Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	8	11	19
TfD	0	0	1	4	5
MfD	0	0	4	5	9
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	18	28	46
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 2 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 158 sockpuppet investigations
• 9 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 19 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 22 requests for RD1 redaction
• 32 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 44 requested closures
• 115 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 13 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (25 out of 8407 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:Magnolia677 2024-09-17 04:32 2024-12-11 01:59 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Acroterion Talk:Zionism 2024-09-17 00:05 2024-09-24 00:05 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish September 2024 Al-Jawni School attack 2024-09-16 20:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Template:Infobox aircraft/styles.css 2024-09-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3823 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Infobox racing driver series section 2024-09-16 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Infobox aircraft 2024-09-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3824 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Archive top green/styles.css 2024-09-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2861 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Panchal 2024-09-16 15:38 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case User talk:Jimfbleak 2024-09-16 13:34 2024-09-30 13:34 edit,move Persistent vandalism Jimfbleak Talk:Gaza genocide 2024-09-15 21:23 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:Snow Patrol 2024-09-15 20:13 2024-10-15 20:13 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Snow Patrol 2024-09-15 20:11 2026-09-15 20:11 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan User:Daniel Quinlan/Sandbox 2024-09-15 18:54 2026-01-01 00:00 move test protection Daniel Quinlan Maria Zakharova 2024-09-15 05:30 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Saryuparin Brahmin 2024-09-15 03:30 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Philippe Lazzarini 2024-09-15 03:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Talk:Beliveo Lamoya 2024-09-14 19:25 2024-09-17 19:25 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Beliveo Lamoya 2024-09-14 19:23 2024-09-17 19:23 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/portal/core 2024-09-14 17:01 indefinite edit,move RFPP request Anachronist Jol Thoi Thoi Bhalobasha 2024-09-14 06:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Ogaden (clan) 2024-09-13 20:38 2026-09-13 20:38 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Galileo Galilei 2024-09-13 19:05 indefinite move Persistent vandalism: per RFPP Daniel Case Template:Infobox cricket tournament 2024-09-13 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Archive top red/styles.css 2024-09-13 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3381 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Communist Party of India (Marxist) 2024-09-13 15:28 2024-12-13 15:28 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; up to ECP as semi isn't sufficient; requested at WP:RfPP Elli

Threads need closure

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bludgeoning and edit warring by Newimpartial and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Advocacy editing by User:TheTranarchist would both benefit from a closure, sooner rather than later. We're firmly into "causing unnecessary stress and pain to the subjects, unrepairable harm to relationships, and harm to the community" territory. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I concur. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• There are a couple folks on the fence still. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  We don’t stop everything until everybody involved has made up their minds, for very obvious reasons. — Trey Maturin™ 20:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Both threads are trainwrecks. One was started by a user who was later blocked as a sockpuppet. Neither thread makes us look good and taken together the effect is compounded. The longer this goes on the worse it gets. It must be horrible for the subjects. Neither of them deserve this ongoing inquisition. I'm pretty sure that anybody with anything to say has already said it. The sooner it ends the better. DanielRigal (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom needs to seriously consider reexamining the GENSEX area, given that issues related to it are taking up an ever-increasing percentage of the community's time. This is becoming seriously disruptive. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Independently of whether it's time to close the threads, I disagree with the hand-wringing expressed in this thread. It seems that at least one of the subjects has at least appeared to have taken the advice and criticism on board, and something good may come of that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I agree as well. Since there's obviously no consensus in either discussion, they should both be easy to close. Nythar (💬-❄️) 21:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I also agree that whether the closing admin chooses to issue sanctions in these cases or not, there isn't anything more to be gained from keeping it opened except more and more drama. There don't seem to be any new perspectives or arguments that haven't already been given. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• As the user who started one of the threads, I also believe it has run it's course and would benefit from being closed, with whatever decision the closing admin takes (As someone who never edits in GENSEX, never interacted with the users in that field, and filed a report purely based on RSN, I never imagined how it would explode with so much bad faith on both sides. I doubt anything productive will come out of keeping it open any longer and disengaged from it myself days ago). Jeppiz (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Shut her down. Everything that needs to be said has been said for both sides. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Having read the NI thread, I feel compelled to note that one of the purposes DS played, which Contentious Topics as it's successor plays, is letting admin make decisions with some degree of finality on behalf of the community. This is why there is a first mover advantage (it's a brightline violation for an admin to overturn a CT imposed sanction) and why appeals require a higher degree of consensus than normal in order to be accepted. This protection goes both ways - it protects someone closing with a warning or no action just as much as someone closing with a sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Barkeep49 sorry to be such a non-admin noob, but can you bring that down to a fourth-grade level so I can grok? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry I wasn't clear having prioritized the why/how over what I was saying. One of the ideas behind CT is to give admin the push to act before a conversation reaches that level of community involvement and once it does the confidence to act in a way that will stick. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin(s): Whatever the end result is, I think it might be a good idea to suggest that for future issues in this topic area it might be a better idea to bring them to WP:AE rather than ANI because they have a more formal structure to better deal with enforcement requests of this type. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would tend to agree that AE is a much better option than ANI. With the type of accusations being wilded against established editors that edit contentious topics like that, it's best for the ultimate decision to be made by non-involved administrators with input from other editors. It would help avoid a sort of mob mentality that can occur, and alleviate concerns that there is a mob attacking someone because of their editorial stances. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think the structure and inherent limitations of AE helps in cases like this, more than it avoiding a "mob mentality". A mob can still form at AE, however with statements from editors usually limited to 500 words and 20 diffs, it discourages general back and forth discussion between all of the editors, while focusing it on the back and forth between the editors and admins. That said, AE discussions can still go off-the-rails and become train wrecks, particularly when editorial frustration is built up and accusations (founded or otherwise) of bad faith editing are thrown about. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Everything you say is true, but what I'm trying to point out is I don't particularly like seeing peoples editing rights being limited because a consensus happens to form during an ANI discussion of editors who may, or may not, have a full understanding of the nuances of the particular situation or even WP behavioral standards. Many people who participate in such ANI discussions probably do a 2-minute skim of the discussion and just !vote with their gut. Whereas, at AE the decision is made by usually experienced admins who can look at the situation for what it is and apply their community-vetted judgement. ANI is liking having a bunch of protesters outside the courthouse decide if someone is guilty vs letting a panel of judges, who actually know what they are doing, determine it. What I've pointed out about ANI process is what I see as a fundamental flaw in WP's version of due process. Sure a mob can form at AE, but the mob isn't going to make the decision of whether someone loses their right to edit or not. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Admins at AE also may, or may not, have a full understanding of the nuances of the particular situation or even WP behavioral standards. Given the choice, I'd take ANI over AE every time; the common wisdom is that the structure of AE lends to making better decisions, but I remain unconvinced. The upshot is AE threads are usually shorter, so less costly. I think the accuracy rate is about the same, but I guess AE is cheaper. In any event, my thanks to whomever steps up to close these ANI threads, however and whenever they're closed. Levivich (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Both noticeboards have their positives and negatives for this sort of issue.

  ANI is less structured, decisions on how to sanction an editor or editors are made by community consensus. It's easier for knowledgeable editors in the relevant topics or articles to contribute as to where they see the problem is, as it can often be different from a discussion's OP. But the more free-form nature of the discussion does make it more likely to have mammoth length threads that can devolve into public slinging matches.

  AE is more structured, decisions on how to sanction are largely made by a consensus of the admins contributing. But if you can't fit the nature of the complaint, or a defence to a complaint into the word and diff limits, which can easily happen on more complex cases, it can be difficult to convince the admin panel. The biggest problem with AE (and to a lesser extend ANI), at least to me, is its inability to handle WP:CPUSH. Recognising CPUSHing, particularly when it involves more subtle subversions of NPOV and RS, requires editors to have familiarity with the underlying source material to recognise where content is being added that is not complaint with policy or sourcing. Unfortunately by the time many admins have the familiarity with the source material to potentially agree with editors who report CPUSH problems, they are often seen as too involved to actually be able to contribute as part of the admin consensus panel. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there no admin willing to close?

I know it's a big job (either one), but it's been a week since this plea for closure was posted and the core discussions were growing stale even then. It doesn't seem fair to the two contributors in question to leave them in suspense for so long. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I had read through NI's discussion after the original message here was posted. But then I got (in a hatted section) to an editor who has knows their way around ArbCom (and who seems quite passionate but is, to my knowledge, UNINVOVLED) seriously suggesting this might come to the committee. Because there are lots of admins but only 15 arbs (and at the moment less given a few who inactive or inactive in most areas) I decided I would be the wrong closer. So that's why I made my generic note above about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The threads appear to have been closed at this point. I think this section can be closed and archived in light of this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Urgent help needed in copyvio maintenance category

• Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations

There are currently 154 pages in this category, automatically categorized by the {{AfC submission}} template by the cv switch. I came across the category just now and started to randomly select some articles, and found that about half are cleaned drafts where the reviewing admin didn't set that switch to cv-cleaned (which moves them to Category:AfC submissions cleaned of copyright violations), while the other half or so still have the copyvio in them - the AfC reviewer did not request redaction. Some copyvios are quite old, and I'll admit that I've left some cleaned drafts behind myself since I didn't know about that switch.

I'm going to start going through each page in that category to check for visible copyright violations, removing and revdeleting them, and properly setting the switch. Ideally that category should not have any members. Any admins familiar with WP:RD1 redaction who would like to help are invited to start on any article still in the category.

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

At one point I was able to keep that category at 0, but it's a category that almost no one pays any attention to so if I stop patrolling it for a day or two it skyrockets. Honestly, I'm debating changing the category structure so that it dumps it directly into the RD1 request page so that our more regular RD1 patrollers can help out. Primefac (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Secondary discussion regarding the reviewer-side of things started here. Primefac (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not realize there was a cv switch that needed to be changed after a revdel. I'll keep that in mind for the future. -- Whpq (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Whpq, would this help to make it more obvious (for those reviewers who don't follow AN)? Primefac (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would probably help. For me, I think it's a case of banner blindness. The big red message would cause me to click on the link and read. -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Some of it could be handled with a pre-loaded AWB run; clear out all the ones that need more work like actual removal of content/revdel requests, then go through and put the cv-c in. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Um... if you're going through and manually checking all of the pages (which is what is necessary for this) then what is the point of then re-visiting them later on with AWB? Just change the decline note at the time. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Wanli and Jianwen Eras

Mass nonsensical reverts without discussion or comment, including removal of improvements and improved formatting, links, etc. and insertion of duplicate sections and assorted nonsense in the middle of edit warring by User:Ylogm. Just get 'em to stop and at least talk and/or force them to sit through a mediation to at least discuss why they prefer the worse wrong version of the page. In particularly, the current "translations" of the Chinese names are wrong and worse formatted and the discussion of the Yongle Emperor's reversion of the Jianwen Era is wrong/worse. Thanks. — LlywelynII 03:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Wanli Era edit history with my comments and requests and Ylogm's ignoring of them.

Jianwen Era edit history with my comments and requests and Ylogm's ignoring of them.

Talk:Jianwen_Era with my request for comments and (so far) Ylogm's ignoring it.

Amid the edit warring, Ylogm has also duplicated the entire content of the page without noticing/caring, in an attempt to avoid having any discussion or bring their revert to my attention. — LlywelynII 03:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: You are required to notify the user of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking through Ylogm's edit history and seeing a lot of seemingly pointless edits and self-reverts. Unless Ylogm adequately explains what that's about, I'm inclined to block per WP:NOTHERE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Happened again at Wanli Era. I originally reverted a bunch of their moves, and I agree with the statement of WP:NOTHERE. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about enough of that. Blocked, and it might be worth looking through Ylogm's other edits too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

General backlog building at WP:RFCLOSE

There are 14 discussions that are currently red at WP:RFCLOSE, including a large number that only an administrator is capable of closing due to relevant policies surrounding sanctions and deletion discussions. I plan to take some time to see if I can close some other discussions posted there, but more admin eyes (and hands) are urgently needed on that board so that the numerous aged discussions posted there can be brought to a timely close. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

14 red discussions don't strike me as an inordinately large number of red discussions? Especially because over half that number are RfD closes which is a specialty area so it's not surprising (at least to me) when it takes longer for someone to close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I would strongly suggest that old XFD should almost never be listed at ANRFC. IznoPublic (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Primefac (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

On this point, I've removed the entirety of the RFD listings. All of them were routine, and a few were already closed. @LaundryPizza03, please avoid listing old routine XFD at ANRFC. Old XFD already have a list at the relevant fora and do not need special tracking.

You'll be able to tell when an old XFD is not routine when they have many participants who do not agree with each other. Think north of 10 people. IznoPublic (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The TOC format in the new skin obfuscates the backlog, which may explain why WP:RFD is suddenly getting persistently backlogged to the point where the main page is difficult to load. I would recommend either creating a custom in-text ToC that makes the backlog easier to navigate, or hiding all of the open RfD log pages like what we currently have at CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not pertinent to my comment? :) Please don't list routine XFD at ANRFC. Thanks. Izno (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nobody else was acting to keep the RFD page from overflowing with old discussions awaiting closure. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Redrose64, since you reverted my removal, you will wish to discuss that reversion here. Izno (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Your two edit summaries (one, two) did not give any indication that there was an ongoing discussion. At WP:CR, we do not simply remove requests unless (a) it was your own request and hasn't been replied to or (b) WP:TPO applies, such as prohibited/harmful material or duplicate requests. The way that we deal with premature or frivolous requests is to mark them {{not done}} with an explanation (example), set |done=yes in the {{initiated}} tag (if there is one) and let ClueBot III archive the thread(s) at its next run. The instructions at the top of the page (last paragraph, beginning "To reduce editing conflicts") make this explicit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Why do we want to archive premature or frivolous requests? Levivich (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

To preserve the comment that explains why they were not actioned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

User claiming to be an admin

I came across a problematic userpage of a new user claiming to an admin. I would like a real admin to look into this. Thanks. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, Fancy Refrigerator. I have blanked the userpage in question and written to the user. Bishonen | tålk 12:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC).

Update: Now CU-blocked by Ponyo. Bishonen | tålk 18:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC).

Moving an article without proper reason

This user moved unconventionally the article NCAA Season 98 volleyball tournaments to Draft:NCAA Season 98 volleyball tournaments to Draft:Draft NCAA Season 98 volleyball tournaments to Unknown editor for unknown reason. Then created this article NCAA season 98 volleyball tournaments, the the user just lower case the word 'season' on article title page and copy-pasted all the contents from the former. Here's user contributions. — 9️⃣8️⃣🐯♒️•(🆃🅰🅻🅺) 02:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

98Tigerius, doesn't the capitalization of the current title better reflect the guidance of the Manual of Style? If so, why does this require discussion at an administrator's noticeboard? Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Probably because it's a cut-and-paste move? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

LilianaUwU, I did a couple of cut and paste moves as a new editor back in 2009, until more experienced editors gently explained the proper procedures to me. Nobody dragged me to WP:AN over that. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 because the user did it for second time but the user has been editing the now deleted article and I help a bit on that but I was taken a back when the user moved the article in an unconventional way today so I open a discussion here to seek guidance. When you see the history of the deleted article NCAA Season 98 volleyball tournaments, it was a mess. — 9️⃣8️⃣🐯♒️ • (🆃🅰🅻🅺) 07:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the editor? Because it doesn't seem like you've tried talking to the editor. Or even notifying them that this discussion had been opened. I've taken the liberty of doing that for you. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Close Review: Tranarchist Topic Ban

Listen, I'm as loathe as any of you to open a close review on such a long and frankly taxing ANI discussion as the recent discussion regarding alleged advocacy editing by TheTranarchist (talk · contribs). However, after going through the !votes I have good reason to believe that CaptainEek (talk · contribs)'s close was against consensus.

The main reason I believe this is that their counts are simply wrong: they seem to have ignored the fact that many of the editors who supported some sanction other than a topic ban explicitly opposed a topic ban. They say there were around 35 support !votes to around 25 oppose !votes, but there are actually by my count 35 editors who said they opposed a topic ban, of which 29 opposed any sanctions. Conversely, there are 38 editors who supported some kind of topic ban, but only 32 who supported the actual result of an indefinite (or unspecified) topic ban. The other 6 supported either time limited topic bans, or domain limited topic bans, such as a topic ban only on GENSEX BLPs specifically.

I understand that consensus is not a vote, but certainly a consensus should not go against what the majority of editors supported without a good reason, and especially a consensus largely based on the alleged fact that a majority of editors supported it, when they didn't. I think there's a rough consensus in that discussion for some sanction (44 to 29, and I say that as one of the 29), but pretty transparently not one for the specific sanction imposed (32 for versus 35 explicitly opposed, and 6 others).

If you want the full details, I have them below. I'm using noping because I feel notifying every single participant in said discussion is very excessive (but if any of them want to challenge my characterization of their !vote, feel free):

!vote count

Support (indefinite) T-Ban (from GENSEX): Ganesha811, Springee, Kcmastrpc, DoubleCross, The Wordsmith, BilledMammal, David_Fuchs, SandyGeorgia, JoelleJay, Xxanthippe, YouCanDoBetter, Jweiss11, Thebiguglyalien, Nil Einne, Indy beetle, GabberFlasted, Lulfas, Czello, Levivich, Scorpions13256, Maine_Lobster, Crossroads, The Night Watch, SMcCandlish, Ficaia, GretLomborg, Nemov, Loksmythe, LindsayH, Snow_Rise, Jevansen, Pincrete, Support time-limited T-Ban: Iamreallygoodatcheckers, 2600:1700:1250:6D80:FD27:AF83:F025:53FA (note: this IP is an SPA who has only posted to vote on this ANI) Support domain-limited T-Ban: Red-tailed_hawk (note: especially notable because many of the support voters based their reasoning on his), Cbl62, Beccaynr, Rlendog Support any other sanction (including warning): Slywriter (oppose topic ban, support BLP restriction), Tamzin (oppose topic ban, support warning), Dumuzid (oppose topic ban, support warning), Sideswipe9th (oppose topic ban, support mainspace restriction), Rhododendrites (oppose topic ban, support warning), Cdjp1 (oppose topic ban, support BLP restriction) Oppose all sanctions: rsjaffe, Sativa_Inflorescence, LegalSmeagolian, Black Kite, Licks-rocks, Silverseren, Partofthemachine, Newimpartial, LokiTheLiar, Pinguinn, Timothy (supported only on condition Tranarchist's opponents in topic area were also topic banned and explicitly opposed otherwise), Colin, Hatman31, HandThatFeeds, buidhe, XOR'easter, Neonorange, Ppt91, Sundostund, SarekOfVulcan, JayBeeEll, DanielRigal, Lizthegrey, Aquillion, Parabolist, Maddy_from_Celeste, Hist9600, Sceptre, Galobtter

Loki (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

One obvious correction: the IP you say is a SPA is not. Izno (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies to them, and that comment has been stricken. However, the rest of my post stands, as I did include them in my counts and they were one of the 6 people who voted for an alternative topic ban anyway. Loki (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close which is well within an administrator's discretion to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of various arguments regarding policies and guidelines. Raw vote count charts are of no value. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is that Eek themselves said the close was based on the fact that the votes in favor outweighed those opposed by a wide margin, when they didn't outweigh those opposed at all. Loki (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close based on the arguments presented in the close. An Arbitrator, who is voted on and trusted by the community to determine consensus and handle the most difficult of user conduct disputes, feels that it was necessary and left a rather lengthy explanation of the reasoning. The closure was within the bounds of reasonable Administrator discretion, and most supported some form of sanction. I also note that consensus is not required to issue a topic ban due to Discretionary Sanctions applying to this area (though it seems it hasn't been properly logged as such yet). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  • It's good form to note that you participated in the discussion being appealed, when opining on whether to endorse/overturn. Also, the reason this isn't logged as a CT (previously DS) sanction is that it isn't one; rather, it's a community sanction that defines its scope by incorporation of an ArbCom decision. There's an informal precedent that admins generally don't impose CT sanctions when there's an ongoing proposal for a community sanction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

    It's good form to note that you participated in the discussion being appealed, when opining on whether to endorse/overturn. - Fair enough, though I didn't believe it necessary since my support for the topic ban was listed just a few lines above. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm involved here, so no boldfaced !vote, but I worry that the close has failed to consider to what extent the support !votes are applicable under the WP:TBAN policy: The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive. A large number of support !votes cited only off-wiki comments; such !votes should have been given substantially less weight. We do not ban people for expressing political opinions off-wiki, perhaps outside cases where doing so creates an inherently unsafe editing environment (which I don't think anyone argued was the case here). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  And FWIW, if I have one regret about the Athaenara affair, it's that I was merely neutral on the GENSEX TBAN; I should have opposed. It suffered from the same defective logic, citing bias outside of GENSEX content as basis to ban from that topic area. Although given its unanimity I can't fault that close. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this, I was wondering if I should myself lol. I just want to note some quick considerations on three listed !votes.

• Snow_Rise later also expressed support for limited sanctions as opposed to a full topic ban being something that could work.
• Springee consistently called me back here whenever there was an editorial disagreement in the slightest. If you look at their most recent post on the thread, they accused me of being problematic due "walls of text" (discussions with another editor that resulted in us developing a working lead) and they cited me restoring removed content as evidence I was removing details (and it bears noting that generally their comments on the Cole talk page (including their proposed lead that didn't follow the body and mentioned nothing other than her campaigning against minors) have consistently sought to POV push the framing that Cole is only opposed to transgender healthcare for minors - the details I "removed" by restoring were the full details of a bill Cole supported that notably went far beyond concerns about minors transitioning). Multiple editors throughout the course of the discussion raised issues with their own editing and the flaws/hypocrisies in their allegations (and POV-pushing in other GENSEX articles). Speaking just to their latest post, Maddy From Celeste, who has been involved in the page, described their comments as highly disingenuous and noted they had been working against a lead consensus, leaving tangential WP:IDHT comments, and insinuating sources had issues without evidence.
• JWeiss11 called for a TBAN based on my user page mission statement (trans people exist), "pattern of edits" without specification, "lengthy defenses when challenged" at my own ANI case, and accused my polar political perspectives of effecting articles. Any admin who has access to the arb-com email I sent - please confirm that JWeiss11 has a COI on FAIR I raised concerns about weeks ago. Also, when I quoted in response what I can describe no better than their polar political perspective that they believe that the mean and distribution of genetic drivers for intelligence is not identical for each every and ethnic group of humans. Basic logic demands me to believe that - their response was Evidently you have a problem with basic logic.... Not to mention the whole WP:IDHT and cries of censorship when he deadnamed Brianna Ghey, a trans girl who was just murdered, for no other reason than to say "it's not like Voldemort". Should this editors' !vote and reasoning really count? I can't be the only editor who sees an issue with an editor who pushes race science and has edited an article without disclosing their COI calling me a POV-pusher, right?
• Additionally, I want to note that I repeatedly asked people to provide a single problematic GENSEX edit outside of WP:BLP and WP:BLPGROUP, and nobody has yet to do so. If a single editor can link to a single diff where anyone in that conversation brings up such an edit/article, please link it here, otherwise I would hope Habeas Corpus would apply. If any editors want to testify to the lack of that specific corpus, that would also work. Outside of my articles specifically about anti-trans individuals and group, the only comments my general GENSEX editing have received has been 1) praise for sticking to WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, and dealing with WP:FRINGE, and 2) vague insinuations the BLP / BLPGROUP problems might carry over without any evidence they have. The issues raised were all specifically my articles on anti-trans groups/people (and even then, not all of them). My writing and gnoming of LGBT history articles, LGBT rights articles, trans healthcare articles, and trans public/historical figure articles were never mentioned in any negative context. In fact, I feel somewhat remiss that nobody pinged @Reagle, despite quoting his quote in the Atlantic about how my work on Gloria Hemingway was explicitly wiki-policy based, not culture-warriorish.

In short, I believe that the weight of !votes, both numerically and argumentatively, did not constitute a consensus for a GENSEX topic ban. The only evidence raised points towards issues with my articles on BLPs/BLPGROUPs, and even then only anti-LGBT ones. Considering that calls for no sanction and a TBAN were about equally represented, some type of sanction (perhaps even a TBAN) is probably called for on those specific types of articles, but AFAICT there has been no compelling evidence that completely cutting me off from all even marginally LGBT related articles is called for or would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I want to clarify: relative to the larger culture war and Twitter, I found the Wikipedia discussion regarding Hemmingway commendable: Wikipedians, discussing, arguing, and reasoning together; and that was the POV expressed in the The Atlantic article. (Not that my comments there should have any authority here.)

However, relative to Wikipedia, I subscribe to #Wikipedia on Mastodon and coincidentally saw TheTranarchist's posts about their activity, which seem more activist than encyclopedic -- i.e., gloating about unfavorable representations of biographical subjects on Wikipedia that the subjects object to. Similarly, LarstonMarston lists on their user page "People/organizations I strongly personally dislike", including Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, but is actively editing that article. That concerns me. Reagle (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• No, this is a very poor close (Note: I opposed sanctions). But this is not a difficult one. It is absolutely fine to close a discussion one way or another when there is little numerical consensus as long as you explain why you are giving more weight to the comments provided by the side you close in favour of. If you don't do this, and you specifically close it on the basis of numbers ("the votes in favor outweighed those opposed by a wide margin") when that is clearly not true, then that is a bad close and you don't even have the argument that it "was within discretion". It should be vacated. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  It wasn't solely closed on numbers, though. While CaptainEek did go into a lot of detail talking about numbers of !votes (so I can understand why it was interpreted this way), they also detail the content of TheTranarchists issues around editing. Furthermore there doesn't appear to have been a good enough defence of her editing to over-ride the arguments in favour of sanctions. — Czello 09:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  There isn't really a good definition of the reasons why, either, though. Far too many of the !votes for a TBAN are "per someone else", or they're editors who are in the opposing camp when it comes to their advocacy, and at least one is clearly a sock. And whilst the fact that the whole discussion was started by a sock of a banned editor who is almost certainly laughing away now at Wikipedia may be a minor point, it still exists. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think the OP being a sock really matters. If everyone took the Tranarchist's side I'd agree, but it clearly sparked a very legitimate conversation to which many uninvolved people contributed. Clearly, there's an issue - regardless of OP's motives. I found Eek's explanation of the reasons why to be sufficient, particularly in the 5th and 6th paragraphs. — Czello 11:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  And Black Kite is engaging in a blatant fallacy here, that "per someone else" = weak rationale. What a "per someone else" !vote means is "someone else already laid out the reasons I, too, have, so I'll spare you all the tedium of me repeating them at length". "Per someone else" is a good thing; it keeps these discussions shorter. If it were a weak rationale categorically, we would not use it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe, but see WP:PERX. And people already use weak rationales all the time; there is no stopping it. Shells-shells (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't a deletion discussion. But I'll bite anyway. Read the entire passage: "If the rationale provided [by the 'someone else'] includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of [one result over another], an endorsement of [that] argument may be sufficient." It obviously is often sufficient, or the majority of editors who are well aware of the essay you're improperly thumping would not continue to save everyone headaches and eyestrain by using "per someone else" comments in discussions like these. Fortunately most closers already understand this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Good comment, I have nothing to add. (Except to say that I don't mean to thump anything, and I apologize if I gave that impression.) While you're around would you consider adding some advice down below? Shells-shells (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• @LokiTheLiar: Normally, the first step in challenging a close is to discuss it with the closer. I can't find that discussion anywhere; if I have missed it, can you please link the discussion - otherwise, why didn't you discuss this with CaptainEek? BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, honestly? Because I hadn't read that guideline. Honestly I really wish I had brought this up to CaptainEek first, because I think they are one of the most likely people here to not relitigate the argument and just admit their counts were wrong. Loki (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  There was a brief discussion on CaptainEek's talk page, where there is a continuation of behavior we already saw in the extremely verbose ANI discussion above (nit-picking details and selectively ignoring concerns). IMO, the arguments in the aforementioned novel were strongly in favor of a TBAN and the counter-arguments to them were weak. Even in the talk page discussion mentioned above the sanctioned individual admitted to seriously compromising wiki values but still insisted on trying to negotiate the sanctions. Additionally, it appears this closure review has sparked TTAs hopes for a reversal on their talk page, which has gone relatively unchanged and links to the, still unchanged, social media account. While I suspect there is no policy against this, it speaks to the disruption TTA will undoubtedly cause if allowed to edit in this topic area in the near future.

  
  

  I also find it interesting that the person who filed this decided to summarize the votes the way they did, without pinging the involved editors but challenging them to "dispute" the category they landed in. I've already spotted one error, representing an editor who struck their original vote and changed to sanctioning, in the oppose section. I wonder how many others are in there? Wikipedia isn't a democracy, consensus is more than just a raw count of votes, but everyone here already knows that (until it doesn't serve in their favor, of course).

  
  

  Endorse Closure - the arguments spoke for themselves, and keeping this open for any additional discussion is causing serious harm to the wiki community. Recommend SNOW CLOSE.

  Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agree entirely with this assessment. This close review is bordering on frivolous, frankly - and I suspect is born out of a personal dislike of the community consensus. — Czello 14:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  nit-picking details and selectively ignoring concerns - how did I do that? I think Habeas corpus should apply, editors did raise issue but specifically the only issues raised were in a narrow set of articles: anti-trans BLPs/BLPGROUPs (if I am wrong in that assessment, somebody prove me wrong). Nobody raised issues with my GENSEX edits/articles outside of that narrow range, and I think a close should take that into account. I believe that a sanction of some kind on BLPs/BLPGROUPs was called for and should be left up to closer discretion, I wouldn't have minded either the AFC sanction or even a TBAN, but so far nobody has yet to provide a compelling reason why the ban should extend to all of GENSEX. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not going to engage in a debate with you, the discussion was already closed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  You just called into my question my behavior after the close... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  TTA: I suggest you stop participating in this and let your advocates argue for you. You're not helping your case here. Lizthegrey (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough (thank you for stopping me jumping in too wholeheartedly). I've said all I wanted to say in regards to the case, to summarize: I am fine with any resulting sanctions at any severity to the area that showed problems (WP:BLP/WP:BLPGROUP/WP:ORG) - I just want my overall well-received contributions to GENSEX outside of that intersection to be taken into account. With that, it is once again in the community's hands, and I leave to see how this plays out and get some work done on the Crown Heights Tenant Union. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• The close seems to be a reasonable one of a discussion longer than The Martian Chronicles or Brave New World --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose close simply based on the fact that the OP of the thread was a sock - it should've been closed when that was found out. I guess banned users can still get what they want. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 14:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Repeating what I said above: I don't think the OP being a sock really matters. If everyone took the Tranarchist's side I'd agree, but it clearly sparked a very legitimate conversation to which many uninvolved people contributed. Clearly, there's an issue - regardless of OP's motives — Czello 14:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  There were multiple editors who chimed in and mentioned they were considering opening an ANI. I don't see how the OP sock status has any weight compared to the novel that proceeded independent of the banned user being outed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I guess the question is whether this would have ended differently had this been knocked on the head and then somebody else, who was an editor in good standing, had started a new thread? I don't know but I do think that it would have been vastly better if that had happened instead of this. This gives the impression that sockpuppetry can be an effective tool for getting what one wants. I'm not saying that it actually is, but people will see this and they can't be blamed if they come to that conclusion. This may well embolden other bad actors to try the same thing. It would be wise to watch out for any repeat performances. If it happens again the best thing would be to the close the thread immediately, without prejudice to somebody else starting a new one. DanielRigal (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  This gives the impression that sockpuppetry can be an effective tool for getting what one wants. I'm not saying that it actually is, but people will see this and they can't be blamed if they come to that conclusion. Me. It's me. I have come to that conclusion. All a sockpuppet has to do is prompt some remarks from people who hang out at drama boards, and their actions are nominally legitimized. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close I did not take part in the discussion. My view is that this close is within administrator discretion. It was awaiting closure for days on end and someone else could have come in and closed it as no consensus, but the fact is no-one did. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• If the count is wrong, maybe Eek could just go back and fix it. While they're at it, give the !votes they miscounted a once-over to see if the change in numbers/opinions affects their thinking. If so, reclose it or leave it to someone else; if not, we can move on. The sanction which emerges from the closing statement is within reasonable determinations of consensus, but when a[n apparently inaccurate] headcount is framed as the starting point for assessing consensus, that affects how people feel about the outcome. [involved] — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• A thought on the concerns that the OP was a sock. I spend a lot of time responding to sockpuppetry, and commonly strike or revert their contribs and delete their drafts and articles - I'm not pro-socking. I commented a couple of times early in the thread, but when it became clear that the OP was a sock I stepped away from the thread because I am not willing to spend my time investigating behavioural concerns raised by someone who ought to be editing here. However, many editors in good standing saw fit to bring their own concerns to the table after the sock had raised theirs. We cannot ignore procedurally valid concerns just because they followed on from some procedurally invalid ones. Maybe it would have been better in some ways for the initial thread to have been closed, and a new one started, but the end result would likely have been the same; lets face it, there are other venues where people who may be blocked or even banned here can go to complain about stuff, and those complaints do sometimes result in action being taken by editors in good standing on-wiki. As for the close itself, I don't envy CaptainEek for the time they must have spent reading through it, and I thank them that they were willing to take it on. I think the best course of action now would be to leave the closure as it is, and for TheTranarchist to spend six months working in different areas (there are lots), demonstrate that she has learned from this experience, and request the ban be lifted at that point. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose close (Note: I opposed TBAN or any other sanctions). This close might be within administrator discretion, and the discussion surely was extra-long (longer than even some novels/plays, as some users already noted). But, the fact is that consensus/vote count wasn't at all convincing and overwhelming to justify a full, indefinite TBAN (or any other sanctions). The only logical thing was to close this as no consensus. And, there still remain the unpleasant fact that all of this was started by OP who was a sockpuppet of a perviously banned user, and that fact alone sounds really ludicrous to me. Having all that in mind, I see no logic or justification that a TBAN was imposed on a constructive and productive contributor like TheTranarchist. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment These users probably don't belong in the `Oppose all Sanctions` camp (feel free to correct):

• Pinguin did not outright oppose -> Oppose sanctions, warning at most
• Colin did not vote
• XOR'easter neutral on warn -> Oppose TBAN, neutral on warning
• Ppt91 did not vote
• SarekOfVulcan neutral on warn -> Oppose TBAN, neutral on warning
• Lizthegrey reversed oppose -> Warning, mainspace creation only through AfC
• Hist9600 supported warning -> Oppose sanctions, warning at most

I did not bother going through the non-opposes, because as I suspected, the OP is purposefully misrepresenting votes to try and badger the closing admin. Should we be considering sanctions against @LokiTheLiar? (the users name is not lost on me). Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's you who is trying to misrepresent votes. Colin (talk · contribs) and ppt91 (talk · contribs) didn't bold anything but clearly said that they opposed sanctions. Pinguinn (talk · contribs) and Hist9600 (talk · contribs) said they opposed sanctions explicitly, it's incorrect to say that they supported a warning because they were were willing to allow a warning at most. I admit XOR'easter (talk · contribs) and SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) did indeed only oppose a topic ban explicitly, but they didn't support any other sanction, and the topic ban was really the sanction at issue here. So that leaves only Lizthegrey (talk · contribs), who I admittedly didn't catch had changed her vote to supporting a warning (but still opposing a topic ban). I've pinged all these people so they can verify if my characterization is correct and that you have in fact not said anything that would change the actual counts by even one vote. Loki (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Your characterization of my position is correct. XOR'easter (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That's true, I don't think a warning is really necessary. If the editor was oblivious and unwilling to accept criticism, then a warning would make sense, but I don't think that applies here. Hist9600 (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's frustrating to see my attempt to find consensus and a more reasonable middle ground is now being held up as evidence that sanctions were warranted. Yes, I originally opposed all sanctions, but changed my mind in response to other posters, and would wish that others would similarly be willing to walk back from the edge of full TBAN sanctions. This will encourage people to not change votes in future in response to discussion, and stick to the extremes and force closers to deal with extremely polarised !votes that are sticking there only to push the Overton Window rather than allow the community to reach a more reasonable compromise. To see a result that is a TBAN (one of the polar ends of the spectrum) rather than somewhere in the middle is disappointing. Lizthegrey (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• The count is not entirely clear to me. I came up with 37 in favor of outright topic ban of some sort, 11 in favor of some sanctions, 2 warning only, 23 no sanctions. Just on a quick examination I notice that LokiTheLiar seems to have miscategorized Lizthegrey as opposed when they changed it to in favor of some sanctions, and Pinguinn as opposed when they changed it to warning.

my !vote count

Support T-BAN: Red-tailed hawk, Springee, Kcmasterpc, DoubleCross, The Wordsmith, BilledMammal, DerWohltemperierte Fuchs, JoelleJay, Xxanthipp, YouCanDoBetter, Jweiss11, Thebiguglyalien, Nil Einne, Indy beetle, Timoth, GabberFlasted, Dumuzid, Lulfas, Cello, Levivich, Cbl62, Scorpions13256, Maine, Crossroads, The Night Watch, SMcClandlish, Ficaia, GretLomborg, Nemo, Loksmythe, Beccanyr, Rlendog, Lindsay, SnowRise, Javensen, Pincrete Support some sanction: Slywriter, Ganesha811, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Lizathegrey, Sideswipe9th, Rhododendrites, Cdjp1, 2600:1700:1250:6D80:FD27:AF83:F025:53FA, Tranarchist, Softlavender Warning only: Tamzin, Pinguinn Oppose all sanction: rsjaffe, Sativa Inflorescence, LegalSmeagolian, Black Kite, Silverseren, Newimpartial, Loki, Hatman31, The Hand That Feeds You, buidhe, XOR'easter, Neonorange, Sundostund, SarekOfVulcan, JBL, DanielRigal, Aquillion, Parabolist, Madeline, Hist9600, Sceptre, Galobtter

• I don't personally have an opinion on the T-BAN or the close, but I was curious that there was such an apparent discrepancy in the numbers. If anyone wants to reconcile Loki's list vs. mine feel free, this is about as much time as I care to spend on it. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

For some of the discrepancy see my response to kcmasterpc above. In addition, I didn't count Tranarchist themselves at all, nor the original sock who opened the thread. Loki (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and you have Timothy as a support when he said he was supporting only on the condition that several other problematic editors were banned and oppose otherwise. As that didn't happen and frankly was never a realistic possibility, I counted him as an oppose. Loki (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I also want to add some more granularity is called for in regards to calls for the TBAN. Some were explicit they considered the intersection the problem, other comments were ambiguous as to whether they supported the intersectional ban or GENSEX in general, and editors like Snow Rise expressed support for limited sanctions and their position could be characterized more so as opposed to no sanctions rather than wholly supportive of a full GENSEX ban, (@Snow Rise correct me if I'm wrong in that assesment). So if we split the categories into 1) those who supported a full GENSEX ban and 2) those who opposed it, either calling for no sanctions or limited targeted sanctions, there seems to be a majority considering the GENSEX ban proposed by the sock was overkill. That's also not even considering that some (certainly not all as many were in good faith) of the oppose votes were hypocritical at best (per my JWeiss11 example). And in terms of arguments raised, every criticism was specifically to WP:BLP and WP:BLPGROUP/WP:ORG (I also want to note that in my previous comments were I said WP:BLPGROUP, WP:ORG/WP:BLPGROUP would have been a better characterization) articles, and even more specifically anti-trans ones, with nobody at any point raising a single problematic edit/article outside of that narrow intersection (despite repeated requests to multiple editors that they do so). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That's correct with regard to my position: I was open to supporting a less onerous sanction than a full TBAN, and specifically was willing to endorse the "proposed articles must go through AfC" approach, with the caveat that I preferred a full TBAN over no sanction/sanction without any restrictions whatsoever. That being said, in my opinion, I do not believe Eek's close was an unreasonable read on overall consensus, complicated though it surely was to distill from that particular discussion. I would have liked to have seen an intermediate outcome prevail there, but due to the nature of the ANI beast, it was a long shot by the point it started to gain traction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close per Kcmastrpc. I've made my points elswhere in the thread but repeating them again here. I voted for the TBAN, for full disclosure. Ultimately WP:POLL applies (and even if it didn't, more users were still in favour of a TBAN than against) - discussion and consensus is what matters. I do believe a consensus developed during this discussion, and I believe CaptainEek adequately explained said consensus in the 5th and 6th paragraphs of the closing note. — Czello 17:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• ( Peanut gallery comment) Now before anything I will point out that I am barely extended-confirmed with very few non-trivial mainspace edits, so I guess you can feel free to disregard my post here. (My edit count and account age are both inflated, not accurate as a judge of my experience.) I must note that the closer's breakdown of notvotes is simply not harmonious with reality. It's probably true that something like 35 users did explicitly support some kind of topic ban, but it is not true that only 25 users explicitly opposed it. I don't think it's 35 (Ppt91 and Colin were neutral), but even discarding Timothy's conditional oppose there are at least 32 explicit TBAN opposes. To me this number appears incontestable (and I looked through it myself and drew up a table).
  Consensus is not determined by a simple tally, which is why I was astounded to see the claim that the votes in favor outweighed those opposed by a wide margin (which, by my reading, is inaccurate), followed by The !votes indicated that the community was generally in favor of a topic ban, so I then considered what factors might weigh against a topic ban. Clearly, the basic tally highly influenced the closer's view by shifting the burden of proof onto the defense (as it were) instead of the prosecution. In the closer's summary there was not much mention of any arguments in favor of a TBAN, just that the community was generally in favor of it; there was no discussion of whether that conclusion was warranted by the arguments. To make things clear: to me, it seems like the only substantive reason presented for a TBAN was the existence of a significant numerical majority favoring that outcome. That significant majority does not appear to exist; therefore, this close was unwarranted. If there were other reasons for a TBAN, I think it would be good for those to be mentioned in more detail somewhere.
  P.S. One major effect of this close is to send a loud message that newer users are frankly unwelcome in the GENSEX arena. If you make a newbie mistake, you can be sure it will be hauled out at you when the inevitable ANI filing comes, and the hammer will come down. Punishment (don't kid yourselves with the "sanctions should not be punitive" platitude) has replaced correction in this content area. (And, just by the way, I am not even convinced that this TBAN is a bad thing. It might really be helpful. But it feels like part of a larger anti-pattern.) Shells-shells (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• You are certainly correct in that it appears that is now simple for editors with a certain POV (including sockpuppets of banned editors, one of which started the discussion) to remove other editors who oppose them from contentious areas without using the correct venue, which would be AE. This, IMO, is not a good thing. Especially in this case, where we - like many other social media fora - have a significant number of "gender critical" editors flooding the encyclopedia to push their views. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. One possible outcome of this (and the other thread) is that the bar for getting dragged to the boards is lowered to the point where reporting people one disagrees with becomes worth a punt. In all probability we will see some of the "gender critical" editors dragged up here as well as it becomes a Twitter like game of who can report who's opponents the fastest. I'm not sure who wins that game but I'm 100% sure that Wikipedia loses. DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  If there are "gender critical" editors who are also being disruptive in this topic area, then yes their behavior should be brought up for admin review as well. Past evidence has shown that removing the most disruptive editors from both "sides" of a controversial topic area is usually the best way to break the back of an intractable content area like this one. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I’m somewhat uninvolved with this. I was involved in the discussion at BLPN, and I made a single comment during the discussion. This is clearly well within admin discretion. Counts in large discussions of this sort will always be slightly wishy-washy, but if we take Loki’s numbers, it’s obviously a reasonable reading of consensus. If the numbers are 44 to 29, assuming reasonably equal weighting among arguments, there is a clear consensus for some sanction. Now, looking at the discussion with the understanding there is a consensus for a topic ban, we look at those supporting a sanction, and by Loki’s numbers 32 of the 44 supported an indef topic ban. That is reasonable to read as a consensus for an indef topic ban. There is nothing standing out that would be the obvious misreading of consensus or procedural issue that meets the threshold for overturning a close.
  As for the thread was opened by a sock argument, it has nothing to do with the close. The thread was open on ANI for a long time, and that would have been the place to shut the thread down. That the thread lasted as long as it did, with a significant amount of good faith input, is clear consensus that the thread should not have been closed. Arguing that now isn’t going to work because the horse is already out of the stable. Yes, it sucks that an editor is being sanctioned as the result of a thread started by a sock, but the actual consensus is among editors in good standing.
  It’s clear from the discussions here that this was a huge and difficult thread to close. There’s not even agreement about the total numbers. We should be thanking CaptainEek for spending the huge amount of time and effort it takes to read, parse, and absorb a discussion of this size, then weigh the arguments and provide their close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd certainly like to make it clear that, while I am am critical of the way that this went down, I'm not putting any of the blame for this on CaptainEek. This was a trainwreck long before they became involved. The fact that nobody else wanted to close it shows that it was already a no-win situation by that point and they clearly did their very best to unpick it. Whether this gets overturned or not, CaptainEek deserves our thanks for biting that bullet. DanielRigal (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  My true final comment here (I swear lol), I just want to also support this statement, @CaptainEek actually stepped in when the case had been dragging on for weeks and even while I disagree with their close I am immensely thankful to them for being the one to step in and actually bite the bullet. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I must say I hold no ill feeling towards @CaptainEek, who is clearly far more of a net positive to this site than I am. Whatever the close had been, people like me would have given it some very sharp criticism, and I sincerely respect the admins willing to open themselves to that. Shells-shells (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  If the numbers are 44 to 29, assuming reasonably equal weighting among arguments, there is a clear consensus for some sanction. Now, looking at the discussion with the understanding there is a consensus for a topic ban: I hope you understand why this is an equivocation? There was consensus for some sanction. There was not consensus for a topic ban specifically, any topic ban. No option reached a majority, and the biggest plurality was no sanctions (even though the total votes for all sanctions combined were greater than those opposed to any sanctions).

  In theory, any close option would have been reasonable, but the one we got was simply incorrect about the facts of the discussion, and should therefore be reversed. Loki (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  If there's an RFC to choose a color for something, and 30% say blue, 25 percent say red a, 20 percent say red b, and 15 percent have opinions between red a and b, we don't count the obvious non-consensus blue, despite being the plurality, when deciding which red to go with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  One obvious problem with that analogy is that in this case many of the people supporting Red B explicitly supported Blue over Red A. (I.e. many of the people supporting non-topic-ban sanctions explicitly supported no sanctions over a topic ban.)

  But also, it's your reading of the situation that "topic ban" and "warning" are more similar to each other than "warning" and "no sanctions". I think most of the people who supported a warning would dispute that. Loki (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. I was a "blue, but if not blue, red A" and then got talked to straight Red A. Lizthegrey (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Is a warning even a sanction? WP:Sanctions are explicitly defined as restrictions on editing Wikipedia. Shells-shells (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• As noted in the !vote count way up there, I was involved in this discussion. I had decided to wash my hands of it, figuratively speaking, and live with the outcome whatever it might be. However, having been pinged, I ought to say that I don't think this was a very good close. I generally agree with Shells-shells' comment above, as well as the concern about imposing sanctions based in part on off-wiki activity, and the "fruit of the poison tree" issue regarding sockpuppetry. Speaking generally about the last point: Even if comments by later editors raise serious, legitimate concerns, a bad opening can set an acrimonious tone and unduly sway the !votes of those who make up their minds at the top of a thread. Here, the argument seems to be that because the sock was so good at what they did, they should get a pass. From the premise that a consensus exists, it is deduced that how the thread began doesn't matter. I am wary of this. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Here, the argument seems to be that because the sock was so good at what they did, they should get a pass. No, I think the argument is that when 73 editors participate in a discussion, we shouldn't just toss it aside because it was started by a sock. Levivich (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Toss it aside? Probably not. Look askance at it and work extra hard to evaluate arguments on their strengths rather than by their numbers? Probably so. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I believe the closer worked extra hard to evaluate arguments on their strengths rather than by their numbers, as evidenced by the closing statement. And anyway, why should we look askance at the !votes of 73 editors, just because the thread was started by a sock. Do you think my vote was somehow influenced by the sock? Was yours? Why should our votes be looked at askance? "Started by a sock" is just a technicality... what is the substantive reason why "started by a sock" has any bearing on 73 !votes? Levivich (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  The closing statement was exactly why I felt too much evidence was put on the numbers.

  If anyone wants to question my motives or judgment, hey, they're welcome. There probably has been some acrimonious drama-board development on this site with that many editors that wasn't a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth, but it's hard to think of one. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  To say it another way: perhaps the difference between our views is encapsulated by how the more you repeat "73 !votes", the more I think "ANI is a disaster area that was the wrong venue for this in every way". The fact that it is wide open to sockpuppet attack only compounds the basic problem that it is a parody of a justice system where the accused has no representation, the jury is whoever decides to show up, and speaking in one's own defense counts as further indictment. ("WP:BLUDGEONing this very discussion!") Regardless of the outcome, this incident seriously weights the scale for me in favor of thinking that Wikipedia people can't solve problems. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a court system, it's a collaborative project. If someone is, on net, causing problems, they can be banned by the community. It's not like this is a life sentence either - she can appeal in the future, same as other topic bans. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you think my vote was somehow influenced by the sock?. Yes, it certainly was. For the very plain fact that if that sock hadn't posted at AN/I, you wouldn't have very critically examined this new editor who was creating articles in the most politically difficult topic domain on Wikipedia. I think that if we neutrally applied the "Levivich standard of editor perfection" towards the many clearly-activist-but-not-stupid-enough-to-boast-about-it-on-social-media editors in the GENSEX domain, there'd be a whole lot fewer of them. Maybe that would be a good thing, but it doesn't make what you did fair. -- Colin°^Talk 20:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Repeat: WP isn't a system of justice. Many things are short-term "unfair" in protecting the project from PoV pushers. As someone else here observed, NPOV is not served by pushing more PoV, by pushing the opposite of someone else's PoV. It's served by removing all the PoV pushers. That has to start with someone. Whoever is first to be removed from the topic area is always going to feel they were treated unfairly, but in the long run they were not. Even in the pretty-short run; it's clear that this editor was headed for proposed sactions from other parties anyway, and it's highly unlikely that the results would have been different if they had. That this particular discussion was opened by someone who later turned out to be a sock is a moot point, because the umpteen good-standing editors who participated in it were not socks. Their input is not magically invalidated by one participant being a bad actor. But this kind of excuse-making is rampant in the subject editor's own posts, e.g. that all the good she does in the topic area should make for mitigating circumstances (an ends-justify-the-means fallacy), and those of her backers (e.g. that WP "needs" her to fight off other bad-actors, which is fallacious for multiple reasons).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• I did not relish topic banning TT. Were I the Lord of Wikipedia, I'd probably have let her keep editing. I am unhappy at how our LGBTQ articles are covered, and TT was making a difference. But I'm not the Lord of Wikipedia. I'm an editor. I have to follow the rules. As a closer, it is my job to assess what the community wants and if that can happen within the limits of policy. Sometimes that job is very difficult. I spent a great deal of time working on this one. As the different vote counts above show, there are numerous ways to count the votes. Depending on how those numbers are presented, they could have supported several different outcomes. Here, the raw vote count was for a sanction. Of those supporting a sanction, the majority supported a topic ban. But that's the point: closing is about more than just counting. Otherwise, we wouldn't have closers. The bottom line is that the consensus of commenters agreed that TT was being tendentious and disruptive. As much as she filled a valuable niche, she was breaking a lot of rules to do it. Now, a number of editors, including in this close review, suggest that in removing TT from the topic area, it will only make things worse. This goes against almost every policy we have. The solution to POV pushing is not to have more POV pushing. POV pushing is not solved by having someone push the opposite POV. Its solved by removing all of the POV pushers and then following policies like DUE. If we're concerned about POV pushing in the topic area to the point that losing a single pro-trans editor is seen as a catastrophe, we have a much, much deeper problem.
  I thank Loki for acknowledging that they wished they'd have discussed this with me first, that might have simplified matters. I had discussed this close with TT on my talkpage, and I expressed a willingness to tweak my close to reflect that some felt the topic ban was better focused on BLP/BLPGROUP: I suggested a timed 6 month GENSEX tban (which some participants suggested, though I did not initially consider since there has been discussion in the past of timed sanction inefficiency), along with an indefinite BLP/BLPGROUP GENSEX tban. TT also objected to that, and at that point I disengaged, as TT was Wiki-lawyering with me. In fact, she is Wiki-lawyering in this very thread by trying to bring habeas corpus into this. We've expensed an entire book on this dispute; its time to let this one retire. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• I am sorry to sound blunt--TheTranarchist, you know I support your sincere commitment and editorial work in what is obviously a very challenging topic, but this entire discussion is turning a form of WP:BLUDGEONING in and of itself. One would think that a close performed by an experienced admin (and an arbitrator) of a thread that amounted to a Dostoyevsky novel would suffice, though here we are again. CaptainEek's close may not have been perfect--and I have doubts regarding their methodology per Shells-shells thoughtful analysis--but it nonetheless was considerate given the circumstances; they acknowledged TheTranarchist's contributions and determined the best course of action based on a variety of factors, including legitimate concerns about WP:ADVOCACY and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. And now, we're back to the drawing board with yet another complaint. There is always "ok, I agree, this is fair, but..." and another voluminous chapter dissecting every single word of every single participant from all possible angles ensues. I am alarmed that there is no end in sight. And for the record, I had not cast a vote in the original thread. In fact, I had reiterated my support for TheTranarchist as a committed editor while explicitly recusing myself because I had previously helped her in editing Gays Against Groomers to conform with NPOV (there is still a lot of work to be done, though that is besides the point). Again, @TheTranarchist, I am not trying make it seem like I am against you, but you have admitted that there are other important topics you haven't had the time to focus on due to the GENSEX exhaustion. Just focus on those for now (as with other topics, I'll always be glad to lend a helping hand to the best of my abilities) and let's please move on. Ppt91^talk 19:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Ppt91 Just to clarify, TheTranarchist didn't start this close review. And thanks for the thoughtful analysis comment. :) Shells-shells (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  ^{@Shells-shells Yes, fair, I should have made that clear. But @TheTranarchist did provide another very long retort and there seems to be ongoing engagement with no end in sight. @CaptainEek's comment about Wikilawyering is spot on in this case. And @Loki I truly appreciate your efforts and know you're coming from a place of genuine concern. I just really think this has gone too far and we're not being productive here.} Ppt91^talk 19:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree very much. I'm going to WP:DROPTHESTICK and back away, and hope others will too. Regardless of whether I feel the result is flawed, it is a result. Lizthegrey (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  If the community disagrees with me that the close is wrong, I'll back off, but not before then. I have no intent to "just move on" while (I feel) a good editor has been topic banned based on an alleged consensus that did not, in fact, exist. Loki (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think what CaptainEek wrote above is better than what they wrote in the closing comments. Wrt the closure, a problem with fully explaining one's rationale is that the more points one makes, the larger the surface area for attack, and the weakest points will be attacked first, making folk forget your strong point. I think it was a mistake to lead with a vote count, particularly when the division is contentious and disputable. Sticking a ! in front of the word vote is not a get-out-of-jail-free-card to then given vote counts merit. Really, when my time comes, I don't want to be at the mercy of a numerical count of how many haters turned up (or more likely got recruited) to lend their votes.

I think the whole section was unfair. I wasn't neutral but nor was I opposed to a TB. If you were suddenly required to sit your driving test in 30 minutes time, and if you failed, faced an indefinite ban on driving (you can resit your test no sooner than six months), how would you fare? For some of you, on a Saturday evening, you might not even be below the drink driving limit. How dare you exist with blood alcohol, you wretched person! For most of us, our lessons were so many decades ago that we'd quite clearly fail, and be hopeless in our knowledge of the Highway Code. How terrible that all these dreadful drivers are on our roads. Ban the ignorant and incompetent! That section should have been speedy closed as soon as we knew it was a banned sock. It wasn't and shame on Wikipedia for letting ourselves be abused by them. But it wasn't and I can understand the pressure CaptainEek faced to make the best of a bad situation. It would take a brave person to, at that point, tell everyone they had wasted their time. Might still have been the right thing to do, though.

When judging a closure, we need to weigh whether it was reasonable, not whether we agree with it. I don't think the penalty was unreasonably deviant from the views expressed.

But while I'm here.... The closure said While I think TheTranarchist was there in good faith, editors pointed out that she was approaching her editing from a WP:RGW perspective. Editors pointed out that her work on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull was evidence of her creating near attack articles. That some editors cited RGW doesn't mean the closing admin has to uncritically repeat that. (And they didn't actually create that article, or contribute a large portion of it) This explanatory essay has become a misguided WP:UPPERCASE for a while now. Editors who disapprove of another's POV will cite RGW to discredit them. Please, read the linked text. This is actually about editors who wish to "correct" the facts contained in reliable publications and the opinions of respected knowledgeable published experts, with The Truth that "mainstream" have yet to grasp. In the case of medical treatment, mainstream medicine, in the case of law, current legislation. In the case of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, for example, this is someone campaigning against mainstream medicine and existing equality law. Reliable sources do not regard them favourably. This is not different to Andrew Wakefield who we openly describe as a fraud. Editors may vary in whether they think our existing medical approach wrt trans issues is the correct one and whether they think we should start banning some people from bathrooms and gymns, but lets be clear, in terms of stretching beyond what reliable sources and mainstream medicine advocate, it is the editors that The Trananarchist set themselves up against who are WP:RGW. So I'm disappointed that the closure repeated this falsehood. They may well have been over-enthusiastically battling for the mainstream/reliable-sources side (and plenty editors have foundered on those rocks, Jytdog being the classic example) but they aren't guilty of WP:RGW. If you want an essay that seeks to ban editors with a declared POV, please create a different one. -- Colin°^Talk 21:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

(And they didn't actually create that article, or contribute a large portion of it) I'd just like to point out that TheTranarchist objectively did create the article [1] and over the article's history has contributed 80% of the text to it. [2] That initial version does seem to qualify as "near attack articles". Not quite a G10, but much closer to G10 than acceptable BLP. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd been watching a show with a friend so just saw this, thank you for the correction! But I would like to say, that initial version is well-sourced and doesn't contain the problematic sources or content mentioned in the ANI case, and the most apparent issue to me with that version is that it's chronological instead of well-sectioned and therefor a bit of a jumble, but I did later work to section it out. The biggest problems came after she insulted me and I took it too personally and let it cloud my judgement in source selection, which I freely admit and profusely apologize for. I just read through and compared that version to the most recent one, and most details there are still present in the article. @Beccaynr, as the one who did the most work improving the article, could you comment on the state of the article and your view of my edits/work on it? Also perhaps this case and your thoughts on the evidence behind an intersectional or fully GENSEX ban. Whatever you feel about it, as the person who did the most work to clean up the article where my conduct most poorly reflected on me, I'd appreciate your comment and think everyone would find it valuable. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

TTA: please stop trying to re-litigate this. I don't think at this point the decision will change for the better, no matter how much evidence is presented. Take your lumps for now and give the issue some time to settle. Lizthegrey (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I am not trying to re-litigate, and I have been deliberately avoiding this thread as much as possible, I was just objecting to The Wordsmith's characterization of my initial version of KJK, and thought Beccaynr best to comment on it. As I was writing I figured I should ask for their general opinion, since whatever they say I feel it would be highly valuable. They fixed the KJK article, extensively went through my edits and sources, and also provided a thorough review on Gays Against Groomers. I have no clue what their opinion is on the close but just know they are in a good position to judge my case either way. Since I initially said I would step away, my only comment before this one was just to affirm that I thought CaptainEek was making the best of a bad situation and express my thanks to them. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I think it would be better to let my comments from the AN/I thread about the KJK article at creation and afterwards stand (e.g. [3], [4]). I would have preferred the more orderly process of Arbcom to present evidence instead of AN/I, and I think that process in this instance could have helped address many concerns that are raised here now about the AN/I discussion. But we have a result after a long discussion that provides an opportunity for reflection and development, which in my general opinion, is a benefit for the encyclopedia, and I am glad you continue to engage in that process. Beccaynr (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

TheTranarchist (and The Wordsmith), this page is not to re-debate the quality of your edits to that page. My quotation of that sentence was to argue against the misguided citation or WP:RWG by the closing admin. Just because several people say something wrong, and very clearly wrong if you actually read the link, doesn't justify repeating it in closing arguments. TheTranarchist, I recommend recusing yourself from commenting on this discussion. -- Colin°^Talk 23:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Colin: I strongly disagree. Our articles will expose Andrew Wakefield for the fraud he is because this is well documented in reliable secondary sources. By the same token, they will often document the nonsense in the gender critical movement and among right-wing opponents of transgender rights. However in all areas, we cannot get ahead of the curve or 'expose' stuff that has not already been documented in reliable secondary sources (or more rarely primary or tertiary ones). It does not matter whether an editor's general viewpoint is largely in agreement with reliable sources, they still need to limit their editing to writing balanced encyclopaedic articles which document what reliable sources say about a subject.

With Andrew Wakefield most of the time this isn't an issue. His nonsense is so well documented in reliable secondary sources that there's rarely a question. However with some of the people and groups TheTranarchist wants to expose, there's a fair chance this is not the case. (While in many ways a minor thing the category issue is one that comments to mind.) But in any event even with Andrew Wakefield, any editor here need to recognise that their purpose here has to be first and foremost to write balanced encyclopaedic articles in accordance with our policies and guidelines. If the editor believes that this is likely to expose Andrew Wakefield for the fraud that he is and that's a great thing an incentive for them to edit, that's fine provided they never forget the main reason they're here.

Actually the wider pseudoscience area is one where IMO we do have problems because editors seem to sometimes forget this but this isn't the place to discuss how we can fix that. Although I will note particular problem we have is how to handle cases where someone has said something whish is clearly against mainstream view as documented in reliable sources, and what they said has received some attention in reliable sources so that there may be justification for including it, but no one has particularly documented how what the particularly thing they said is in disagreement with the mainstream view, which is one thing anyone editing extensively GENSEX is likely to encounter a fair bit.

Using a different example, if an editor says they're here to write encyclopaedic articles which will document war crimes and other crimes against humanity commited by the Russian forces in Ukraine, that sounds fine. If an editor says they're here to expose the Russian invaders for the war criminals that they are I'd have deep concerns. I think it's fair to ensure that this editor understands their editing needs to be in accordance with our policies and guidelines. If they don't seem to be able to understand or keep insisting that there's no difference, then yes, I'd fully support topic banning this editor from the subject area for WP:RGW and other reasons no matter I may have sympathy to their goals or that their view is fairly mainstream.

A final example, personalised and hopefully you don't find this offensive. It's well documented that the US medical system is a mess complicated pricing structures that make big profits for questionable value, and require complicated things like app for people to navigate even simple stuff like buying pharmaceuticals. However this doesn't mean it's okay for editors to go around adding US drugs prices to help expose this mess. Again the primary purpose for editing here should be writing balanced encyclopaedic articles documenting what reliable sources have said in accordance with our policies and guidelines. It's fine for their secondary purpose to be to help correct some imbalance (especially WP:SYSTEMICBIAS) but this should never get ahead of their primary purpose. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone involved was trying to RGW, simply using it as an example of why being in the mainstream doesn't mean all editors are fine.)

I've said this before and since I haven't convinced you before I don't think I'll convince you now so this will also probably be my lost comment on the matter. But again IMO you're clearly wrong on RGW. You incorrectly think it's more limited than it is, and it matters whether an editor's views are 'right' or 'wrong' or in accordance to the mainstream or not. While editors who's views are against the mainstream are more likely to have RGW problems, even an editor who's views are in accordance with the mainstream can have problems with RGW if their primary purpose here is to correct a 'wrong' no matter how well accepted it is that there is a 'wrong'.

IMO there's nothing in the essay, or in the policies and guidelines they come from to suggest the contrary. If you disagree, you need to start an RFC or similar to resolve this. In the absence of that, I'm entitled to cite RGW, and the close is entitled to read my view of the essay and the policies and guidelines from which it derives as a valid intepretation and to cite it as such. In the absence of community consensus on how RGW should be intepreted, you don't get to claim my view is wrong so must be discarded by the closing admin.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

In my view your statement that an editor who's views are in accordance with the mainstream can have problems with RGW if their primary purpose here is to correct a 'wrong' no matter how well accepted it is that there is a 'wrong' is directly contradicted by If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles (from WP:RGW). But I agree with you more than I disagree. In any case, would you consider leaving some useful advice down below for TheTranarchist? Shells-shells (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Nil Einne, you have argued passionately about a WP:RGW that is in your head, and may well be in the head of other editors who cite it, but it isn't what is written on that page. Some of your arguments about problematic editor motivation have merits, but they also have problems, and isn't actually what that page describes. You describe a fear that an editor who has expressed views might go too far. What that page is about is an actuality that an editor has added things to the page due to their motivation (and keeps adding them after being reverted, hence that are not supported by reliable sources, or are supportive of views that are fringe. The essay notes early on that all editors have bias and Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. What happened on that ANI was that people saw "motivation" on the Mastodon page, and assumed they were RGW from the shortcut name alone. We aren't the thought police. Anyway, you are right that settling this matter belongs on another page. -- Colin°^Talk 09:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, @Colin, this is a good point. I could have sworn I'd seen this phenomenon before, where the title of a page has become the commonly accepted meaning of that page, even when the actual content says something very different. Good on you for making WP:UPPERCASE.

This use of RGW bothered me a lot when reading the discussion. WP:RGW quite literally says that If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles (to be fair, this was only added by WhatamIdoing less than a year ago—though it has always been implied by the text). In this case it is already well-established in the mainstream that anti-LGBTQ activism is a wrong. Paradoxically, just because you may indeed want to right great wrongs does not mean your editing behavior falls under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS—nor does having strong beliefs mean you are being WP:TENDENTIOUS. Shells-shells (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

And when I say always, I mean it. Diff from 2006: We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable. To me, this statement directly implies the text quoted above. Shells-shells (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

When people have disputes about what's plainly verifiable/supported by WP:RS because they disagree on what's reliably out there, then it's back to yelling at each other about inappropriate WP:RGW though. :( Lizthegrey (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The Wordsmith I stand corrected. I looked back through some pages of history and clearly got the wrong impression. I've struck that but don't think it changes my point. Shells-shells, I'm not making a point about which side is right or wrong, which is part of why RGW is a terrible shortcut because editors will identify with the "right" side and their opponent with the "wrong" side. Mainstream medicine doesn't always get it right and neither does the law or public attitudes. But Wikipedia is here to document primarily the mainstream and be aligned with our best reliable sources, even if they are "wrong". I wonder if CaptainEek would consider striking that part of their close. Closure comments have a tendency to be cited as gospel. -- Colin°^Talk 23:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No disagreement here. :) Shells-shells (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close (involved). That the discussion was originally started by a sock is of essentially zero weight; arguing to dismiss it because of that (as was done in the original thread by some as well as some here) is, to be frank, basically WP:WIKILAWYERING and a case of the genetic fallacy. We are not a bureaucracy; the rest of the discussion is still valid. It is also very, very likely that had the sock never been there, a discussion would have been started soon thereafter by someone in good standing anyway, in which the rest would have followed much the same - that is where the numerous existing heated article talk page and content-noticeboard discussions were headed.
  Also, some of those opposing sanctions used invalid rationales along the lines of 'but we need her to resist the bad guys'. Furthermore, I don't recall opposers really addressing why this was different from the Stuartyeates case which ended up with an indefinite topic ban. The closure was well within CaptainEek's proper discretion as an admin and arb on a Contentious Topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close While I did vote in favor of a temporary topic ban, I believe the administrator correctly evaluated the arguments regarding [user:TheTranarchist] and their behavior. The close was more than fair. The community consensus was clearly in favor of a topic ban, either temporary or permanent. Attempting to split hairs does the entire project a disservice. We have spent enough time and energy on this discussion. It is time to move forward. The amount of arguing currently occurring is ridiculous. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:BD7A:3F1A:4C6B:2AD0 (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

How can I improve as an editor?

However this goes, either a BLP/ORG or a GENSEX TBAN, I want to receive all the advice and key takeaways people have from all this on what I should be doing to improve and prove myself as an editor - I will not reply to them here but demonstrate them in the coming months with my behavior. I confess to wanting to at least be able to wiki-gnome in LGBT articles such as medicine, rights, and history, where my edits haven't been contested and only praised, even just as suggestions on talk so I can prove my contributions worthy, but I have already been sorting out which non-GENSEX topics I'll also be working on regardless. The way I see it, about half called for a GENSEX ban, about half opposed, and many in the middle or on either side expressed support for a targeted sanction or TBAN on GENSEX WP:BLPs/WP:ORGs, which I feel the most proportionate and consensus-based response, while accepting that the community differs and holding myself to it. I'm not about to shoot myself in the foot by evading the outcome of this, I have already recused myself completely of GENSEX until such time as the community finds me ready to join again. This is my final comment even here, as I'm not touching GENSEX with a 39-and-a-half-foot poll until I'm expressly granted the ability to do so. I appreciate any and all's thoughts on what I'll need to have demonstrated in the coming months and ways I can prove myself capable of writing in the BLP/ORG and/or GENSEX area in the future. I believe it's fair that there's a standard to which I can expect to be held for my appeal.TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

( Peanut gallery comment) Of course it's only been three hours (I'm sure the comments will start flowing in soon enough), but I would point out that some concrete editing advice here or at TheTranarchist's talk page would go a long way towards changing my current opinion that Punishment […] has replaced correction in this topic area. Shells-shells (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tranarchist: I'm very relieved to see that this situation has not discouraged you from continuing to contribute here, even in the short term, as it very easily could have done. To be honest, this request is already the best possible start on making clear why you would be fit to return to the area in question at the earliest opportunity.

As to the request itself, my recommendation would be to find a couple of topic areas that you think you would be able to contribute valuable content or guidance to, but which you are completely agnostic to, where it comes to the most divisive issues of said topic area. This is the easiest way to develop a compelling "muscle memory" (if you'll forgive an attenuated metaphor) for parsing controversial determinations, which reflexes will impact your approach when you edit in the areas you are more passionate about. Or, if you want the same effect from a psuedo-randomized process, you could peruse the WP:FRS list and sign up to participate in randomly-selected RfCs from particular topic areas. I did that relatively early in my time here, and now that I think about it, I think it might be the influence which most directly contributed to my being a more well-rounded contributor (if indeed I am one at all--opinions may vary on that count). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I note you say you have expertise in a historical topic area... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Create rules for yourself about the number of times you're willing to participate in a discussion, and stick to those rules even when someone continues to be wrong. A wise Wikipedian once told me that if he finds himself in an argument, he tries to limit himself to two comments and then walks away no matter what. That way he puts more thought into those comments and avoids repeating himself. I'd add that it makes other people more likely to read what you write if you have that kind of reputation. Personally, I don't go by a number, but try to step back if I find myself feeling emotionally invested, find that I'm repeating myself, or realize I'm in a hopeless back-and-forth (as though my response, twelve indents deep, is going to change someone's mind or influence the discussion in any constructive way). Also, making sure that you have some less controversial article projects helps, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

My advice would be to find a subject area that interests you, but that you don't care passionately about, and get stuck into writing articles about that for a while. Get into the habit of writing with the simple objective of summarising what the best sources say about the subject, without any other agenda. You might find that people still disagree with what you write or the sources you use, but you won't be so invested in it, which will make it easier to resolve disagreements amicably. Personally, I mostly write about historic buildings; try to find your own niche. People will recognise and appreciate quality content work devoid of drama, and will likely be content to give you another chance at the GENSEX topic area in a few short months. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend taking an article that's uncontroversial and a quiet area, maybe a stub/redlink or one that needs extensive cleanup, and taking it through DYK, Peer Review and GA. FA would be great too, though those standards are a very high bar. I did it on White Night riots a long time ago (which I now see needs some more work, but standards were lower at the time) and it was an incredibly rewarding experience that taught me a lot about proper researching, sourcing and weighting. Part of it even included contacting a BLP subject and learning how to properly interact with them, while I reached out to photographer and activist Daniel Nicoletta to convince him to license his iconic photo of the event. I'm sure there's an uncontroversial topic that you're interested in that would benefit from that treatment while still giving you the opportunity for outside input without the pressure cooker that is the GENSEX area. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that if you achieved that, and didn't have any further conduct issues, I would almost certainly endorse an appeal in six months. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. @TheTranarchist please feel free to ping me when the time period has elapsed and I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing your contributions. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Moving forward: Deferring GENSEX cases to AE

Should the community encourage or require GENSEX cases to be brought at AE, or make no change? 18:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Potential encouragement ("soft") and requirement ("hard") wordings are given below; these are not the only wordings that could be used.

• Soft: Something like Reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies are usually best-suited to Arbitration enforcement (AE), except when the matter is very straightforward or when AE is unavailable for procedural reasons (for instance, a requested sanction exceeds AE's authority, or a party against whom sanctions are sought is not aware). Beyond these two exceptions, any uninvolved administrator may, at their discretion and at any time, close an AN or AN/I discussion in this topic area in favor of review at AE; if the filer would not be able to start the thread, the admin should do so for them.
• Hard: Something like Reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies, other than truly unambiguous disruption, should be filed at Arbitration enforcement (AE) unless there is a procedural reason that AE would not be suitable (for instance, a requested sanction exceeds AE's authority, or a party against whom sanctions are sought is not aware). Any uninvolved editor may speedily close a thread brought in contravention of this rule, directing the filer to AE; if the filer would not be able to start the thread, the closer should do so for them

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [Wording changed 19:01, 4 March 2023 as part of converting to RfC. RfC preface added 19:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)]

• Nom statement [partly moved from old preface 19:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)]: So, whatever the outcome of the above, it's clear that the thread was a shitshow. And the Newimpartial thread was a shitshow. In fact every GENSEX thread I can recall at AN(I) since I resumed editing 2 years ago has been a shitshow, apart from slam-dunk "new user using slurs"–type reports.
  We have a venue for this. It is called Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. It avoids basically all of the BS we see in these kinds of contentious threads. The vast majority of AN(I) GENSEX discussions fall within concurrent AE jurisdiction, especially now that WP:AC/CT has loosened the definition of sanction awareness. There is no reason that we need to continue hearing these cases at AN(I) if we don't want to... and does anyone actually want to?
  I've had this idea bouncing around my head the past week and it's just seemed more and more reasonable as things have progressed, especially as we've seen difficulties in finding admins willing to close these threads. Thoughts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• I would oppose, as I dislike the precedent this would set - AE and ArbCom are there to supplement, not replace, the self-management of the broader community. BilledMammal (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would also suggest that you convert this to an WP:RFC, as editors have begun to !vote on it. BilledMammal (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I mean this completely sincerely: if someone in the community thinks the community can self-manage a topic area that is under CT, I would encourage them to go to WP:ARCA and to ask us to revoke the Contentious Topic designation for that topic area. We should not have the extraordinary grant of power, which is ArbCom delegating its broad authority directly to admins, is the community can handle it. I have repeatedly supported ways to eliminate areas from the CT/DS designation or to narrow their scope (see AP2) precisely because I think the community should handle what it can. So if something is a designated CT it means to me that the community isn't, at this time, able to self-manage that topic area and if the community actually is able to self-manage we need to restore the area to normal rules for admins and editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Edit: I should note I was making a general point here about any given CT. I think there are reasons to do and not to do this proposal of Tamzin's so am not expressing an opinion on that. Merely responding to Billed Mammal's thinking of how CT exists with-in dispute resolution. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I might do that for some of the more obscure CT's, but to clarify my point here wasn't that I think that the community can fully self-manage this topic area, but that the community can partially self-manage every topic area that is under CT, and I don't want to set the precedent that they can't. BilledMammal (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support hard - The Newimpartial and Tranarchist threads were among the worst things I've seen on this site when it comes to wiki drama. No need to have such a thing when AE can do it cleaner and more efficiently. I also believe this would lead to better results for everyone involved since we won't have involved users contributing, which undermines the integrity of consensus imo. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 18:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

My reservations that an admin panel at AE cannot handle certain types of disruption that require topic familiarity that skirts the edge of what we consider WP:INVOLVED aside, I'm somewhat in favour of the hard proposal, but either could work for me.

The biggest technical hurdle I see for making AE the primary/sole noticeboard for this would be the requirement that AE requires autoconfirmed before you can post a thread without it being removed. That obviously rules out editors with less than 10 edits over 4 days, but also rules out IP editors. If this does go ahead, a common sense exception for WP:MEAT might need to be made so that any uninvolved editor/admin, at their discretion can move/re-post the thread at AE on behalf of the non-autoconfirmed editor, with the checks and balances that the editor moving the discussion takes some responsibility for the move. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: In my mind, the AE autoconfirmed requirement would fall under "unavailable for procedural reasons". So would clear lack of awareness or requests for sanctions that exceed AE's powers (most notably sitebans). If that should be clearer in either proposed wording, I'm happy to clarify. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Aah yeah. If you do follow through with BilledMammal's suggestion above of converting this to an RfC, I would suggest clarifying that in the wording before making it a RfC. Otherwise, unless this side discussion becomes a monster thread of its own, it's probably fine just being clarified in these replies for now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. There are cases when reports can involve multiple issues. If only one of those issues is editing in GENSEX, it should not be the case that we are more or less requiring this sort of stuff to be sent to WP:AE. Reports involving gender-related disputes or controversies are usually best-suited to Arbitration enforcement is overly broad, even in the soft version.
  WP:AE can also be really difficult when trying to demonstrate issues that draw evidence from a large number of diffs (there's a hard cap on 20 diffs). I agree that WP:ANI has problems when it comes to these sorts of disputes inasmuch as it draws a lot of tangentially involved people to these discussions, but I do think that the filer should be able to elect to go to WP:ANI if they think that the open-ended format of the noticeboard will allow them to communicate their concerns more clearly to the community. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  In light of Tamzin's amending of the RfC prompt above, I'm amending my !vote for relevance. I still don't like the phrasing close an AN or AN/I discussion in this topic area (I'd prefer something like close an AN or AN/I discussion about disputes primarily involving conduct in WP:GENSEX so as to be extremely explicit regarding when admins can and cannot close ANI discussions), so I remain weakly opposed at this time. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• For what its worth, as I read through the thread, I did think "much of this would have been avoided had this been transferred to, or originally filed at, AE." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, undecided on variant. It's a CT for a reason; using CT procedures for a CT is a nobrainer. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Question: if this is becoming an RfC, where is the text actually proposed to be added? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I imagine this could work as a standard community-authorized general sanction. It doesn't need to go into policy anywhere. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why would it be a general sanction? Why is it not just a noticeboard procedural rule along the liens of "you must notify someone you're reporting"? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Specifically, support the soft variant. "Truly unambiguous" bothers me on the harder variant, thinking of cases like the recent Scapulus, who was handled swiftly at ANI, but where some editors did see it fit to show up later to complain about freeze peach. Clearly this was addressed well at ANI, but "truly unambiguous" is at least not unambiguous in this case. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I wrestled a lot with that wording (and the closer can always take note of general support for one option or the other, but not for some specific wording, and implement accordingly). But to explain my reasoning, the core challenge is that there have been a lot of cases—both with editors seen as anti-trans and those seen as pro-trans—where someone has felt "Surely this is blatant disruption, easy indef", and it's turned into days or weeks of nonsense. So I acknowledge that "truly unambiguous" is really strong wording, but it's the best shorthand I could think of for "Disruption that you, ideally as an experienced user familiar with what is and isn't considered disruptive in GENSEX, know will lead to a summary indef." Common sense would, of course, continue to govern either of these options, and AE would always have its inherent authority to reject a case, thereby making itself procedurally unavailable and allowing AN(I) to proceed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  SnowRise brings up another point I didn't notice, that according to the hard option, any uninvolved editor could close a thread they deem should be at AE. I think this is an exceptionally bad idea. This means that even in a case where admins are unanimous that some behaviour is unacceptable, any sufficiently out-of-touch editor could declare a case not unambiguous enough and complicate the process excessively. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support hard As I mentioned above, (... it appears that is now simple for editors with a certain POV ... to remove other editors who oppose them from contentious areas without using the correct venue, which would be AE) when these discussions end up with the community they turn into the inevitable shitshows that this one and the NewImpartial one have been. We simply need to remove them from this arena, because otherwise the next one will be exactly the same. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Converted to RfC per comments above, with some tweaks to wording per @Sideswipe9th and Red-tailed hawk. More generally, I stress that the wording above is just two ideas of how to do this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support with a preference for the hard variant, as I think the future will be like the past. I can appreciate the potential problem that a report can cross over multiple issues, but experience leads me to think that the most disaster-prone issue within such a report will dominate. A report that includes both a GENSEX issue and, say, edit-warring over WP:CITEVAR will become a trainwreck over the former. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know what the solution is. This topic is one of several prime candidates for WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:SPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:PUSH, WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:NOTHERE. I don't like advocacy editing, but equally well we may need a balance of editors who have strong POVs to bring in-depth knowledge to controversial articles. It can't be allowed to be beneficial to WP:WIKILAWYER and gang up on opponents or we will get more SPAs and non-autoconfirmed users pig piling on culture war enemies. From what I have seen the normal ANI process works pretty well, and the admins manage to separate behavioral issues from content. The whole !vote thing is problematic because as we see a big deal is made of distilling it down to numbers rather than the much-touted abstract "consensus". Whatever the solution, I think this topic and a few others like it stand to test Wikipedia's processes for dealing with problem editors. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Immensely strong oppose. First off, this is a procedurally invalid proposal, even with the addition of the RfC tag: enforceable rules regarding disruption (particularly those with such broad implications for arresting disruption across a vast swath of articles) cannot be made by the admin regulars of AN alone, supplemented merely by the editors already involved in this singular dispute and a handful of others brought in by a FRS notice. If you want create binding guidelines on this project, you need to use the WP:PROPOSAL process: identify the WP:PAG you want to alter (or suggest a new standalone policy namespace), and then host a discussion on that policy's talk page with a notice at VPP, or just host the discussion at the Village Pump to begin. AN is absolutely not the right (indeed, is arguably the worst) forum to be suggesting new policy. If this should go further rather than being swiftly shot down, the discussion needs to be moved.

Second, putting aside the procedural considerations, I think the proposal (good faith though it obviously is) is a non-starter on its merits as well. Mind you, I think the present case giving rise to this proposal probably is an instance of a case that arguably should have gone to AE. But creating a mandate that all behavioural concerns arising out of GENSEX topics go to AE, aside from being inconsistent with how we handle every other WP:CTOP (our new handle for discretionary sanctions for those unfamiliar) issue, is clearly an unworkable proposition under our current community schema for arresting disruptive behaviour--and the particular wording proposed here (in both variants) only further invites confusion and difficulty. Without meaning offense to Tamzin, it's the worst kind of rule cruft where the community clearly needs some degree of flexibility and redundancy. While I do believe that CTOP should be invoked more liberally in edge cases to bring matters to AE (as a more streamlined process less amenable to pile-on by biased/involved parties) ANI has an absolutely vital role in allowing the community to review and correct long-term behavioural concerns in a way that this overbroad proposal would clearly and significantly abrogate, for limited gain.

Under this suggestion, any behavioural issue imputing the GENSEX topic area would be effectively stripped out of the hands of the broader community to impose CBANs or otherwise address disruption, and those decisions held in reserve for editors with a high level of permissions at AE. While I reiterate that this would actually be a good thing in a non-trivial number of cases, as we should use AE more extensively than we do for CTOP issues, a firm requirement directing all disruption involving GENSEX to AE is clearly overkill that would significantly reduce the broader community's ability to adjudicate longterm issues and otherwise jam-up our ability to effectively arrest disruption. Further, encouraging rank and file editors to start closing down ANI discussions that touch upon certain topic areas (in a way that would currently be treated as clear disruption itself) would be ripe for abuse: anybody who's spent any degree of time at ANI can predict just how flexible a vast number of editors will be with judging themselves as "uninvolved" in the dispute: the technical excuse that they didn't participate in the immediate dispute would still permits editors who are heavily involved in the issues in general (or who have beef with the filer, or are regular defenders of someone who comes to ANI again and again) to thwart oversight by invoking this rule.

Honestly, I could go on for quite a while: there are so many potential knock-on effects to this proposal which would needlessly complicate addressing user conduct in this topic area, and so many ways that it's one-size-fits-all approach does not connect with our current otherwise context-sensitive (and somewhat overlapping, as a good thing) remit of different forums for addressing disruption. But the overarching concern is that it drastically reduces the community's options for little practical gain, pulls oversight for determinations that ultimately should fall into the broader community's hands on occasion, and would introduce all kinds of opportunities for gamesmanship (ostensibly the very thing it comes to address). I just think it's a very poorly considered proposal. But again, if nothing else, it needs to be considered by the community at large in an appropriate forum, which AN decidedly is not. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand your procedural objection, Snow Rise. This proposes rules that would apply only to WP:AN and WP:AN/I. There's not even any change in how AE would operate, other than possibly getting more GENSEX cases than before. This is a vastly less impactful change than, say, placing WP:GS/RUSUKR under an extendedconfirmed restriction, which was handled by a simple thread at AN/I. I don't even think an RfC was strictly required here, but I'm following the path of least resistance.

As to the various negative effects you're worried about, I guess I'll focus on one thing you've said: ANI has an absolutely vital role in allowing the community to review and correct long-term behavioural concerns. Can you point to evidence of this actually being the case in the GENSEX area? In GENSEX AN/I threads I've been involved in, even when there's been some ultimate consensus, I really can't think of any that I would say show healthy self-governance. This strongly negative view of AN/I's handling of GENSEX issues is shared by, as of this comment, every commenter in this thread who substantially edits in the topic area, including ones who often sharply differ on content matters. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin: I'm going to divide my responses between two posts, since these are semi-discrete issues, in order to faciliate any response and further discussion that may result:

• Regarding the procedural/placement issue, the mere fact that this change would pertain to how ANI operates hardly means that it will impact only the regular (mostly admin) editors at AN--let alone that it would only be of interest to this highly select segment of the community. This change would impact a vast number of editors working accross countless articles who may have recourse to bring behavioural concerns to the community at ANI. For that matter, considering almost every single hypothetical future thread that this proposal would seek to invalidate would typically have landed at ANI, rather than AN, placing it here rarifies the air even further, in terms of the regular editors who are likely to see it based on it's placement.

This is clearly not an "AN/I only" issue: it very obviously touches upon fundamental authority, consensus process of, and decision making generally reserved to the community at large (as opposed to the administrative corps in particular) and the proposal would heavily impact the community's ability to address long-term disruption in a particular topic area, relative to how literally all others operate. Such a discussion should take place in a cnetralized and highly visible community space, not just within site of a handful of admins, those already connected to a singular dispute, and handful of others pulled in via a typical FRS. At an absolute minimum you should make a posting a notice about this discussion at the village Pump and making sure the discussion is on the WP:CD ticker. And frankly, I just strongly recommend you move the entire discussion to VP itself. Otherwise, even if you get a consensus for the proposal here, you are just begging for an uproar afterwards, with accusations of an admin power grab, however good faith the intention here. I mean, if nothing else, what is the good-faith, community-respectful argument against moving this to a place where the community at large is more likely to be able to be aware of and weigh in on it? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

On the proposal impacting on the "community's ability to address long-term disruption in a particular topic area", how would you respond to the point raised above by Barkeep49 that I'd like to build upon in the next paragraph. Not sure if this should be a reply to your first or second point however, if you feel that it's better answered in response to the second, feel free to move this comment as a reply to your second point.

Because prior disruption in this content area has required significant ArbCom intervention, and the committee's remit is to operate on serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve, has the community already not demonstrated a significant inability to address long-term disruption in this content area? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No, with all due respect to Barkeep, that is a conclusion I believe is unsupported by compelling evidence, and certainly not one I am aware of ever having been endorsed by the community or by ArbCom in particular. WP:Contentious topics are not labelled as such because the community has a laisez-faire attitude towards them or has fundamentally failed to try to address them, or is per se incapable of doing so. Rather these are topics that are inherently divisive in the broader social systems of our societies at large, and thus such biases and conflicts are simply more easily imported into this project when topics are discussed/edit upon here, relative to some others, for completely obvious reasons. None of that militates for the conclusion that the broader community and our long-established rules and processes do not have a central role to play in addressing a heightened level of disruption in such areas--either as a general matter or, certainly, in terms of an express point of community consensus that has ever been adopted on this project. When we say "contentious topic" we mean "contentious topic", not "a topic the general community does not have a role in regulating". That's a massive non-sequitor and leap in logic, in my opinion.

CTOP (and DS before it) exists merely to grant relaxed use of certain tools in areas where rapid response to disruption is more likely to be needed, not to declare the rest of the community as irrelevant to such a fundamental function: if anything, the existence of a CTOP determination for a particular topic increases the likelihood the broader community may have to occasionally intervene directly concerning disruption connected with that topic, not that it should be forbidden access to it's normal role in that process: that's an incredibly counter-intuitive read on the purpose of CTOP in my opinion, and certainly not captured anywhere in the policy pages that describe those processes.

And again, I say this while being broadly supportive of an hierarchy and an important division of labor running adjacent to the community->admin corps->ArbCom->WMF ladder. But this particular proposal would take a particular topic area and isolate it more or less entirely from established non-admin community tools and norms for expressing consensus on problematic behaviour, and taking consensus action accordingly. I just don't see how that can be justified on the mere basis that this is a highly divisive subject matter: so are countless other topics, including (by definition) every other WP:CTOP subject. Are we going to follow suit for each of those topic areas and essentially hand the entirety of our decision-making apparatus on behavioural issues surrounding contentious topics to the administrative corps alone? I very much hope not: I think it would be an immensely detrimental development in the history of this project. Regardless, such a massive change to the status-quo with such significant impacts upon how we conduct this project and hold eachother accountable to community standards absolutely must be discussed with the fullest possible involvement of the community at large, not just here in the hallowed halls of AN. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

On the conclusion from Barkeep I've built upon, the Arbitration policy that I linked to before, and was ratified by the community, does pretty clearly state that the Committee's remit is to handle content areas that the community has been unable to resolve.

WP:Contentious topics are not labelled as such because the community has a laisez-faire attitude towards them or has fundamentally failed to try to address them,...Rather these are topics that are inherently divisive in the broader social systems of our societies at large, and thus such biases and conflicts are simply more easily imported into this project when topics are discussed/edit upon here Those two things aren't necessarily separate. Yes some of the CTOP topics are inherently divisive in broader social systems off-wiki, but because of that many of them are also topics that the community has historically had an inability to address. Some exceptions to this apply, for example while the Shakespeare authorship question is a CTOP area, outside of Shakespearean scholars and literary historians it's not really a topic that's divisive in a broader social context. As would the very Wikipedia specific Manual of Style and Article titles and BLP areas.

Let me put it to you another way. If was the community who had authorised the sanctions, even if ultimately the end result of the AE and wider discretionary powers for admins is the same, that would have been a clear demonstration that the community was able to handle disruption. However because this required an ArbCom case to be put in place, that alone is a pretty strong indicator to me that this is a content area that the community, for whatever reason, is unable to handle. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I've left myself open to being misconstrued by not being as clear as I could and should have been and so that has happened in this discussion. What I have said is that the community cannot self-manage Contentious Topics. If the community were self-sufficient and able to self-manage it would be inappropriate for it to be an ArbCom designated Contentious Topic. On the whole I am of the firm belief that this community is incredibly capable of handling large and thorny problems of both content (which is obviously out of bounds for ArbCom) and conduct. Because of this I think some members of the community will sometimes think that Contentious Topic is just a shortcut to make life easier - in this case I saw it in Billed Mammal's stating that ArbCom is supplementing the community in Contentious Topics. It goes beyond that. In a designated Contentious Topic there are going to be significant shortcomings in the community's abilities to self-manage. But being unable to self-manage does not mean the community finds itself helpless in managing a Contentious Topic. Hence my edited comment that there are reasons to do and not to do this proposal, which I continue to have no real opinion on. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Barkeep: your observations described in those terms, my own perspective substantially overlaps with yours. Sideswipe9th my response also touches upon your last post, but I'm doubling up here in responding to Barkeep to avoid redundancy. Let us assume for the moment that a CTOp being invoked in a topic area is a tacit statement that the community has been unable to handle issues in a topic area with the usual tools. I think the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that, but let's take that for granted in the present discussion so we can move on to more central points. Because the more critical/dispositive consideration here is that the increased tools that CTOP authorizes are meant to supplement existing administrative and community actions, not replace them. Even if we assume that any time ArbCom authorizes CTOP in a given area, it comes inherent with the message that the community is not getting the job done with typical methods, that is still a non-sequitor with the conclusion that ArbCom has declared that the rst of the community is not to take its own actions to arrest disruption in that area, where and when it can (be it at ANI or wherever). Not only does that conclusion not follow from the given premise, but we have a massive body of processes where the community clearly does regularly restrain problematic editors in CTOP/historical DS through processes taking place outside of AE. And this parallel activity has been undertaken as long as DS/CTOP have existed.

So the end result remains the same: a finding of CTOP in no way forestalls the broader community from exercising it's own prerogative to implement TBANs or other CBANs (to take just one example of what the community is permitted to do in CTOP areas). Surely if the contrary was the case, we would have adjusted the relevant policies on CBANs to reflect this fact years ago. CTOP merely authorizes the use of advanced tools to block or otherwise restrain problematic actors a little faster, and makes WP:AE an option for reporting and getting a faster administrative response. What CTOP clearly does not do is forbid the community at large from also using its own discretion in conjunction with these liberalized tools, as it can (and does) use such community decisions/CBANs parallel to regular administrative blocks, in any other topic area where disruption arises. Again, that would be an absurd conclusion: why would we want the community to be less proactive in responding to areas of heightened disruption? Clearly we want (or at least entertain the occasional need for) increased use of CBANs alongside the use of CTOP/1RR blocks and AE filings. Insofar as CTOP/DS language has ever said "DS/CTOP is meant for areas where the community is having trouble keeping the disruption in check", it is for the purpose of explaining the need for looser standards for when warnings, blocks, and other preventative administrative actions can take place--not for the purposes of saying "these issues can now only be addressed at AE". If it were the latter, then countless of our policies and much of the history community bans would read completely differently. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

What I think this very fair analysis of Contentious Topics misses out on is that certain editors/discussions are, themselves, signals that the community is unable to handle something. This is why not only can admin act sooner and sanction with more severity than they can outside a CT topic area (what SR focuses on) but also can act with first mover advantage and knowing that their actions are less likely to be overturned on formal appeal because of the higher than normal requirements. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• As to the substantive arguments, you may very well be correct that regulars in the GENSEX space consider ANI an intractable travesty: while my background and editorial interests in both biopsychology and human rights semi-frequently bring me into contact with existing disputes in this topic area, I don't engage with the area with the regularity of such editors. However, a few thoughts as to that: first off, that is not exactly a rare perspective about ANI's complications, issues, and the general caliber of discussion there from editors in...oh, I don't know, let's say every single topic area under the sun. That low opinion of what can happen at ANI (unavodiable to a certain extent by virtue of the fact that it specializes in intractable disputes) does not automatically invalidate the role that space serves or the necessity for preserving the ability for concerned community members to bring issues there for the community's consideration.

So I would say the onus is upon you as the party proposing such a massive carve-out to explain why this one topic area should deviate so drastically from how our policies and procedures operate for every other topic. I mean, have you even considered the fact that your proposal would essentially make it impossible for any disruptive party in the GENSEX area to hereafter ever receive a CBAN from that area (or the project in general) as a result of their conduct? That's a pretty humongous abrogation of the community's inherent purview as it has historically existed on this project--and yet also just one of several such outsized implications of the proposal. Is GENSEX so much more inherently disruptive an area so as to seize the entirety of all such determinations from the community at large, even when compared against other DS/CTOP topics? I just don't think so. The community needs to be able to weight in on longterm abuse regardless of the topic area, and your proposal would instead shift that role entirely to just those admins participating at AE. That's incredibly problematic to me, for more reasons than I can begin to list here.

For that matter, putting aside for the moment how extensively this proposal would usurp the broader community's role in preventing disruption in this area, and hamstring our ability to respond to longterm abuse, I am equally, if not more, concerned about the impacts upon the interests of the reported parties. For all the issues inherent to ANI, it does permit for more shades of grey to enter the discourse than does AE. Taking TT's case as an example, some of us were compelled to modulate our recommendations based on the nitty-gritty details and context of the dispute. Let's remember that the responding admin at AE has a fundamentally different role from the closer of an ANI thread. At ANI the closer must, to some degree, take stock of any ameliorating factors which gained significant support among respondents, because they are finding a community consensus in the discussion. At AE, the admin's role is much more that of the party actually making the determination in the first instance, based on the information provided by involved parties. That's a fundamental difference that effectively narrows the decision making from a group (which can, in the aggregate, often reach a more nuanced and reasonable conclusion that balances competing interests) to a single person, who is more likely to act in a very black and white (or at least far more idiosyncratic) fashion.

Again, sometimes that is precisely what we want, for the sake of efficiency and fairness. But often we want the broader community weighing in, in complicated or nuanced cases with competing community interests, and creating a blanket rule that would just completely pull that decision making into the authority of a increasingly smaller subset of the community is a bad direction to take, and even more questionable when you consider that the proposal is that we do it for a given topic area on the justification that "it gets ugly at ANI sometimes when we discuss this subject matter", because 1) what topic would that not apply to? and 2) sometimes the areas with the most contention behind them are the ones we want the community at large to be able to dig into, to avoid oversimplifcation in the handling of those disputes. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Moral support - I'm generally in favor of making ANI operate more like AE (read: get rid of threaded discussions between the OP and accused party), and thus for as long as AN/I continues to not look like that, I'd generally support delegating more to AE over ANI. But, I do agree with Snow that there's procedural issues with raising this proposal here (at least as anything other than testing the waters), and beyond that would be more in favor of a proposal that cuts down on threaded discussion at ANI rather than just delegating work away from there in a piecemeal fashion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Reading through the proposal again, I guess my above reasoning puts me in the soft camp? But I don't think we need more guidance for this topic area so much as modest changes to how ANI operates, and for as long as ANI continues to be a free-for-all, AE will be a preferable forum for addressing pretty much any conduct dispute that it has authority to address. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  There's a fine line between accused having an opportunity/obligation to respond to their accusers and the potential for accusations of WP:BLUDGEONing and the current format makes it hard to tell which is happening. Very much agreed with you @Rosguill. Lizthegrey (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't believe this is something we need to formalize. However, a few times in this saga I've said that it would be a good idea for the closing admins to suggest that future incidents of this type might be better suited for AE. I still stand by that. I suppose this is similar to the Soft version above, but less formal. We can make a recommendation, but we don't need to make the process so rigid by reducing out flexibility to handle new situations at the most appropriate place. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, preferring hard This case has pretty conclusively proven that in a controversial topic area it's possible to remove an opponent who has not actually done anything wrong just by showing up to ANI. Needless to say, this is bad. So I support any reform that would fix this situation, including this one. Loki (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

who has not actually done anything wrong - hmm, seems like a questionable summary to say the least. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, this is a completely inappropriate carveout of one topic area, basically making WP:CBANs impossible for that topic. That is unprecedented and disempowers the community. It is not the place of a few people on AN and a few people unhappy with the recent closes to give/take that away. And the idea that AE is inherently superior to ANI is questionable. The limits there make it hard to document a pattern of misconduct; and without a pattern, it's easy and common for bad behavior to be handwaved away as though it is an isolated incident, or just sour grapes from transphobes or whatever. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Crossroads: CBANs are beyond AE's authority and would thus obviously not be covered by this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is not at all obvious, and besides, then why propose this? It was two CBAN discussions that sparked this idea in the first place, and is motivating some of the votes. A technicality of "the discussion has to be explicitly for a CBAN from the get-go" would make it much harder for problems to be addressed because it's not common for one editor to have all that evidence personally and know that it is that severe. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  CBANS are pretty much exclusively a product of ANI discussions, so if you create a rule which prevents the community from bringing disruption attached to a given topic area to ANI, you effectively are creating a situation where a CBAN can never be applied to a user who has proven disruptive in that area. So, yes, your proposal very much removes CBANS (or similar actions taken as an expression of community will) as an option in any case of disruption that took place in the GENSEX topic area. Indeed, under your proposal, even an LTA or a suspected sock of a previously CBANned editor couldn't be brought to ANI to be dealt with if the disruption touched upon GENSEX editing. I honestly don't wish to be rude, Tamzin, so I hope you will forgive how stridently I am about to word this, but the fact that you didn't recognize this extremely obvious result of the proposal suggests you made it without due consideration for its very broad and numerous impacts. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, there are two possibilities here. One is that I didn't consider the possible negative outcomes. The other is that you're wrong about those negative outcomes being remotely likely. Unsurprisingly, just as you tend to think your analysis is correct, I tend to think mine is. Perhaps after ~15kB of reiterating your parade of horribles that will come to pass if we so much as discourage these discussions, now would be a good time to step back and let others decide how valid your concerns are. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Tamzin I'm fairly sure I've seen you a lot around AN/ANI so I'm fairly surprised that you're so unfamiliar with how CBANS work. While some CBANs start from the get go as someone reporting some behaviour problem an proposing a CBAN, I'd say most CBANs do not work like that. Instead they start of with someone reporting some misbehaviour. Others than may report more misbehaviour. Sometimes the OP responds extremely poorly as well. Eventually someone decides their behaviour is bad enough and proposes a CBAN. The community discussions/!vote this and we hopefully come to a consensus. Even better if it is an uncontentious consensus although sadly that isn't always the case. The organic nature of CBAN discussions means that saying this proposal excludes CBANs simply makes no sense. How can a proposal exclude CBANs when we have no idea if a CBAN may result until we've discussed? Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: I'm well aware of how CBANs work. I'm also well aware that there has not been consensus to CBAN someone for edits primarily relating to GENSEX since... Since when? I can't think of a time in recent memory, and I can think of one particular case where a CBAN proposal failed despite strong evidence of systemic discrimination against trans editors. If someone gets TBANned at AE from GENSEX, and continues to disrupt in other realms, then AN/I can still handle it, probably much less dramatically. "User:Example was indef TBANned from GENSEX last month at AE. They have since made comments X, Y, and Z regarding abortion. This user is clearly NOTHERE and further sanctions re in order" has a much better chance at AN/I than "User:Example has been saying A, B, C in this dispute about trans pronouns and D, E, F in this thread on gender dysphoria and also unrelatedly X, Y, Z about abortion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamzin (talk • contribs) 03:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Look, I don't want to get in a cycle of counter-criticisms with you, especially because I can recognize that your proposal is a goodfaith response to seeing one too many trainwrecks in this area that could have driven away a valuable contributor (thankfully, from the above, it seems we have avoided that outcome with TheTranarchist). However, I will say that the vast majority of the "15kb" you reference is a necessary response to your hand-waving away observations about some pretty major consequences of your proposed course of action--which I would not describe as a "parade of horribles" but rather a series of results that would be direct consequences of that policy were it implemented, and which (far from being hypothetical or hyperbole), would be automatic and inevitable outcomes.

As Nil Einne, Crossroads and myself have already explained, almost all CBANs result from discussions where they were not suggested at the outset, and your personal recollections and feelings about their necessity not withstanding, there's no good reason to believe the community might not need to CBAN someone in this area from time to time, and no argument for stripping that option from the community's potential responses to disruption. Considering we just had two such CBANS of the sort that you describe as uncommon in one day, and considering there have been numerous other GENSEX TBANS implemented at ANI over the years, clearly the need for such tools is not as super rare as you suggest. And frankly, anti-trans sentiment is a reason why we should be concerned to preserve this option, not toss it away, because it's equally (if not more) likely that the next person we need to indefinitely remove from GENSEX editing will be a problem user aligned against trans rights.

And even as regards that rare exception where a CBAN proposal is a part of the initial complaint, that actually highlights another can-of-worms knock-on effect that would result from the framework you are advancing here. Because as soon as people adjust to this new dynamic, here's exactly what is going to happen: every single time that an editor with an ounce of WP:BATTLEGROUND in them at the moment wants to bring what they perceive to be disruption in the GENSEX area to ANI, they are simply going to include a request for a CBAN in their filing, because that will become the most obvious way for them to get past the arbitrary "must be an issue that AE cannot address" threshold that is a part of your model. And I fail to see how forcing every complaint filed at ANI over GENSEX disruption to start out with the posture of a proposed CBAN is going to make the resulting discussions less inflamed. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Just spitballing. What about a system in which CT issues are still reported at ANI, but they can be forwarded to AE if it's determined that there was disruptive behavior? This would theoretically retain the benefits of the discussion format, but it would end the discussion before the thousands of words dedicated to arguing about whether sanctions are warranted and what sanctions are applicable. Of course, this system would not address the legitimate concerns raised by Crossroads above. I also think that any solution should involve reform that allows for topics to be delisted from CT more easily per Barkeep49. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Puts the cart before the horse. If "it's determined that there was disruptive behavior" then a conclusion has already been reached and an appropriate sanction or warning can issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Having watched AE proceedings over the years, I am quite confused on why anyone would see that as an improvement in venue. In fact the ability for a single admin to supervote by design, has been a detriment to the encyclopedia in my opinion. Arkon (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

oppose. this is instruction creep. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose in a number of ANI cases involving an DS area, I have suggested that it might be simpler to take things to ARE. Indeed in a number of cases where someone was not formally aware, I've given alerts as a result of an ANI cases and if the problems were minor enough I've suggested perhaps it would be easier to just leave things be for now and take it to ARE if it repeats. I haven't done so since it changed to CT mostly because it's just something I do where I happen to see a case where this might help. In other words, I fully support the idea that often it is better for areas well covered by CT to be simply handled by CT rather than going through normal community discussion.

  However I'd oppose trying to force cases must be treated as CT without very strong evidence that this is the best for the community. And to be clear this includes the soft variant as it also include a degree of force.

  As noted above, there are numerous possible consequences for this e.g. how we handle cban or other sanctions that aren't something CT can impose. Note also that CBANs technically include topic bans even from CT areas. While I am personally not fussed whether an editor is subject to a community topic ban or a CT one, there is always going to be editors who feel a community ones is better since it will require a community consensus to remove. (After all, we even had community site ban of an editor because the community was concerned about an earlier arbcom decision to unban the editor.) There's also how this affect cases that might be better for the community to handle since they are more complicated than the simpler disruption in a certain topic area CT handles best.

  I'd even more oppose it for any specific CT area (instead of all CT areas) without strong evidence there's a reason to treat these as special areas. I'm far from convinced that the two reason cases resulted in this are the worst we've seen at ANI. And concerns over people trying to get rid of opponents covers pretty much all CT areas and frankly anything contentious which isn't CT. E.g. the notability/ARS wars.

  Most importantly though, IMO this is simply a bad idea at this time. To some extent there is an aspect of hard cases make bad law here. But more importantly, emotions are clearly still running high over those two recent cases. I don't think it likely holding this discussion at this time is going to improve that or ensure we make a good decision. Instead we get comments like "who has not actually done anything wrong". Clearly quite a few members of the community do not agree with that for one or both of those editors. This includes many who are not opponents. While a discussion like this is always likely to be contentious and may get controversial comments, the best outcome and least disruption and harm to the community will come if we hold it when editors aren't already affected by two recent controversial cases, cases which resulted in this proposal. Fanning the flames when emotions are still so high is not going to benefit the community.

  To be clear, I'm not suggesting any editor involved in this proposal ill motivations, I have no doubt they're genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia and fix a problem that they feel was highlighted by recent cases. However having good motivations doesn't stop an editor making bad decisions and I feel that's clearly the case here. (Actually part of the reason why they have made such a bad decision is precisely why we should not be doing this. Perhaps they weren't able to see what they may have seen when if it wasn't so soon after those two cases namely that it was a terrible idea to discuss this right at this moment.)

  Nil Einne (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per most of the above, especially SnowRise. Not going to repeat it all. I do think that an "ARBGENSEX2" case is ultimately inevitable, but it will be after the community has failed to be able to resolve the problem without having to defer to ArbCom. And that time is not upon us yet. I agree also especially with Crossroads in observing that AE is not a good venue for establishing long-term patterns of disruption, only short-term "outbursts", because of its strict limits.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I recognize that Tamzin's suggestion is entirely a good faith effort to deal with a pressing problem, I believe that SnowRise's analysis of the results that would occur if this were put into effect to be more accurate and representative of the general history of AN and AN/I. Community discussion can result in a CBAN, which requires that the community overturn it. It is therefore a more powerful sanction then an admin-imposed AE indef, which -- like every other admn-imposed sanction -- can be overturned at any time by any individual admin (for whatever reason). We should not lose the potential use of CBANS as an option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: I'm fairly sure you're wrong about CT sanctions as alluded to by User:Barkeep49 and maybe others above. As documented at Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction, these can't simply be overturned at any time by an individual admin for any reason. That can only happen when it's an indef and was imposed by a single admin and it's been more than a year or the imposing admin is no longer an admin. Otherwise if the imposing admin agrees (including when imposing the sanction) but note this sort of means it's not overturned solely by any admin. Oh and if it's imposed by a single admin, they (but only they) can change or remove it themselves without needing to ask anyone. Maybe more importantly a case which makes it to AE will often result in discussion before sanction is imposed by rough consensus of admins in which case none of this applies and it needs to be appealed either at AE or AN or by arbcom. To be clear, this is only for sanctions imposed under CT. I believe in some cases an admin will just quickly impose a sanction as an ordinary admin action rather than under CT and AE will decide to just leave it at that. (And as noted to some extent even if it is imposed under CT, if by a single admin which I think is another possible outcome of an AE report, this admin could allow it to be treated like a regular sanction and overturned by any admin by saying so when imposing it.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  I may be confused about that, I'm not certain, but it *is* certain that if all GENSEX issues are required to be settled at AE, then a CBAN is out of the question, and I still consider a CBAN to be a more powerful sanction, because it comes from the community at large. It may be more cumbersome to *reach* a consensus to CBAN, but the direct consensus of the community is, to my mind, a stronger action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• OpposeAs a general principle leave it to us on the ground to thrash things out. The existing structure can take care of those fairly rare times we can't.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I appreciate Tamzin making an effort to find a way to improve our resolution of disputes and to avoid having difficult mega-threads like these two ANIs we just had. However, I am among those who does not believe that AE is better at resolving disputes than ANI (although I do believe in some cases we should make some ANI threads more formal, like AE, to e.g. reduce bludgeoning). I also don't think AN is the right place to decide structural changes to ANI; that should be at the pump; the Administrator's Noticeboard is not an appropriate place for any RFC in my view. Discussions here will attract attention from administrators, and RFCs might bring in FRS, but that's still not a pool representative of the overall community. Ironically, my procedural objection is rooted in the same principle as my substantive objection: fundamentally, if you reduce the pool of decision-makers from "everyone" to "administrators", you don't end up with a better decision. Levivich (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral on the soft proposal, though I think it should be worded to encompass all CT areas, oppose the hard version. I do think AE is a better venue for most CT-related conduct disputes, and I hope our admins feel empowered to strongly suggest that newly filed ANI reports be moved to AE when possible. I would be fine with admins closing such discussions and directing the OPs to AE, though I think all it should take to reopen them is the OP saying "no, I definitely want this to stay at ANI". I oppose the hard proposal as GENSEX doesn't need this treatment over other CT areas, and because I agree with those that are concerned about missing out on some ANI-specific potential remedies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Please revdel per WP:BLP

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahim_Ghali&diff=1141701020&oldid=1140124065 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Mersi y danke, amigo. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Bitte sehr -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for Unblock (Partial Block from 4 months)

Hello, I want to request that the partial block is no longer necessary. I was blocked from editing the article List of highest-grossing Punjabi-language films 4 months ago (6th November 2022) for disruptive editing, which I did by mistake due to the lack of knowledge about the policies and it took me time to understand things. I have been editing Wikipedia for 5 years and never did any disruptive editing before this incident. Now, I understand this and doing editing carefully. Even suggesting others to stop any disruption. 4 months ago, from 6th to 8th November, things got heated. My conduct with fellow editors before and after the incident remained good and objective. Even when a couple of users got personal, I did not lose my calm.

These problems / block reasons cease to exist 2 months and 3 weeks ago i.e. 12th December 2022 and I made an unblock request on 21st December 2022, which eventually got declined on 5th January 2023 after lots of discussion. Because the blocking admin gave new reason (unrelated to the original block) that I have been editing only one article List of highest-grossing Punjabi-language films since 2018 from which I was blocked (which was NOT actually the case). Though I was the major contributor to that article but I used to edit various other articles too. And now, 2 more months later, I have been regularly updating various other articles. So, the new reason for keeping me blocked from the article in question also cease to exist.

So, Kindly unblock me from the article in question so that I can continue with productive and constructive editing to it, as this article only has a limited number of regular editors. Talking about other articles, I am already contributing to those.

Thanks & Regards, SunnyKambojLive (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I am the blocking admin. While I was away for a few months, this user posted an aggressive rant on my talk page @User talk:El C#Discussion regarding Injustice and Suspected Admin Abuse. I don't know why they try to circumvent the normal unblock process, but I suspect it's due to their last three unblock requests having been declined. El_C 09:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@SunnyKambojLive: Can you reconcile this information from El C with what you wrote above. My impression is that your conduct after was not good. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra If you go through the whole scenario from start to finish, you will get to know what I am talking about.

I can't know when User:El_C will be active on Wikipedia and when not. They objected my unblock request on 30th December 2022 and I posted on their talk page just 1 week later i.e. 6th January 2023. So, I can't know if they are seeing my discussion or not. As they never responded to it. And, what they are referring to as an aggressive rant is basically the normal procedure suggested by Wikipedia if one suspect Admin Abuse. To have a discussion with the Admin. Circumvent is the wrong word used by them as what I did is our right given by Wikipedia if one suspects Admin abuse.

And, I actually suspect it is them who are trying to circumvent my unblock process by giving a new excuse every time I apply for unblock (reasons completely unrelated to why the original block was placed). That's why I suspected it to be abuse of Admin power at the first place. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of partial block and suggestion that it might be wise to extend its duration. I see no indication that user actually has learned from the experience.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  User:Deepfriedokra Kindly acknowledge me why you feel so, for anything that I did from almost last three months? i.e after 12th December?

  Disruptive Editing = Did not do it.

  Any misconduct = Did not do it.

  Any sockpuppetry = Did not do it.

  Single purpose account = Not anymore.

  Tried to have a discussion (as per Wikipedia rules) = Yes. (That too not after 6th January 2023, i.e, 2 months)

  Don't you think good conduct should be mutual? And we should not confuse a discussion with conduct?

  Thanks. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Pinging User:JBW, User:331dot, User:Rosguill and User:Izno as they all went through the whole process or scenario. Some of them even suggested me what to do for getting unblocked. And, I did the same.

  Kindly help me get justice. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  My involvement here was to tell you to WP:DROPTHESTICK at El C's talk page in early January. Your method for appealing the block here does not fill me with confidence that there is a good reason to remove the block at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  What method? Can u acknowledge me with that? I did not get u. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  You're trying to appeal the block on the basis that there has been an abuse of process and that this is all some great injustice targeting you. That isn't going to get you anywhere, people have investigated the circumstances surrounding your original block and don't agree with your descriptions of it. The one way to argue your case here, which I've already pointed out in the past on El C's talk page, is to take a step back, make productive contributions to other articles that demonstrate your ability to work well with others and respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and point to those as evidence that you can work on Wikipedia without causing disruption. The more you make this about the validity of the original block, the less likely you are to have a successful appeal, especially since it seems that you tried to sockpuppet your way around the block. Sockpuppetry is a serious breach of the community's trust, and it is a long uphill path to come back from that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think there is some confusion here. I appealed Unblock request based on the reasons for which I was blocked, and I did not repeat them.

  I did exactly what you suggested. I took step back 2 months ago. Made positive contributions to other articles.

  The Validity of original block - this thing started when El C commented with yet another new reason. And I already faced consequences for the Sock (that I did by mistake as I did not know we can't make 2 accounts).

  But your suggestion is good as to add my contribution as evidences. I forgot to add those.

  Thanks & Regards, SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Having looked at the previous discussion, and given that when they were originally pblocked from the article, they used a sock User:UCoE Freaks to circumvent it, that would suggest to me that an inability to edit a single article is not a great loss for this editor and a net positive for Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Kindly note I already faced consequences for it as User:Izno put a full block of 1 week on me for this mistake. Thanks. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not able to edit an article, to which one has given 5 years is definitely a Great loss. Especially, when there remains no reason to keep getting blocked from editing it. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  @SunnyKambojLive: Your continual quest for "justice," renewed above, speaks volumes as to the need for this partial block. You continue to treat this as some sort of judicial proceeding. It is not. This is not crime and punishment, it is preventing continued disruption. I agree with Black Kite. Your not editing that article is not a loss for Wikipedia. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  User:Deepfriedokra That was a single instance when I created a new article for List of Highest Grossing "Indian" Punjabi Films. That was 4 months ago when I did not know the consensus issue and I created the new article. It was termed Disruptive Editing and I got blocked. Neither before nor After that, I ever did any disruptive editing.

  Even while using User:UCoE Freaks, I only made positive contributions to the article. When User:Izno objected, I stopped doing that too. So there is No "Continued" Disruption from my side from last 3 months almost.

  My only quest is to get unblocked from an article, for which there is currently no reason to keeping me blocked. That too after discussions with various admins and doing what they suggested for getting unblocked.

  I even don't know how asking for help or demanding justice constitutes for keeping someone blocked for no actual reason (currently).

  Me not editing that article is a loss to that article and ultimately Wikipedia. You should check my contributions to that article before reaching any conclusions. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose conduct here and at El C's Talk show they have not learned and will continue in the same vein. This block was lenient. Star Mississippi 18:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Still don't understand how discussing something has to do with conduct? Is putting your point across constitute misconduct on Wikipedia? SunnyKambojLive (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  The point you're putting across appears to boil down to Wikipedia missing out on your wonderful edits if you're not allowed to make them. To be honest, I reckon the vast majority of people here can live with that terrible struggle. — Trey Maturin™ 18:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Editors have made Wikipedia what it is today. Every single edit by every single Editor matters. As the definition of Wikipedia says "created and edited by volunteers around the world".

  Majority ultimately means the core readers of the article in question. It may not be of any use for some people but it caters to 102 million Punjabi language speakers worldwide. That's a majority in itself. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• This user pretty much only edited the article in question since 2018. After the p-block from it by me due to acute WP:OWN, and after failing several unblock requests, they decided to instead WP:SOCK to circumvent the failed unblocks. After a WP:CUBLOCK of that account, which made them cheating the system ("justice"?) in that way no longer viable, they're back again to their raison d'être (i.e. that page). I have no idea why they weren't sitewide blocked indefinitely immediately after the deceptive act of socking. Now, in this discussion, four separate admins (not including myself) oppose their unblock. If they are not sitewide blocked after this, there's no need to ask me if I object to their unblock from that page — I object for the foreseeable future. El_C 18:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  User:El_C Now, you are clearly twisting the facts and instead, instigating other Admins to block me sitewide? I mean, really? This clearly shows you are having some personal problem with me.

  1) I edited a large number of articles since I started editing. I was the major contributor to the article in question, which does not mean it's wrong or not allowed on Wikipedia.

  2) Any Admin can check the whole discussion from the start and can judge there was nothing like WP:OWN. I was just unaware of some of the policies and the core discussion was whether to include Pakistani Punjabi films in this article or not. Which after reaching consensus, it was me only who added those.

  3) After one failed unblock request, I used another account User:UCoE Freaks. Which had nothing to do with the failed unblock. It was just to make latest and productive contributions to the article. When Admin User:Izno objected and I asked them to educate and help me, I stopped using that account and did as they suggested. First, got out from the full block and then requested for Unblock process (2nd time). Admin User:JBW investigated and thought of giving me a second chance, ultimately stopped by User:EL_C as they said that the account is Single purpose.

  4) After that I made many contributions to the various articles for 2 months and made unblock request 3rd time i.e. yesterday (5th March 2023). And now, User:El_C is instigating other admins to block me sitewide? And not ready for unblocking me, as they said - " for the foreseeable future". If this is not the abuse of Admin's power, then what may?

  This matter should be taken to the Arbitration Committee or Dispute Settlement Committee.

  This is too much. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

SunnyKambojLive, I'd advise against WP:FORUMSHOPPING, but you do what you must. Please do not ping me here again, though. Thanks. El_C 19:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose removal of page block Two weeks after being pageblocked, this editor created a sockpuppet account and actively evaded their block for a month. This deceptive behavior is unacceptable and I think that many administrators would have imposed an indefinite site block. I think that it is time for this editor to drop the stick and move on to other articles. Cullen328 (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out a little background to my involvement here. I reviewed an unblock request for this editor. I put some time and effort into doing so, including asking questions of the editor, and waiting for answers, rather than just pasting a templated decline of the request. At the end of that process I consulted the blocking administrator on the possibility of unblocking. I put time and effort into going through that, rather than just spending a few seconds closing the unblock request, because I hoped to be able to unblock the editor, so I tried to give them the opportunity to justify doing so. It was with reluctance that, in view of the blocking administrator's response to my request for comment, I decided I had to decline the unblock request.
• I have now read both the editor's statements above, and comments they have posted elsewhere since my reviewing of their unblock request. It is difficult to imagine how they could have done a better job of persuading me that I was wrong to extend to them so much assumption of good faith. They have provided abundant reason why we should decline their request for unblocking now, why we should be very doubtful about ever lifting the block, and why we should very seriously consider whether to convert the partial block to sitewide. There would be little if any point in my listing all the reasons, because most of them have already been mentioned by others, but I will mention one more detail. Amongst other parts of their ranting on the blocking administrator's talk page is the following statement:"I came here to discuss with the blocking admin because after this I wanted to go ahead to Dispute settlement committee or complaining to Arbitration Committee for suspected Admin Abuse." Translation into plain English: "I'm not really here to discuss the problem with the blocking administrator; I'm just going through the motions of doing that, because I have read that I need to do so before I take a case to the Arbitration Committee, which I intend to do so in order to seek revenge." Lift a block on an editor whose approach to a disagreement is that? Absolutely not. JBW (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Revenge? But this is what Wikipedia asks and allows us to do in case of suspected Admin Abuse. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)