request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or acontentious topic restriction imposed by anadministrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against apreviously alerted editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
requestpage restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
Onlyregistered users who areautoconfirmed may file enforcement requests here; requests filed bytemporary accounts or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as anextended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it.Enforcement requests, appeals, and statements in response to them may not exceed500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.(Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Administrators may remove or shorten comments that are overlong or unconstructive, and may instruct users to stop participating or impose AE sanctions in response to disruptive contributions such aspersonal attacks orgroundless complaints.
The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each, unless AE admins waive this rule. Any uninvolved admin may furtherrestrict participation by non-parties at their discretion.
To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template{{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions
All contentious topic restrictions (andlogged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using theapplicable template.
A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.
Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction
An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
the restriction was an indefinite block.
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:
aclear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
aclear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.
Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
On Arbitration Committee review
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at arequest for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
^The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Information for administrators processing requests
Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.
A couple of reminders:
Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.
Word counts may be added using the following template:{{ACWordStatus|page=AE|section=REQUEST NAME|user=USERNAME}}. Extensions may be granted using the following template:{{ApprovedWordLimit|words=NEW TOTAL|sig=~~~~}}.
Closing a thread:
Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between{{hat}} and{{hab}} tags. Hatted requests will later be archived by an admin (often after a few days to a week).
Please considerreferring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates{{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or{{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
To add a quick request, copy the following text box,click to edit this section, paste in the copied text at the bottom, and replace "Heading", "Page title", "Requested action", and "Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated)" to describe the request:
=== Heading ===*{{pagelinks|Page title}}'''Requested action''': Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated).~~~~
This has already been handled. If there are further problems related to a quick request, it's obviously not a "quick request" anymore and should be handled in another manner.asilvering (talk)18:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Requested action: Could someone please inform this user of the restrictions covering ARBPIA pages? And keep an eye on that page? A canvassing call was made off wiki and there are attempts to mass delete and ignore reliable sources. Thank you.Tiamut (talk)08:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping this. There are now several editors new to English wikipedia at this page, most of them from Hebrew wikipedia. Don't understand why they are being allowed to overrun it in response to an off wiki canvassing call. ImagineTalk:List of Israelis was suddenly a source of interest to Arabic wiki editors all advancing a similar POV due to an off wiki call. Please some action would be appreciated.Tiamut (talk)15:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Content that contradicts the page as it was, and without even an attempt to see consensus. Nor was it in less than 24 hours. Why make a claim that's so easily disproven? -Lisa (talk -contribs)18:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I simply mixed up the times, thinking it was 22 hours, rather26 hours. Please note this page has been unedited for months before your changes, which are mass deletions, including of well sourced material that was subject to previous talk page discussions. So your claims are false.Tiamut (talk)18:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain that the hostility evident above and elsewhere is entirely productive. Different editors may have different opinions. What claims are false? And, even if they are, might it be put in a more tactful manner?MarkBernstein (talk)22:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, what hostility? I have been accused of several things I have not done, simply for protesting mass deletions that followed off wiki canvassing that no one has addressed For example,see here. I think I am being quit patient all things considered.Tiamut (talk)22:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've given that editor a CT alert. This is something any editor can do at any time. I've also protected the article for 2 days to encourage discussion rather than reversion.Valereee (talk)21:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With no consensus,Lisa deleted a very large amount of content, most of which had been in the article for a long time (more than 10 years in some cases). Tiamut put it back. Then Lisa deleted it again,accusing Tiamut of making "an enormous change to the page with zero consensus" (which is exactly what Lisa did, whereas Tiamut had not edited the page since 2012) and demanding that Tiamut is the one who should get consensus. This is text-book edit warring on Lisa's part.Zerotalk01:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Length of time does not mean it can't change. There were discussions on the talk page pointing out the absurdity of including certain people on the list.Sir Joseph(talk)04:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Requested action: Delete the page as a G5 violation, as the creator is not extended-confirmed. The G5 tag was declined because she is also running for Congress, even though, according to the creator,"[she] is most notable for publishing an open letter criticizing big law firms for their silence on the genocide in Gaza."Kelob2678 (talk)13:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the admin who examined the article for speedy delete. I determined the article was not eligible for speedy delete b/c for multiple reasons, including that it didn't fall within the restrictions atWikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. This article is about an American lawyer who is also running for the US House of Representatives. While she has spoken out about issues related to Israel, that in itself does not automatically pull the subject under this particular contentious topic, especially when she's running for higher office in the USA. As I toldKelob2678, if there are concerns about the article bring it up forAFD, which Kelob2678 has now done atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melat Kiros.SouthernNights (talk)13:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that in this case, the article is not directly related to theArab–Israeli conflict per thecontentious topics listing because it is instead about an American lawyer and politician who merely protested against Israel in the USA. Saying that anyone who protests against or registers an opinion about the Arab–Israeli conflict should be covered by this contentious topics would pull in tens of thousands of additional articles. Nowhere in thecontentious topics enforcement procedure does it say we should apply the topics listing this widely.SouthernNights (talk)14:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperPianoMan9167@SouthernNights The user who wrote the article is not ECR confirmed. If the non-ECR content is removed, the article is just about the campaign.
@Edittttor has made other edits that could be considered ECR.
@SouthernNights I'm not sure if they would fall underWikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict or not, but the diffs do show edits involving inserting/removing content relating to allegations of AIPAC donations to candidates the article isn't about, removing a claim that an attack was anti-Israel, and replacing anti-semitism with anti-Israel about how some people view Nida Allam's positions on I/P (the next line and the source in the next line is Allam apologizing for past actions related to statements on I/P that some could view as antisemitic.
@Edittttor's justification in AFDs for the Chevalier and Kiros are specifically related to their activism regarding I/P.
This seems like an extremely broad application of the contentious topic tag. The subject of this article lives in the US and simply commented on the conflict 2.5 years ago. There's no evidence that she has personal or professional connections to the topic and she has no influence over the course of events. While her comment and the public response to it made her notable, she has received lots of high quality news coverage for other topics that are not related to the conflict since then.Edittttor (talk)16:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanationhow these edits violate it
Thunderbird L17, arguing that it wasn't necessary to state inImane Khelif that she is not transgender because no one is saying she is, first asked for a major media outlet saying some public figure had said so at[8], and then asked for a quote at[9], and then argued Trump hadn't said that at[10] and[11], and then that Trump was known for not stating things clearly and asked for another public figure at[12] and also is arguing that Trump saying she "transitioned" isn't the same as Trump saying she is "transgender"here.
Now apparently arguing it's hypocrisy that WP requires different standards for saying Khelif isn't transgender than for saying she "admits to having SRY gene"here.
This very infrequent editor hadn't edited in over a year. Three days ago areddit post covered this new story and discussed the WP article, and user came in and has made twice as many edits atTalk:Imane Khelif as at any other article or talk in their 20+years of editing, mostly arguing that no one is saying Khelif is transgender so there's no need for Wikipedia to state she's not transgender.Valereee (talk)21:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Thunderbird L17, this isn't an arbitration request, it's an arbitration enforcement request. Two different processes. We use AE to prevent taking issues that have already been dealt with at ArbCom back to ArbCom when they can be dealt with here with simple enforcement of what ArbCom has already decided.
I've said this before, but contentious topics and inexperienced users are a terrible combination. You received a CT alert. You deleted it, which we take to mean "I know everything I need to know about what this means." We're aware you may not actually know enough to know you don't know everything you need to know. I don't want to see this evolve into an indef, but you may want to consider offering not to edit in contentious topics until you've got a lot more experience. There are any number of experienced users who can put forth the arguments you're making -- some of which do have a valid point -- and do it nondisruptively.Valereee (talk)01:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re:I just don't understand why you wouldn't reach out first instead of pushing this to arbitration. We just don't have the bandwidth to go over and above to educate every inexperienced user about contentious topics. We could literally spend all our volunteer time on trying to make sure inexperienced users understand they've stepped into a terrible place. We gave you warnings on your talk: You're in a contentious topic. It contained links to help you learn more. If, for instance, instead of deleting the CT alert you'd asked TA why they'd given that warning to you, you might have gotten an explanation. How much time did you spend investigating any of that anywhere? I don't mean to be unkind, but what exactly were we supposed to do to make sure you didn't end up here?Valereee (talk)02:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
I rarely edit Wikipedia anymore because it feels like the established narrative on a page and the procedure of allowing edits is more important than just stating the truth. It takes too much effort to effect change, even if the change you're trying to make to a page is factually, provably true.
I had monitored the Imane Khelif page for some time, and observed the unchallenged false statements on it. I knew the entire controversy was about whether or not Khelif had XY chromosomes, an SRY gene, and aDSD. But the Wikipedia pages have always framed the issue with a straw-man argument that Khelif had been falsely accused of being transgender.
When I saw in the news last week that Khelif had made a public statement about the SRY gene I decided to see if the page was going to finally reach a neutral and unbiased state, and acknowledge what the controversy was actually about. As expected, I saw on the talk page that certain editors were working hard to keep the quote off the page. I saw the request for comment and decided to try adding my voice to the conversation. I didn't come from Reddit or anywhere else.
In the discussions I pointed out that theImane Khelif page and the related2024 Summer Olympics boxing controversy also make claims that "Several public figures, including then U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and author J. K. Rowling, referenced the incident in political commentary about women in sports, often incorrectly suggesting Khelif was transgender."
That claim is false. There areno quotes from any public figures that I can find accusing Khelif of being "transgender", certainly not from J. K. Rowling. The closest I can find is a quote from Donald Trump about people "in the boxing" who "transitioned". That quote is unclear, but is also from asingle public figure who is well known for being unclear.
So I wondered if I could actually make a small difference in the conversation by pointing out that fact. In a discussion about how what exactly Khelif said was justso important, maybe I could respectfully point out that what exactly people like J. K. Rowling said was important too, and that they were being misrepresented on the same page.
The results have been unsurprising to me. No engagement with the actual fact that those claims are false. Just personal attacks against me for going against the established narrative on the page. And now this. I have no idea what exactly I'm supposed to defend here, and honestly at this point I really don't care. It's all taken up too much of my time and I'll probably give up on Wikipedia again for another few years.
But facts are facts. If you want them to be on Wikipedia, then put them there. But if you want to drag me through arbitration to preserve the provably false narrative that multiple public figures are accusing Khelif of being transgender, then do that. I've said my peace.Thunderbird L17 (talk)23:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why this arbitration was even started byUser:Valereee in the first place? According toWikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom, "All conduct issues should first be discussed at the talk page of the users involved." If this is a conduct issue that Valereee took issue with, then why did they not bring it up on my talk page first and resolve it that way? What are we even doing here?Thunderbird L17 (talk)01:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally speaking, this isn't arbitration; it's arbitration enforcement, i.e. enforcement of already existing ArbCom decisions. These can be handled by any uninvolved administrator or set of uninvolved administrators, and don't have to follow the processes and procedures of ArbCom itself; ArbCom set up this space to be separate and it has its own procedures.publeek (house •service •theleekycauldron • she/her)01:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then is there an ArbCom decision that I have violated? All of the discussions that have been taken issue with were under an RfC. I read the RfC instructions before joining the discussion, and have tried to follow them and be civil and respectful through the conversations. This all seems very abrupt and outside the spirit of arbitration.Thunderbird L17 (talk)01:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee I received one complaint by a user for using "they" instead of "she". I amended my comment as a result and was more carful with my pronouns going forward. I thought that would be the end of it. Like I said, this entire experience has soured me on ever answering a "Request for Comment" on Wikipedia again. I just don't understand why you wouldn't reach out first instead of pushing this to arbitration.Thunderbird L17 (talk)01:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee There was a single warning on my talk page, and no indication it was official or from anyone in authority. There was no reason to ask them why they'd given that warning to me, because they already specified the reason within the warning. They said it was there because I used "they" instead of "she". It was a mistake I corrected and didn't make again.Thunderbird L17 (talk)02:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion between myself and Thunderbird L17 atTalk:Imane_Khelif#Responses underneath my !vote. Some of diffs provided by Valereee make up part of that discussion. In that discussion, Thunderbird L17 repeatedly attempts toWP:GASLIGHT me, telling me that Trump didn't say what he clearly said. I've taken the page of my watchlist and unsubscribed from the threads in very large part because of Thunderbird L17's conduct. Looking at Thunderbird L17'scomments at Talk:Imane_Khelif it is harder to find comments which aren't problematic than it is to find ones which are. Two diffs which stand out areSpecial:Diff/1337356009 where they state that the issue has always been about "a male DSD" and thenSpecial:Diff/1337380747 where they state that @Katzrockso has engaged in a "dishonest misrepresentation" for quoting what they wrote.TarnishedPathtalk23:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear up some confusion: it appears Thunderbird is confusing theCTOP alert that's being discussed above with a warningthey received here fromDanielRigal. The difference is rather moot, however, as both the alert and warning should have been heeded when he removed them from his talk page.
In response to DanielRigal's warning, Thunderbird calls ourMOS:GENDERID guidelines "compelled speech rules" because they'd require him to use she/her pronouns for Khelif[13]. Any editor who believes that not misgendering BLPs on wikipedia is afreedom of expression issue should not be editing within this CTOP.Nil🥝04:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented atTalk:Imane Khelif about the significant number of reactivated accounts all sharing the same POV. Whether off-wiki co-ordination, compromised accounts or meatpuppetry it is still significantly suboptimal.Black Kite (talk)23:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question/comment aboutMOS:GENDERID about the pronoun "they".
Suppose someone self-identifies as a woman. Doesn't matter for this question whether they're cis or trans. Am I not allowed to use the singular "they" as a pronoun for them in talk page discussions? Where doesMOS:GENDERID prohibit this practice?
As far as I can see, the onlysentence at all dealing with "they" in the MOS is this:Singular they/them/their pronouns are appropriate to use in reference to any person who goes by them. As I read the sentence, it is dealing with people who wish to be called by the pronoun "they" -- so Wikipedia editors should respect their wishes. This sentence does not prohibit Wikipedia editors from using "they" for anyone else, say a man or woman.
I understand completely that it's a problem if someone uses "she" for a person who self-identifies as a man (or vice versa). That problem arises because "she" or "he" are not gender-neutral. But thesingular they is a gender-neutral pronoun, and useful precisely because of it is so. I use the singular they all the time in my normal conversation.
I participated a bit in the talk-page discussion; I’m commenting here on process and the evidentiary premise for sanctions, not to advocate for any editor.
theleekycauldron: yourcomment treats "male" language by J. K. Rowling as saying that it's "tooootally unrelated to accusing her of being transgender" (sarcasm), or else any attempt to distinguish "male" (as used in sport eligibility disputes) from gender identity is "[in] fact code for a claim of a DSD," which you then dismiss ("no one would describe [that] as truly being male"). The issue is that treating the eligibility-rule reading as basically off the table is doing a lot of work here.
On the merits of the reading: the relevant eligibility materials from World Athletics (as summarized in itspress release) andWorld Boxing use "sex"/"biological sex" terminology. World Athletics defines "biological male" by Y-chromosome status, "irrespective of their legal sex and/or gender identity" (section C3.5A). Thisjournal article makes this argument explicitly.
To be clear, I am not arguing for Wikipedia to adopt these standards; I have no trouble withMOS:GENDERID. I am saying it is not safe to treat "male" language here as necessarily about transgender identity (or "code") when these regimes define "biological sex" categories this way.
Given the page is under full protection specifically to channel disputes into talk-page discussion, some protracted back-and-forth is going to be normal. I’d be cautious about labeling that "sealioning" absent clear diffs showing repetitive badgering (same questions after answers) or refusal to engage what's already been presented.Kingsindian♝♚10:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Thanks for conceding the evidentiary point -- that's an important correction. I'm not denying the editor has been persistent, maybe even tedious. But this page is fully protected precisely so the dispute plays out on the talk page, and people can always disengage. Long back-and-forth is common here; e.g.this is also protracted. I'm not asking for sanctions there either, but what makes this case different such that sanctions -- rather than disengagement -- are warranted?Kingsindian♝♚18:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thunderbird L17 claims confusion but I'm not sure that I buy it. I think the use of "they" was almost certainly intentional and gratuitous and that the response to my warning was only feigned ignorance. I think that some other diffs support this suspicion.Here we have Thunderbird L17 trying to put the nonsense phrase "male DSD" on Khelif. (That's on Talk, so it's not as egregious as it would be in the article itself but it's definitely not good.) When Thunderbird L17rephrased that comment after I reverted it it was accompanied by a snippy edit summary. Then there is the old "why are you assuming what my pronouns are?" shtick which is a bit of a tell.
Of course, I have no way to be absolutely sure about what Thunderbird L17's intentions are but I think subtle but intentional trolling is the simplest and most plausible explanation for what has gone on here. I think a topic ban from GENSEX would put a stop to this without preventing Thunderbird L17 from contributing constructively in other areas if desired. --DanielRigal (talk)20:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Basically all of this is sealioning hinged on a silly contention that accusing a woman in sports of being secretly male is tooootally unrelated to accusing her of being transgender, and is fact code for a claim of a DSD (which no one would describe as truly being male, much less using he/him pronouns). That as the fuel for goalpost-shifting and pure OR adds up to well more than a tban for NOTHERE and POVPUSH. I'm tempted to do that unilaterally and just get this closed – and honestly, I'd be fine indeffing, too, since Thunderbird hasn't shown that they're useful anywhere else – but I'll wait to see what others think.publeek (house •service •theleekycauldron • she/her)23:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsindian: Presuming the journal article is reliable, sure, I'll concede that some people do indeed make the argument (although clearly if we're in the "we put it forward that ..." stage it's nowhere near consensus) that a person with, say, 5αR2D is male. But still, as you point out, this still necessarily implicates at least the conversation around being transgender, which is what RSes echoed here in characterizing Trump's comments on Khelif being "male" (which, if you read the talk discussion, T17 simply refused to accept because it didn't comport with their beliefs). Speaking of that discussion and the conversation Senne pointed out, the one T17 and Val are currently having on their talk pages (12), that isexactly what I would call asking the same question multiple times even after being answered and splitting increasingly smaller hairs to continue debating. (And accusing Valereee of bad-faith misinterpretation, ironically enough.) On that note, if there aren't any objections in 24 hours, I'm going to close this with a topic ban from transgender and intersex topics, broadly construed (pingingSennecaster andArcticocean to see if they have thoughts on scope).publeek (service •theleekycauldron • she/her)15:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing everything here and in the talk threads, the GENSEX definition would be the most unambiguous to follow and would possibly prevent a thread on expanding the TBAN scope because of behavior in a related page not under the TBAN. @Kingsindian; I see leeky has already responded to you, but I would like to point out that Thunderbird has not shown the ability to disengage meaningfully over the course of this thread; they went well over the 500 word limit, and have continued asking very similar questions to Valereee over the course of a few days.Sennecaster (Chat)04:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page comments appear to be consistently incompatible withWP:NPOV andWP:BLP. There is also a tendency towardsWP:IDHT, even in this very enforcement request, where TL17 has posted a statement that breached the word count restriction and doubled down on describing the disputed main space content as "factually, provably true". A topic ban is required.Arcticocean ■22:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Responding totheleekycauldron/publeek) Not objecting to your proposed scope, but I think the whole area of conflict would be the best delineation, i.e.gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. It's perhaps neater to adopt that tried-and-tested wording and it wouldn't unduly broaden the scope. It also would perhaps reduce future dispute over the scope of sanction.Arcticocean ■16:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
3 Feb 2026 - Alaexis adds to the BLP article of Hussam Abu Safiya (a Gazan doctor who was has been detained without charge by the Israeli military since Dec 2024) that "Abu Safiya holds the rank of colonel in the Directorate of Military Medical Services. The directorate is part of Hamas but is separate from its military wing." This was sourced only to two Arabic language sources of unestablished (and seemingly dubious) reliability,[1][2] and to a Times of Israel article.[3] Alaexis' edit summary was simply: "position".
Their edit was reverted per edit summary of "This is WP:SYNTH, combining unrelated reporting from weak Arab language sources to an unverified Israeli military claim in ToI [Times of Israel]. It also fails WP:DUE and WP:BLP. Seek consensus".[14]
Alaexis' edit was made immediately after an edit adding similar content was removed per "JP [Jerusalem Post] cannot be cited for controversial claims, and ToI [Times of Israel] cites it back to an Israel lobby outfit NGO Monitor. Needs stronger source base for inclusion in a BLP".[15]
I believe this is a clear BLP violation and very similar to the edit Alaexis was previously warned over. The sources cited are not sufficient to establish this information is DUE, and the statement that "the directorate is part of Hamas" is disputed by Al Jazeera[16] and Drop Site News[17] and implies "serious accusations of involvement in a designated terrorist organization. As such,WP:BLPCRIME considerations apply."
31 Aug 2025 Warned "to be more careful when interacting with primary sources, especially regarding living or recently deceased people" by @SilverLocust.
See "Notice of a logged contentious topic warning" above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Not only was this edit made by Alaexis but they continue to argue for it's restoration in the talk page discussion,[18] putting forth more poor sourcing to justify their edit, citing the Times of India (a problematic source per WP:TIMESOFINDIA), the Jerusalem Post (which "should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict"), and two sources of unestablished reliability (Misbar (Arabic) and The Media Line).
The Misbar source is titled (per machine translation) "The title "Colonel"... How did the occupation turn an administrative title into a terrorism charge against Dr. Abu Safiya?", and one user's analysis of it states that the article "provides effective reasoning for opposing inclusion of the "colonel" information absent the necessary context it provides, for doing so legitimizes the Israeli campaign to justify his detention and abuse. It explains that titles like "colonel" and "military medical services" are civilian administrative designations with no operational military meaning, and that deploying them outside their specific administrative and legal context produces a misleading perception (تصور مضلل) of military affiliation where none actually exists."[19]
Replying to Alaexis' statement: That the Military Medical Services in Gaza is "overseen by the Hamas-run health ministry" is not "basically what I [Alaexis] wrote", which is that it is "part of Hamas". The Military Medical Services was established by the Palestinian Authority prior to Hamas' takeover of Gaza and also operates in the West Bank.IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)15:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't really know what the 2 Arabic sources Alaexis cited are. One user said they are "a Hamas website" and "aFatah website". Alaexis doesn't seem to know exactly what they are either:[20]IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)22:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
This is yet another example of removing sourced information which without any policy basis which has happened a lot in this topic area.
There are no sources that dispute the key facts (the rank and affiliation with the Directorate of Military Medical Services). Whether it's due is now discussed at the talk page, this is exactly what is supposed to happen when there is a disagreement. Several other editors also believe it's due.
When there is a disagreement in RS on whether the said directorate is part of Hamas goverment or not we should present all main viewpoints rather than censoring one of them.
This statement by IOHANNVSVERVS is misleadingthe statement that "the directorate is part of Hamas" is disputed by ... Drop Site News[22]. The Drop Site tweet says thatThe article itself inadvertently admits this, writing that “Safiya’s photo appeared on the Gaza Medical Services’ Facebook page — a group overseen by the Hamas-run health ministry,” an admission that Abu Safiya belonged to a government health institution, not an armed faction which is basically what I wrote inmy single edit of the article in question citing the ToIThe directorate is part of Hamas but is separate fromits military wing[23]
Theedit summary of the revert shows the fundamental misunderstanding of the WP:RS policy. RS are allowed to use non-reliable information sources and do this all the time. Editors cannot use Youtube videos as a source but RS are allowed to do it because we assume that they do the due diligence. So using a source we deem unreliable is not a valid reason to remove a RS.
It seems like Alaexis is being reported for including a claim in a BLP that 2 GREL sources have reported (in their own voices) - that the subject is a colonel in the directorate of Military Medical Services. The filer repeats false claims such as that Alaexis included an "unverified military claim in ToI", but the content sourced to ToI is said in their own voice, not attributed to a military claim at all.[24]
As for the the use of the Palestinian media sites (Al-Watan and Al-Ray) to establish the subject's rank in their organisation is not the way that I think we should go about this, but their reliabilityfor this claim in this context - that "Abu Safiya holds the rank of colonel in the Directorate of Military Medical Services" - is easy to defend. This was basic non-controversial biographical information at the time they published it.
Alaexis was including the content after 2 GREL and 1 MREL sources covered it in detail in published articles, while the contrary sources that Alaexis is accused of ignoring here are: a tweet[25] and a youtube short posted after Alaexis' edit[26].
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanationhow these edits violate it
5 Feb 2026 - TSA+ removes relevant information calling it "fluff". When challenged, TSA+ startsWP:SEALIONING andWP:GASLIGHTING todenythat Kapustin's statement - that he doesn't understand why American extremistshave some sort of a complete obsession with Jews, like Jews control everything - is about antisemitism. Theyremove my reworded version again, and only give in when everyone opposes them.
7 Feb 2026 - TSA+insinuates that GeogSage is a Nazi sympathiser for saying one can recognise Soviet atrocities without diminishing Nazi ones.
29 Dec 2025 - 3 Feb 2026 -WP:FORUMSHOPPING by opening an RFC on a tangentially related article in an attempt to call theAzov Brigade far-right in wikivoice,8 months after they didn't get their way in their RFC on the brigade's article. Theyclaimed the second RFC was different because it was about 2018-2019, but this is questionable because they made no arguments about why the brigade was far-right in 2018-2019. I addressed the time argument in my comment, citing RSes saying the brigade had started to deradicalise by 2017 (and therefore couldn't be called far-right in wikivoice); TSA+repeatedmeaninglessly that the RFC was about 2018-2019.
20 June 2025 - pushingWP:FRINGE theories. TSA+ says a subject-matter expert's statement - that Russia is a repressive authoritarian regime, and that the2024 Russian presidential election was fraudulent (with that expert's estimate of Putin's true support) - is anWP:EXTRAORDINARY claim.
7-14 May 2025 - in their first Azov RFC, TSA+ madefalse accusations of canvassing against me and another user who !voted not to call Azov far-right in wikivoice,hiding behind secret evidence untilArbCom said they had received no credible evidence against anyone. TSA+ apologised, but walked it back by misrepresenting ArbCom,sayingas ArbCom saw, the accusation was not baseless. Many users proposed sanctions (from a formal warning to atopic ban or even anindef), as TSA+'s behaviour was already well-known, but the ANI thread was archived without action. TSA+continued making wild accusations within the ANI thread.
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
HC wrote a3500 wordreport at AN (thread is still live) and thendirected editors here to AE.
Diffs:
1) This is what I removed:He has said he does not understand the focus onantisemitism of his American counterparts[27] Fluff and irrelevant to his political views. Other editors chimed in (thanks to me staring a discussion at NPOVN), said it should be included and Iaccepted the consensus.
2) I objected to GeogSage's argument (I could have done it differently, but I was heated at the time given the context). GeogSage wrote:The Nazis were bad guys, however, after studying history a bit, I don't know of many true "good guys." This is aknown trope used to minimise the crimes of the Nazis. Not saying that was GeogSage's intention, but I objected to the argument.
3) In the Kapustin RfC I started HC kept implying impropriety on my part, even aftertelling me to go ahead with the RfC:Feel free to start a new RFC[28]. They kept repeatedly pointing out a previous RfC was held:[29][30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35]. It is not against P&G to start a"similar" RfC7 months later on adifferent article. The question was neutrally worded. The RfC didn't go "my way". I accepted the consensus and didn't bring it up again.
4) Misleading. I didn't do a "U-turn". I raised the issue of "coercion vs deception" beforeand after HC's comment:still deception[36]Deception, yes, but not coercion. andThese people went...willingly.[37] There is a difference between deception and coercion.
5) Misleading. I never disagreedthat Russia is a repressive authoritarian regime. I said that it is notappropriate to add extraordinary claims some analyst made at a conference I was referring to: "a quarter of Russians support Putin", which is a guess without evidence. "Thuggish" is not encyclopaedic language.
I don't see how this is relevant. The article in question,Vranyo, was deleted:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vranyo. Idid not participate in the AfD. Editors thought it problematic and it was deleted by consensus.
6) This happened9 months ago. I was a brand new editor. I was distressed that I wascalled a "wikivatnik" because I started an RfC. Allegation of canvassing was not unfounded, though perhaps misdirected. It is not a "wild accusation"when there is literally someone canvassing off-wiki to get me banned.
Re: POV pushing. An ANI report fromMay 2025 that went nowhere is not evidence of "long history POV pushing". There were no reports since then. Which POV would that be anyway?Here is somebody accusing me of working for the Ukrainian government.Here is me saying we can't change an infobox to "Russian victory".Here I added a video of Ukrainian soldiers shooting down a Russian jet, etc. I can provide more examples if needed. If one side says I'm pro-RU and another side says I'm pro-UA, that's neutral editing.TurboSuperA+[talk]21:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: This doesn't involve anycontentious topic, so an admin doesn't have discretion to impose aone-revert restriction here. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬)16:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
