. }}
** Bizarelly, accuses a number of BLP's of pathologizing trans people because their studies used the term "gender identity disorder"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=1306456799]. I need to point out, when those studies where written, that was the name of the diagnosis (which was pathologizing, but was a field-wide issue addressed a decade ago).
=====Other notes=====
Regarding the article of the NLWiki [[Dutch Protocol]] being written by a banned editor, it absolutely was. No other editor has disputed that. TP keeps arguing they're not in a way that borders on sealioning[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist#c-Tiny_Particle-20250815224600-Recent_GENSEX_editing][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist#c-Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist-20250815230400-Tiny_Particle-20250815224600][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist#c-Tiny_Particle-20250815232600-Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist-20250815230400][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist#c-Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist-20250815233500-Tiny_Particle-20250815232600][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist#c-Tiny_Particle-20250815234100-Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist-20250815233500]
{{ctop|re: statement length}}
* Here is the AE case that resulted in a near-instant NOTHERE block for that editor, which links to the NLWiki cases resulting in blocks[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331#A_Wider_Lens]. If you ask me to dig it up, I can find account blocks and IP blocks across multiple wikis and globally for that user.
I apologize for the length of this. There are just so many diffs and long complex SOAPBOXes to explain. Please let me know if you would like my statement reduced further and I will do so immediately.--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 22:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
:Thank you, {{u|ToBeFree}}. I will keep monitoring, but likely will not respond to other comments<ins> unless directly requested</ins> to preserve the ability for others to add their thoughts and still maintain a ''readable'' ArbE case. <ins>I'm not saying others should do the same, I just feel bad about my really long comment :)</ins>--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 23:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Their behavior has been really weird. I don't have better words than that for it. I'd support a TBAN for wasting other editors time. I originally thought it wasn't necessary and tried explaining issues to them directly, but was ignored, so now we're here I guess.
[[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 13:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:Re LLM hallucination: The NHS only gives hormones when there ''aren't'' comorbities[https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/service-specification-gender-dysphoria-services-non-surgical-oct-2022.pdf]. So another false claim. [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 16:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by Licks-Rocks====
Wasn't really planning to involve myself, but I ended up [[User talk:Tiny Particle#c-Licks-rocks-20250817181000-august 2025 (2)|Warning]] this user pretty harshly just prior to their first escapade into arbcom because by then a visit to AE was already pretty much unavoidable. Safe to say they haven't listened.. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 17:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]] (just pinging you in case you forgot about this, which seems to me to be the case) --[[User:Licks-rocks|<span style="font-family:Cambria;color:#19543E;">Licks-rocks</span>]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|<span style="font-family:Cambria;color:#A11517;">talk</span>]]) 08:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by DanielRigal====
A lot of this looks like an overconfident editor acting like a bull in a china shop, which is normally just grounds for a warning to dial it back a bit, but diffs 5 and 6 are different and more concerning. Those cross the line into unfounded accusations and personal attacks. The use of LLMs is also concerning as LLMs are very good at (intentionally or otherwise) making bad content that looks superficially plausible. Finally, the doubling down when problems are pointed out is definitely not encouraging. I think some sanction is required. I'm not sure how severe it should be but their statement above does not give me much hope that Tiny Particle will be able to edit constructively in this topic area. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 23:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by Cdjp1====
As a note on potential LLM content, the phrase highlighted by YFNS, {{tqq|Yes there is "Gender dysphoria with mental illness comorbidity" - we have a patient for treatment. "Gender dysphoria without mental illness comorbidity" - no taxpayer funded treatment necessary.}}, I would argue isn't generated by an LLM, the structure is much more akin to human written shorthand. While I haven't done a deep dive through Tiny Particle's contributions, having a peruse of their comments around articles highlighted as evidence, there doesn't seem to be anything that causes me concern on LLM usage. I would honestly put down any concerns on the logic of the arguments down to poor reasoning and arguments. -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 20:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning Tiny Particle===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*Diff 6 is obviously inappropriate; YFNS's edit to the AfD was in no way [[WP:CANVASS]]ing, but that post on the arb case might be. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 11:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Tiny Particle|Tiny Particle]], a number of editors have raised concerns about your use of LLMs, here and elsewhere. Would you comment on that, please? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 14:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Tiny Particle|Tiny Particle]], if you want to ping someone, you need to sign your post.
*::As for the rest, well, the text copied into various articles from [[Dutch Protocol]] was also clearly an attempt to get around the ongoing AfD, transparently stated as such in the edit summaries. And if we're not looking at LLM hallucinations, we're looking at either pov-pushing or [[WP:OR]] indistinguishable from pov-pushing, the most striking example of which came in after this case was filed: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=1306633692]. Accordingly, unless another admin jumps in to object in the next 24 hours or so, I will tban from "transgender healthcare, broadly construed". Narrower than GENSEX, but appears to be sufficient in this case. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 08:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Thanks @[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]], I sure did (at least twice). Closing now. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 13:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
*<!--
-->
{{hab}}
== Request: Add List of The New York Times controversies to Arab-Israeli conflict sanction ==
{{hat|Page restriction declined. Newslinger gave reasons to decline, and a single-admin response is generally plenty for a request for page restrictions. ~ Jenson ([[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]]) 05:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)}}
{{ctop|{{Moved from|WT:AC/N#Request: Add article to Arab-Israeli conflict sanction}}|collapse=no|bg=none}}
Apologies if this is not the right venue for the request, but I would like to request that [[List of The New York Times controversies]] be added to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2025/Arab–Israeli conflict|Arab–Israeli conflict]] sanctioned articles, as there has been a clear revert war on content related to this topic -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat - 同舟]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sameboat|contri.]]) 02:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
: You may request arbitration enforcement at [[WP:AE]]. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 02:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
{{cbot}}
===Discussion concerning List of The New York Times controversies ===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by (username)====
*FYI: '''editor was previously [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive285#CutePeach AE'd]''' for similar behavior, before DS were in place, so dismissed and moved to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#COVID%3A_SYNTH%2C_BLUDGEON_and_MEDRS_%28moved_from_AE%29 ANI].--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 22:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
=== Result concerning List of The New York Times controversies ===
*FYI: {{u|CutePeach}} is [[WP:CANVAS]]sing, inviting editors selectively to this AE [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KristinaLu&diff=prev&oldid=1035259149] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeralOink&diff=prev&oldid=1035259451] (without mentioning those notification here) and into discussions on talk pages based on whether or not their statements here are favorable [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=1035094260&oldid=1035088264]. This is not the first time I have warned this user about [[WP:CANVAS]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=1034705297].--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 19:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
* {{u|Sameboat}}, a page is only added to the [[WP:AEL|arbitration enforcement log]] when a [[WP:CTOP#Page restrictions|contentious topic page restriction]] is applied to that page. There are no active page restrictions on the article [[List of The New York Times controversies]], so the article does not need to be logged at this time. The arbitration remedies within the [[WP:CT/A-I|Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic]] (including the extended confirmed restriction and one-revert rule) already apply to edits related to the [[WP:CT/A-I#Definition of the "area of conflict"|area of conflict]] that are made to any article, including [[List of The New York Times controversies]], without needing the article to be logged. Because only a small part of [[List of The New York Times controversies]] (most prominently, the [[List of The New York Times controversies#Coverage of Israel and Palestine|Coverage of Israel and Palestine]] section) is within the topic area, the article is not automatically [[WP:CT/A-I#ECP by default|extended confirmed protected by default]].{{pb}}If you would like to request for a particular page restriction to be applied to the article, this page (the arbitration enforcement noticeboard) is the correct venue to do so. However, if you would like to request page protection as an arbitration enforcement action, I recommend posting the request on the [[WP:RFP|page protection noticeboard]] instead, where you are likely to receive a faster response. The recent editing history of the article does not appear to be particularly disruptive, and there have been no recent violations of the [[WP:ECR|extended confirmed restriction]] on the article page, so I would not apply page protection at this time. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 17:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC) {{small|Edited to fix link. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 21:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)}}
:*{{re|CutePeach}} I have provided diffs above, which you've indicated do not qualify as PAs in your eyes. I believe they do, based on [[WP:CIRNOT]]: "{{tq|Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person.}}" The biggest issue is the ''repeated'' use of such arguments on your part, even after being warned about this. It is unfortunate that we disagree. I leave it up to the reviewing admins.--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 17:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==Icecold==
====Statement by Dervorguilla====
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
It looks like [[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]] may have been attempting to find an acceptable solution through a combination of adaptive editing and good-faith discussion. (See [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing|EDITCON]] flowchart.) Each of the 3 listed edits does seem responsive to the ongoing discussion, if less than perfectly so.
===Request concerning Icecold===
Also, it seems intuitive that ''in this article'' the added information was not "represented as" a scientific theory but as a hypothesis. ("A proposed explanation, supported by evidence, that serves as a starting point for investigation" — ''Black’s Law Dictionary''.) [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Biomedical v. general information|MEDDEF]] likewise suggests that peer-reviewed sources may not be needed here:
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Snokalok}} 16:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
: ''… were invented by Dr Archibald Foster and released onto the market in 2015.'' {{xt|This is [[WP:Biomedical information#What is not biomedical information?|not biomedical information]], and it only requires ordinary [[WP:RS|RS]]}}
[[User:Dervorguilla|Dervorguilla]] ([[User talk:Dervorguilla|talk]]) 23:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Icecold}}<p>{{ds/log|Icecold}}</p>
: @[[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]]: Here [[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]] is using [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Statements of opinion|ordinary news sources]], though. (Not ''"opinion pieces"''.) –[[User:Dervorguilla|Dervorguilla]] ([[User talk:Dervorguilla|talk]]) 05:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
: {{reply to|CutePeach}} It's been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1036188131 suggested] that {{tq|an [indefinite] interaction ban could be an effective solution (in addition to or as an alternative to a fixed-term topic ban)}}. Would you be OK with an interaction ban? (I anticipate that a few months from now you may have very little free time available to engage in those rather fruitless conversations!) –[[User:Dervorguilla|Dervorguilla]] ([[User talk:Dervorguilla|talk]]) 07:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: GENSEX
====Statement by Novem Linguae====
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
* For months, I have noticed that CutePeach engages in [[WP:CPUSH]] on COVID origins talk pages. It is quite draining to read and deal with.
* During a discussion with Shibbolethink, made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&diff=1033537169&oldid=1032984746 this inappropriate edit] to [[WP:NPA]], then created the shortcuts [[WP:CRYPA]] and [[WP:CRYNPA]] to point to their new edits, then quoted these shortcuts in their discussion with Shibbolethink.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shibbolethink&diff=1033537821&oldid=1033523844&diffmode=source] Adding to a policy without consensus, in order to immediately quote it in a heated discussion, seems inappropriate to me.
** This user later turned the redirect [[WP:CRYNPA]] into an essay, and it is live in the Wikipedia userspace. I doubt it enjoys wide community consensus and it should probably be userfied.
* I find this user a bit abrasive to interact with.
** In one recent interaction, they told me {{tq|If you are going to promote your own literature as policy or guidance on Wikipedia, then you have to be able to demonstrate [[WP:COMPETENCE]], which you have failed to do on this issue.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak&diff=1033505655&oldid=1033386867], basically calling me incompetent and also accusing me of promotion.
** They told Shibbolethink {{tq|On your next trip to China, you might want to learn a bit more about how the Chinese government actually governs.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak&diff=1033368810&oldid=1033292815&diffmode=source].
* This user posted in my userspace after I asked them not to. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak&diff=1033370239&oldid=1033368810][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak&diff=1033505655&oldid=1033386867][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak&diff=1033505891&oldid=1033505655][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak&diff=1033539327&oldid=1033505891] The diff order is my 1st request (on talk page), their response ignoring it, my 2nd request (in edit summary), and their second response ignoring it.
'''Diffs:'''
I would support some kind of sanction. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 03:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Icecold has been just sort of, crashing out at people for the last month over what appears to be the [[Graham Linehan]] page, and making no other edits beyond that.
====Statement by DGG====
The basic problem is the persistent efforts by editors other than CutePeach to avoid covering the topic entirely, despite world wide major press coverage. As normal at WP, this had taken the form of attempts to find objections to the sourcing, even when the sources are such a would normally be accepted for topics of this nature. CP's reaction to this has sometime been a little unmeasured, ad worded more contentiously than I would have done. But in view of the nature of the utter rejection of the fundamental WP policy of WP:NPOV with which she has been contending, it's understandable, as a response to the specious arguments on the other side.
Jul 16 2025 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&diff=prev&oldid=1300812883] Accuses other editors of being activist editors
It's especially unfortunate that this AE request has been brought at the very time when the various editors involved have mostly been approaching consensus about how to handle the subject, guided by the RfC on the applicability of MEDRES. I see this as a last-ditch attempt to avoid covering what has become a major political question--or, that having failed, to avoid covering it properly. I'm not blaming the party who has brought this request, nor am I mentioning any other names. because they're by no means the only one involved, just as CP is by no means the only one who has been trying to get NPOV coverage. I think we should not escalate this, because the normal WP methods are working--even though they have been working with exceptional slowness and difficulty. I can not endorse everything CP has said, but I certainly do endorse her efforts. She perhaps needs at most a reminder that the answer to unfair tactics is not to indulge in rhetorical excesses. I would perhaps couple this with the usual and frequently necessary reminder to everyone not to personalize subject disputes at. And it is indeed a poor idea to try engage in altering the wording of basic policy during a subject dispute (it's been tried before at various times, and sometimes people have succeeded in getting away with it) --though the particular statement she added to NPA is one that I think should indeed be added--but it shouldn't have been suggested now.
Jul 16 2025 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&curid=6422137&diff=1300825092&oldid=1300820307] ditto
There's a general pattern here I've been warning people against for many years. During a subject dispute, more experienced editors trying to push their less experienced opponents into doing something unreasonable, so one can then remove them on behavioral grounds. AE is a particularly effective place for the purpose. We shouldn't let it be used that way. A request to topic ban one's opponent in a debate should normally be rejected altogether. If one is editing and commented properly and effectively, one doesn't need it. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 06:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Jul 16 2025 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&diff=prev&oldid=1300812580] Accuses editors of gaslighting because a consensus didn’t go his way
:I notice several of the " uninvolved administrators" are pushing the person being accused here to finish their statement, and discussing how the details of their life and contributions show they have enough time. That's not even correct--I know that when I , for example, have something important to write here I tend to make a few minor contributions in the interval to relieve stress and ensure objectivity) I know I have ''never'' given anybody a deadline, and when on arb com, we went much more slowly to avoid the impression of harassment. . I suggest those parties move their comments out of the uninvolved section. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 03:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
::<s>It is rare that an appeal against an AE decision succeeds, but one good justification for that appeal is demonstrated personal hostility from the admin closing it. I consider imposing deadline to at least verge on personal hostility. I haven't yet looked at other statements of the people in that section, since I do not know who will close it or what the result will be.</s> I'm trying to decrease the possibilities for future or continuing conflict. The best way would be for someone to close this who has made no prior comments. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 23:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Jul 1 2025 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&diff=prev&oldid=1298252924] Accuses editors of prioritizing their own feelings over “facts” because consensus didn’t go his way.
::'''But in any case, after this is closed one way or another, we will all have to move on, and we shouldn't do anything that would prejudice attempts to resolve the actual issue. We will not do that by continuing hostilities, tho sometimes they may seem necessary in the process here. ''' '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 06:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
22 May 2025 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icecold&diff=prev&oldid=1291626758] Aspersions against pretty much every editor that disagreed with him in consensus, among other things accusing other editors of “stalking”
22 May 2025 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraziePrego&diff=prev&oldid=1291620433]
(I wasn't palnning to add anything, but in view of some recent comments, I do not think there is malice or conspiracy involved here at WP on this topic. I do think there is stubbornness, and lack of proportion. Personally I see the stubbornness in editors refusing to see consensus in the world has changed , as judged by the coverage relevant reliable sources on whether this possibility is fringe. This is a stubbornness I can't really account for. But there's also stubbornness in CP attacking when she should be defending--it's not an approach likely to work, and everyone who has been involved in this has told her so. This I can account for, it's a common tho unfortunate reaction when people think rightly or wrongly they are being unfairly criticized, to fight back instead of make peace. I of course am stubborn in defending what I think the true meaning of NPOV, but I'm not sure I'm right in continuing as long as I have in continuing any one particular discussion which is not likely to be fruitful. My usual course in the past has been to say what I can, answer a question or objection, and then let things take their course, and perhaps I would have done better to do so here. Some people at WP seem to be willing to engage in extended conflict--I am not, and I should have known better than to try something that makes me as uncomfortable as this no longer very polite discussion. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 03:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Personal attacks
22 May 2025 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraziePrego&diff=prev&oldid=1291619634]
====Statement by Nil Einne====
ABF, personal attacks
As I'm on wikibreak, hopefully I don't say something here which gets me blocked. Where is this seven seconds thing coming from? AFAICT Cutepeach posted on the talk page here at 13:01:30 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034901157&oldid=1034829884] 2 minutes after making this edit at 12:59:31 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034900923&oldid=1034835417]. Bakkster Man made this reply at 13:07:34 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034901925&oldid=1034901157] followed by reverting Cutepeach's change at 13:08:07 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034901984&oldid=1034900923]. Cutepeach then asked if Bakkster Man had read the reply where they first mentioned the seven seconds bit at 13:26:36 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034904006&oldid=1034901925]. Maybe I misunderstood what was being referred to but I'm not seeing any overlap that was seven seconds. Cutepeach's first comment seems like it could be just a simple mistake, planning to type minutes but typing seconds instead or it's possible they just confused themselves and thought it was seconds when it was minutes. Either way Cutepeach's reply is long but not that long, it seems entirely plausible it was read in 6-7 minutes especially since Bakkster Man replied to it before reverting, so if that is what's being referred to, it doesn't seem an issue.
22 May 2025 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TarnishedPath&diff=prev&oldid=1291619256] Personal attacks
In any case, if there really is something that happened within seven seconds I missed, I'd also note that if person A leaves an explanation and person Z reverts within seven second of this explanation, per [[WP:AGF]] it's fine to think person Z didn't read the explanation, but not assign bad faith in this. If person A took several minutes to offer an explanation it's entirely plausible person Z checked for an explanation, found none and reverted. Neither editor really did any wrong here, it's just how rapid editing can play out. It's fine to ask person Z if they read the explanation, but hopefully person Z will see it themselves anyway and either way will consider whether to self-revert. If editor A left their explanation ~ the same they made the change, then probably person Z should have been a bit more careful and checked the talk page. (Well frankly this scenario doesn't really work with 7 seconds, but with something like 30 seconds it may.) However for a single instances it's a generally minor thing provided person Z does consider whether to self-revert when alerted to the explanation. Again, it's possible person Z will come across the explanation by themselves and do the same which reduces the criticism of themselves even more.
22 May 2025 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TarnishedPath&diff=prev&oldid=1291609613] Aspersions
BTW, I initially suggested it's not possible to see seconds with diffs. This is incorrect and I apologise for any confusion. You can change time stamp format in the appearance option to show seconds hence my examples here. As no one had replied to this other than ToBeFree who alerted me directly (thanks!), I modified my post accordingly roughly 3 hours and 40 minutes after originally posting at 16:35. (Possibly you can get even finer granularity via the API, I'm not sure.)
22 May 2025 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TarnishedPath&diff=prev&oldid=1291508097] Admits to using LLM for his text while attacking other editors
[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 20:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
:{{replyto|In actu}} and all admins. FWIW, I support giving CutePeach more time (maybe 1-2 weeks more) to respond with the understanding that there are to be no further edits in the area until they post their response. This could be made a formal temporary topic ban if necessary, but frankly I don't think it should be. Just tell [[User:CutePeach]] to stop editing in the area until they've dealt with the AE. If they wikilawyer or ignore that because it's not a formal topic ban, then just proceed with case. But it looks like CutePeach stopped a few days ago. If editors feel CutePeach needs to stop any editing besides their statement, I feel that's unnecessary for a short 2-3 response period, noting the most likely outcome is a topic ban which as I said we can treat as already in force, but I don't feel that strongly. I agree with those who say [[User:Wbm1058]] wikilawyering is unhelpful. Editors cannot continue to edit in an area they will be topic banned from by delaying said topic ban by saying they need more time to respond. To be clear, I'm not saying this is what CutePeach is doing, but rather because since this is the effective outcome then it makes sense that any edits which would be affected by the topic-ban are considered forbidden rather than simply main space edits. Plenty of editors are topic banned primarily over edits on talk pages or noticeboards anyway so there's never a reason to say "no main space edits so it's fine". Finally, I would particular oppose closing this case just because of pointless comments, including mine. If people feel this case is getting unwieldy with too many editors and admins adding unhelpful comments put it on hold or something forbidding new comments until CutePeach has made a statement. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 13:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icecold&diff=prev&oldid=1290844945]
====Statement by My very best wishes====
Commenting only on first 3 diffs provided by the filer, this seems to be just a content dispute. The info CutePeach is trying to include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034549899&oldid=1034548193] arguably belongs to the page. This is page about [[COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis]]. Even if the hypothesis is wrong, we still need to list people who proposed or supported it. Yes, the edit by CutePeach is POVish and should be corrected. It is POVish because she is trying to frame it as a scientifically solid claim. But this is mostly a political, not a scientific controversy. Fortunately, such POVish version ''was'' corrected to the text that appears in the ''left'' part of this diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&curid=66692273&diff=1034907857&oldid=1034907481]. OK, so it now includes the following ''"In addition, Gorski criticises the startling claim that "the laws of physics mean that you cannot have four positively charged amino acids in a row".'' Having such criticism, let it be. Why revert? That would be my reaction. Other edits and overall behavior by CutePeach can be a lot more troubling. But if so, that had to be justified with diffs by the filer from the very beginning. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 21:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
:Here I disagree with Colin (below) that ''A claim on Wikipedia that covid was genetically engineered requires an academic secondary source''. Such claim made, for example, by D. Trump, may not have any scientific basis whatsoever, but it still may need to be included on a page. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 02:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
{{ACWordStatus|page=AE|section=Icecold|user=Snokalok}}
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
*Speaking on diffs by Shibbolethink, each of them ''by itself'' (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1027113767&oldid=1027096703&title=Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information]) does not strike me as anything deserving a topic ban; however, they show that CutePeach is familiar with the subject. I think this is a typical pattern of someone providing a lot of diffs produced during tense discussions in a hope that at least some of them (or so many of them) will be viewed as incriminating. This is just my personal opinion, and I can be wrong. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 02:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
*@Colin. That was a common point of contention in such discussions if we should include views by scientists (not "scientists") who suggested that "lab leak" must be investigated <u>and explained why they think so</u>. Some of them signed a letter in ''Science'' [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1], some of them are strong experts in virology or other areas of biology, some materials appears in peer reviewed publications. This appears, for example, in #3 point in [[Template:Origins_of_COVID-19_(current_consensus)]] created by Shibbolethink ("manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin", although the discussions also include many others. <s>Here is my opinion. First,</s> Such claims, if [[WP:RS|reliably published]] (like here [https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246],[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000240] rather than self-published) do belong in general to these pages if properly written, i.e. with arguments provided by these scientists and with counter-criticisms by others if any. ''Otherwise, what is happening?'' We cite claims by politicians who have no idea about science, and do not cite claims by scientists who can be wrong, but at least know biology and explain ''why'' they think so (like Sergeto and Deigin). If WaPO and other RS discuss such sourced opinions by scientists [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-coronaviruss-origins-are-still-a-mystery-we-need-a-full-investigation/2020/11/13/cbf4390e-2450-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html], so should we. The summary by Shibbolethink in #3 of his template does not reflect any RfC, and excluding such sourced views is actually against WP:NPOV, which is the policy.
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
*And no, WP:MEDRS does not apply here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#RFC:_Disease_/_pandemic_origins.] - "Not passing" - that's why I do not need to ask anything on WP:MED. As correctly stated by closer, ''But who created something or where it was created is historical information'' (while what "it does to a living organism" would be a biomedical information, etc.). Basically, the result of closing was the same as I am saying in the paragraph just above, i.e. a minority viewpoint on this should be presented, but "not be presented as an absolute truth" (of course!).[[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 14:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icecold&diff=prev&oldid=1300826689]
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
====Statement by PaleoNeonate====
After having drafted a report I intended to avoid participating but to eventually present a TE/soapboxing case instead if necessary in the future. I was encouraged to still post so have revised it to be less redundant with other statements.
===Discussion concerning Icecold===
<h5>Background</h5><!-- description list formatting converted to the not-appearing-in-the-TOC level 5 heading it practically resembled ~ToBeFree 2021-07-24 12:20 UTC -->
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
The COVID-19 topic was recently upgraded from general sanctions to discretionary ones because of persistent disruption in the area. AN and FTN archives have a number of related threads. The lab leak story has been promoted by online groups and on Wikipedia by some regulars, but most notably by single purpose accounts. Some were confirmed to be sockpuppets, but others to also be meatpuppets, some coordinating as part of online campaigns to push their propaganda on Wikipedia, email canvassing also occurred. While some disruptive accounts were blocked or topic banned, waves of new SPAs continued to disrupt (the talk pages of the various articles are full of it with their archives). Some Twitter activist argued about creating LEAKGATE on Wikipedia and some editors were harassed.<ref>https://twitter.com/billybostickson/status/1362863053583253512</ref> Some regulars believe that there's more to it and that Wikipedia tends toward censorship (although not too surprisingly as it is part of standard narratives).
====Statement by Icecold====
Since I read a lot of sources about it lately, I can evaluate that there's not much to it but speculation, motivated reasoning, connecting dots and an unlikely hypothesis that some scientists now advocate to investigate. The media went havoc about it lately, with right-wing, including Fox News, transforming uncertainty statements like "more information is needed" into "yes" shows,<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/14/covid-origins-australias-role-in-the-feedback-loop-promoting-the-wuhan-lab-leak-theory</ref> and before that promoting a Bannon-promoted conspiracy theory supported by forged pseudoscientific claims and falsehoods.<ref>https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/coronavirus-lab-theory-yan-bannon-invs/index.html</ref>
{{hat|Over-length statement as of 26 August}}
But reliable sources confirm that there's no more evidence than before.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/18/in-hunt-for-covids-origin-new-studies-point-away-from-lab-leak-theory</ref><ref>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/27/did-covid-come-from-a-wuhan-lab-what-we-know-so-far</ref> We can agree that the topic is notable and everyone is recently waiting for a US intelligence report. To those who complain that it wasn't covered, it was covered by two articles, [[COVID-19 misinformation]] and [[Investigations into the origin of COVID-19]] and per the above, are already a time sink for the community. Previous versions of [[COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis]] were unnecessary [[WP:POVFORK]]s, some were particularly bad with obvious source misrepresentation to promote a view as more plausible than the sources did.<ref>Example that I wrote about: [[Special:Diff/1006494442]]</ref> In that particular version were also shady primary papers published in dubious venues and pushed by editors with a conflict of interest.
This is my final statement on this matter, I will not be engaging with this process futher, I've spent far too much time on this arbitration already. I do request an additional 200 words (from my current 800 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1300894058]) because this arbitation has been unarchived and reopened and I need to express my complete opposition to this.
As a reminder, Wikipedia is not to promote, but to document with proper context and analysis using independent reliable sources (the claims are not recited, but are written about from an independent view, the goal is also not false balance and "letting the reader choose for themself"). Now if AfD passes, we'll have one more article on it, but that will fortunately no longer be a POVFORK after TNT and rewriting by non-SPAs (but may also turn out to be another time sink for the community).
{{reflist-talk}}
This case was previously archived without formal action. It was unarchived and reopened by an involved party, apparently due to dissatisfaction with the outcome. Reopening closed cases without new evidence or process error is against best practice (see [[WP:FORUMSHOP]], [[WP:GAME]]) and undermines procedural fairness. My understanding is that such actions should be taken only by uninvolved administrators for legitimate reasons. @{{u|GraziePrego}} is not an uninvolved party in this arbitration.
<h5>CutePeach</h5><!-- description list formatting converted to the not-appearing-in-the-TOC level 5 heading it practically resembled ~ToBeFree 2021-07-24 12:20 UTC -->
@{{u|Tamzin}} suggested a recent comment I made on another user's page was disruptive. The comment was made after this case was archived, and my intent was only to caution another editor to avoid the same difficulties I faced, not to canvass or disrupt. I now recognize such remarks could be misinterpreted and I will avoid them in the future.
Unlike Bakkster's entry about a specific event I have a more general [[WP:TE]] case to present. This editor appeared on 16 March 2021 with their first edits already focused on the topic. They were [[Special:Permalink/1012980554#Other_accounts?|suspected]] of being a campaign-sock (considering the others and SPA status), with the admission about Twitter we can AGF and suppose that it's more meatpuppetry. Still, it's a promotional account that appeared to know where to edit, seemed familiar with Wikipedia, uses a lot of [[WP:WL]], had a [[Special:Diff/1012779045|grudge]] about specific editors already, then kept trying to make Wikipedia present the hypothesis as plausible, with a battleground attitude.
I think the worst criticism of me is that I'm NOTHERE. I think this is completely wrong. This account is 19 years old, this isn't a new fly by account here to edit on one topic. I've made small edits on varying different topics, from cleaning up vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradford_City_A.F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=81496702] to adding new news [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Channel_Tunnel&diff=prev&oldid=237731086] to challenging incorrect facts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mont_Blanc_Tunnel_fire&diff=prev&oldid=999484394]. I've since made another unrelated edit after this arbitration was originally archived [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hereford_Sixth_Form_College&diff=prev&oldid=1305657777]
This includes the creation of an [[User:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK|essay]] to soapbox the idea, which they have promoted at talk pages like [[Special:Diff/1033242192|here]] (arguing about "proponents of NOLABLEAK" as if there was a valid equivalence, or that the others are also motivated activists, despite the efforts by several to use the best sources available like MEDRS where possible). That very post, among others, still argues to present individual opinions and accuses others of misrepresentation without evidence. More can be read [[Special:Permalink/1012775156|here]] where youtube videos are posted to suggest using one person's view.
So to accuse me of NOTHERE because of edits on talk pages about a contentious article is, in my opinion, disingenuous and casting aspersions on me for my reason for being here. People are also trying to criticise how half of my total edits are on the Graham Linehan talk page, I also think is disingenuous. I had proposed a change request and I obviously had to respond to people who were discussing that request. I've never been involved in a contentious discussion before, so it's clearly going to skew my stats. Pointing to this as evidence I'm only here for one thing, is trying to twist the narrative to get a result they want.
The particular version of the leak hypothesis article they [[Special:Diff/1034189301|recently restored]] had problems and included unreliable, deprecated sources and problems with balance. This edit cited a [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_June_7|deletion review]] but that was more about a potential draft. Fortunately, it was quickly rewritten by necessity per [[WP:TNT]]. They since complained about this rewrite and have tried to [[Special:Diff/1034502648|prevent]] the scientific consensus from being prominently mentioned (they {{diff||1018192380|1018190250|have known}} about this consensus before but IDHT and quote mining from specific articles is [[Special:Diff/1034907467|used]] to suggest it may not be true despite all the other sources that mention it in various ways).
People are trying to link me with a now banned editor, to try and make me look guilty by association. I reached out to this editor because we were arguing for the same changes to the article, and I reached out for advice and to help build a consensus as they appeared to be more knowledgeable about Wikipedia process. No, I hadn't studied their edits and realised they were relatively new editor when I spoke to them. Other involved editors also posted on the banned users talk page and no-one is criticising them for doing so. The other accusation I stand by, I do believe, fundamentally in all aspects of life that any accused person deserves a right of reply, even people who have committed the very worse of real life crimes, so the failure of Wikipedia to allow a user to have one is imo a failure of Wikipedia process. I never defended the user from the ban, just their right of reply.
They went on to accuse editors of being long term disruptive censorship activists ([[Special:Permalink/1034917571#Rewriting_COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis|permalink]]) (the latter also includes unrelated intervention and replies by someone else who also runs a website to promote it). I'm unsure, but since yesterday wondered if undisclosed COI is possible, so I left them a post explaining why there are areas I wouldn't edit myself.
As for editors speculating on what I '''might''' do as an attempt to push for a full Wikipedia ban, you cannot punish people for what they '''might''' do. The only controversial article I've edited is Graham Linehan and its talk page. Despite what other people have said I will probably do, in the 2 months since my request was rejected, I haven't edited any other page, I haven't edited other GENSEX articles, or any other “culture war” topics.
I'll stop with this for now but will quote some of what [[Special:Diff/1034922938|I wrote]] at their talk page [[Special:Diff/1034910323|when they accused]] me directly: "what is more plausible RGW activism, a new editor who's obvious goal is to push an idea since the beginning, or someone who edited hundreds of pages for years? Those are aspects that are easy to assess. My account was created pre-pandemic, was not a sleeping account and has never been blocked, this hopefully means something." I wasn't aware of the [[WP:POINT]]y redirects mentioned here, but that too is obviously tendentious... —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 02:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Then my stalking allegations. I stand by them, it was clear to me that GP was constantly appearing across 3 talk pages to respond to me when they hadn't been tagged [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HandThatFeeds&diff=prev&oldid=1290348015] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gazumpedheit&diff=prev&oldid=1290795322] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TarnishedPath&diff=prev&oldid=1291554802]. Once or twice could be a fluke, sure, but more, implies they were following me around. Since this arbitration even, GP has also made a number of edits on my talk page, despite me asking them to leave me alone ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icecold&diff=1307758259&oldid=1307621934], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icecold&diff=prev&oldid=1307566541], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icecold&diff=prev&oldid=1307566309], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icecold&diff=prev&oldid=1307565869]. The argument that GP may have other friendly editors on their watchlists falls apart when we consider user Gazumpedheit, whom GP clearly disliked. Editors are defending GP and saying it's not stalking, but if I had engaged in similar behaviour to GP, that these editors would be accusing me of stalking. I was accused of all sorts, such as bludgeoning, when all I was doing was responding to people's arguments against my request, which I feel as someone proposing a request I had a duty to do.
<h5>Replies</h5><!-- description list formatting converted to the not-appearing-in-the-TOC level 5 heading it practically resembled ~ToBeFree 2021-07-24 12:20 UTC -->
Ernie: And CONSENSUS on a case by case basis, of course, IRT what sources to use. As for the rest of your narrative, I'm not really surprised. The other editors here are also not the focus of this case... —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 03:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I also stand by my comment that at least one editor was editing based on personal feelings and not following the evidence [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&diff=prev&oldid=1290708077] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&diff=prev&oldid=1290695156]. If I had said something similar, it would have been brought up against me at this arbitration. That editor earlier got banned for admitting they were editing based on a personal feeling not based on the evidence. Reminding people of that editor's comment isn't a personal attack. I apologise for accusing others of arguing in bad faith, my biggest frustration was that I was asked to find various reputable sources to support my claim, I did so (finding more reputable sources for my claim than reputable sources on the article supporting the status quo), and then this was still denied. My proposed change also brought that article more in line with other equivalent articles that use my wording, so I was following precedent, but that was still denied. That says to me that the article wasn't being evidence-led, but guided by people's opinions, against wikipedia policy.
Colin: Yes I admit that when only uncriticial primary material exists it can result in a lack of full coverage of the claims (by policy too, to avoid undue promotion). —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 17:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I am now p-banned as a direct result of this arbitration being unarchived and reopened, after originally being closed with no action. Since a sanction has now been imposed in response to the reopened process, despite my record of voluntary disengagement and the fact that no action was taken when this case was originally closed. Given this I believe that further action would be unnecessary and disproportionate. I request that this arbitration now be closed (again), and not revived for a third time.
A general comment in relation to common claims of silencing the opponent, if that was the direction to head in, despite the evidence of promotional accounts, we would also be saying that Wikipedia is for free speech and soapboxing, that evading blocks, ignoring the TOS, sealioning are not a problem at all... I also have the impression that some editors suggesting it are not the ones who had to spend a lot of time dealing with it at those particular talk pages recently. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 18:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Off-topic, but replying to people on an arbitration from mobile is absolutely appalling and practially impossible.
HighInBC: I agree that ToBeFree's involvement has been administrative, there is no [[WP:INVOLVED]] content-oriented issue that I am aware of. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 13:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
{{hab}}
{{hat|Over-length statement as of 18 July <br>(when SeraphimBlade said "Further responses from you will be removed")}}
Firstly I'm quite suprised to have had this notification.
CutePeach: In relation to using ProcrastinatingReader as an example, [[Plain folks]] and [[Argumentum ad populum]] may matter. They're also not a SPA and this report is not about them, of course. Editors come from various backgrounds and have their own beliefs, the important is to ensure that the content in the encyclopedia, instead of reflecting those, reflects the conclusions of the majority of reliable sources on the topic. This is not a "pro-believer" witch hunt afterall... —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 14:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to answer each accusation each in turn.
Regarding [[Special:Permalink/1036221222#My_AE|this]], it's concerning, although not very surprising, to see evidence of waging this anti-WP/mainstream campaign off-WP... —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 07:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
> Jul 16 2025 [47] Accuses other editors of being activist editors
====Statement by Colin====
I have attempted to mediate on a couple of Covid19 articles, where I have seen problematic editing, mindsets and a lack of desire to seek consensus. I don't think I've been successful to any significant degree. While I may personally attribute that to the stubbornness of those involved on all sides, it may also be my failure. IMO there are flaws with editors/editing on all sides but we're here to discuss CutePeach, not to fire off "but you smell too" cheap arguments.
> Jul 1 2025 [49] Accuses editors of prioritizing their own feelings over “facts” because consensus didn’t go his way.
CutePeach in particular is overwhelming talk pages with soapboaxing. And while all editors have at times falling into the trap of trying to argue the science from primary sources, CutePeach is particularly prone to simply arguing what they feel is "the science" with other editors, rather than proposing (or writing) text and backing that up with reliable secondary sources. Edits to articles (such as those few listed at the very top here) fall into the style we often see on bad controversy topics, where editors attempt to argue the case in front of the readers. The first link is a particularly egregious example: "SARS-COV-2 was well adapted for human transmission from its early emergence...co authored a paper which included claims of possible genetic engineering, which they submitted to a journal, and were edited out in the peer review process". This hints to the readers that some scientists think covid was genetically engineered to be well adapted for human transmission, and at the same time hints at some conspiracy to cover it up. Both claims are outstanding and The World Should Know!
I'm going to answer these both together. I've had editors openly admit that they are editing based on their own feelings:
Despite the RFCs about MEDRS, there remains a lot of misinformation. Let's be clear. A claim on Wikipedia that covid was genetically engineered requires an academic secondary source of the first order, not some Norwegian "bourgeois magazine". The other two sources paywalled, hmm. We need to be extremely careful when discussing scientific controversy that it doesn't just become a mechanism for agenda editing to mislead. While I agree with DGG that at times editors have sought the "Wikipedia should say nothing" approach, which just leads to frustration and doesn't serve our readers, we also need to prevent Wikipedia becoming the Dail Mail, where any contentious or dubious statement by some scientists somewhere is offered credulously to our readers.
"Yes, I'm biased against bigots. You'll find that's normal."
I entirely disagree with DGG's assessment that this AE is just a game play to remove an opponent. Cutepeach is an editor who's account has always been solely focussed on promoting the lab leak hypothesis on Wikipedia, and despite lots of editors attempting to explain how Wikipedia works, they aren't getting it. Cutepeach's talk page discussions belong on a social media forum and article writing belongs on a personal blog. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 10:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&diff=prev&oldid=1290708077
"Yes, I am absolutely taking a moral view, because I don't like bigotry. There is nothing "blinding" me, but I'm not going to bend to the whims of transphobes."
ProcrastinatingReader: Both you and DGG make arguments that view Cutepeach as a pawn in a game, or fighter in a battle for NPOV. DGG's claim (about removing an opponent) could be made about nearly all disputes where editors argue for sanctions, and is unprovable without some kind of editor-thought-MRI-scanner technology. You argue that Cutepeach's extreme position is a necessary balance for other editors with different views, view which you frame as pro-lab-leak and vice-versa, as though there are only two sides. The BBC once made that mistake, thinking "balance" on topics like global warming or MMR meant that for every expert you interviewed, you had to have some weirdo too. They eventually saw sense on that. NPOV isn't about balance as though there are two sides to every argument. There are many sides and but often one side is noisier than is warranted by their acceptance among reliable sources. [[WP:NPOV ]]is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, '''without editorial bias''', all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (my bold) A SPA editor who has a clear editorial bias, is pushing a minority and political agenda, and who after months of advice is still (a) pushing their agenda in articles with bad sources and (b) trying to convince others about the "science" with walls of text (see their talk 15:56 24th), is not helping NPOV at all. I suggest instead that editors tend more to take extreme "not give an inch" positions when there is persistent agenda-editing pushing a minority POV. The walls of argument on talk is also off-putting to other editors who may take a more unbiased view. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 10:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&diff=prev&oldid=1290695156
So the accusation that I've made is justified when I've had people actively tell me this. I also think that the very existance of this arbitaration to try and shut me down because I'm disagreeing with the editors that hang around that page kinda confirms my point.
[[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]], wrt claims about genetic engineered Covid. Read what I said carefully. I'm not going to get into a covid argument on this page. But, Trump, yes, that's a big news story about "what Trump said / reaction". Random scientist making similar claim, no. That's a well tried POV pushing tactic and there are "scientists" and "doctors" who believe and say just about anything if you google hard enough. If you still aren't sure, feel free to ask at [[WT:MED]]. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 11:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
> Jul 16 2025 [48] Accuses editors of gaslighting because a consensus didn’t go his way
My very best wishes (again), arguments about sourcing rules wrt covid are an endless meta distraction, and I don't understand why you think an AE request on another user is the place to discuss your personal opinion, which disagrees with core policy. Again, if you wish to know better why you are wrong, and specifically wrong about the RFC, please ask at [[WP:MED]]. Please try to stay focused on the topic here. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
No, i'm accusing someone of gaslighting by saying to a editor that they just need to find reputable sources and they can then get the page changed, because thats what I was told to do, I found these reputable sources (which outnumbered the existing reputable sources that countered it), and then was told my reputable sources didn't matter because editors that follow their own moral compass have already decided what to do.
====Statement by ProcrastinatingReader====
At this point I've reported several users who happen to have pro-lab-leak editing philosophies and none vice versa. The former group has historically been substantially more disruptive, although currently I think the latter is probably more of a problem, and better at it too since they tend to be more experienced users. It really isn't that difficult to edit neutrally, and just sum up reliable sources without bringing in your own personal philosophy on the issue and let the sources speak for themselves. Over half of the regulars in this topic area seem incapable of doing that, though. The behavioural issues stem as a result. Let's be realistic, nobody in 'the other group' will be sanctioned. I think that's relevant here because if you remove every editor on one side of the issue I don't know how we can reach NPOV in this topic area.
> 22 May 2025 [50] Aspersions against pretty m>uch every editor that disagreed with him in consensus, among other things accusing other editors of “stalking”
CutePeach is certainly a single purpose account.[https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/CutePeach] Several of their comments have no basis in policy. They also make some where they are right. I don't think they are a net negative in this topic area at this time. Their volume of commentary is also not so great such that they're an undue burden on others' time. CutePeach has, in some cases, exercised with restraint, such as when their "COVID-19 cover-up" article was draftified; policy allows them to move it back and force others to hold a deletion discussion, although they chose not to do that, presumably believing it would be more collaborative not to. Personally, I think we need to put an end to the seeking of non-standard venues for discussions in this topic area, and that starts with no more damn MFDs, no more attempts to avoid building consensus in this topic area, and no more ignoring the outcomes of consensus discussions. The path to a stable article that follows our policies, if not through self-reflection, is through discussion. The most corrosive type of editor, thus, is one that is a hurdle in allowing those discussions to take place properly (through bludgeoning, for example, or through persistent long rambling arguments and derailing of discussions). CutePeach, in my experience and ''at this time'', does not tick those boxes. As such, I don't see how the topic area is helped by sanctioning them. I think CutePeach's voice is necessary to reach NPOV in the topic area. My main concern is their misuse of primary sources, but I think that's something they can work on.
> 22 May 2025 [54] Aspersions
+1 to DGG's {{tq|During a subject dispute, more experienced editors [try] to push their less experienced opponents into doing something unreasonable, so one can then remove them on behavioral grounds. AE is a particularly effective place for the purpose.}} Similarly, I wonder whether the 'opportunity to provide a statement' is just a trick, because almost anything an inexperienced editor will say in these circumstances will only make their case worse. But not responding can also be used against them, which makes it a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 10:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
GraziePrego appeared to be stalking me. The full history of what happened is on my talk page, but as a quick summary. If I went to an editors (not GraziePregos) user page to ask a question of the editor, without being tagged GraziePrego would turn up and start getting involved in the discussion. This happened across 2 or 3 different editors talk pages. It felt like my contribution log was being monitored by GraziePrego and then they were jumping in and getting involved in everywhere I posted.
*{{re|Colin}} CutePeach is not a pawn or a fighter. I mean exactly what I said, the general point that it's effective to remove ideological opponents in this manner and AE admins need to, as always, scrutinise the evidence carefully and not just rely on the volume of editors supporting removing the editor. I haven't reviewed all the diffs, but I do think a couple of the ones I did are not fair representations of the situation, but there are also others that can be found that are more damning, so that's neither here nor there.{{pb}}It's not that CutePeach himself/herself is necessary for NPOV, it's that at the present time only so many editors are active in this topic area, and almost every editor with an 'anti-lab-leak' view (to the best of my knowledge) has never/rarely added any reliably sourced content that contradicts their personal philosophy, and vice versa. There is absolutely reliably sourced encyclopaedic content that falls into that basket and can/should be added. The issue of SPAs has decreased compared to earlier this year, likely due to ECP and months of administrative action making clear that such disruption isn't tolerable, and as such I'm less concerned about minor annoyances from time to time. The main question for me is whether CutePeach's continued presence will lead to a better article, and at this time I personally think it will. This isn't an endorsement of all of their current behaviour, however I'm optimistic this AE will provide useful feedback to help them decrease the portions of their editing that are less productive, and perhaps they can provide such assurances. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 10:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
*{{re|wbm1058}} At the time ToBeFree was the only really active admin in the area, taking over from El C prior. If a user is making a complaint about conduct issues in the topic area, as CutePeach is in that diff, it was pretty normal to ping ToBeFree to look into it, since other admins didn't really care to intervene. I suspect CutePeach found ToBeFree's name any number of places, such as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive330#Lab_leak_COVID_conspiracy_theory,_again preceding AN thread], or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=protect&page=COVID-19+misinformation the protection log] of the page they were commenting on, which had ToBeFree as the most recent protecting admin at the time. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 23:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
*In a recent ArbCom case about an admin user, they were given the opportunity to defer discussion of their behaviour for '''three months''' (6 arbs supported one year!). Here we are lighting a fire under a non-admin user's ass to reply within one week, and consider that {{tq|more than enough time}}. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 08:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
*I dunno, having skimmed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CutePeach&diff=1036448687&oldid=1036447976 this statement] from CutePeach I think there may be no choice but to TBAN. Perhaps my optimism is misplaced for the time being. I think it's just frustration, however, it doesn't indicate that there will be a change of behaviour, but rather indicates that disruption will continue if no action is taken, and possibly get worse. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 20:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I also was good enough to drop the matter and not persue it at arbitration, something that has clearly ironically been used against me now.
====Statement by Sgnpkd====
I have been on wiki for more than ten years but this is my first time posting here. I personally think the amount of persistent hostilities from RandomCanadian and Shibolethink towards an editor who have opposing view is alarming. CutePeach might try to push an idea here but one also cannot help seeing a pattern as if there is a single purpose tendency to reject all other opinions added to these articles, and to censor even factual events. It is observed that users who made construtive updates to these articles, fully backed with reliable sources, usually have their edits reverted, redacted, even got the individual wordings changed or twisted to change the meaning towards a certain view. The fact that the adminitrators are not aware of this is concerning. I would support per [[WP:BOOMERANG]] for filing a case for "offences" that Mr Ernie has pointed out above, ie. the same thing that CutePeach was accused of. The users I mentioned who have posted here should also be scrutinised for [[WP:SEALION]]. [[User:Sgnpkd|Sgnpkd]] ([[User talk:Sgnpkd|talk]]) 18:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
> 22 May 2025 [51] Personal attacks
====Statement by 力====
We seem to be waiting, though I'm not sure why. Two facts seem fairly clear.
# CutePeach is an SPA who is fairly new to the project.
# CutePeach has made several technical violations regarding sourcing guidelines and not waiting for consensus for controversial edits.
I had just been accused of taking wikipedia too seriously with an accusation that I was "making a frightful exhibition of yourself." I just pointed out that it seems a bit rich to accuse me of taking wikipedia so seriously when they are a such a prolific editor, and dare say take wikipedia much more seriously than I do. But if that counts as a personal attack, I apologise.
Beyond that, the diffs from Shibbolethink and Bakkster Man do not convince me that a block or topic-ban is necessary. Many of their diffs are simply opinions they don't like; the sea of all-caps policy links that are claimed to be violated are not actually violated. The accusations that they are promoting FRINGE views are particularly cynical; the pro-lab-leak views are considered fringe for no apparent reason other than that a few editors don't like them. If the US government, the head of the WHO, various pundits, and half the US public feel a lab leak is possible, it is surely not FRINGE to suggest as much.
> 22 May 2025 [52] ABF, personal attacks
I'm not as familiar with CutePeach, but have interacted with several of the "anti-lab-leak" editors who have commented here, and largely agree with DGG's view on them. That said, the behavior of other editors is off-topic here; either a new ARE or a request for a full ARBCOM case would be the place to discuss their behavior. [[User:力]] (power~enwiki, [[User talk:力|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/力|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 18:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
: I must note that two concerning diffs from today, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1035440468 one with canvassing] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1035435158 one with a ham-fisted threat], are better evidence than anything I saw earlier that CutePeach will continue to engage in problematic behavior. [[User:力]] (power~enwiki, [[User talk:力|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/力|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 19:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
: {{re|ToBeFree}} I completely agree that it would be for the best if CutePeach were to edit primarily in some other topic areas until they were more familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However, that is not the threshold to justify a TBAN. (Well, it's not my threshold; I suppose with Discretionary Sanctions it could be some admin's threshold.) From experience, I expect that this "case" will be held open until CutePeach demonstrates through their edits over the next week that they can edit constructively in the area going forward (specifically without personal attacks, edit wars, use of low-quality sources, etc.), or that they cannot. [[User:力]] (power~enwiki, [[User talk:力|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/力|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 00:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
: Admin {{u|ToBeFree}} is not a virgin to the COVID-19 topic area, but I don't see evidence they are so [[WP:INVOLVED]] regarding CutePeach to require them to not be in the "uninvolved admin" section. [[User:力]] (power~enwiki, [[User talk:力|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/力|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 03:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
: {{re|CutePeach}} regardless of what any admin has said or not said, you cannot expect to have these proceedings to be held on pause for weeks while you continue to edit in the topic area. The hold on judgment was merely a courtesy while you were not active; if you are active enough to edit in the topic area you are active enough to respond here. [[User:力]] (power~enwiki, [[User talk:力|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/力|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 04:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
====Statement by The Four Deuces====
I don't see any violation. CutePeach added to an article about the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis that a group of scientists from the [[Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard University]] wrote a paper defending the hypothesis, which was rejected. When another editor removed it, they reverted. This information is arguably relevant since the paper received coverage in popular media. [[WP:FRINGE]] does allow some mention of fringe theories provided they are noteworthy and the degree of their acceptance is explained. This type of dispute should be resolved on article talk pages. If an editor is outnumbered then it should be dealt with as edit-warring. But one revert doesn't amount to that. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 17:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Thats the same example as the previous one, so I'm not sure what your point is there
====Statement by Forich====
I oppose using preprints in articles related to COVID-19 origin, specially in light of [[Wikipedia:General_sanctions/COVID-19#Application_notes]]. However, I've noticed that this sanction guideline requires update because many editors (including top anti-lab leak editor RandomCanadian) are starting to be more lax with the grey area of what requires MEDRS and what doesn't. If virologists weren't so afraid to touch the subject we all would had many secondary reviews by now directly citing the lab leak and none of this Wikipedia drama will be happening, its a shame. I encourage CutePeach to i) not use preprints; ii) in the grey area case that the preprint gets cited in many other RS, seek consensus first in Talk pages before including any mention of a preprint, however tangential. Finally, I concur with DGG who observed how a group of experienced editors are setting traps to the new ones, so that they bite and end up topic banned. Don't the prey editors have nothing better to do with their time? Sigh [[User:Forich|Forich]] ([[User talk:Forich|talk]]) 18:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
> 22 May 2025 [53] Personal attacks
====Statement by JPxG====
I saw this from the [[WP:DASHBOARD|dashboard]], and have been away for a few days, so I am writing this long after every smart thing has been said by someone else. Broadly, I agree with the points mady by Atsme, DGG, Nil Einne, My very best wishes, ProcrastinatingReader and 力. I have been, against my better judgment, following the lab leak saga on Wikipedia for a number of months. It has been nasty, dumb, convoluted and overall unpleasant; there have been a neverending slew of disputes and proxy disputes carried out in a variety of different venues. In a recent AfD, off the top of my head I could recall {{tq|an AN/I argument, a RSN argument, an ArbCom case, a huge argument at WT:BIOMED, more AN/I arguments, a throwdown at WT:MEDRS, more MfDs for tangentially related pages, MfDs for userspace essays agreeing with one of the sides of the argument}}; since then there's been even more sewage about the lab leak. More or less every editor who has made a statement endorsing a topic ban has been vocally involved in these discussions, with opinions on the side that the lab leak hypothesis should not be covered in Wikipedia. I'm not making a ''tu quoque'' argument; CutePeach has definitely been a little irritating from time to time, and has advanced arguments that didn't make a lot of sense. That said, they seem to be a new editor, and have made some pretty expectable oopsies in the course of editing. Who cares? Hell, if they didn't, they would probably be accused of [[WP:PRECOCIOUS|being a precocious sockpuppet]]. As DGG has explained, this is a political issue, and a content issue. There is no reason to consider it inherently disruptive to write articles about the lab leak hypothesis, or to argue that said articles should be kept (especially when the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis|AfD for said article closed three days ago as "keep"]]). If we're going to start issuing sanctions on the sole basis of someone being strongly opinionated and having said something dumb in a COVID argument, I don't know who will be left to edit COVID articles. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 02:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Not a personal attack, I was disagreeing with their editing, made no personal references at all.
====Statement by Levivich====
{{yo|ToBeFree}} I'm not understanding how that block was within policy. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 16:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
:And I noticed you reverted their recent contribs. Add me to the list of editors asking you to reconsider how you are administrating in this topic area. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 17:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
> 22 May 2025 [55] Admits to using LLM for his text while attacking other editors
I don't agree with how you've handled this, TBF, and I'd ask you not to repeat this in the future. Meaning, if someone is reported here, do not tell them not to edit in the topic area (or not to edit an article) while this is pending; we don't have "pre-trial probation" or "restraining orders" like that as part of our policies/guidelines/norms. If you want to do a unilateral DS TBAN, then do it (and take all the ADMINACCT that comes with it). If you ''don't'' want to do that, then don't tell editors not to edit in a topic area pending a decision. Because what you did was to effectively TBAN them by telling them not to edit the article. Additionally, they complied with your request (they didn't edit the article), but then when they made related talk page edits, you enforced your TBAN with a block. Again, this is ''before'' a TBAN was actually implemented and logged. I don't think that's kosher. Either TBAN the editor, and if they're not TBANed, don't block them for violating a TBAN-that's-coming. It's not how the block tool is supposed to be used. (Same with reverting their edits.) [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 19:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Using an LLM isn't against the rules, and I haven't done it since people complained. The reference to attacking other editors is a direct reference to ref 49 which I've tackled there.
===Result concerning CutePeach===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I'm primarily waiting for {{u|CutePeach}}'s statement, as the diffs above ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034549899&oldid=1034548193&diffmode=source] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034706963&oldid=1034661022&diffmode=source] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1034900923&oldid=1034835417&diffmode=source]) seem to show a case of [[WP:EW|edit warring]] disputed content back into the article without having gained consensus for doing so on the talk page, as would have been required per [[WP:ONUS]]. I expect {{u|CutePeach}} to respond here and wait for a result before continuing to edit the article in question, [[COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis]]. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 16:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
**{{u|RandomCanadian}}, as annoyingly unnecessary as that may seem to be, please provide specific diffs especially for intra-wiki conspiracy accusations, the previous warning and the "actions on articles". At the moment, the actual presented evidence at most justifies a partial block from editing the article (and perhaps its talk page as a kind of "topic block") for two weeks or so. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 17:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
**{{u|Francesco espo}} has been blocked for 72 hours following incivility on this arbitration page after a warning for personal attacks ([[Special:Diff/1034829179]]; [[Special:Permalink/1034972247#July_2021]]). [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 22:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
**Regarding the length of the diff list, I personally don't object. Interestingly, the notice at the top says "except by permission of a reviewing administrator", so I guess here it is. {{u|CutePeach}} is similarly welcome to use up to 1500 words. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 22:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
**I'm fine with waiting for a statement from CutePeach, even for a week or two, as long as they do not continue to edit in the discussed areas in the meantime. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 12:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
**{{u|Mr Ernie}}, regarding the question about comments in two sections and involvement: I didn't clerk at this noticeboard before, so I first assumed everyone including reviewers makes a comment in their section, and at the end the result appears in the section "Result". My first comment in this section here was consequently result-related. I then figured that further reviewing notes could better be added here as well. There is no review-disqualifying involvement, but I've been mediating disputes in this area multiple times (see also [[WP:ARBCOVID]]) and people used pings, and even discussions on my talk page with each other, to request my attention to several disputes. As I've been repeatedly asked for help from all sides of the conflict, I'm here. I guess this started with my page protections in this area. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 18:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
**{{u|ProcrastinatingReader}}, I'd say the legitimacy of any conclusion in such a discussion, and its defensibility against later concerns from any party, strongly depends on accused parties' ability to provide a statement in their own defense. It's okay if this opportunity is declined by an accused person for whatever reason, but it would be unjust not to have seriously, honestly offered enough time to provide such a statement. I understand the concern that such a statement <em>can</em> make one's situation worse than it was, but if it does, it would do so by revealing issues that exist, and have to be taken into account, independently of the statement. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 18:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
**CutePeach to Shibbolethink, [[Special:Diff/1035435158]]: ''"I strongly <mark>urge you withdraw your participation in WP:AE</mark> before I get around to making my statement, otherwise it may result in a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] for you, which is not what I want."'' – Interesting approach... [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 17:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
**With {{u|CutePeach}} continuing to edit in the area ([[Special:Diff/1035440468]]), I'll not longer wait for an extension of their AE statement before proposing a decision. I'll re-review the evidence as it stands now. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 18:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
**After reading through the entire evidence provided, even when completely disregarding any AE-related concerns, my conclusion is: {{u|CutePeach}} has been editing in good faith. Their first contribution was [[Special:Diff/1012465527]], at [[Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19]], without a signature. Before signing their first message on Wikipedia, they had already jumped into a talk discussion about a highly controversial topic. They continued to edit in the area with good intentions, provided detailed reasoning for their positions and attempted to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics in the area. In their pursuit for improving Wikipedia's encyclopedic quality, they overstepped, repeatedly (cf. evidence sections of {{u|Bakkster Man}}, {{u|Shibbolethink}} and {{u|Novem Linguae}}). I mostly agree with {{u|力}}'s assessment and believe I understand {{u|DGG}}'s concerns. Especially in highly controversial areas under discretionary sanctions, however, editing in good faith is not sufficient by itself. Persistently pushing one's point of view, incivilly so ({{u|Shibbolethink}}'s section), to the point of edit warring in articles and in disregard of the verifiability policy ([[WP:ONUS]], {{u|Bakkster Man}}'s section) is [[WP:DE|disruptive]] even when done in good faith. {{u|CutePeach}}'s behavior discourages policy-compliant editing by other users by exhausting their patience (see also: [[Special:Diff/1026476170]] at [[WP:RSN]], part of {{u|Shibbolethink}}'s 20th diff, and the userspace point in {{u|Novem Linguae}}'s section). Not taking long-term preventative action against this frustrating behavior would likely have two effects: Further disruption from the reported editor without hope for later administrative assistance ({{u|RandomCanadian}}'s "then I don't think there will ever be enough" concern), and sending a problematic signal about a lack of policy enforcement even when users take the time to file a detailed, well-reasoned [[WP:AE]] request with ample evidence of disruption. This is the point where either we take proper action or those annoyed by the unsanctioned behavior leave the area. It's a volunteer project, and there is a real risk of losing policy-abiding contributors if ignoring policies benefits the editor who ignores them. It would likely be beneficial to {{u|CutePeach}} and all other involved editors if the reported user moved their participation to uncontroversial topics they don't have strong opinions about, and thus don't misuse as a battleground. For this reason, I propose to indefinitely [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] {{u|CutePeach}} from [[WP:COVIDDS|all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed]]. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 00:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
**Okay, that's what you get for waiting. I have blocked {{u|CutePeach}} for 24 hours; the block may be removed by anyone implementing a topic ban. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 05:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
***For those seriously concerned about the block: There is a consensus for a topic ban here, and by the nature of discretionary sanctions, any uninvolved administrator can implement it. I would have done so, others would have done so, but we chose to wait for a statement before making this decision. When I woke up this morning, I noticed that CutePeach was actively publishing what seems to have been a series of prepared edits to multiple article talk pages, to a draft and to a mainspace article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CutePeach?offset=20210802060000&limit=13]), and the last edit was "4 minutes ago". CutePeach was clearly gaming the system by making these edits while it was very likely that they would be topic-banned. They believed that this would be the inevitable result, as they have described in a rather disturbing way in [[Special:Diff/1036451147]], which includes the statement ''"it's clear as day that I’m getting TBANNED no matter what I say, so the only thing that should matter is what impact my last words have"''. If an editor, with this in mind, throws as many edits into the topic area as possible before being blocked or banned, then they are already expecting what I have temporarily implemented, for exactly the reasons I have implemented it: Preventing further disruption while it was happening. [[WP:BMB|Bans apply to all editing, good or bad]]. The only reason I haven't simply implemented a topic ban instead is that, either immediately or after a while, an unban discussion would be tainted by strawman arguments attempting to discredit my neutrality and lack of involvement in this topic area. There are enough other administrators who have come to the same conclusion, before and after me, independently of me, and I'd prefer one of them to implement the ban, so that any unban discussion focuses on the actual issues that led to the ban. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 19:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
*{{u|CutePeach}} I hate to ping you again as it appears you've been pinged here multiple times, but I'm concerned that you've been editing and haven't come in here yet. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
*:@[[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]], you're welcome to take as much time as you need (within reason) to respond; continuing to edit while not at least coming in here to say you needed that time was the problem. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
*::@[[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]], sorry, busy period for me, I thought I'd answered. There's no particular urgency, we just while this is open (and taking up other editors' time/energy/attention) would prefer to see you spending your available time working on your response here rather than other enwiki things. Some AE requests are closed in a couple of hours, some take weeks. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]], CP did ask if they could have until Monday as they typically have more time on the weekend. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Francesco espo|Francesco espo]], [[Illegitimi non carborundum|Don't let the bastards get you down]] is often used to refer to the general tedium of everyday interpersonal frustrations. I do not think anyone was actually calling anyone else a bastard, either literally or simply pejoratively. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
*::::::@[[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]], {{xt|advising me to voluntarily step away, saying also that any explanation of events preceding this case wouldn’t help either.}} isn't quite correct. It might have helped if you hadn't been behaving badly. If it weren't for the behavior issues, we probably wouldn't be here. The problem is the behavior, not the argument itself. @[[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree]], was a 24-hour block really needed while this is still open? You didn't specify a reason for it...what was it to prevent? [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 16:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
*I know it is generally a good idea to wait for the subject of an enforcement request to comment, however I believe they have been given ample time. They are certainly aware of the request and have carried on editing without taking advantage of the opportunity to post here. I think it is reasonable to continue without their input.{{pb}}I believe the diffs provided by [[User:Shibbolethink]] demonstrate a pattern of disruptive activity in the topic that violates multiple policies and expected behaviors of editors working in contentious areas. I also think it is sinking an undue amount of time from editors responding in good faith to them. I feel an indefinite ban for CutePeach from the topic of COVID is justified. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''[[User talk:HighInBC|Just ask.]]'''</sup></small></small> 02:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
*:Response to CutePeach: I am happy to wait for your response. I am also happy to reconsider my current position if anything new is added here that puts it in a new light. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''[[User talk:HighInBC|Just ask.]]'''</sup></small></small> 03:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
*Oh lableak, what problems thou dost cause...can anyone point me towards what the current consensus on covering it is? Or provide the key RfC's on the matter? It seems this dispute is emblematic of a deeper issue that lacks appropriate guidance.
:To the issue at hand, {{ping|Cute Peach}} I very highly recommend you say something in your defense, though you are of course not required. But I can't imagine it going well if you continue to ignore this thread. [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 02:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
::{{Ping|CutePeach}} bugger, autocorrect "fixed" the spelling of your name...the travails of tech. [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 02:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
:::I was initially sympathetic to Peach but am decidedly less than impressed by what appears to be their [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality and [[WP:CANVASSING]]. I think a warning to tone it down is certainly warranted. [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 19:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
*As an aside: turning point? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/23/china-is-stepping-up-its-deception-denial-investigations-covid-19/ [[User:El_C|El_C]] 07:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
:*{{u|Bakkster Man}}, more on that here: [[User_talk:El_C#WaPo_op-eds]]. But briefly, I suppose I felt that the potential revelations on the matter by the editorial board of one of the US' [[Newspaper of record]] yesterday was worthy of an aside... [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
::*Echoing [[User:HighInBC|HighInBC]], {{u|CutePeach}}, it's reasonable for a subject of a complaint to ask for more time. These requests rarely get declined here, where complaints often take weeks to resolve. But, continuing to edit the contested area ''while'' that request for more time is still ongoing — that, in my view, shows to contempt for the process. Note: I have not read 90 percent of this report (long!), so I'd point out the otherwise general isolation of my observation/echo. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
:::*Following up further on that: no, [[User:Wbm1058|Wbm1058]], it isn't about rules-lawyering mainspace edits, it's about time being allotted and time being devoted for expressed purposes. That's it. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
::::*{{u|CutePeach}}, I'm with [[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree]] in that a week or two extension would be fine with me. Personally, I'd probably need that long to review this lengthy complaint, anyway. Anyway anyway, I'm glad that you'd be devoting your requested time extension toward the... well, requested time extension, because doing other wiki-stuff during which without a good reason is just poor decorum. That [[User:Wbm1058|Wbm1058]] continues to rules-lawyer skirt that point is disappointing, but I don't see the need to press the matter further beyond noting it again. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 18:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::*Haha, [[User:Bishonen|Bish]], you're so gonna get [[WP:JIMBO]]'d! You'll definitely need a good LAWLyer. We'll be awaiting your call from wikijail. At least you'll get a chance to work on your (manly) muscles. You be ripped! [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
*I support an indefinite topic ban from COVID 19 for CutePeach, in particular per {{u|Shibbolethink}}'s diffs and {{u|Colin}}'s incisive comments. Since CutePeach has asked for more time, I'm of course prepared to potentially reconsider in light of what they say later. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 11:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC).
:*Comment to {{u|Francesco espo}} re {{tq|"We are not surprised that {{u|Bishonen}} votes the way he does after he called us 'bastards' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RandomCanadian#Don't_let_the_bastards_grind_you_down]"}}: LOL. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 08:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC).
*I'm currently reviewing this AE request and expect to weigh in at some point. Noting I've observed that CutePeach is still as of today working on responses, I discourage others from rushing to judgement. – [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 19:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
**{{ping|ToBeFree}} "{{tq|I'm fine with waiting for a statement from CutePeach, even for a week or two, as long as they do not continue to edit in the discussed areas in the meantime.}}" – I took that to mean editing in mainspace. CP hasn't edited in mainspace since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=CutePeach&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions 17:01, 23 July 2021] which is before your statement of 12:24, 24 July 2021. If you expected CP to stop participating in all other discussions, you should have been more specific. Your allowing others over 500 words is making it harder for me to digest everything, and I imagine placing more burden on CP to read and respond to everything. – [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 01:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
**{{U|ToBeFree}} made the [[special:diff/1012771381|second-ever edit]] to CutePeach talk, placing two alerts (for general & discretionary sanctions). At the time, CP had only made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20210318065000&limit=20&target=CutePeach&namespace=all 15 edits over less than two days]. This indicates to me that TBF closely monitors this topic area. Whether that makes them involved?, hmm. Noting that the third CP-talk edit asked whether CP had edited under other accounts, I'm wondering if this is the typical way we greet new editors in this topic area (if you're sock hunting, look for someone fluent in Filipino). – [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 03:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
***One of those 15 edits ([[special:diff/1012740129|this edit]]) "tagged" {{u|ToBeFree}}). Looking at the archived discussion ([[Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 8#Split the "Wuhan lab leak story" section into: "accidental leak" and "engineered as a bio-weapon"|Split the "Wuhan lab leak story" section into: "accidental leak" and "engineered as a bio-weapon"]] I see two such tags but no response on that page. It was soon after this "tagging" that ToBeFree posted the two alerts. I'm not following why this new editor would be "tagging" someone they apparently had no previous interactions with. What am I missing? [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 22:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
****[[special:diff/1035655581|Thanks]], {{U|ProcrastinatingReader}}. Since {{U|ToBeFree}} indefinitely extended-confirmed protected [[COVID-19 misinformation]] on 13 February 2021, effectively locking the page for this new editor, {{U|CutePeach}} would have seen ToBeFree in the protection message upon an edit-attempt. Yes, I agree this was a complaint about conduct issues in the topic area, specifically alleging that {{U|Alexbrn}} characterizing CP's statement as "nonsensical raving" was a personal attack. As an administrator, I would respond to such a ping, at least to let the editor know whether I agreed with the allegation or not. I'm concerned about ToBeFree's neutrality as they did not respond to CP's ping with their view of the allegation when posting the sanctions alert, and still didn't respond after a second ping. – [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 15:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
****I see I'm not the first to raise concerns about administrative neutrality. See [[User talk:ToBeFree/A/3#Grievances and questions|Grievances and questions]]. – [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 16:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
**{{ping|CutePeach}} Unlike regular arbitration cases which set deadlines for evidence submission, I don't see any guidance here for that. However, since it seems the admin consensus here is to ''de facto'' temporarily ban you from posting anywhere on Wikipedia other than this page or your user space for the purpose of drafting edits to this page (think of this as some sort of "restraining order"), essentially preemptively implementing the topic ban called for by some here, I don't see any problem with allowing you until Monday August 2 to respond, which allows you another weekend. That also gives me more time to review evidence. – [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 17:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
**Debunking the assertions above that CutePeach is a single-purpose account (to the extent that the [[WP:SPA]] essay may be relevant). [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/CutePeach Top two articles by edit count] are [[List of Filipino singers]] and [[List of Philippine-based music groups]]. – [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 21:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
*I would support an indef topic ban from COVID-19 per Shibbolethink's diffs. This looks like classic disruptive POV-pushing and I don't see why other editors in the topic area should have to deal with it. CutePeach has had ample opportunity to respond here, the request was filed three days ago and they've made numerous edits to Wikipedia in that time, including leaving lengthy comments in COVID-19 discussions, essentially threatening Shibbolethink for participating in this request [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CutePeach&diff=prev&oldid=1035435158] and canvassing people to take part in this discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeralOink&diff=prev&oldid=1035259451][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KristinaLu&diff=prev&oldid=1035259149]. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#b50000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 20:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
:*Monitoring a contentious topic area and giving discretionary sanction notices when appropriate certainly doesn't make an admin [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]]. The arguments to the contrary are not at all convincing. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#b50000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 18:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
::*I can't say I'm impressed with the statement provided above. Rather than dealing with CutePeach's eediting or rebutting the evidence it focuses on criticising other people and the admins reviewing the case. CutePeach opted not to post a statement here for well over a week despite actively editing the topic area, given that they can hardly complain if people post comments without reading their statement. Like the other admins here I did read the evidence submitted, apparently the fact I didn't link to any of it means I didn't read it. It isn't the role of admins to decide how sourcing policies and guidelines should be applied to the topic area, not is that ArbCom's role. That is decided through the consensus of editors. I suggest CutePeach try editing some other topic area (preferably not something as heated) and try to build some editing experience that way. Most of their edits relate to the COVID-19 lab leak theory and that's not a great topic for a new editor to start with. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#b50000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 08:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
*I support [[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree]]'s proposal for a broadly construed COVID topic ban of CutePeach. Yes, they are editing in good faith, but so is everyone else. I have tried to extract meaning from CP's posts on a couple of related talk pages but all I can see are repeated blue links with assertions that there is an NPOV problem (presumably there is something clearer that I've missed—my point is that CP is clogging talk with unclear objections). At some stage, discussions have to focus an concrete proposals to add/remove/change text in the article and move on if there is insufficient consensus/RfC. Either there is a reliable source supporting what ever CP's position is, or there isn't. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 03:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
**{{u|Wbm1058}} "{{tq|Whether that makes them involved?}}"—no, of course it doesn't. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 03:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
**Thanks for your concern {{u|Francesco espo}} but that is not how arbitration enforcement works. I could close this myself, and may well do so in the next couple of days if it's still open. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 00:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
* In response to Wbm1058, I don't see ToBeFree as involved. Our policy specifically states at acting solely in an administrative capacity in a topic does not make one involved. It is normal to give out DS warnings to new editors in contentious areas if there is the slightest hint of problematic editing.{{pb}} In response to CutePeach's comment about a lack of spare time - it seems a bit odd that we delay a discussion of a topic ban in the very area that you find time to edit in due to a lack of time. If you continue to edit in the very area under discussion, talk page or otherwise, then I will consider you to have time to address the concerns about your edits in the same topic area. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''[[User talk:HighInBC|Just ask.]]'''</sup></small></small> 06:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
* In response to Bakkster Man, again [[WP:INVOLVED]] says {{tq|"minor or obvious edits that do not show bias"}} do not prevent an admin from acting in an administrative capacity. I don't think correcting capitalization makes wbm1058 involved. I invite all users on this page to read our involvement policy before making further assertions that an editor may be involved. It is not that long of a policy section and I have referred to a fair portion of it here already. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''[[User talk:HighInBC|Just ask.]]'''</sup></small></small> 23:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
* In response to Wbm1058 again, rather that fill this page up more on this topic I have started a discussion on the talk page. Since it is only tangentially related to the topic at hand I am requesting that we talk it out here: [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wbm1058's concerns about ToBeFree]]. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''[[User talk:HighInBC|Just ask.]]'''</sup></small></small> 22:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
* Noting that I have removed a portion of {{u|FeralOink}}'s statement and oversighted it per [[WP:OSPOL|OSPOL#1]]. The overall meaning of the statement hasn't been changed. Many thanks - [[User:TheresNoTime|TheresNoTime]] <sup>[[User talk:TheresNoTime|😺]]</sup> 13:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
* We are reaching the more heat than light point at 16k words or an hour of reading time.
** @{{U|CutePeach}}: I am closing this thread in 48 hours with a topic ban per the rough consensus here unless you release your statement. At that point, this thread will be open for a week which is more than enough time.
** @{{U|Wbm1058}}: Like HighInBC, I am unimpressed by your wikilaywering
: --[[User:In actu|<span style="color: #0b0080">In actu (Guerillero)</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 00:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
::{{re|ProcrastinatingReader}} Think of this forum as closer to AN or ANI than an ArbCom case. Threads here only really drag out due to lack of replies. --[[User:In actu|<span style="color: #0b0080">In actu (Guerillero)</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 14:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
:::{{re|valereee}} I see a draft [[User:CutePeach/AESTATEMENT3|here]] so I am going to hold off for now --[[User:In actu|<span style="color: #0b0080">In actu (Guerillero)</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 18:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
*Endorse a TBAN here. The user's battleground approach to editing is well-evidenced above and has gone way beyond the line. It even appears to extend to the meta-discussion regarding these complaints. {{tq|"Please don’t include the time I questioned your WP:COMPETENCE ... that was legitimate criticism..."}} Yikes. And the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=1033537169 adding] a new clause to NPA about how calling editors incompetent is not a personal attack, but accusing someone of personally attacking you for questioning your competence ''is'' a personal attack. Absolutely beyond the pale. I am also unimpressed by the endless Wikilawyering, and by the most recent draft statement they're preparing, which is a bunch of [[WP:NOTTHEM]] deflection. [[User:Swarm|<span style="color:black">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">{sting}</span>]]</sup> 21:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
* CutePeach's response includes denial of the problems, accusing others of having problems, suggesting that the admins here were not fair, suggestions that the policies are being implemented wrong, and what I feel is a sincere apology for being harsh.{{pb}}What is lacking is a recognition of the problems presented here and an indication that it will be not be continued. I can't speak for other admins, but this is what might have changed my mind. I feel that the topic ban from the topic of COVID, broadly construed, is still the best solution.{{pb}}Their request for guidance it laudable and if provided should be provided by someone they have not accused of being out to get them. General behavioral guidance can take place on Wikipedia, but if it includes the topic of COVID should be conducted off-wiki. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''[[User talk:HighInBC|Just ask.]]'''</sup></small></small> 06:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
*I will also say this 16kb+ topic spree[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChina_COVID-19_cover-up&type=revision&diff=1036692965&oldid=1036677671][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACOVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&type=revision&diff=1036694974&oldid=1036673258][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GoFRoC&action=history][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=1036695497&oldid=1036545891][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=1036695740&oldid=1036683655][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Alina_Chan&diff=1036695909&oldid=1035856861] posted in less than an hour after their statement shows what CP was really doing with all of their time. This attempt at gaming the system convinces more than ever that the ban is required. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''[[User talk:HighInBC|Just ask.]]'''</sup></small></small> 06:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
So to summerise, I've been told that me saying that certain editors are making moral opinions and not looking at the facts, when at least one editor has ADMITTED that to me, is apparrently wrong.
==Santamoly==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
I've also been told that accusing someone of stalking me, when they appear to be stalking me, constantly appearing on other editors talk pages when I have posted on them, joining in the discussion, is apparrently wrong, which just seems like you're going after the victim rather than judging if the accused actually did have questionable behaviour (which I think they did).
===Request concerning Santamoly===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|RenatUK}} 16:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I haven't contributed to any GENSEX article since the last attempt in May, only 3 comments since May on a talk page. I hardly think thats disruptive behaviour.
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Santamoly}}<p>{{ds/log|Santamoly}}</p>
I have consistently been evidence led in my contributions to attempting to change an article. Like all editors I have a private view, but I am letting the sources guide the language and any attempt to change it. I personally think any kind of topic ban is a heavy handed approach, and I think sends out the wrong message.
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe]]
<small>Moved from other sections</small>
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T-72&diff=prev&oldid=1034786013&diffmode=source 21 July 2021] Topic ban violation: [[T-72]] is a [[Soviet Union|Soviet]]/[[Russia|Russian]] tank.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wagner_Group&type=revision&diff=1030467463&oldid=1030420346&diffmode=source 26 June 2021] Topic ban violation: [[Wagner Group]] is a [[Russia|Russian]] military organisation.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilyushin_Il-103&type=revision&diff=1026490774&oldid=1013584379&diffmode=source 2 June 2021] Topic ban violation: [[Ilyushin Il-103]] is a [[Soviet Union|Soviet]]/[[Russia|Russian]] aircraft.
*: {{Ping|Seraphimblade}}To summerise my response to your points as briefly as I can to keep within the word limit
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
*:I have no problem disageeing with people, but I've had at least one heavily involved editor actually say
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Santamoly&type=revision&diff=1005604133&oldid=1005600194&diffmode=source 8 February 2021] Santamoy blocked for two weeks to enforce an arbitration decision and for persistent topic ban violations.
*:> "Yes, I am absolutely taking a moral view, because I don't like bigotry. There is nothing "blinding" me, but I'm not going to bend to the whims of transphobes."
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=860579216#Santamoly 2 September 2018] Santamoly indefinitely topic banned from Eastern Europe related article. Broadly construed.
*:then I think my stance that people who have a particular view of it and are not open to evidence changing their mind, is correct. I don't think reminding people of this comment is a personal attack. I also think the context of my comments is important, for example some comments that have been interpreted as personal attacks were in response to comments that could be interpreted as personal attacks against me. It also depends on your definition of a personal attack, posting a laughing emoji at a statement someone made about a page which I think is laughable, I don't think is a personal attack, I'm laughing at the sentiment expressed.
*:I also am not happy that because I didn't persue formal action against a user I felt was hounding me, that is somehow a black mark against me - I was trying to stop the situation escalating and avoiding wikipedia drama. The user, to their credit, did stop following me after my comment and so I never persued it.
*:I admit that some of my comments may not have been worded in the best way, and some may have been percieved as more agressive than they needed to be. However I stand by the core sentiment of my comments. I don't feel like people have been acting in accordance to wikipedia rules and sentiment.
*:For discussion of being banned from things - I think it's a rather futile discussion because I've basically given up from editing any contentious articles on wikipedia because I feel like it's unfortunately being shaped by the views of editors and not being a well sourced neutral encylopedia. Unlike GraziePrego implies, I don't think it's a conspiracy, just that editors who are heavily on one side of the argument are totally dominanting GENSEX articles. My total contribution to Wikipedia since my change request was rejected is 5 edits to the Graham Linehan talk page, contributing to existing discussions and not starting new ones, so I don't think a ban is needed. [[User:Icecold|Icecold]] ([[User talk:Icecold|talk]]) 16:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
*::just to add in response @GraziePrego
*::>I believe they will start participating in discussions on other GENSEX related pages making the same comments about how the consensus there is all artificially created by biased editors.
*::I don't think what one editor believes I *might* do is a good enough reason to ban someone. As I've stated, I believe it's a waste of my time and my time could be used more constructively elsewhere than fighting losing battles. [[User:Icecold|Icecold]] ([[User talk:Icecold|talk]]) 18:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
* {{Ping|EvergreenFir}}You've admitted I've had 261 edits over 19 years and have contributed to a varied range of articles and then you state I'm not here to build an encyclopedia.. I only tend to get involved if I see something that is wrong, I have a full time job and family and haven't got the time or desire to edit Wikipedia all the time... [[User:Icecold|Icecold]] ([[User talk:Icecold|talk]]) 23:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Santamoly&type=revision&diff=1035776099&oldid=1009604544&diffmode=source Notification diff]
: {{Ping|Springee}}Hey, thanks for the constructive comment
===Discussion concerning Santamoly===
:I do have a question about passing aspersions though, in my case the editor in question literally admitted to using their own moral compass to guide their decisions, and I don't think pointing to that comment is passing aspersions as that's what they literally said. As for other editors, I concede that some of my comments may have been a tad aggressive, but I did feel attacked.
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
:I have tried to reach out on user pages, and I feel like I was genuinely trying to improve the article, having picked the most neutral wording I could. I even (as others like to point out) ran it through an LLM in order to make sure it was as palatable to others as I could make it. I spent quite a bit of time researching sources, and went in with good intentions. I have largely stayed away, just making 4 or 5 small comments on the talk page, but not reopening the debate or anything, my comments were mainly to people who would come in with similar suggestions to mine, because I feel like that side of the debate is under represented on Wikipedia.
====Statement by Santamoly====
:As for your suggestions, I probably wouldn't propose a ban based on number of edits, only because it's taken me 19 years to reach over 200, so by that time frame it'll take me almost a hundred years to make those edits! Also, to be honest, this whole episode hasn't been a very welcoming or a positive experience, so I'm not in a rush to contribute more, but I'm happy to agree to a time exclusion ban.
I'm surprised at the energy going into blocking me from editing, especially when anyone can see that my edits are simple corrections of typos or minor details. Am I that much of a menace on Wikipedia? I have no idea, but it's truly fascinating to see the people involved in seeing that I don't succeed in my little edits. Have these people nothing else to do? Are they prowling about Wikipedia looking for unauthorized spelling corrections? Or removing clumsy vandalism? Please, look at my edits (three are listed above). Are some Wikipedia admins frightened by my simple edits? I have no idea. Please keep me posted!
:Also, sorry just a final question, I don't know how these things work, when you say don't reply in the admin section, just reply in yours, but I'm word limited and I've already gone over the word limit, so I don't understand how I can reply to people there? It will also be out of context won't it? Sorry I'm just not understanding :) I'm happy to move my comments if need be? [[User:Icecold|Icecold]] ([[User talk:Icecold|talk]]) 00:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:GraziePrego|GraziePrego]] you were making personal attacks against me too. You've likened me to a spent firework coming back to earth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraziePrego&diff=prev&oldid=1291620900, said I'm making an exhibition of myself https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraziePrego&diff=prev&oldid=1291619966, and you were jumping in on every discussion I had on people's user pages.. Was a bit odd. [[User:Icecold|Icecold]] ([[User talk:Icecold|talk]]) 01:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
@[[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] I really take issue with your statement - you're attempting to link me to a banned user to imply that I am on wikipedia for the same reasons as that banned user is. I have been on wikipedia for 19 years, and over those 19 years I have made edits on various articles - yes I've not made thousands of edits, but small edits here and there. I reached out to that user (before they were banned) to possibly collaborate because they had been supportive of my request to change, and I thought together we might have been able to create a better request. I then expressed suprise that that user was banned within half an hour of being informed that there was an investigation into them with no right to reply. I stand by those comments - I think that anyone, on either side of any debate has a right to reply, I would defend anyone's right to reply even if I vehemently disagree with them. [[User:Icecold|Icecold]] ([[User talk:Icecold|talk]]) 02:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, I actually stopped editing in my area of expertise (aeronautical engineering and certification) as requested 4 or 5 years ago. I've got 15 years of Wikipedia contributions on engineering topics. I've also stopped editing in medical technology. So the quality of engineering discussion has gone down somewhat since I'm a certified graduate engineer with years of experience. But I don't want to contribute to Wikipedia if several hours work can be removed in a blink because someone decides that Iraq is "Eastern Europe broadly construed", or that Boeing can't be discussed because it uses Russian titanium forgings. I get it. Wikipedia doesn't want my expertise, and I'm OK with that. But I'm puzzled by the reaction to simple edits of no great consequence. Look at the list below. Six editors have spent hours studying this issue and responding. Now they're wondering why I'm not responding. I'm not indifferent to the effort expended on this topic, but I'm puzzled by the energy going into it.
::@[[User:GraziePrego|GraziePrego]] I apologise if I crossed the line - but I stand by my comment that you were stalking me.
I don't think anyone has any idea why I'm being blocked. I, too, have no idea! Perhaps there's something I'm not aware of?[[User:Santamoly|Santamoly]] ([[User talk:Santamoly|talk]]) 04:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HandThatFeeds&diff=prev&oldid=1290348015
====Statement by PaleoNeonate====
Topic ban decision: {{tqq|Decided: I am topic banning Santamoly from Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted. AGK [•] 16:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)}} "broadly interpreted" here means that it extends to closely related topics and these were Russian equipment related articles. Reverting obvious vandalism would not be considered editing. Removing material that is not vandalism, even if improperly sourced, is... Indefinite topic bans may still eventually be appealed and this restriction was applied years ago. Independently on if this report results in action or not, I would suggest completely avoiding the topic, broadly, then after six months of full compliance while still editing on other topics, to file an appeal. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 18:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HandThatFeeds&diff=prev&oldid=1290535049
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gazumpedheit&diff=prev&oldid=1290795322
===Result concerning Santamoly===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
* Waiting for a response, but Santamoly's edit history makes me think that an indef is needed here --[[User:In actu|<span style="color: #0b0080">In actu (Guerillero)</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 00:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
*:It seems like indef is the only path forward here --[[User:Guerillero|<span style="color: #0b0080">Guerillero</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 15:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
* Agree that an indef block is the most logical outcome. It appears that Santamoly has not changed their approach to Wikipedia editing since the previous sanction. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 00:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
* Note that this user returned to editing in the EE topic area almost immediately after their last block, at [[Talk:Bald and Bankrupt]] (a YouTuber famous for EE content), and then personally attacked someone for bringing up the fact that they should not be participating there. Then he edited [[Kishinev pogrom]] which is also firmly in the topic area. Those were his only edits between his last block and the diffs reported here. This should be taken into consideration as well. While the edits are fairly innocuous and a lengthy block or indef seems harsh, the TBAN-violating personal attack, which went unenforced, tells me that the underlying problem of aggressive behavior remains, years after the TBAN was implemented. [[User:Swarm|<span style="color:black">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">{sting}</span>]]</sup> 21:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
* Topic bans were created as an alternative for long or indefinite blocks, but they only work if the user obeys them. Given that this has not been effective then I am leaning towards an indefinite block. I would also support a lesser block of at least 6 months if there is not a consensus for an indefinite block.{{pb}}I will await the user's response, I could change my mind if a sincere and convincing intention to obey the topic ban can be expressed. Given the violations that have already occurred this would be held to the strictest of standards. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''[[User talk:HighInBC|Just ask.]]'''</sup></small></small> 23:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
*:My thinking too. Leaning towards an indef block, but totally open to a lesser AE block if the user cares enough to put some effort into responding to this complaint. [[User:Swarm|<span style="color:black">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">{sting}</span>]]</sup> 01:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gazumpedheit&diff=prev&oldid=1290795569
==TuffStuffMcG==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TarnishedPath&diff=prev&oldid=1291554802
===Request concerning TuffStuffMcG===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|GorillaWarfare}} 19:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TarnishedPath&diff=prev&oldid=1291618219
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|TuffStuffMcG}}<p>{{ds/log|TuffStuffMcG}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
Are all examples of you replying to me on other users talk pages when you weren't tagged or mentioned. So unless you regularly visit all those editors talk pages, you were clearly following my edits on wikipedia.
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
As for your other points, we'll have to agree to disagree because I'm way over my word count I think. [[User:Icecold|Icecold]] ([[User talk:Icecold|talk]]) 02:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
* [[WP:ASPERSION|Aspersions]] against editors
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Babylon_Bee&type=revision&diff=1035904753&oldid=1035814169&diffmode=source 10:07, 28 July 2021 at Talk:The Babylon Bee]: entirely unsupported (and absurd) speculation about editors' motives
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gab_(social_network)&diff=prev&oldid=1011893512 13:06, 13 March 2021 at Talk:Gab (social network)]: aspersions against editors at RSN (suggesting they determine reliability based on whether they agree with sources' positions)
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enrique_Tarrio&diff=1010063297&oldid=1010062533 16:44, 3 March 2021 at Talk:Enrique Tarrio]: "editors conveniently neglected to update his profile to match"
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parler&diff=prev&oldid=1002242983 14:22] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parler&diff=prev&oldid=1002248613 15:00, 23 January 2021 at Talk:Parler]
@[[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] I'm not sure what bigoted statement you're referring to, but just because I reach out to a user that doesn't mean I endorse all their viewpoints? I also didn't realise they hadn't been around for long. I was reaching out because I thought wikipedia encouraged people to reach out to gain consensus? I also fundamentally agree with everyones right to reply. I don't agree with aryan supremecy, but someone accused of advocating it in my opinion has a right to defend themselves. IMO Wikipedia is in the wrong here.
*Editing suggestions based on [[WP:OR|original research]] and/or poor sourcing
** [[Talk:Parler/Archive 3#Parler offline]] (April 2021)
** [[Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 6#Writing]] (March 2021): more denigration of the RS policy and pushing of their own opinions, and a good example of egging on a new user (who was later blocked for harassment and PAs)
** [[Talk:Enrique Tarrio/Archive 1#Tarrio Chairman position]] (March 2021): describing RS as "propaganda", OR
**[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gab_(social_network)&type=revision&diff=1011609942&oldid=1011555262&diffmode=source 21:04, 11 March 2021 at Talk:Gab (social network)]: NOTFORUM/POV-pushing based on what they apparently think sources ''should'' say about Gab, while acknowledging that it is unsupported
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parler&diff=prev&oldid=1006913019 14:07] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parler&diff=prev&oldid=1006915088 14:24, 15 February 2021 at Talk:Parler]
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=prev&oldid=1003959418 14:35, 31 January 2021 at Talk:Proud Boys]
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=prev&oldid=1001500186 23:54, 19 January 2021 at Talk:Proud Boys] ([[WP:DAILYMAIL]])
** [[Talk:Parler/Archive 3#01/20/21 site updates]] (January 2021)
* Soapboxing
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parler&diff=prev&oldid=1000626890 23:43, 15 January 2021 at Talk:Parler]: soapboaxing about "collusion" by the tech industry against Parler
** [[Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 5#Kutner is not a reliable source]] (November 2020)
@[[User:TarnishedPath]] I don't think that discussion shows that at all - I just wanted to make the page more accurate. I have been a member of wikipedia for 19 years, and since this Graham Linehan debate I haven't gone on to edit any other pages and I've only made 5 contributions to the talk page since. So to state I'm going to go on a culture war quest is clearly an incorrect assumption. And Maybe GraziePrego is on your page a lot, but yours wasn't the only page they commented directly to me on. It felt very much like I was being stalked.
* Other editors asking them to stop
{{hab}}
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=1012481379&oldid=1012480966 16:24, 16 March 2021], Talk:Proud Boys, from me: "I have to admit I am becoming frustrated with you continuously using talk pages to opine on how the sources don't reflect your personal point of view, as it often serves to encourage newer editors who don't understand policy particularly well, who seem to think that articles ought to present a false balance. It also is often unclear to me whether you are just musing on how you think things ought to be, or actually trying to make a policy-based point that editors ought to respond to. This case is a good example."
:{{Reply|Icecold}} Do not make any further comments or edits in this thread (including in other users' sections or the admin section) without explicit permission from an administrator, or they will be reverted and you may be blocked. ~ Jenson ([[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]]) 03:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gab_(social_network)&diff=1011620728&oldid=1011609942 22:22, 11 March 2021] from [[User:Jorm|Jorm]] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gab_(social_network)&diff=1011630493&oldid=1011628184 23:40] from me at Talk:Gab (social network), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gab_(social_network)&diff=prev&oldid=1011630825&diffmode=source acknowledged] by TuffStuffMcG: "will do, I apologize for the non-actionable opinion expressed and recognize this is not a forum"
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parler&diff=1001679335&oldid=1001678821 20:05, 20 January 2021] from me at Talk:Parler: "You know that we can't add observations like this without a reliable, independent source."
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TuffStuffMcG&diff=988664001&oldid=982703437 14:53, 14 November 2020] from [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] at their talk page: "Please read [[wp:or]] and [[wp:soap]]."
====Statement by GraziePrego====
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
{{ACWordStatus|page=AE|section=Icecold|user=GraziePrego}}
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
I think everything has been well covered, thank you Snokalok for starting this thread- I was strongly considering starting one myself about Icecold's behaviour. I would only add
* None
* [[User talk:Gazumpedheit#Linehan_page|this]], where Icecold casts aspersions and personally attacks [[User:HandThatFeeds]], describing them with " it's clear that handthatfee... is a biased editor who has made up their mind to shut down all debate. I've tried to hash it out with them on their talk page, but it's clear that no amount of reliable sources I could provide will change their mind as they're pushing their own viewpoint on Wikipedia, which I think is pretty shameful". This is on top of repeatedly casting aspersions about HandThatFeeds in the previous discussion, the diff for that is already linked I think.
My personal feeling is that Icecold isn't going to move on from their previous discussion on [[Talk:Graham Linehan]] not going their way, and they are now going to reply in every single discussion that begins on that talk page to complain about a conspiracy of activists silencing their viewpoint. In my opinion, this is disruptive.
(Editing to add a little to my comment) I would be in favour of a GENSEX topic ban for Icecold, as their desire to work against "activist editors" is not just limited to Linehan's page, they believe it's a conspiracy that extends to other GENSEX related articles. I believe they will start participating in discussions on other GENSEX related pages making the same comments about how the consensus there is all artificially created by biased editors.
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
[[User:GraziePrego|GraziePrego]] ([[User talk:GraziePrego|talk]]) 01:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
:Adding to my comments based on what Icecold has said so far. I think the fact that they can look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraziePrego&diff=prev&oldid=1291619634 this diff] where they called my editing "moronic in the extreme", and said "You argue in bad faith", and Icecold looks at that diff and denies that they were making personal attacks and just commenting on editing? Seriously? I'm not seeing much understanding from Icecold that they was being highly personal with their comments. [[User:GraziePrego|GraziePrego]] ([[User talk:GraziePrego|talk]]) 01:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
TuffStuffMcG almost exclusively edits talk pages of AP2 articles. Their comments are sometimes actionable, sourced suggestions, but far too often they are not: instead, they regularly comment solely to provide their own personal opinions and commentary on the subject or on Wikipedia policies they disagree with (regularly scare-quoting "reliable" in "reliable sources", for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enrique_Tarrio&diff=prev&oldid=1010361639], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=prev&oldid=1010174971]). Their comments occasionally (and recently) include unsupported [[WP:ASPERSIONS|aspersions]] about the motives of those editing these articles. They also regularly reply to SPAs who frequently appear at the talk pages of political articles, and encourage their various conspiracy theories about biased Wikipedia editors—which is absolutely the last thing the editors of these articles need, as we are already targeted enough by such editors without Wikipedians lending credence to their claims. In the particular case of their edits to ''The Babylon Bee'' today, TuffStuffMcG is echoing conspiracy theories pushed by the ''Bee'''s executive staff ([https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1408970692607963139]), who watch the article talk page and have in the past targeted their large Twitter following at me, resulting in pretty significant harassment and threats (more background at [[User talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive 20#Seth Dillon]]). A Wikipedian lending credence to these theories is pouring fuel on that fire.
:::Icecold, which is a personal attack out of "your editing is moronic in the extreme" and pointing out that you were making an exhibition of yourself by:
This is not an acute issue, as you can see by the dates on the diffs, but rather a long-running one that pops up regularly even after several editors have asked them to cut it out, and even after they've said they would. They are not enormously active, so although the time range in this report is fairly broad, I have only included diffs from their past 500 edits (not even—I stopped somewhere around 300 I think, as I was approaching the diff limit). I happen to see it often because either by strange coincidence or intentionally, TuffStuffMcG's edits overlap dramatically with articles I edit. I have a pretty specific interest in articles about American far-right groups and websites associated with the same, so it could well be that a shared interest in those topics explains why TuffStuffMcG shows up on so many of the articles I actively edit: [[Enrique Tarrio]] and the [[Proud Boys]], [[Parler]], [[Epik (company)]], [[Gab (social network)]], etc. (also see [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=GorillaWarfare&users=TuffStuffMcG editor interaction analyser]). But them recently showing up at ''[[The Babylon Bee]]'' (a conservative site to be sure, but not often described as far-right) and [[Kevin Paffrath]] (no connection to the far right, and an article I only began editing after stumbling across it myself) makes me wonder. It's a little startling to open up their last 500 contributions and see, with rare exception, a strict subset of the articles at [[User:GorillaWarfare#An incomplete list of my other work:]].
:::*bludgeoning one discussion,
:::*going to remonstrate with those who disagreed with you on their talk page,
:::*restarting the discussion immediately when it didn't go your way,
:::*then going and remonstrating with the closer when that also didn't go your way,
:::*and then making a second post on their talk page attacking them when they closed your first attack on them,
:::*and then coming to my talk page to accuse me of stalking you?
:::To me, that is making an exhibition of yourself- and that entirely describes your *editing*, and is not an attack on you personally. I never accused you of behaving in bad faith- you made no secret of accusing everyone who disagreed with you of acting in bad faith, including me. [[User:GraziePrego|GraziePrego]] ([[User talk:GraziePrego|talk]]) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I am unarchiving this thread as it rolled into the archives without any decision being taken- it seemed like there was mood for action to be taken. [[User:GraziePrego|GraziePrego]] ([[User talk:GraziePrego|talk]]) 10:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:Pinging @[[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] as this is originally your thread :) [[User:GraziePrego|GraziePrego]] ([[User talk:GraziePrego|talk]]) 10:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]]@[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]]@[[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]]@[[User:Valereee|Valereee]]@[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]@[[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist]]@[[User:Springee|Springee]] pinging previously involved in the discussion [[User:GraziePrego|GraziePrego]] ([[User talk:GraziePrego|talk]]) 11:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:The allegation by @[[User:Icecold|Icecold]] of forumshopping and gaming is clearly spurious. This thread was archived with *no outcome* by an automatic bot, not closed with a decision taken. The allegations only have weight if this discussion had concluded with no action being taken, and I had freaked out and just created a new thread. That's very different to what has actually happened. [[User:GraziePrego|GraziePrego]] ([[User talk:GraziePrego|talk]]) 01:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by Springee====
I'm not really sure what the best remedy would be here. Like I said above, their talk page comments in this topic area can be useful when they are well-sourced, and I have had positive interactions with this editor. But the issues I detail above really need to stop, and repeated requests from editors have clearly not made any impact. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] (she/her • [[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 19:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Icecold, while your account isn't new, I would suggest based on your limited recent edits you should be granted a bit of [[wp:ROPE]] that is frequently given to new users. The path you're on is clearly not working and at best it will result in a tban and possibly an outright block. I think at least an outright block could be avoided if you understand and agree to the following.
*Do not comment on users (unless the statement is clearly positive). Many online forums draw the line at actually insulting people (exp: Editor Patel is stupid). Wikipedia's CIVIL policy is stricter than that. Suggesting someone's motives are other than trying to improve the content of the encyclopedia is [[Casting aspersions|casting aspersions]]. This means you should not suggest someone is "clearly a conservative/liberal/right/left/up/down/etc". It is of course acceptable to argue an edit might make a reader think the article is biased or that a source is biased and that negatively impacts it's WEIGHT etc. But just don't comment on the other editors as a person. If in doubt I'm sure the admins below, if contacted on their talk page, would help you understand where the limits are if you aren't sure about a comment.
*Stick to the facts, not emotions. Yeah, sometimes it's naturel to think, "what the Belgium[https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Belgium] is that person thinking". However, sometimes it's just our own failure to understand their perspective that is the issue. Trying to reach out civilly on user talk pages may not always work but I've been pleased how often it does.
*Agree to stay away from the Graham Linehan page for a while. I would suggest 6 months or/and until you have say at least 1000 edits. The idea is to work on other parts of Wikipedia to show that you understand how to work with others. If you declare a self imposed tban, and stick with it, that will show that you are trying to avoid issues.
I think it you agree to the above and stick to it you should be able to avoid a formal tban and certainly an outright block. People around here can be quite forgiving if they see that an editor has understood and fixed a problem. Also, one more thing, don't reply in the admin space, just reply in your own section. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 00:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
:Icecold, unless the admins say you need to reply to the other editors, you don't. Also, it seems that the admins are open to the idea of you stepping away from the Linehan page. It's not clear they would accept a voluntary tban but if you feel you can stick to it I would offer it. Do make sure you understand what ''broadly construed'' means - don't edit content about Linehan on other pages. Even if you get an article/tban, it seems like they are otherwise giving you the benefit of the doubt and just a warning to not do the same things in the future. Again, no reason to reply to the other accusations unless admins ask. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 19:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
:{{re|valereee|Johnuniq|HighInBC}} My concern here is that TuffStuffMcG has continued this behavior despite repeated and regular warnings by several users, and despite [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gab_(social_network)&diff=prev&oldid=1011630825&diffmode=source acknowledging] that they know talk pages are not for forum-y comments. Their comment at this enforcement request makes no indication that they intend to change their behavior, but rather demonstrates the exact same issues: once again scare-quoting "reliable", and making unevidenced suggestions that their colleagues here are "organized partisans... actively manipulat[ing] articles" or "single-minded Jacobins who more eager to purge good sources that deviate from orthodoxy and push a specific narrative".
:If they have concerns with our reliable sourcing policy, or the consensus on the reliability of a specific source, they should be discussing this at [[WP:VPP]], [[WP:RSN]], etc.—and they know this. But they have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=TuffStuffMcG&namespace=4&wpfilters%5B%5D=associated&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=100&title=Special%3AContributions never done so], instead preferring to make jabs at policies and the editing community at large on various talk pages (and here!) without actually engaging in efforts to change anything. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] (she/her • [[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 16:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
====Statement by YFNS (Icecold)====
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TuffStuffMcG&diff=1035981093&oldid=1012127430&diffmode=source]
Just want to note they were collaborating with and defending a user blocked for NOTHERE behavior and transphobic rants.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive353#Gazumpedheit WP:AE/Archive353/Gazumpedheit]
===Discussion concerning TuffStuffMcG===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by TuffStuffMcG====
The user asked why a popular satire site has such a large section about fact checking. My comment, absent any sources truly, echoes well reported critical comments by Larry Sanger, one of the founders of Wikipedia and also the CEO of the Bee.
In May 2025, IceCold went to [[User talk:Gazumpedheit]] to say (regarding Graham Linehan) {{tq|, but it's clear that handthatfee... is a biased editor who has made up their mind to shut down all debate. I've tried to hash it out with them on their talk page, but it's clear that no amount of reliable sources I could provide will change their mind as they're pushing their own viewpoint on Wikipedia, which I think is pretty shameful. ... So I was reaching out to see if there's some way we can appeal in a way that doesn't allow them to shut down the discussion unilaterally, either through a RFC or DRN? While I would rather not lose the argument, if I feel like I've lost the argument fairly, by consensus, then I can take it, when it's artificially shut down by activist editors then I cannot take that lying down. }}.
Independent, Daily Mail, Fox News catalogue this. Not the best sources to be sure, but thats part of the issue. My comments tend to overlap other editor comments because the same editors focus on anything politically controversial. Objectivity has been eliminated from many major "reliable" publications and good, defensible articles sometimes come from writers using semi-reliable press.
* When the response is {{Tq|Hi @Icecold, welcome to Wikipedia of 2025. I'm afraid I can't have much to offer rather than to ping Void if removed for their advice, as a person who has far greater knowledge of the mechanics of Wiki than I. I would wager that Hand That Feeds owes you an apology to be honest, for their unqualified dismissal of your valid point}}
* IC responded {{Tq|But yeah, it's very scary. In both the UK (due to the supreme court judgement) and the US (with Trumps exec order) the overton window is shifting to stopping the shutting down of gender critical viewpoints by calling them transphobic, but yet if you come onto wikipedia (or reddit), you're told that any criticism or worries raised is transphobic and bigoted. I've had gender critical accused of being the same as racism which is pure hyperbole. Wikipedia isn't representing society, and is clearly, on several contenious issues, just representing the opinions of a Wikipedia editors, like like how Reddit moderators enforce their opinions on their subreddits. }}
I don't add bad sources to articles, and stay in the talk pages mostly to talk about sourcing issues. Wikipedia has an edit formula, it is well known and understood at this point, and used by organized partisans to actively manipulate articles.
* Gazumhedit once again pinged in VIR
Many editors are fair, including Gorilla usually, but many are single-minded Jacobins who more eager to purge good sources that deviate from orthodoxy and push a specific narrative.
* IC responded {{Tq|I've just seen they've banned you without seemingly a chance for you to respond and then gloating about it on your talk page. Classy.}}
* Followed by arguing Gazumphedit's NOTHERE block was unfair since they couldn't defend themselves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gazumpedheit#May_2025]
I respect Wikipedia and it's mission. Do what you need to do, I do tend to engage on forum stuff from time to time, but never malicious or targeted, and I never edit war or vandalize articles.
Pretty plainly [[WP:NOTHERE]] and seeking to [[WP:RGW]] IMHO. [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 01:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by Jorm====
I do not believe that this user is here to improve the encyclopedia. They are single-minded in their attempts to white wash and insert propaganda. They should have an AP2 topic ban.--[[User:Jorm|Jorm]] ([[User talk:Jorm|talk]]) 20:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
:@[[User:Icecold|Icecold]], you reached out to request help from a user who, it had been noted in the thread they replied to you in, made bigoted comments[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graham_Linehan/Archive_12#c-GraziePrego-20250512145500-Gazumpedheit-20250512144200]
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
:An editor who'd made less than 20 edits (not a good idea to ask advice based on that alone) and who you reached out to as the only person who agreed with you. You insulted other editors on their talk page.
====Statement by WaltCip====
:And WP supports no right to reply. If somebody came on insisting that the truth of Aryan supremacy would win over the next few years, they'd be blocked. Not given a chance to explain why they said it (because the answer is bigotry). Bigotry is a no-go here. [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 02:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Apart from admitting outright in their statement above to taking a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground]] approach to editing already contentious articles in the realm of AP2, the failure to [[WP:IDHT|get a clue]] here and their continued tendentious editing behavior (with the more-than-coincidental correlation with the aforementioned list of articles GW has worked on) leads me to believe that sanctions are needed, up to and including a straight-out indef.--'''[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 14:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
:IC accusing GP of stalking over Gazumpedheit's page is particularly nonsensical. GP edited the page before IC did[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gazumpedheit#POV] so was presumably watching it, and gave IC a very neutral clear answer to their question about how blocks work.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gazumpedheit#c-GraziePrego-20250517032600-Icecold-20250517023900][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gazumpedheit#c-GraziePrego-20250517032800-GraziePrego-20250517032600] [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 02:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by slaterstevenTarnishedPath====
The discussion which YFNS referred to at [[User_talk:Gazumpedheit#Linehan page]], indicates that IC is [[WP:NOTHERE]]. It appears that they are here to engage in culture war [[WP:BATTLE]]. I don't see that a ban from [[Graham Linehan]] or from GENSEX more broadly is going to cease the disruption as there is plenty more in Wikipedia that editors can engage in culture war battle over. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 02:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
<br>
@[[User:Icecold|Icecold]], I can tell you for a fact that it is not uncommon for GP to visit my talk page. We have overlapping interests and I would make a bet that they have my talk on their watchlist as I do with them. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 02:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:GraziePrego|GraziePrego]] and @[[User:Icecold|Icecold]], please move your comments to your own sections. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 11:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I left the warning a year ago, but it seems to be an ongoing issue. Their post here sums it all up, it's very much a POV pushing bit of soapboxing (and a clear statement of [[wp:nothere]] in relation to article talk pages) that makes no effort to address THEIR actions. They will continue to be a time sink.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)GoodDay====
If [[Graham Linehan]] is the 'only' article, that Icecold has been discussing, in relation to this report? Than as a preventative measure, I'd recommend a 1-month pageblock. This will give an editor enough time to cool off & reflect. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by Rankersbo====
I am new to arbitration so not aware of what actions can be taken. The main issue with Icecold is that they use a passive-aggressive smokescreen of objectivity to try and reframe the debate around their own biases, claiming that neutrality lies around their own position, when it lies far from it. Their constant claims that other editors are "activist" constitute [[Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions|aspersions of bad faith]], and use of performative victimhood such as accusations of stalking and cries of "leave me alone" in response to reasonable interactions are a continuation of this behaviour. The comments warning another user of a ban are inferring that the system is at fault rather than the behaviour.
The root does appear to be the Linehan page, but has spilled out onto user talk pages. Comments made in this arbitration and elsewhere on personal talk pages do not show someone who has accepted fault with their attitudes and behaviour with contrition, or who intends to take on board criticism in order to learn and grow.
I note a page block has been made, but am unclear as to whether this is sufficient, and given the nature of the behaviour, if anything beyond that can be done.
[[User:Rankersbo|Rankersbo]] ([[User talk:Rankersbo|talk]]) 08:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by (Halbared)====
The Graham Linehan page is blocked and taken care of, GoodDay's suggestion of a 1 month pageblock to allow matters to cool may be a suitable step forward, and perhaps also a two-way interaction ban between grazieprego and Icecold.[[User:Halbared|Halbared]] ([[User talk:Halbared|talk]]) 08:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
===Result concerning TuffStuffMcGIcecold===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*So, as appearing in order:
* {{u|TuffStuffMcG}}, from {{xt|I do tend to engage on forum stuff}} I'm wondering if maybe you don't realize that article talk pages are specifically ''not'' a place to treat as a forum, per [[WP:TALKNO]]? That is, if you think an article talk page is at least partially for discussing the article subject itself or other editors' ability to be neutral w/re that article, this may be why you're ending up here. An article talk page is for discussing, generally or specifically, improvements to that article, period. Anything other than that, including commentary about what you or Larry Sanger perceive as other editors' motivations in editing the article, is not what article talk pages are for. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 14:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
*:Diff 1 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&diff=prev&oldid=1300812883]), comment on content, not editors. You're certainly free to disagree with other editors, but trying to assign bad motives to them is unacceptable. In many cases, reasonable people can disagree.
*:Hm, been over 4 days since @[[User:TuffStuffMcG|TuffStuffMcG]] has edited. They're a sporadic editor, so maybe a ping will work. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 16:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
*:Diff 2 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&curid=6422137&diff=1300825092&oldid=1300820307]), same as diff 1.
*@TuffStuffMcG: Shortly after posting your initial statement here, you posted [[Special:Diff/1036075440|this comment]] which added five pointless links to dubious sites rejoicing in Larry Sanger's latest thoughts. That is not helpful (and by the way, please ask at [[WP:HELPDESK]] about how to format comments like that). You should pledge to avoid AP2 comments unless really focused on actionable proposals to improve the article, or face an indefinite topic ban. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 00:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
*:Diff 3 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&diff=prev&oldid=1300812580]), same as diff 1, and the "laughing" face at the end even more so. While again you are free to disagree with other editors, ridiculing them is totally out of line.
**[[Special:Contributions/TuffStuffMcG]] shows the user has a total of 17 edits in the last three months (May–July). That consists of one comment on this page and 16 comments on AP2 talk pages. That shows two problems. First, there might be no further timely response here making it difficult to defer a decision. Second, given a sample of some of their comments, it is unlikely that their work in AP2 is helpful. I don't think this should be left open much longer and I think something should happen. I would be happy for someone to close this with an indefinite topic ban, or, if a more gentle path is wanted at this stage and if invited by admins here, I could leave a version of my above comment at their talk along with a warning that I would issue a tban if further dubious comments occur. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
*:Diff 4 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&diff=prev&oldid=1298252924]), same as diff 1.
*Currently on the fence about taking action here. I will says that I do recognize that this user is probably not malicious, though maliciousness is not needed for disruption. I do think that a greater understanding of the limits of article talk page use is needed to avoid losing access to them in this area. If such an understanding can be gained and demonstrated has yet to be determined by me. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''[[User talk:HighInBC|Just ask.]]'''</sup></small></small> 06:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
*:Diff 5 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icecold&diff=prev&oldid=1291626758]), expressing frustration in one's own userspace, and users are allowed pretty wide latitude in their own userspace. Not as concerned about this one.
*:Diff 6 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraziePrego&diff=prev&oldid=1291620433]), criticizing someone else for contributing a lot is completely inappropriate.
*:Diff 7 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraziePrego&diff=prev&oldid=1291619634]), [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]]. If Icecold genuinely felt like someone was inappropriately stalking them, they should have brought that up in the appropriate venue, with actual evidence, to request action on that. However, it is not uncommon for editors interested in the same topic area to run into one another at more than one article. While one can tell other editors not to post on their user talk page, one cannot demand that another editor {{tq|[l]eave me alone}} ''in general''; that would effectively amount to a unilateral [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]].
*:Diff 8 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TarnishedPath&diff=prev&oldid=1291619256]), the nastiness and sarcasm is unacceptable and unnecessary.
*:Diff 9 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TarnishedPath&diff=prev&oldid=1291609613]), talk page discussions are open to participation by any interested editor; again, Icecold may not unilaterally decide that another editor should not participate. And, again, editors interested in the same area may have one another's talk page on their watchlist; that is neither uncommon nor inappropriate.
*:Diff 10 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TarnishedPath&diff=prev&oldid=1291508097]), while the use of LLMs is not ''strictly'' forbidden, disruptive behavior is, and in practice, LLM usage often leads to disruption. Icecold has committed to no longer doing this, so as long as they uphold that, this is again not as much of a current concern.
*All that said, I think {{u|Icecold}} needs, at minimum, to be removed from the subject of [[Graham Linehan]], as they clearly don't have the appropriate temperament to edit on that topic. I'll give Icecold an additional 300 words to explain why that shouldn't just be a GENSEX topic ban overall; as they're relatively new, I'd prefer a narrower restriction if possible, but not if that just means the disruption will get moved elsewhere. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 00:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
*:They are not relatively new. The account is 19 years old. The problem is that of their [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Icecold 261 edits], 100 are from 2025 and 70% of those are on [[Talk:Graham Linehan]]. This user is being disruptive and at minimum a partial block from Graham Linehan is needed. I would argue, however, that this is beyond AE and just a case of NOTHERE. I see no evidence that the user is here to improve the encyclopedia. I only see [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 21:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
==BengHistory==
*::I'm applying "relatively new" in terms of experience at editing, not account age. There's a lot of fighting going on, certainly, but there seems to be at least some concern for article quality and reliability in with that, so I'm reluctant to give up any hope. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 03:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
*::{{u|Icecold}}, you are ''far'' over the word limit. Further responses from you will be removed unless you request and receive an extension (which at this point is unlikely), and there is no need for you to reply to everyone who comments here. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 03:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
* I'd support a p-block from Linehan, certainly. If the problem recurs in other GENSEX topics, a tban. {{u|Icecold}}, you say {{xt|I'm not allowed to respond to every allegation about me, due to the word limit}}. That is incorrect. You have plenty of space if you write short. Spit it out on the page, then edit it down to what's necessary. I could edit out a third of your statement easily. Learning to write short is extremely valuable here. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 19:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
*:(I'd say learning to write concisely is a valuable skill in general, and on Wikipedia in general, not just for AE. Whether or not I'm always good at it is a separate question.) I was thinking as a topic ban from Graham Linehan enforced by p-block but also applying across the project, since a fair bit of the disruptive behavior was on user talk pages and the like related to that subject. I think Icecold needs to step away from that subject entirely until they've gained more editing experience elsewhere. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 20:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Icecold|Icecold]], a topic ban from Lineham means you cannot discuss him -- or anything closely related to him, such as his works -- anywhere on Wikipedia, including in talk pages. The only place you can even mention him is within an appeal of the topic ban. The reasoning behind a topic ban for a very inexperienced user is to prevent you from being disruptive while still giving you the opportunity to learn how to contribute productively by allowing you to edit in other topics.
*::I (and most other experienced editors) would advise editing in noncontentious topics while you learn. Arguing about the appropriate use of "gender critical" vs. "anti-transgender" in a BLP is a minefield even for highly experienced editors. And accusing someone of stalking you because they appeared at the talk pages of other editors you both have interacted with is evidence of your lack of experience. That is completely normal. I do it literally every day, and it happens to me regularly. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 10:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
* I think a full topic ban from GENSEX would be preferable --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 07:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
* Icecold claims "I have voluntarily stayed away from editing controversial pages". Yet only minutes before this thread was unarchived (which is procedurally permissible, to be clear), Icecold [[Special:Diff/1307562800|posted]] in support of another user who made [[Special:Permalink/1304749555|the same types of POV-pushing comments]] regarding Linehan. Above I see a clear consensus for some kind of sanction, with admins on the fence between a narrow or broad TBAN. Given that we now have evidence Icecold saw the need to return to this disruptive editing a month after getting off on a technicality, I'm satisfied that they are not currently able to be a constructive presence in this topic area, and think a GENSEX TBAN is the minimum viable solution. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 14:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
* I've pblocked from Linehan and its talk as an individual admin action. No objection to anyone else deciding the make an AE tban from GENSEX, I just didn't see that yet, but felt the pblock was clearly indicated. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 16:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
* {{Reply|GraziePrego}} You are also over your word limit. Do not add anything further (or remove anything to get more words for replies) without permission from an administrator. (And in the future, please ask an administrator to reopen an archived arbitration enforcement thread, even if it was never closed.) ~ Jenson ([[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]]) 03:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
==Lt.gen.zephyr==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning BengHistoryLt.gen.zephyr===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|TrangaBellamZDRX}} 2116:0111, 2925 JulyAugust 20212025 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lt.gen.zephyr}}<p>{{ds/log|Lt.gen.zephyr}}</p>
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|BengHistory}}<p>{{ds/log|BengHistory}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baidya&diff=1036149030Battle_of_Rajasthan_(1965)&oldid=1036148615 301307406483 July23 2021August] Alleges- thatCreated Iproblematic have[[Battle hadof {{tq|shortRajasthan term(1965)]] memoryby loss}}.copy Thenpasting theyan realizearticle aboutcreated indeedon makingSimple aWiki pioneerby claiman LTA (whichbanned wason myEnglish ground for requesting a citationWiki) ''and''just proceed2 todays earlier. [https://ensimple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baidya&diff=1036152524Battle_of_Rajasthan_(1965)&oldid=1036151116&diffmode=source cite a source10470302] which is [[Wikipediahttps:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Swarajya|blacklisted]]/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/9Ahmed9]
#:Has been already [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BaidyaIndo-Pakistani_war_of_1965&diff=1035374744prev&oldid=1035374295&diffmode=source1307534898 informed24 August] (five- daysWrongly earlier)claims that we"{{tq|Mentioned cannotpages interpretdoesn't pre-moderncite textsthe forcasualties ourselves. Yetnumber}}", inwhen the same post, they propose that we read a 400-500 year old source {{tq|withoutsupports waiting for 'reliable' modern authors to quote them}}it.[https://books.google.com/books?id=gBbHEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA267]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1965&diff=prev&oldid=1307535892 24 August] - Unnecessarily asking another editor to "Show where it is mentioned" despite getting exact URL to the page number.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baidya&diff=1036120521&oldid=1036095010&diffmode=source 30 July 2021] Requests that I provide quotes for certain controversial text-bits. This is not objectionable in itself '''except''' that they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baidya&diff=prev&oldid=1035892298&diffmode=source know] of me having already provided them at an admin's talk-page, to satisfaction.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Rajasthan_(1965)&diff=prev&oldid=1307561886 24 August] - Restores his misrepresentation of sources and accuses me of not reading the source.
#:Still iterating the same point at his reply over (6).
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABattle_of_Rajasthan_%281965%29&diff=1307595740&oldid=1307567839 24 August] - Doubles down with his misrepresentation of sources by citing page numbers that don't support his claims.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baidya&diff=1035890860&oldid=1035890092&diffmode=source 28 July 2021] Claims that other editors are failing to see a {{tq|''design''}}, whereby I am denigrating the subject. This was in response to an editor who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baidya&diff=1035874966&oldid=1035869619 stated] the lack of anything seriously objectionable in my edits and even thanked me for doing a {{tq|great job}}. (That editor had been earlier pinged [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baidya&diff=prev&oldid=1035816363&diffmode=source multiple times] by BengHistory to provide their views!)
#:In the same post, that invited editor also noted my wording about a rivalry with Kayasthas to be okay and supported by more yet-uncited sources. Despite this, BengHistory [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BaidyaBattle_of_Rajasthan_(1965)&diff=prev&oldid=1035889223&diffmode=source1307610188 24 raisesAugust] the- sameContinues objectionto (verbatim)double oncedown again.with his claims
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Rajasthan_(1965)&diff=prev&oldid=1307678849 25 August] - Still misrepresenting the source. He is still wrongly claiming that "victory claim is mentioned" on [https://books.google.com/books?id=RLrks1WxacwC&pg=PA107 this page], when it is not.
#More IDHT behavior over BengHistory's response at this thread.
#:At the talk-page, BengHistory pinged another editor to give their opinions on whether my framing of a particular source was correct or not. They had a discussion with me and was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baidya&diff=1036162411&oldid=1036161816 satisfied] of my framing but BH is still continuing with the antics over semantics at Point 2. [[WP:1AM|Sheer refusal to understand why no long-term editor is agreeing with him]].
#:No diffs are provided for (1). I request that BengHistory provide evidence of a single edit where '''I''' (TrangaBellam) said that authors belonging to XYZ caste are unreliable. [[WP:ASPERSION]]s.
#:Misrepresenting a female professor of History, teaching at a reputed university, as a guest-faculty and young scholar is misogyny. I stand by my comments referred in (8). BengHistory is yet to admit that they were wrong.
#:That's all. I won't bother to rebut each and every misrepresentation by BengHistory unless requested by an administrator of this site. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 18:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DSContentious topics|discretionarycontentious topics sanctionsrestrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DSCTOP#Awareness andof alertscontentious topics]]):[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lt.gen.zephyr&diff=prev&oldid=1285321389]
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
:Lt.gen.zephyr is not addressing the concerns about his edits here and he is not admitting any of his faults. He cites "victories in the deserts of Sindh" (see [[Thar Desert of Sindh]]) to be descriptive of "Battle of [[Rajasthan]]" when Sindh and [[Rajasthan]] are both separate from each other. He is still doubling down with his misrepresentation of sources. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-size:100; style=color:blue"> '''THEZDRX'''</span> <span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:92; style=color:black"><sub>([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | </sub></span><sub>([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]])</sub> 02:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*Tendentious editing and intense acrobatics on semantics to promote a particular caste bolstered by a (mistaken) belief that our article shall be polished paraphrases of scholars. That is, every single word must be quotable to some scholar. On top of that, as Diff-Set-3 exhibits, a [[WP:IDHT]] attitude. Violation of [[WP:NPA]] at Diff-Set-1. Probably part of a sock-farm - see [[User_talk:RegentsPark#AS24]] where one of his tag-mates was blocked after pursuing the same line of argumentation.
*The page was recently 30/500-ed to avoid the sudden influx of these new editors. Earlier the editor-in-question was given a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BengHistory&diff=1035639953&oldid=1035639713 final warning] by an admin.
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
:First of all, it is clearly stated in the opening paragraph of the article that '''''The Battle of Rajasthan refers to several clashes and skirmishes fought between Pakistan and India in India's Rajasthan state and Pakistan's Sindh state during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965.'''''
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
:If one examines the reference book, under the title ''Sulemanki and Munabao'' (A town in Rajasthan) (page number 124-125 in slider), it notes that Pakistan's 51 brigade repulsed the Indian attack on Sindh and subsequently captured Indian town Munabao alongwith the railway station. Just a few lines later it says ''Their victories in the Sindh were welcomed''. [[User:Lt.gen.zephyr|𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿]] ([[User talk:Lt.gen.zephyr|ᴛᴀʟᴋ]]) 07:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
===Discussion concerning BengHistory===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by BengHistory====
I am simply amazed that Trangabellam and Ekdalian have complained about me whereas it is they who have been acting with a non-neutral attitude. The talk-page is there for the respected admins to see so I am confident that they would easily be able to judge the events that took place there. I just want to draw attention of the respected adjudicators to the following points:[[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
1) They at one point of time summarily rejected any Baidya authors (Sengupta for example, see Ekdalian's comments) deeming them as unreliable, and when I questioned the logic of that and explained that by their logic authors of other castes are also questionable, they accused me of distinguishing in terms of caste and misrepresented it to an admin. Great morality indeed, accusing the accuser for something committed by themselves (Ekdalian classified some editors as 'Baidya editors').[[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
2) They freely changed words and added their own while quoting a source (like 'indicated' has been changed to 'accorded', or 'apparently' has been added) in such a way that it changes the proposition entirely. Thus flouting [[WP:NPOV]] [[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lt.gen.zephyr&diff=prev&oldid=1307771633]
3) One misquoted a source to portray a different picture of the caste-hierarchy in Bengal (viz. H Sanyal regarding Chandimangal) [[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
4) One was putting exclamatory marks at the end of the statements and inserted words like 'apparently' (which visibly ridicules certain eminent persons), which were not there in the quoted sources. When challenged he came with a laughable explanation that he was following they style of the author. [[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
===Discussion concerning Lt.gen.zephyr===
5) Clear words like 'Semibrahmins' and 'fallen brahmins' were removed from a quote on the pretext of 'balancing the article with neutrality', 'agenda-free reading', and 'taking a practical view', all of which amount to [[WP:SYN]] [[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Lt.gen.zephyr====
6) One did not come up with page numbers/quotes even when repetitively asked about the same regarding certain words. [[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
*About [[Indo-Pakistan war of 1965]]
# 2- Source number 9 (Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492–2015, 4th ed) says Indian killed in action was 3,712 and Pakistani killed in action was 1,500. That's why I had used an range to determine the losses. Later when I was given additional reference, I didn't revert it and let it stay there. Sadly I couldn't access the other source, source number 11 (The Roots and Consequences of 20th-Century Warfare: Conflicts That Shaped the Modern World).
#3- Unfortunately the user who had shared me a link didn't take me to the page number. I could only see the book's name, topic and the information about the writer. Later I was provided additional sources by another user, I proposed to add both of the casualties figure. The meesage where I was provided with additional sources to cross verify - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1965#c-Extorc-20250824064800-Lt.gen.zephyr-20250824064000].
I didn't make a change later as it was proven to me that the numbers for India and Pakistani losses were 3,00 and 3,800 respectively. The sole reason for me to change was the source in the infobox which was accessible said 3,712 and 1,500 whereas the inaccessible source said the other thing. The 9th source is accessible and is mentioned here -> [https://books.google.com.bd/books?id=kNzCDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA600&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false]. Another major thing is source 10, (Encyclopedia of Wars) which is used as neutral claim also says '''''APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: India, 900,000; Pakistan, 233,000 CASUALTIES: India, 3,712 killed, 7,638 wounded; Pakistan, 1,500 killed, 4,300 wounded TREATIES: Conference at Tashkent, 1966'''''. Since there are two different numbers, I used a range to clearify it.
Another speech I'd like to share regarding source 11 (The Roots and Consequences of 20th-Century Warfare: Conflicts That Shaped the Modern World) is the page cited '''267''' talks about ''Byzantine–Ottoman Turk War'' (1453–1461),(1422) and (1359–1399), not about the 1965 war. So the claim of the 3,000 and 3,800 goes null and void.
*Edit 1 : Attaching Encyclopedia of Wars's link here for users to verify my statement - [https://prussia.online/Data/Book/en/encyclopedia-of-wars/Encyclopedia%20of%20Wars%20(2005),%20OCR.pdf]
7) Authors of repute like Nripendra Dutta have been termed as fanciful.[[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
*Edit 2 : Replaced Encyclopedia of Wars's link as that version was partially available. The page number is 602.
'''[[Battle of Rajasthan (1965)]]''',
8) When I questioned Swarupa Gupta's reliability (they were always judging academic qualifications of sourced authors and I pointed out that she is a young research fellow), it was twisted to show me as having gender bias ! Such dishonesty! [[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I already mentioned the territorial change's source in the talk page when the user asked. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Rajasthan_(1965)#c-Lt.gen.zephyr-20250824152000-ZDRX-20250824112000]. Anyone may crosscheck by seeing page 256 - ''(Origins of Political Extremism: Mass Violence in the Twentieth Century and Beyond)''
9) One of them have been thoroughly disrespectful and have been using words like 'blabbering' and 'ramblings' and 'Do I care about your threats?', and now he is making a great noise about 'short-term memory loss' ! [[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
About Pakistan victory, it is mentioned in ''(A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections, 5th Edition)'' in page 108 (as per slide 125) saying '''''Their victories in the deserts of Sindh were welcomed''''', which I told earlier in the talk. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Rajasthan_(1965)#c-Lt.gen.zephyr-20250824172200-ZDRX-20250824161900]
10) An entire article is being centred upon the ritual status of a caste (and questioning the claim of that caste with a tone of disdain and selective referencing) which have little relevance for international readers, and important facts regarding that caste (literacy rates, for example) are being thrust in the small-fonted notes. As if it is only the ritual status that is worth considerations and all of the rest comes at best as a note. [[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
:I never claimed Bharat Rakhshak to be official publication, I stated they publish official Indian documents in public ___domain. I have changed each and every sources written by Pakistani officers who took part in the war, only one or two are there and that only exists in the article for the information of the commanders in the battle. I hope you'd check the sources before commenting. [[User:Lt.gen.zephyr|𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿]] ([[User talk:Lt.gen.zephyr|ᴛᴀʟᴋ]]) 14:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
11) There have been serious inconsistencies in selection of sources. At one point of time they disagreed to include Census reports as they are seemingly unreliable, quoting whatever poeple say. Now the same census reports are being quoted to opine that Baidyas' claims are on 'slender' grounds. [[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 11:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
====Statement by MBlaze Lightning ====
12) Trangabellam had removed all my replies to his questions from the talk-page, and when I referred to that he simply retorted that he was doing so because indentation of my replies was not in order. [[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I share the same observation that Lt.gen.zephyr's conduct in these contentious war articles of late has been troublesome. While this very report remained open at this board, they edit warred on [[Battle of Hussainiwala]], making three reverts in a matter of hours,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Hussainiwala&diff=1308403366&oldid=1308402010][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Hussainiwala&diff=prev&oldid=1308404307][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Hussainiwala&diff=prev&oldid=1308464384], to anyhow retain an unreliable source [[Bharat Rakshak]], falsely claiming them to be Indian military official publication and thus an [[WP:RS]], while the website stated in its very self-description that it was run by everyday "military enthusiasts".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Hussainiwala&diff=prev&oldid=1308406612]. They have also posted long blocks of texts on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hussainiwala]], and continue to clutter the discussion and bludgeon others with same arguments, all the while refusing to get that blogs written by military officials who fought the battle did not constitute [[WP:SIGCOV]] according to our policies. Given their present conduct despite this open report, I don't think they plan to comply with the Wikipedia guidelines in this highly contentious topic going forward either. [[User:MBlaze Lightning|MBlaze Lightning]] ([[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|talk]]) 14:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by Ekdalian(username) ====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
The user BengHistory has been editing a related article on [[Vaid]] with the same intension of glorifying their caste. I have warned the user in his talk page (discretionary sanctions notice), and reverted his edits, explaining the same in the edit summaries as well as the user's talk page. In spite of all these, BengHistory has reverted my edits without any explanation! It is quite evident (from all his edits) that the user is here for promoting his caste only, and not to build an encyclopedia. I believe he should be blocked from editing as per [[WP:CASTE]].
===Result concerning Lt.gen.zephyr===
Differences:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaid&type=revision&diff=1036117811&oldid=1035927548 1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaid&type=revision&diff=1036117881&oldid=1035927229 2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaid&type=revision&diff=1036117946&oldid=1035926948 3]
Thanks. [[User:Ekdalian|Ekdalian]] ([[User talk:Ekdalian|talk]]) 08:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
====Statement by (BengHistory)====
I am starting to contribute to wikipedia on topics I have focused on during my research days (mainly Ayurveda, Vaidyas of India, and Brahmin kingdoms). Does it mean that my edits in this page are unreliable by that reason only? Do I need to edit thousands of other pages which I have no clue about before I can contribute on something I have studied about? Mr. Ekdalian reverted all my additions by terming them 'unconstructive' (and suggested as if I am somehow not entitled to add or change anything in a page, cf. his comment on my userpage) without discussions, and he and Trangabellam have regularly posted threats of sanctions on my userpage (without any particular reference). All content added by me in the Vaid page was verbatim quotes from sources, the respected admin can see for himself/herself. Such vindictive attitudes will only discourage future contributors, and I request the admins here to take a note of it. [[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 11:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
===Result concerning BengHistory===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
* I recommend to BengHistory that they reconsider their statement. They should use their words to defend themselves, and to convince us that action is not necessary rather than drawing attention to the perceived flaws in others. The strategy of blaming others to defend themselves rarely works here. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''[[User talk:HighInBC|Just ask.]]'''</sup></small></small> 06:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
-->
*BengHistory's point 12 in their statement might be in connection with [[Special:Diff/1036147090|their 29 July 2021 comment]] which interspersed replies in someone else's comment. It's fine to not be aware that replies like that are not wanted, but mentioning it here shows a lack of awareness of what a mess their comment made. Some article edits I looked at did not seem helpful. For example, [[Special:Diff/1036117881|this]] is not suitable due to the lack of sources. Combined with their statement here, I support an indefinite topic ban. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
==Loveall.humanAlaexis==
{{hat|Alaexis is warned to be more careful when interacting with [[WP:PRIMARY|primary sources]], especially regarding [[WP:BLP|living]] or [[WP:BDP|recently deceased]] people. ~ Jenson ([[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]]) 04:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning Loveall.humanAlaexis===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Aman.kumar.goelIOHANNVSVERVS}} 2218:5829, 2925 JulyAugust 20212025 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Alaexis}}<p>{{ds/log|Alaexis}}</p>
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Loveall.human}}<p>{{ds/log|Loveall.human}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WPWikipedia:ARBIPArbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anas_Al-Sharif&diff=prev&oldid=1305365446 11 Aug 2025] POV pushing and [[WP:BLP|BLP]] violation at the article [[Anas al-Sharif]], a Palestinian journalist recently killed by the Israeli military. Alaexis changed a sentence from "Since October 2023, Al-Sharif became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza, refusing to evacuate the north despite repeated Israeli orders and direct threats to his life." to "Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks and became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza, [...etc]". The only source they added for this claim is an unverified primary source, supposedly an "archived link to a post he made on Telegram".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alaexis&diff=prev&oldid=1307434477]
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malik_Maqbul_Tilangani&diff=next&oldid=1035181136 05:39, 24 July 2021]: Falsely claims on article about 13th-century commander that [[Sanjjanaa Galrani]] converted to Islam and cited [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/did-sanjjanaa-galrani-change-her-religion-and-name-in-2018/articleshow/78208745.cms?from=mdr this source] which nowhere confirms conversion to Islam but ensures not to give weight to such unconfirmed claims. See [[WP:CIR]].
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
#:On this diff he is also throwing [[WP:NPA]] by falsely accusing other editor of vandalism: "{{tq|Is this vandalism?}}".
#No previous sanctions that I'm aware of.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malik_Maqbul_Tilangani&diff=next&oldid=1035184107 08:07, 24 July 2021] After being correctly told that "source say that these "speculations" are not verified and "remains to be seen when the truth will be revealed""[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malik_Maqbul_Tilangani&diff=next&oldid=1035181977] Loveall.human doubles down with his [[WP:CIR]] by saying "{{tq|The "speculation" and "remains to be seen when the truth will be revealed" was clearly about her marriage, not on her conversion.}}" And again falsely accusing the editor of "{{tq|mass vandalizing}}" and of being a part of an "{{tq|unhealthy mob bullying pattern that is being observed in pushing far right wing POV}}"
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
His overall unhelpful presence on this page started from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malik_Maqbul_Tilangani&diff=1035174120&oldid=1035170849 04:15, 24 July 2021], when he started to derail a conversation about a 13th-century commander by talking about "Muhammad Ali or Michael Jackson or Cat Stevens", "constitution", and more unrelated subjects. He [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malik_Maqbul_Tilangani&diff=next&oldid=1035177633 then ignored a request] by another editor to "stay on the topic"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malik_Maqbul_Tilangani&diff=next&oldid=1035174120] and doubled down with derailing on every single message.
Long time editor in the topic area.
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
This all happened after he was already cautioned by multiple editors about [[WP:BLPCAT]], [[WP:V]] and other relevant policies per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Loveall.human&oldid=1035265146#Your_recent_edits his talk page] after he had added names to an article by relying on unreliable sources and [[WP:CIRCULAR]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_converts_to_Islam_from_Hinduism&type=revision&diff=1018902112&oldid=999128757]
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
This is a long time editor in the topic area who is fully aware of our policies regarding NPOV and BLP. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 18:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@SilverLocust, I wasn't aware of [[WP:BLPSPS]]. The editor who reverted Alaexis' edit cited [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]]. Having now read BLPSPS I'm not sure I understand how these two policies don't contradict each other.
But he still does not understand any of those policies.
Also I didn't rush here seeking sanctions, I first emailed an admin about my concerns and asked how to proceed and was told "I would agree it violates NPOV (specifically DUE) and BLP, as well as OR since it goes beyond straightforward paraphrase. I would suggest bringing the matter to AE." [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 21:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
During his unblock request, one admin had noted Loveall.human to be [[WP:NOTHERE]] and he would "end up blocked again for POV-pushing, edit-warring, or something along those lines".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Loveall.human&diff=1012488802&oldid=1012459004] I think it could be true, given the continued display of incompetence and battleground mentality. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 22:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
:@[[User:Swatjester|Swatjester]], don't you think there's a big difference between Alaexis' edit stating as a fact that "Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks", compared to how The Times reported it using phrases such as "an Israeli journalist has claimed" and "allegedly"?
@Toddy1: I don't see any justification for the behaviour that is prevailing since September 2020 with this account. CIR, together with battleground mentality is the last thing we would want for any subject.
:Another article in The Times reports it as "Eitan Fischberger, an Israeli journalist and former IDF soldier, also published an archived Telegram post which purported to show Sharif celebrating the Hamas-led attacks on Israel of October 7, 2023, in which 1,200 Israelis died."[https://www.thetimes.com/world/middle-east/israel-hamas-war/article/al-jazeera-condemns-attack-8zp9ds959] and [[+972 Magazine]] reports it as "The message, which appears completely inconsistent with Al-Sharif’s posting history on or after the events of October 7, was deleted soon after it was published. Many of Al-Sharif’s news updates on that day were copied and re-posted from other groups, chat rooms, or news sites. This means that the statement could have been an accidental post that he deleted as soon as he was made aware of it."[https://www.972mag.com/israel-hamas-journalists-smear-gaza/] [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 23:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Vanamonde that an important element of this is that the claim was "not presented as an isolated statement about his views, but as a negative veneer for his career". What kind of sentence is "Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks and became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza [...]"? This is not how RS describe Al-Sharif. RS speak of him how Wikipedia did/does as ~"[Since October 7th 2023,] Al-Sharif became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza". [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 02:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
@Trangabellam: That edit was correct as it removed unreliable sources and improperly sourced entries. What Black Kite restored has nothing to do with earlier version per his own statement since he used new sources for the entries he restored.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aman.kumar.goel&diff=1035265214&oldid=1035043901] 09:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Loveall.human&diff=976833250&oldid=934825186]
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [[User talk:Loveall.human#Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement]]
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alaexis#Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Loveall.humanAlaexis===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Loveall.human====
''See my responses in italics. General layman comments, if anything violating some Wiki jargon (no intention), let me know. Rest assured, the statements below are with evidences to back.''
====Statement by Alaexis====
"05:39, 24 July 2021: Falsely claims ..". - ''Sanjjana Galrani was not [https://www.thehansindia.com/cinema/sandalwood/converting-to-islam-was-my-personal-decision-sanjjanaa-galrani-672239 FALSELY claimed]. It was in the context of that account doing mass reverts on many articles without any discussion in talk page/relevant article page.''
Just saw that there is a complaint against me. I understand that the problem was with using primary sources for a BLP topic ([[WP:BLPPRIMARY]]). I did exercise caution in using a primary source: I checked that this comes from the same account that was listed in the article about Al Sharif and looked at other content in that channel. We have RS that cite the same channel without any caveats.
"08:07, 24 July 2021 After being correctly.." - ''I have given evidences of the pattern where 'multiple' article reverts were made without communicating/discussing it which I presume is vandalizing. I stand by "unhealthy mob bullying pattern that is being observed in pushing far right wing POV" with enough evidences [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#Wikipedia:WikiBullying by User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Capitals00|here]]. To be specific, the convert from Hinduism to XYZ article lists only are almost barred from growing for more than 4 years with consistent mob bullying patterns that is observed.''
Another issue noted below was with my wording: I wrote that Al Sharif "celebrated" the attacks whereas he wrote {{tquote|heroes are still roaming the country, killing and capturing... Oh God, how great you are}}. I'm not sure it counts as an interpretation but if this were the main problem then the right way to fix it would've been to replace it with text that follows the source more closely.
"His overall.." - ''How is 'unhelpful' presence decided? How is talking/discussion in the relevant page regarding criteria for conversion is 'derailing', especially with that account to understand why he was doing mass reverts without discussion?''
I believe that I could've been more careful with sourcing and I'll definitely be more careful with BLP topics from now on.
"He then ignored.."''- I did not ignore the request or derail on the 'topic', I remained on topic, evident from the link you have posted itself. The further discussions continued, precisely it was relevant.''
The contentious content was removed from the article some time ago, and I would have been open to discussing these concerns at the talk page to reach consensus on proper sourcing. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 19:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
"This all happened.."''- Was cautioned only ONCE by ONE editor, even that editor who did not communicate back [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Loveall.human&oldid=1021554324 multiple times] despite I gave him proper source who had done mass reverts without verifying. Before and after caution, I have not added any row without proper source or research. Context is I had added more than a dozen names, after careful research with proper sources being cited. WITHOUT any discussion or pointing out which row is having unreliable sources, the edits were removed en-masse. After the first mass reverting of my edits itself, I STOPPED doing any edits to those articles, and I was trying to have the folks who do mass reverting to communicate in article's talk or user talk page why and which specific entry of its source is inaccurate (instead of communicating, I was filed with reports to block me).''
====Statement by LokiTheLiar====
"But he still.." ''- Indeed, am still learning. Which specific policy and evidence to claim this statement. And which I was warned for not understanding and have violated?''
As a totally uninvolved editor who stumbled across this filing, I'd like to point out that in addition to the problems Tamzin pointed out with step 6, there are also problems with steps 2 and 5:
The issue with step 2 is that, just like how Alaexis did not cite an interpretation of that Telegraph post, he also didn't cite a source saying that that is in fact the subject's Telegraph account. Now, reliable sources agree it is, but for a similar reason to why interpreting the post himself is bad, not giving a source that proves this account is the subject's account is a BLP violation, and a separate one to the OR interpretation of the post. It's not like it's impossible to impersonate someone on social media: if you want to cite someone's social media for a controversial statement you do in fact have to have some kind of evidence that it's actually them saying that.
"During his unblock request.."''- That was his prediction/prophetic 'opinion' commenting on a sock report which turned out to be false (like another TWO sock reports on me). Why is that there is no discussion on topic/talk page due to relentless sock reports and blocking efforts on me with wiki jargons keeping wiki users busy with answering such reports instead of learning/collaborating/discussing/editing? And I am accused of "battleground mentality" for asking to discuss/communicate. If anything, I could also probably claim I am being wiki-bullied relentlessly abusing wiki admin processes, just to maintain far right wing POV only with overwhelming evidences from the reporting pattern on me and others. It's evident, how wiki process is abused, is I am spending now more time on relentless reports on me based on false accusations, than actually contributing to Wiki.''
The issue with step 5 is IMO much more clear: [[WP:NONENG]] says directly that {{tq|Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people}}, and this is clearly both, so relying on Google Translate is definitely inappropriate. Now, there's actually no reason necessarily to believe that Alaexis did this: Alaexis used the Arabic directly as the source (which is separately problematic for a BLP since it's hard to verify but that's neither here nor there). But I think that AE very clearly should not use machine translation to support any interpretation of that Telegraph post, positive or negative. We don't know if al-Sharif called anyone "heroes". We know Google Translate says he did, but Google Translate is itself not a reliable source and very easily could have mistranslated a word or missed nuances of language like sarcasm. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 07:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93 -'' I was given unfair judgement mistakenly by the admins in the first sock report action on me, which took months to prove that crafted shared interest sock reports is not enough evidence to the admins. With or without warning, I have been careful to contribute only with proper sourcing. Admins to take note, not a single edit has been made by me WITHOUT citing any verifiable source. If so, the onus is on the one who is accusing and am concerned too of Wiki having any stain of inaccurate or false information. Careful reading of above with evidences provided by the one who raised himself shows the complaint had blatant FALSE accusations. All are equal here with different roles in Wiki. It is expected for admins with privileges entrusted to be role models to behave neutral/academic. For Aman Kumar Goel, he is observed with repeated and consistent bullying patterns of abusing wiki processes to maintain far right wing POV (Hindu Nationalism type) [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#Wikipedia:WikiBullying by User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Capitals00|as discussed here]]. A different view is healthy, but enforcing only far right wing POV by choking others without even discussing by abusing processes is taking wiki processes and admins for granted. And the articles, I edited was with competence with careful research invested. I am even doubting with [[User talk:Bringtar/Archive 1#Disruptive editing|similar pattern observed in another user's page]] that if there is competence by the folks who are doing such mass reverts without being specific to help identify which one is inaccurate.''
[[User:Loveall.human|Loveall.human]] ([[User talk:Loveall.human|talk]]) 06:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
====Statement by Toddy1Zero0000====
Incidentally, the statement is a Quranic allusion and partly a direct quote (Q17:5).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malik_Maqbul_Tilangani&diff=next&oldid=1035181136 Regarding the first diff that Aman.kumar.goel complained about], Aman.kumar.goel wrote above: ''On this diff he is also throwing WP:NPA by falsely accusing other editor of vandalism: "Is this vandalism?".'' The inference that the diff is evidence of a personal attack by Loveall.human is not reasonable. If you accept that posting a message saying that an edit was vandalism is a personal attack then anybody who uses standard warning templates such as [[:Template:Uw-vandalism3]], [[:Template:Uw-subtle3]] and many others at [[:Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace]] is guilty of making a personal attack.
If this ends up in the article, then +972's report that it was soon removed and contradicts his other posts should also be there. We don't know the story behind it and shouldn't pretend that we do. A possibility is that he praised it as a battle but removed the post on learning that it was more of a massacre. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 03:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malik_Maqbul_Tilangani&diff=next&oldid=1035181136 In the diff Loveall.human] is asking the basic question - what are the criteria for inclusion in religious categories and lists. The answer for living people is [[WP:BLPCAT]] - which was given in [[Talk:Malik Maqbul Tilangani#july]] in response to Loveall.human's question. It does not seem reasonable to bring Loveall.human to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for asking the question on a relevant article talk page.
====Statement by TylerBurden====
Both sides need to calm down. Aman.kumar.goel is one of a number of editors who are doing a good job trying to impose some discipline on these lists of religious conversions. I understand his/her frustration. But please try to understand, you too get it wrong sometimes.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 20:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
While I'm not familiar with Alaexis's edits in this topic area, they recently made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1307422715 this] edit within [[WP:RUSUKR]] creating a section about ″energy infrastructure″ on the [[Russian invasion of Ukraine]] consisting mostly of content about Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure or Ukrainians being arrested for sabotage. I think this was a pretty plain violation of [[WP:NPOV]], albeit in a different CTOP, given the fixation on Ukraine being the main culprit of attacks on energy infrastructure despite Russia being widely covered in [[WP:RS]] targeting Ukrainian infrastructure, particularly during winter times, their edit mostly focused on attacks damaging Russian energy incomes. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 20:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Aman.kumar.goel}} As far as I can tell, Loveall.human has not engaged in battleground behaviour since his/her unblock in April 2021. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 19:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
====Statement by User:TrangaBellam (username)====
I request AKG to explain [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_Hinduism&diff=1034998558&oldid=1034909300&diffmode=source this] edit. Some of the entries have been already restored by User:BlackKite. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 07:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
====Statement by XYZ ====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning Loveall.humanAlaexis===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
* {{Reply|IOHANNVSVERVS}} Which of the following steps, if any, do you disagree with/object to (enough to merit sanctions)? <ol><li>[[WP:BLPSPS]] allows use of social network posts by the subject as sources of material about himself.</li><li>Seemingly nobody has contested that https://t.me/anas1020304050 is [[Anas_Al-Sharif#External_links|his Telegram account]].</li><li>The [[Internet Archive]]'s [[Wayback Machine]] is the web archive most frequently [[Help:Using the Wayback Machine|used on Wikipedia]] (and any evidence that one of its archives has ever been faked would be of great interest).</li><li>The [https://web.archive.org/web/20231127012006/https://t.me/anas1020304050/22098 archived text] on "Oct 7" is "{{tq|9 ساعات ولا زال الأبطال يجوسون خلال الديار يقتلون ويأسرون.. الله الله ما أعظمكم 💚💚💚.}}"</li><li>[[Google Translate]]'s [https://translate.google.com/?sl=ar&tl=en&text=9%20%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA%20%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A7%20%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%84%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%A8%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%84%20%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%88%D9%86%20%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%84%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B1%20%D9%8A%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%88%D9%86%20%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86..%0A%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87%20%D9%85%D8%A7%20%D8%A3%D8%B9%D8%B8%D9%85%D9%83%D9%85%20%F0%9F%92%9A%F0%9F%92%9A%F0%9F%92%9A.&op=translate translation] of that is "{{tq|9 hours and the heroes are still roaming the country, killing and capturing... Oh God, how great you are.}}"</li><li>Alaexis wrote, citing that post, that "{{tq|Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks}}".</li></ol> ~ Jenson ([[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]]) 20:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*I'm quite unimpressed by Loveall.human's conduct here. Distinguishing between a statement that a source is reporting, and one that it's making in its own voice, is critical to all parts of Wikipedia, and Loveall.human seems unable or unwilling to understand the distinction. They also seem to have a single interest here, which isn't the healthiest, a break from religious conversions might not be the worst thing. {{pb}} That said, this particular topic has gotten quite nasty, with a number of recent noticeboard complaints ([[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#Wikipedia:WikiBullying_by_User:Aman.kumar.goel_and_User:Capitals00|1]], [[Special:diff/1035422448|2]]), and I'm concerned the broader dispute around religious conversions may need admin evaluation; there seems to be a bit of a throwing-shit-at-the-wall approach here from multiple parties. {{U|Black Kite}}, you commented on the ANI discussion; any thoughts? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 16:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
*:I don't think the difference between {{tq|celebrated the October 7 attacks}} versus {{tq|referred to October 7 attack participants as "heroes" "killing and capturing"}} is so significant as to require a sanction. (What IOHANNVSVERVS [[User_talk:Alaexis#Question|questioned]] on Alaexis's talk page was just the authenticity of the post, not anything about there being another way to interpret it.)
*:Based on {{U|Black Kite}}'s comment, I am no longer comfortable with sanctioning Loveall.human, but a logged warning about source use is still, I believe, justified. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 19:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
*:It's certainly fair to respond that it should just quote precisely what he said (to avoid interpretation) or that available secondary sources should be included alongside the post (and separately from the refs not related to the post). All I'd support is an informal reminder to do those things. ~ Jenson ([[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]]) 05:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{U|Loveall.human}}, Generic statements about your edits being supported by sources arent' very helpful. In the talk page discussion linked above you imply that [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/did-sanjjanaa-galrani-change-her-religion-and-name-in-2018/articleshow/78208745.cms?from=mdr this source] was sufficient for the content it is used for in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanjjanaa_Galrani&oldid=1018850940 this revision]. Are you still defending that claim? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 15:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
*::Though I said informal reminder, I'm also fine with a warning. Regarding the comments about the +972 piece's (mistaken) assertion that it was deleted soon after, the post was archived 50 days later and then again [https://web.archive.org/web/20250406082852/https://t.me/anas1020304050/22098 earlier this year], so the deletion was sometime between this April and August. ~ Jenson ([[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]]) 05:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
* {{u|Vanamonde93}} I am unconvinced that Loveall.human's behaviour is and better or worse than numerous other actors in this area. I note that the filer of this AE has significant previous in trying to remove political opponents from their areas. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
*NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The edits in question, about Sharif's telegram account and his celebration of October 7 appear to have been previously in the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anas_Al-Sharif&diff=prev&oldid=1305411479 here] where they were cited to The Times, a reliable source. [https://www.thetimes.com/world/middle-east/israel-hamas-war/article/israel-gaza-latest-news-today-journalists-killed-zwbfbbfdt "Anas Al-Sharif celebrated the protagonists of the October 7 terrorist attacks as “heroes” while the pogrom was under way, an Israeli journalist has claimed."] The same The Times source also reiterates many of the same claims found in the [https://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-global-outcry-idf-says-al-jazeera-reporter-it-killed-was-receiving-hamas-salary Times of Israel source] which details the IDF's claims and evidence of Sharif's status as an actively-paid Hamas rocket-launching team commander -- claims which have been scrubbed from the article in the past two weeks. So, I'm struggling to see how this is UNDUE, insignificant, or not published by a reliable source. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 22:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{yo|IOHANNVSVERVS}} Quibbling over the exact wordsmithing is one thing, but that didn't happen here, did it? From what I can tell the edits were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anas_Al-Sharif&diff=prev&oldid=1305424834 reverted wholesale], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anas_Al-Sharif&diff=next&oldid=1305369598 at least twice]. If the content would have been acceptable with some better variation of including the word "alleged" and noting that the Times is reiterating another journalist, that raises the natural follow-up question of "why that didn't happen and why this was escalated to AE instead." [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 00:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Yes, this is a conduct noticeboard; but this is not a conduct dispute. This is a content dispute in which very little attempt has been made to seriously justify any claims of misconduct [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alaexis#c-Alaexis-20250825181600-IOHANNVSVERVS-20250823170500 nor do there appear to have been significant attempts to resolve this directly with the user in question]. We don't get to have it both ways -- either this is not subject matter for this forum in the first place (in which case it should be summarily closed), or it is and the substance of the edits in question are relevant to the dispute. The WP:PRIMARY argument holds zero weight with me when there had been pre-existing attempts to include the same information sourced to perennially reliable secondary sources, and it was summarily removed. Come on, we're supposed to be better than that kind of procedural nitpicking, something that resembles the Committee's recent finding that {{tq|"Highly tendentious disputes over objectively minor issues hurt the Wikipedia project. They hurt the project by reducing editor co-operation, and can drive editors away from working in the areas of the encyclopedia in which they occur. The fact that something may contradict Wikipedia policies or guidelines is not enough to justify disruption that exceeds the harm caused by the underlying issue. Editors are expected to maintain proper perspective about the issues under discussion, and act to further the greater good of the encyclopedia."}} Do you think that sanctioning Alaexis for this on the basis of WP:PRIMARY demonstrates the degree of [[WP:PERSPECTIVE|perspective]] that satisfies the greater good of the encyclopedia when we *know* that non-primary sources use the exact wording in question and the only underlying issue is around categorizing it as an allegation? I certainly don't. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 07:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::A serious BLP violation doesn't stop being a serious BLP violation just because there's a way to make a similar edit that wouldn't be a BLP violation. If there weren't the case, we'd never be able to sanction anyone who overstates the extent of a felon's crimes or pushes some gossipy stuff that happens to be true. That's not <em>procedural nitpicking</em> or <em>objectively minor</em>. That is a major aspect of BLP enforcement. There's two questions for us to answer here: 1) Did Alaexis introduce policy-violating content to an article? 2) Is a sanction necessary to prevent them from doing that again? On (1), the answer is straightforwardly yes. On (2), I reserve judgment pending response from Alaexis. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 08:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Except the subject is dead, and was confirmed dead by reliable sources at the time the edit was made, and this is a further reason why [[WP:BPD]] is bad policy, because it states a general rule that {{Tq|Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources.}} but then goes on to state that {{tq|The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside.}} So how long does it extend here and where/when was that decided vis-a-vis this article? An indefinite, indeterminate period providing zero guidance as to how that period should be calculated as an exception to a general rule that it would not apply, is too vague to reasonably be grounds to sanction an editor IMO.[[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 08:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::You're welcome to start another RfC on the wording of BDP; I closed the most recent one, which restored the current wording after a previous undiscussed weakening of the rule. But just as it isn't AE's place to decide whether Alaexis is on the right side of the content dispute, it isn't AE's place to rewrite policy. There is no ambiguity as to whether BDP, as currently written, extends BLP to Anas Al-Sharif, who had been dead for all of a day at the time the edit was made. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 10:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
* I was the one who suggested that Iohannvs file here. In my view, the answer to [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]]'s question is point 6: It's an editorialization—a plausible editorialization, perhaps, but still an editorialization—and thus violates [[WP:PRIMARY]] ({{tqq|Any <em>interpretation</em> of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.}}) and [[WP:BLPSOURCES]]. ''Pace'' Swatjester, it makes no difference to me whether other sources exist that would support including that sentence, because Alaexis didn't cite those sources. This is a conduct noticeboard, not a content noticeboard, and if Alaexis does not understanding the issue with saying a [[WP:BDP|recently deceased person]] {{tqq|celebrated the October 7 attacks}} sourced only to their own analysis of a social media post he made, that is a matter that needs to be addressed. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 03:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*We require editors writing about BLPs to rely on secondary sources to characterize them, not on their [[WP:OR|own analyses]] of the subject's own words. If secondary sources attribute a position to this person, add that by all means, but OR from a telegram channel? This is basic stuff: I would call this a more clear-cut NPOV violation than is usually brought to this board. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 05:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Swatjester|SilverLocust}} The subject's recent death is secondary. Interpreting a person's own words to paint them in a negative light in a lead sentence that was about their career, not their views, is a violation of NOR and NPOV. We've been over this many times with other subjects with a penchant for controversial soundbytes. Secondary sources are required for interpretive statements, and I'm surprised admins think otherwise. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 16:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I agree that the BLP policy applies. I'm not aware of an alternative reading of those words having been offered by any source or editor (saying those words do not [[wikt:celebrate|celebrate]] participants (i.e., "extol or honour"), namely as [[wikt:بطل|الأبطال]] (''the heroes'')), and another reading isn't obvious to me, which is why I don't see it as sanctionable interpretation absent reason one should have known that it wasn't permissible description but rather just one possible interpretation. ~ Jenson ([[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]]) 17:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::It still requires editorial interpretation, no matter how obvious, and it was not presented as an isolated statement about his views, but as a negative veneer for his career, in the article's lead. It is a long-standing principle of NPOV that we do not interpret primary sources in this way. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 18:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*Alaexis' response here satisfies me that they understand the issues with their edit. I'd support closing this with a logged warning to be more careful when interacting with primary sources, especially regarding living or recently deceased people. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 06:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I would support such a closure. The response misses some things: the key point here is not verifiability, it's neutrality and due weight. I don't think people realize how easy it would be to construct an unfavorable biography of ''anyone'' who's active by cherry picking their social media content. But it's sufficiently reflective and conciliatory that nothing further would be justified. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 21:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Viceskeeni2==
<span class="anchor" id="Request for sanctions to be lifted"></span>
<small>''Procedural notes: Per the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals]], a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}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]]).''</small>
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Viceskeeni2}}
; Sanction being appealed : Topic ban from Armenia and Azerbaijan topics, broadly construed <br>(imposed at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive370#Disruptive_editing_of_Viceskeeni2|AN § Disruptive editing of Viceskeeni2]], logged at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2025#c-Rosguill-20250320041200-User_sanctions_(AA)|AEL § User sanctions (AA)]])
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Rosguill}}
; Notification of that administrator : [[Special:Diff/1307962984|Notification diff]]
===Statement by Viceskeeni2===
I hereby ask the Arbitration committee to please lift [[User talk:Viceskeeni2#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction 2|the sanctions put on me in March of 2025]], which restrict me from editing on topics associated with [[Azerbaijan]] and [[Armenia]]. Since the sanctions, I have made approximately 385 edits to Wikipedia in various topics, contributed to various topic areas, made 4 articles ([[Sawt Safir al-Bulbul]], [[Jabal e-Malaika]], [[Altes Rathaus, Deggendorf]], [[Ya Ali (phrase)]]), greatly contributed to 3 articles ([[2025 Iranian strikes on Al Udeid Air Base]], [[Abu Fanous]], [[Ya Ali]]), gotten into 0 problems or conflicts (atleast I cannot remember getting into any, if I have done so please correct me), become more mature over the last 5 months and gained more knowledge in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict and other topic areas. I genuinely regret past mistakes and promise to try not to repeat those mistakes, e.g. when I mistakenly edited on GS/AA article and then didn't contest the sanctions, knowing I did a mistake and will have to pay for it. I ask you to please lift the sanctions on topics associated with Azerbaijan and Armenia, including the conflict, because I have been on sanctions in connection to these 2 countries for almost a year now and have learnt from my mistakes, promising to become a better editor now and in the future. I would be very happy if the committee accepts this request, have a nice day. [[User:Viceskeeni2|Viceskeeni2]] ([[User talk:Viceskeeni2|talk]]) 15:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
===Statement by Rosguill===
I'm generally well-inclined to the written content of the request (demotion of [[Altes Rathaus, Deggendorf]] to draftspace notwithstanding as notability/translations were not related to the issues for the original block/ban), but asked Viceskeeni2 that they bring it here given that there's a longer history of related blocks and bans that I think is worth considering before moving forward. My understanding is that the full chronology of prior sanctions is:
*28 August 2024 -- Blocked by me for 31 hours for GS/AA violations
*6 September 2024 -- Blocked by me, indefinitely, for further GS/AA violations, battleground attitude, and noting quality issues with edits outside GS/AA
*19 November 2024 -- Unblocked by {{u|HouseBlaster}} with a conditional topic ban from {{tq|Armenia and Azerbaijan, both individually and the conflict.}}
*18 February 2025 -- Tban partially lifted by HouseBlaster, now applies only to the conflict, not the two countries individually.
*20 March 2025 -- Tban from Armenia and Azerbaijan individually reimposed by me, following report of violations of the conflict-only tban at AN ([[Special:Diff/1281448939#Disruptive_editing_of_Viceskeeni2]]).
My overall impression is that the latest appeal says the right things, and there don't appear to have been signs of disruption since the last ban. I am a bit concerned, however, by the repeated problems with prior iterations of the tbans, which, in line with my assessment at the time of the 6 September 2024 block, would seem to indicate a persistent battleground attitude towards this conflict. Reviewing all of this now, I do also note that on 1 March 2025, while still facing a tban from the conflict, Viceskeeni2 [[Special:Diff/1278332853|added a custom userbox]] to their userpage expressing {{tq|This user '''opposes''' ethnic [[separatism]] in [[Nagorno-Karabakh]]...}} and most of the rest of the post-Soviet separatist conflicts, which seems like another straightforward topic ban violation that went unnoticed and which is still on their userpage at the moment (the contraposition of opposing these "separatist conflicts" while [[Special:Diff/1278430764|supporting Chechen and Turkestan independence]] is left as an exercise to the reader I guess). <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 18:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:I thought editing on userpages and sandboxes doesn't have anything to do with topic bans as they're not public articles or areas. If it actually violates the ban, I will immediately remove it and apologize for my mistake. [[User:Viceskeeni2|Viceskeeni2]] ([[User talk:Viceskeeni2|talk]]) 20:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Viceskeeni2 ===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)====
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)====
===Result of the appeal by Viceskeeni2===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
*
| 