Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Daniel (talk | contribs)

4 user groups
76,710 edits
undo
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
→Implementation notes: active=11 on 6.1, Cabayi considered inactive
Line 1,788: Line 1,788:
{{ACImplNotes/Proposal/Automatic |name=Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist |number=5 |support= |oppose= |abstain= |notes= }}
{{ACImplNotes/Proposal/Automatic |name=Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist |number=5 |support= |oppose= |abstain= |notes= }}
{{ACImplNotes/Proposal/Automatic |name=Void if removed |number=6 |support= |oppose= |abstain= |notes= }}
{{ACImplNotes/Proposal/Automatic |name=Void if removed |number=6 |support= |oppose= |abstain= |notes= }}
{{ACImplNotes/Proposal/Automatic |name=Void if removed (alternate) |number=6.1 |support= |oppose= |abstain= |notes= |autonotes=yes}}
{{ACImplNotes/Proposal/Automatic |name=Void if removed (alternate) |number=6.1 |support= |oppose= |abstain= |notes= |active=11|autonotes=yes}}
{{ACImplNotes/Proposal/Automatic |name=Colin |number=7 |support= |oppose= |abstain= |notes= }}
{{ACImplNotes/Proposal/Automatic |name=Colin |number=7 |support= |oppose= |abstain= |notes= }}
{{ACImplNotes/Proposal/Automatic |name=Sweet6970 |number=8 |support= |oppose= |abstain= |notes= }}
{{ACImplNotes/Proposal/Automatic |name=Sweet6970 |number=8 |support= |oppose= |abstain= |notes= }}

Revision as of 08:44, 19 October 2025

Shortcut
Main case page (talk) — Preliminary statements — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

Target dates: Opened 28 July 2025 • Evidence closes 23:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC) • Workshop closes 23:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC) • Proposed decision to be posted by 25 August 2025 (delayed)

Case clerks: SilverLocust (talk) & HouseBlaster (talk) • Drafting arbitrators: Sdrqaz (talk) & Elli (talk) & Theleekycauldron (talk) & CaptainEek (talk)

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. Seven support or oppose votes are a majority.
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 7
1–2 6
3–4 5

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision

A note from the drafters: We sincerely apologize for the significant delay in posting a proposed decision in this case. Given the complexities of this dispute, we felt that extra work was needed in order to clearly show our thinking in each step of the analysis. In that spirit, the principles and findings of fact in this case are meant to transparently model the evidence and serve as a guide for editors seeking to bring battleground editing reports in GENSEX and other contentious topics.

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:
  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Liz (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Arbitration Committee

2) The Arbitration Committee is a final binding decision-maker for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. It has jurisdiction over conduct on the English Wikipedia and retains jurisdiction over all matters previously heard, including associated enforcement processes. While the committee may take notice of behavior outside of the English Wikipedia, it cannot restrict behavior which occurs outside of the English Wikipedia. Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are sometimes designated as contentious topics or subject to ongoing special restrictions.

Support:
  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Liz (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

The Arbitration Committee is not an editorial board

3) The Committee rules on conduct, not content. It does not dictate the content of any article.

Support:
  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is crucial! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This principle is a longstanding core principle of ArbCom's remit, despite Larry Sanger's assertion to the contrary and his construction of demands based on his misunderstanding. Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Liz (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Disruptive editing

4) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from editing these articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.

Support:
  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Liz (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Decorum

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Support:
  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Liz (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Partisanship

6) All editors have opinions—this is expected and welcome. However, an editor's contributions on content and sourcing must be neutral and dispassionate, even when the results would paint their personal beliefs in a poor light or conflict with them outright. When editors cherry-pick sources or source text; selectively argue that friendly sources are reliable and unfriendly sources are unreliable without real consideration on the merits; control the portrayal of the debate by arguing over minutiae; misrepresent discussion, sourcing, or content; abuse conduct enforcement processes to target perceived rivals; or otherwise engage in intellectually dishonest behavior, they are treating Wikipedia as a battleground and as a vehicle for the advancement of their own ideology.

Support:
  1. Behavioral patterns like these showed up again and again in trying to analyze battleground conduct, sadly. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Noting in advance that I would also support this principle if amended with leeky's proposed alteration below. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. A good expectation to have. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Liz (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is an excellent principle that gets to the crux of many disputes. It is also one of the most difficult behaviours to spot and demonstrate without getting too far into the content. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I'm aware of concerns on the talk page and think that this principle should be generally interpreted through the lens of our volunteer nature: if an editor doesn't wish to contribute, they don't have to. But if they treat the project as a battleground and abuse processes because of their views, that is definitely an issue. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
A new principle to deal with a rising problem. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@berch and Loki et al.: What would you think about changing the relevant sentence to However, an editor's assessment of content and sourcing must be neutral and dispassionate, even when the results would paint their personal beliefs in a poor light or conflict with them outright.? No one ever has to post a comment they don't want to, so that implication is gone. The one thing I would maybe still work on – similar to what Loki's saying – is to clarify that "assessment" isn't limited to, like, source analysis tables and GA reviews. Informal and implicit assessments are also covered here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
actioned :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeoning

7) In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible.

Support:
  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Liz (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Another recurring problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Assume good faith

8) "Assume good faith" is one of the central pillars of Wikipedia. While some editors do act in bad faith, or are here to POV-push—especially in contentious topic areas—merely because a person disagrees with you does not mean that they are here in bad faith, or that they are pushing an agenda. Editors must not let the fear of POV-pushers prevent them from substantively engaging with other editors to build the encyclopedia.

Support:
  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Liz (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I have amended this principle ever so slightly, changing "POV-pushing" to "POV-pushers" as suggested by Asilvering. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that even the slightly amended version has received negative feedback. Vanamonde suggest we amend the last sentence to simply "Editors are obligated to engage with other editors substantively and in good faith"; other formulations have been suggested. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Single-purpose accounts

9) Editors should contribute from a neutral point of view. Single-purpose accounts can create the impression that an editor is following their own agenda with a non-neutral focus on a single topic. Editors operating such an account should take care to ensure that their edits are compatible with the project's broader goal of writing an encyclopaedia.

Support:
  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Liz (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Meatpuppetry

10) Requesting that another editor perform an action that, if one would have done it oneself, would have been clearly against policy is meatpuppetry and is a form of gaming the system. While it is possible that more than one editor would have independently chosen to act the same way, attempts to coordinate such behavior is improper on its own as it seeks to subvert the normal consensus building processes.

Support:
  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Relevant because of the parties that were topic-banned during the case for coordination. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Liz (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Treatment of scientific topics with multiple perspectives

11) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudo-scientific or non-scientific viewpoints.

However, discussions of public policy may involve both descriptions of scientifically observable facts and religious or philosophical reactions to those observable findings. In order for a topic to be covered in an encyclopaedic fashion, each sort of source must be used appropriately in such an article. Care must be taken with weighting and appropriate use of sources, such as avoiding undue prominence in the lead section or elsewhere.

Support:
  1. It's a good principle; don't let this vote stop you from fine-tuning its wording. I can still retract my vote in case the changes fundamentally change the point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like this. There might be some refining to do but it's always good to try new principles. I can revisit if there are significant changes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tough, but I come down here. While coming somewhat close to ruling on content, it doesn't quite cross that line—especially as it's a place where it's near impossible to cleanly separate content from conduct. It's still our job to help deal with those situations, so long as there is an intractable conduct element. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The talk page has pointed out a lot of flaws about this one and I think we could do better. I think starting from MEDRS and building upward might be a good approach. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is a place where my personal opinion differs whether I have my arb hat or not. As a member of the committee, I do not believe we should pass this motion - as Eek says, flaws exist per the talk page, plus we're looking too close to ruling on content. WormTT(talk) 08:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose as written. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose in favor of 11.1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Those on the talk page and above raise some good points, so while I still support the idea of this Principle I do not think I am fully committed to supporting it any more. Primefac (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Identical sentiment to Primefac immediate above me. Daniel (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
This is another new princple. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spliced from Abortion and Longevity (no prizes for guessing which paragraph came from which). Sdrqaz (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this principle, and intend to support it; only reason why I've held off voting here is there's discussion on talk page about potential tweaks to it, and want to see if there are any adjustments (or not) before it can be considered finalised. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
same here. I like that this principle encourages editors to acknowledge nuance when reliable sources aren't unanimous, but I think this could benefit from some wordsmithing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also waiting to see how the verbiage shakes out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved from support per Daniel) I like this principle. It is important to include legitimate alternate viewpoints as long as they are presented with the associated relative weight they hold against the primary viewpoint. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I fully believe this principle to be true, however, I'm not sure I will be able to support it as I believe it leans too far into ruling on content. I wouldn't like to actively oppose it though, as I do agree with it, so may end up abstaining. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

11.1) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant historical interpretations, including significant minorities. This refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the scientific record, as opposed to views considered fringe by the substantial consensus of reliable sources.

Support:
  1. Adapted from several principles already passed in the index, and I think a better dissection of the NPOV issues at play. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Daniel (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Enough is enough

12) When the community's extensive and reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Arbitration Committee may, as a last resort, be compelled to adopt robust measures to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, disruption to the editing environment and to the community.

Support:
  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We are considering the reliable source consensus required restriction, which is certainly a robust and rare measure in my opinion. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I appreciate that the principle might not be needed for this case in particular, but as a principle I do agree with it, and the committee is fine to say so. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Liz (talk)19:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this principle risks being overused. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I am frankly not sure that I support this principal. Far from say PIA5, where enough really was enough and the issue was extreme, I'm not sure that the evidence showed that the issue here was extreme. Though I do acknowledge that some of the proposed remedies would justify invocation of enough is enough. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Justify or require? 😉 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct during arbitration cases

13) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Support:
  1. We cite conduct during the case for multiple findings and we had to hat discussion during the workshop because things got out of hand. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This has been a rather serious issue over the last few cases and it would be nice to see it curtailed. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Liz (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cases must not be allowed to be turned into mud-flinging contests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The iron law of holes is that if you're in a hole...the first step is to stop digging! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is transgender healthcare, as well as the behavior of the named parties as related to transgender topics. Transgender healthcare and transgender topics generally are already covered by the contentious topics sanction scheme for gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people (GENSEX), but have been especially controversial within the broader GENSEX topic.

Support:
  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 10:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Liz (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Abuse of close review

2) Parties within the topic area habitually commented on the close reviews for discussions they had also participated in, often casting both a vote and making many comments (Pinguinn evidence).

Support:
  1. As pointed out in Aaron's FoF, he commented 69 times in a close review for a discussion that he commented in 75 times. While that was the most extreme example, it is clear that close reviews in the topic area have been an excuse to relitigate the discussion, which wastes everyone's time. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Daniel (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 10:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Liz (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. It's clear that initiators and participants in close reviews have, in at least some cases, been motivated by personal disagreement with the outcome rather than concern for the process. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Reliable sources

3) Disputes over sourcing have been central to the topic area. Parties have used weak sources or tried to discredit or misrepresent generally reliable sources (Sean Waltz O'Connell evidence, Tryptofish evidence).

Support:
  1. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Daniel (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 10:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Liz (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Accurate as far as it goes but there has been both legitimate and partisan disagreement about the reliability of sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Raladic

4) Raladic (talk · contribs) changes her standards on whether allegations of misconduct are too contentious to include in an article based on whether the accused shares her beliefs. When it comes to entities that align with her beliefs, like Benjamin Cohen or WPATH, she argues that allegations of misconduct cannot be included without sustained coverage (1 2 3), a very high bar that has no application to those disputes. In July 2025, Raladic removed allegations of misconduct from Cohen's page; when Sweet6970 reverted once, Raladic went straight to ANI, skipping the talk page entirely—the filing was subsequently dismissed as a content dispute. In Raladic's own editing, however, she liberally labels living people, organizations, and their actions as "anti-trans" without corroborating sourcing (4 5 6 7 8 9 10; Sean Waltz O'Connell and Sweet6970's evidence).

Building on the evidence from the ANI thread, Raladic tried multiple times in this case to use conduct processes as a vehicle for winning disputes:

  • In her initial case request, she disparages her ideological opposites, without evidence, as users promoting pro-fringe/anti-trans misinformation, while AE threads against people she agrees with are retaliatory filings by users promoting fringe theories and/or opposition to queer rights (Raladic's case request).
  • During the case, Raladic received harassment from IP editors; she forwarded them to the Arbitration Committee and the Trust and Safety team, claiming that they were death threats and blaming them on Sweet6970's above-cited evidence. She asked the Committee to summarily remove Sweet6970's evidence and enjoin her entirely from editing about living people "until they have familiarized themself with BLP policy". Both bodies declined to take action (private evidence).
  • During the workshop phase, Raladic edited comments by Samuelshraga (11 12) and immediately tried to get them blocked (13) for omitting the space in "trans women" and writing Statements like "trans women are not men" are WP:FRINGE. The former was a quote, the latter turned out to be a mistake. (Raladic's workshop talk page statement)

Raladic was warned for battleground editing in a December 2024 AE filing.

Support:
  1. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'm happy to support here, but I will note that there is a spread of issues here, and an AE warning in place. The actions after the warning, while they do appear to fit under Battleground behaviour, are different in nature to the ones that were warned against, and that should be noted. WormTT(talk) 10:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This reminds me of other cases we've heard in the past. That you have been harassed or a group has been subject to discrimination does not make every disagreement harassment or discrimination. This can be a difficult distinction to make, especially in the heat of the moment, but make it we must. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I think that Raladic's conduct during the case made it more difficult to handle, which was very unfortunate. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

5) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk · contribs) ("YFNS") (previously TheTranarchist) was topic-banned from GENSEX by the community in March 2023, with a successful partial appeal in November 2023 and all restrictions lifted in January 2025. She was the subject of a June 2025 AE thread that did not result in sanctions.

Support:
  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Daniel (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 10:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I support this FoF in its entirety. YFNS has expressed some concern about the use of FRINGE, and I want to address that. The drafters were generally conscientious about not making a pronouncement on what is or is not fringe in the topic area. But it was clear that YFNS uses FRINGE very liberally, and that put her in frequent conflict. YFNS (and other parties) should do well to remember that there are three kinds of viewpoints: majority, minority, and fringe. Let's take the extinction of the dinosaurs as an example 🦖🦕. The majority view is that the dinosaurs went extinct due to the Chicxulub impactor. The minority view is that they went extinct because of volcanism from the Deccan traps. Fringe views are that the dinos were killed by a pandemic or were never alive in the first place (young earth creationism). We always cover the majority view. We sometimes cover minority views to show dissenting opinions or the evolution of scholarship, giving DUE weight--which often means we don't cover those views, and that's okay. We almost never cover a fringe view unless it is itself notable for being wacky. Merely because a view is not the majority does not mean it is a fringe view. Calling a source fringe (and using that to shut down discussion) merely because it is not the prevailing view/does not align with your view is not a good look. A source can be bad without being fringe. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
As previously disclosed, I was the admin who implemented (based on consensus at an AN thread) the GENSEX topic ban against YFNS (since lifted). No party, arbitrator, or other editor objected to me sitting on this case, and I believe recusing was not necessary as I acted in a solely administrative capacity in regards to YFNS. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to recuse by one editor during the pendency of the PD. I duly weighed that request, and decline to do so, especially given that no other editor, including YFNS, was concerned. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Void if removed

6) Void if removed (talk · contribs) was privately reminded by an individual Committee member about off-wiki canvassing in March 2024. They have been the subject of two AE reports: one in September 2024 (closed as no action but with a gentle suggestion to follow advice given), and one in June 2025 ("warned for putting words in other editors' mouths instead of responding to what they actually said"). Void if removed has engaged in battleground and bludgeoning behavior (LokiTheLiar evidence, Pinguinn evidence):

  • On major discussions on Cass review Void if removed contributed ten or more comments in five discussions, and in one discussion contributed 23 of the 76 total comments. Overall, Void if removed commented 108 times in major discussions on Cass review, far more than any other party (LokiTheLiar evidence charts).
  • On major discussions on SEGM, Void if removed contributed ten or more comments in three discussions, and in one discussion contributed 21 of the 74 total comments. Overall, Void if removed commented 50 times in major discussion on SEGM, far more than any other party (LokiTheLiar evidence charts).
  • Void if removed tends to write long comments that can overwhelm discussions (1 2 3 4 5 6).
  • Void if removed has been a frequent participant in AEs in the topic area (Pinguinn evidence).
  • Void if removed has edited LGB alliance 74 times and commented on the talkpage 252 times. A COIVRT investigation determined that Void if removed had been cited by the organization in an off-wiki capacity, but did not have a COI.
  • Raladic filed the September 2024 AE against Void if removed. Void if removed filed an AE against Raladic in December 2024.
Support:
  1. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (First choice, per vote in 6.1 below. 00:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC))
  2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting this a second choice to the proposed alternate. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 10:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Second choice, per vote in 6.1 below. 00:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC))
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Void if removed (alternate)

6.1) Void if removed (talk · contribs) was privately reminded by an individual Committee member about off-wiki canvassing in March 2024. They have been the subject of two AE reports: one in September 2024 (closed as no action but with a gentle suggestion to follow advice given), and one in June 2025 ("warned for putting words in other editors' mouths instead of responding to what they actually said"). Void if removed has engaged in battleground and bludgeoning behavior (LokiTheLiar evidence, Pinguinn evidence):

  • On major discussions on Cass review Void if removed contributed ten or more comments in five discussions, and in one discussion contributed 23 of the 76 total comments. Overall, Void if removed commented 108 times in major discussions on Cass review, far more than any other party (LokiTheLiar evidence charts).
  • On major discussions on SEGM, Void if removed contributed ten or more comments in three discussions, and in one discussion contributed 21 of the 74 total comments. Overall, Void if removed commented 50 times in major discussion on SEGM, far more than any other party (LokiTheLiar evidence charts).
  • Void if removed tends to write long comments that can overwhelm discussions (1 2 3 4 5 6).
  • Void if removed has been a frequent participant in AEs in the topic area (Pinguinn evidence).
  • Raladic filed the September 2024 AE against Void if removed. Void if removed filed an AE against Raladic in December 2024.
  • Void if removed has authored several works offwiki demonstrating that they are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to discredit causes and positions supported by transgender rights activists. They and the LGB Alliance have favorably cited each other's work; Void if removed has edited that page 74 times and commented on the talk page 252 times. A COIVRT investigation determined that Void if removed's editing did not violate the conflict of interest guideline.
Support:
  1. I think this accommodates some reasonable feedback we've gotten on this FOF, so with apologies for dragging everyone back, I'm proposing this as my first choice. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Thank you, leeky, for proposing this and Tamzin in particular for suggesting it. This is my new first choice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure, either or. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I was happy enough with 6 and have no preference between 6 and 6.1. Daniel (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Not my preference, but if it gets us out the door and done, okay. I had not read his recent works and they didn't factor into me voting to ban. I don't really want to be in the business of policing this sort of of off-wiki work. Still, gotta say--they don't look good for him either. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Colin

7) Colin (talk · contribs) withdrew voluntarily from this topic area during his third AE case in May 2025, after which administrators deadlocked on the appropriate remedy. The evidence in the AE thread points to a long span of one-against-many incivility and bludgeoning in strong defense of the Cass Review—a dispute that pitted him against, as he saw it, a large number of "activist" editors and sources looking to discredit the review. He also badgered and attacked the admins trying to moderate that dispute (Pinguinn evidence). His behavior continued in this case, where he proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies to curtail "activist editors" and rebuke admins in the topic area (Colin's workshop proposals).

Support:
  1. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 11:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The workshop proposals wildly misses the point, to the point that it's hard to assume good faith. Of course admins have no special status on content matters but the system we have relies on uninvolved admins (ie those who are dispassionate about the topic area and its editors) to maintain order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Sweet6970

8) Sweet6970 (talk · contribs) has engaged in persistent battleground editing.

Sweet6970 shows up regularly at AE (and occasionally other venues), uniformly defending ideological allies and attempting to sanction opponents:

  • Sweet6970 shows up at AE to defend regulars in the topic area she agrees with, including Void if removed (1 2) and Colin (3).
  • Sweet6970 defended an editor calling trans women male as plainly in good faith. This editor was indefinitely blocked as a result of the AE thread.
  • Sweet6970 defended an editor saying Transwomen are male by arguing that Wikipedia is not the Thought Police. The editor was topic banned as a result of the AE thread.
  • At ANI, Sweet6970 defended an SPA focused on pushing an anti-trans POV, arguing that the filer should be “trouted”. The editor was indeffed as a result of the ANI thread.
  • Sweet6970 argued for sanctions against YFNS by repeatedly claiming their edits are trying to “smear” someone. This AE thread resulted in no sanctions.
  • Sweet6970 assumed Raladic was acting in bad faith when they edited an article to say someone was “known for founding” an organization while also nominating that article for deletion on the grounds of BLP1E. The AfD resulted in the article being changed in scope to be about the event and the AE thread closed in a warning for Raladic.
Support:
  1. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This isn't cut and dry as there is space in a discussion of trans medicine to deal with the differences in physical sex and gender, and some of the examples used in the FoF aren't what I would have chosen. E.g. on the second bullet I would have focused on an inexperienced editor who is plainly in good faith in response to a report that included But several cases are situations where the victim went to great lengths to deceive the killer into engaging in homosexual relations. The third bullet would better illustrate the issue with Maneesh is being threatened with a topic ban because they have made the banal point that how you identify does not affect your body. This complaint should be thrown out. for a report that included Vacuous, all this is saying is that *anyone* can identify as a male (what does that mean for "man"?). It still clearly shows them uniformly defending ideological allies and attempting to sanction opponents without having to focus on the particulars of discussing sex and gender in trans healthcare. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Noting SFR's comments WormTT(talk) 11:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Also noting SFR's comments but the FoF stands even without them. What the evidence shows is someone who defends or denigrates editors based on their ideology rather than the merits of the complaint. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As previously announced. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Samuelshraga

9) Samuelshraga (talk · contribs) has repeatedly accused other editors of intentionally misrepresenting themselves or sources. In doing so, he also frequently misrepresents others' claims, without retraction.

  • Samuelshraga claimed that OsFish referred to editors who raised the author affiliation question in the SEGM RfC as "strawmanning", and then argue[d] that a BMJ article is not usable for claims in its own voice because it also quotes SEGM members, and that a discussion needs to be had at RSN about a review article ... because one of the 5 authors is affiliated to SEGM. OsFish did make the "strawmanning" comment, but the other two claims are false (1 2).
  • He also claimed that LokiTheLiar lied several times during the Daily Telegraph RfC; he later retracted the claim of intentionality at ANI.
  • Samuelshraga and Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist repeatedly misrepresented past comments of each other's and their own while accusing each other of the same, including on her talk page and in a June 2025 AE thread he filed against her, which resulted in no action.
    • YFNS objected (3 4) to a source based on its poor quality and substantial connections to SEGM. Samuelshraga then exaggerated her reliance on the SEGM connection in another discussion, and when she said "that wasn't the argument... even if SEGM was not involved at all, it would still not be a MEDRS", he switched to arguing on her talk page that she lied by saying she'd never brought it up, even after she disclaimed that interpretation. He brought it up again at AE, where she quoted the exaggerated comment and claimed that "he keeps saying my only opposition is SEGM", which he never did.
    • YFNS claimed that there was "a longstanding consensus ... that ROGD is indeed FRINGE", linking to a discussion that resulted in no consensus on whether ROGD should be described as "fringe" in mainspace. Samuel brought it up at her talk page, claiming she misrepresented the discussion because it resulted in no consensus; she pointed to the separate closer finding that ROGD is broadly discredited by editor consensus, comparing that to the wording of FRINGE. Samuel acknowledges that difference, but at AE, he still cites the episode against her, saying the discussion "closed with a decision not to call it (lower-case) 'fringe' in an article talk page", which again misses the point of her comment and misstates the meaning of "no consensus". Still, YFNS's initial claim about the discussion was exaggerated.
    • YFNS objected to a source because of the qualifications of the authors, including one connection to SEGM. Samuelshraga, in trying to catch her contradicting herself, pointed out that she said a week later that she had never seen SEGM produce a reliable source, blatantly ignoring her comment stating that said source was unreliable for other reasons.

Samuelshraga was warned for personal attacks in a different June 2025 AE filing (Samuelshraga, Pinguinn, and Aquillion's evidence).

Support:
  1. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 11:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Aaron Liu

10) Aaron Liu (talk · contribs) has bludgeoned discussions.

Support:
  1. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Daniel (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 11:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Based on talk page feedback, I'm not sure I can support this but I won't oppose it. There were a lot of comments, but comments that drive the discussions forward towards a consensus should not be looked upon the same way as repeatedly stating an opposing position. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

JonJ937

11) JonJ937 (talk · contribs) was topic-banned from GENSEX in August 2025 by Moneytrees based on evidence of coordination and gaming presented at SPI.

Support:
  1. That was a sensible action on the part of Moneytrees, and I don't see a need for ArbCom to assume the sanction. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 11:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Sean Waltz O'Connell

12) Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk · contribs) was topic-banned from GENSEX in August 2025 by Moneytrees based on evidence of coordination and gaming presented at SPI.

Support:
  1. That was a sensible action on the part of Moneytrees, and I don't see a need for ArbCom to assume the sanction. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 11:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Springee

13) Springee (talk · contribs) is a regular participant in user-conduct processes; they oppose sanctions on most editors, including editors on both sides of this dispute. However, this leads them to frequently defend editors engaging in blatant disruption in the form of bigotry – sometimes directed at other editors – and BLP violations (RelmC's evidence, Springee's comments):

  • One user was reported in a December 2024 ANI thread for following the filer here from sister projects, hounding them about their work covering a trans child; the user repeatedly accused the mother, without merit, of forcibly controlling the child's gender identity. Editors discussed imposing a topic ban from GENSEX and a one-way interaction ban with the filer; the user withdrew from the topic area, at which point Springee opposed the topic ban. The thread closed with consensus for the topic ban and interaction ban, citing the editor's "conduct and lack of contrition".
  • Another user was reported in a March 2025 AE thread because they, among other things, accused others of bias based on their stated gender identity on their user pages. Springee opposed sanctions, saying, "I also don't think it's unreasonable for an editor to presume a bias based on things an editor posts on their user pages". They also disputed that the conduct was related to GENSEX, the CTOP under which the thread was filed. The thread closed with consensus for a topic ban from GENSEX.
  • A third user was reported in an April 2025 ANI thread because they repeatedly argued for misgendering a living trans child in mainspace; as they said, "children cannot reliably identify their own gender so MOS:GENDERID does not apply. The entire concept of 'trans children', especially when they are pre-pubescent does not jive with reality". Springee opposed the siteban, supporting only a warning:

    [The filer's] actions come off as more trying to punish an editor for wrong think rather than for some sort of wide spread disruption. Additionally, the transphobia accusation is less than ideal given the context and absent some sort of additional evidence. Certainly the gender of the child is a core part of the dispute and it's understandable that some would question if Wikipedia should be using stated vs biological gender in a case like this one. As a matter of course Wikipedia goes with stated gender but it should also be understood that isn't a universally held view and reasonable people can disagree here.

    When it became clear the editor had accused others of supporting child abuse, Springee then supported a topic ban. The thread closed with "clear consensus for a community ban" after three days.
Support:
  1. Going back through the evidence page for other FoFs prompted me to revisit RelmC's evidence on Springee, and I think it merits a finding of fact. Also, I see Springee posted a comment on talk with a lot of the same themes while I was writing this, but I could assume good faith on whether they were specifically talking about Sweet and Void or the ban proposals as a whole. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think leek summed it up well on the talk page, you put editors' actions in the field of "things that can reasonably be debated" when those things are transphobia, bigotry pointed directly at other editors, and BLP violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per leeky's comment that SFR highlighted WormTT(talk) 11:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 09:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies

Reliable source consensus required restriction

1) The reliable source consensus required restriction is imposed on the topic of transgender healthcare.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Ehhhh... This kind of sanction really only works if we can outsource the discussion to uninvolved parties and limit involved parties participation. There was already plenty of discussion in the topic area on source reliability which led, in part, to the acrimony. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I could be persuaded that this might work in conjunction with other options, but I'm not seeing it - it will largely just cause more effort outside the area. WormTT(talk) 11:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Daniel (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not sure this addresses the issues at hand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Don't see this as necessarily helping. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Some kind of source related remedy could help, and this probably wouldn't hurt, but I'm not sure it can solve the main issue. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I'm not sure I see the upside here? The sourcing disputes almost always center around academic works. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special rules for close challenges

2) In any challenge to the closure of a formal discussion within the WP:GENSEX topic area (e.g. an RfC or AfD), users who participated in the underlying discussion are limited to at most two comments, not exceeding a combined total of 250 words. Uninvolved administrators may remove violating comments, in whole or in part, as an Arbitration enforcement action, and may use repeated violations as the basis for other sanctions.

Support:
  1. Close reviews in the topic area have become a chance to relitigate the discussion, rather than examine irregularities. This would help solve at least one problematic aspect of the topic area. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see a straight line from "relitigat[ing] the discussion, rather than examin[ing] irregularities" → WP:BLUDGEON → WP:DISRUPTIVE → pblock or an AE TBAN. But this wording is what's on offer. Cabayi (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. When closing a close challenge I give very little weight to involved editors anyway, especially when they reiterate their positions. This really just saves reading for the eventual closer. As an alternative we can just pre-collapse the participants section in the review and they can argue with each other in the collapsed section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. And I'd support going further to say something like "any comments that an uninvolved administrator believe is 'relitigating the discussion' can be removed" WormTT(talk) 11:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Would support Worm's addition. Just as at DRV or any other review venue, arguments in close reviews need to be about whether consensus was properly weighed, not just a re-hash of the original discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per CaptainEek. Primefac (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Has a good chance at actually making close challenges manageable, so worth a try. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I'm still not sold on word limits as an effective tool, so I'll have to mull this over. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume by "the underlying dispute" we're referring to the discussion itself, not a broader topic area dispute, right? Probably better to clarify that (I'll swap it to "the underlying discussion" in a bit unless someone objects). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AE participation restricted within GENSEX

3.1) Comments in AE threads within the scope of WP:GENSEX (even if not brought under that mechanism) are limited to:

  1. The filer
  2. The subject
  3. Uninvolved administrators
  4. Users invited by an uninvolved administrator
  5. Users providing links to relevant past discussions or administrative actions, without any editorialization
  6. Users who any participant has named, or whose actions any participant has referenced, but only to comment on the context in which they were mentioned

Administrators are reminded that they have broad discretion in moderating AE threads, including removing users' sections, instructing users not to participate, and imposing AE sanctions against those who misuse the noticeboard.

Support:
  1. If 3.2 doesn't pass, I support 3.1 and 3.3 3.4 independently of each other. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Third choice to 3.2 and 3.4. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. If we're going to tweak AE, I'd rather it be for all topics, rather than just one (for similar reasons as votes here). Daniel (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with Daniel. WormTT(talk) 11:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If we add evidence to #5 then it would be fine, but this prevents uninvolved editors from providing evidence. That would also just outline how AE should operate anyway, not just in one topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per SFR and Daniel. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Partly per Daniel, but I'm not keen on the idea. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Largely procedural since 3.4 is passing. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per my comments at the workshop, I think that greater flexibility may be needed instead of a requirement. Also just having this for GENSEX may increase the load on administrators by muddying the waters of what powers they have in which areas. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Remedy 3.2 would be exclusive of the others. Credits to Tamzin for the initial idea, which has been workshopped and resulted in three variations. 3.2 and 3.3 in particular would change AE in all regards and thus would constitute an amendment of WP:ARBPROC. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AE participation restricted

3.2) Comments in AE threads are limited to:

  1. The filer
  2. The subject
  3. Uninvolved administrators
  4. Users invited by an uninvolved administrator
  5. Users providing links to relevant past discussions or administrative actions, without any editorialization
  6. Users who any participant has named, or whose actions any participant has referenced, but only to comment on the context in which they were mentioned

Administrators are reminded that they have broad discretion in moderating AE threads, including removing users' sections, instructing users not to participate, and imposing AE sanctions against those who misuse the noticeboard.

Support:
  1. First choice to 3.1; first choice to 3.3 3.4. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Distant second third choice, only if 3.4 and 3.3 fails. I think this is too significant a jump, and prefer alternates for this reason. Daniel (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC) Updated following creation of 3.4, 16:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Very distant second to 3.4. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. If we add evidence to #5 then it would be fine, but this prevents uninvolved editors from providing evidence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per SFR. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Largely procedural since 3.4 is passing. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my comments at the workshop, I think that greater flexibility may be needed instead of a requirement. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I won't go so far as opposing, but I don't support this as I significantly prefer 3.3. Depending on other arbs voting, I might revisit. WormTT(talk) 12:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

AE participation may be restricted

3.3) Administrators may impose the "AE participation restriction" (AEPR) on any AE thread by a rough consensus. Comments in threads restricted in this manner are limited to:

  1. The filer
  2. The subject
  3. Uninvolved administrators
  4. Users invited by an uninvolved administrator
  5. Users providing links to relevant past discussions or administrative actions, without any editorialization
  6. Users who any participant has named, or whose actions any participant has referenced, but only to comment on the context in which they were mentioned

Administrators are reminded that they have broad discretion in moderating AE threads, including removing users' sections, instructing users not to participate, and imposing AE sanctions against those who misuse the noticeboard.

Support:
  1. There is decent support for this among commenters and I agree that this might be good to test run first as an option, rather than a requirement. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If 3.2 doesn't pass, I support 3.1 and 3.3 independently of each other. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First Second choice to 3.2 3.4. Daniel (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC) Updated following creation of 3.4, 16:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  3. First Second choice to 3.4, not sure how I feel about 3.1 and 3.2 yet. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Definitely empower the admins - only choice second choice to 3.4. WormTT(talk) 12:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice to 3.4. Would rather a single admin be able to make the call. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AE admins should have the latitude to decide which threads they want to apply this to, to decide what input they want, and to deal robustly with comments that aren't helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 3.4 and that is already passing (from my side as a second choice to 3.2) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Trying to get this sort of consensus seems rather unworkable and subject to wikilawyering. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Largely procedural since 3.4 is passing. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my comments at the workshop, I think that the risk of things stalling due to lack of consensus may make administrators being less willing to work at AE. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

AE participation may be restricted by an administrator

3.4) An uninvolved administrator may impose the "AE participation restriction" (AEPR) on any AE thread. Comments in threads restricted in this manner are limited to:

  1. The filer
  2. The subject
  3. Uninvolved administrators
  4. Users invited by an uninvolved administrator
  5. Users providing links to relevant past discussions or administrative actions, without any editorialization
  6. Users who any participant has named, or whose actions any participant has referenced, but only to comment on the context in which they were mentioned

Administrators are reminded that they have broad discretion in moderating AE threads, including removing users' sections, instructing users not to participate, and imposing AE sanctions against those who misuse the noticeboard.

Support:
  1. This gives a single administrator the ability to lock the thread down if they see it going off the rails. Addresses concerns brought up on the talk page. First choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree, this closest matches our way of working on AE. First choice WormTT(talk) 12:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice, even better. Daniel (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. first choice :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oh yes I like this even better. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Liz (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Very slight preference over 3.3. I could live with either but if it comes to a tiebreak, this would be my first choice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. If 3.2 doesn't pass, I support 3.1 and 3.4 independently of each other. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Preferred over 3.3 due to a better chance for the efficient running of AE. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Note this comment from 45dogs. Agree that it should be "any uninvolved administrator". Daniel (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I don't think anyone intended that this be one of the exceptions to WP:INVOLVED. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raladic admonished

4) Raladic is admonished for their behavior in the transgender healthcare topic area.

Support:
  1. Pretty clear battleground behavior. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cabayi (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Insufficient. Daniel (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Insufficient. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Insufficient. WormTT(talk) 12:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Laughable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not enough. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Raladic indefinite topic ban (healthcare)

5.1) Raladic is indefinitely topic banned from the topic of transgender healthcare, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Second choice to 5.2. Cabayi (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice to 5.2. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice to 5.2. Daniel (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice to 5.2. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Distant second choice to 5.2. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice to 5.2. Primefac (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too much of Raladic's behavior falls outside the bounds of this topic area for this to be a viable remedy, even if a topic ban is necessary. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per leek. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Raladic indefinite topic ban

5.2) Raladic is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. At minimum. Raladic's behavior in this topic area – double standards on BLP editing, hardball partisan behavior in conduct processes – is not close to being within the bounds of acceptability. Clearly her warning in that December 2024 AE wasn't enough, and so a topic ban at the least is necessary. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cabayi (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice to 5.1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice to 5.1. Daniel (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice to 5.1 (not exclusive with 6). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Also considering 6. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 13:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Primefac (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Raladic has made a lot of very positive contributions in the wider sphere of trans edits, and I'm not seeing that she has been say transphobic, which might demand a wider tban. By that token, her conduct during the case has been really unimpressive; accussing us of perjury merely for voting for her FoF is Not A Good Look, and quite battlegroundy. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raladic banned

6) Raladic is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Raladic clearly approaches the topic area with a battleground mentality. However, her behavior during the case has convinced me that a topic-ban is insufficient. Her combative edits at the workshop were bad. Her comments on the talkpage here are worse. Contacting us privately trying to get an opposing editor sanctioned for something they didn't do (while presenting no evidence that they did it) is egregious, and not the type of behavior compatible with a collaborative project where editors are expected to engage in good faith with those they disagree with.
    Being combative is one thing, and it's an understandable (though unfortunate) effect that contentious topics can have on people. Being outright manipulative is another. I don't think a topic ban is sufficient because I don't trust Raladic to suddenly behave better in another area of the project, and if her behavior does repeat itself, she would be able to cause quite a bit of disruption before someone could stop her. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Largely per Elli. It might be that this is a particularly emotive topic area but I can't see the issues raised in the FoF disappearing just because Raladic isn't editing this topic. I would be sympathetic to an appeal in six months rather than twelve if it was a good appeal but I think an enforced break will allow tempers to cool and people to regain perspective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Elli expresses it well above, especially the statement "I don't think a topic ban is sufficient because I don't trust Raladic to suddenly behave better in another area of the project". I think any reasonable and objective assessment of Raladic's conduct at the talk page of this proposed decision would be that it is egregious in nature, and shows an inability to behave collaboratively to the standards required. To be clear, I was narrowly opposed to this remedy before the proposed decision was posted (and voted as such), but the conduct since has caused me to reassess and I now land here, albeit narrowly as well. Daniel (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If Raladic gave any indication that she'd be willing to change her behavior and do better in some other topic area, I wouldn't vote for this. Instead, she dug her own hole deeper and deeper and then retired when it became clear she wasn't going to change any minds that way. I was really split on this, but at the end of the day, I don't want to have Raladic come back in half a year and move to a new area repeating the same behavior, thinking she did nothing wrong. That this could and should have been avoided makes me incredibly sad. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:11, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Overkill. Well, originally this seemed like overkill. But with Raladics impressive hole digging abilities, she made this seem a lot more reasonable during the pendency of the PD. But I still narrowly come out on the side of a topic ban. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cabayi (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC) Also on a rethink. Cabayi (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Daniel (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC) Reconsidering this. Daniel (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not quite here - I do believe Raladic has curtailed some behaviour since December, but Transgender topics are clearly not a place they can work. I agree that their behaviour during this case leaves much to be desired, but I'm not quite at a site ban level. WormTT(talk) 13:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per WTT. Primefac (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist admonished

7) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist is admonished for their behavior in the transgender healthcare topic area.

Support:
  1. Contrary to bans, I'd say an admonishment remedy can unrestrictedly take into account all behavior even if a topic ban had already been issued in response to it by anyone else than ArbCom itself, and even if the ban has since been lifted for any other reason than it having been incorrect in the first place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. At a minimum. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. At a minimum. Primefac (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Parallel to the tbans. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Insufficient. A topic ban placed by the community is already a step above an finger wag from the committee. That the behavior continued after the ban was lifted puts us beyond this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. That we're going round this loop again, this is insufficient. WormTT(talk) 13:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Insufficient. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Woefully insufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Insufficient. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist indefinite topic ban (healthcare)

8.1) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist is indefinitely topic banned from the topic of transgender healthcare, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Second choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice to 8.2. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Given that YFNS has written a GA in the topic area (Transgender health care misinformation), I'm somewhat remiss to end up here, but the area just keeps giving her trouble. Controversial trans topics seem to be her Achilles heel, and there is no more controversial trans topic than healthcare right now. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I am not (yet) at the point of having a priority between this Remedy and 8.2. I agree with CaptainEek that YFNS can be a productive editor in the broader sphere, but the recidivism that has landed them at our doorstep is concerning to me; it is one thing to be topic banned by the community and then have that restriction lifted, it is another to then end up before ArbCom for the same issues less than a year later. Primefac (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The most significant issues highlighted in finding 5 seem to have been in the years before 2025, which is when the community decided to lift all restrictions. I might be overlooking something but sanctions beyond an admonishment seem to be excessive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. would be insufficient if a topic ban were to be imposed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This does not cover potential controversial transgender BLP topics, and there is insufficient in my mind. WormTT(talk) 09:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I could live with a version of this that adds anti-trans BLPs, but I am not coming up with a judicious wording. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist indefinite topic ban

8.2) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. First choice. Contrary to ToBeFree, I see their behavior now as a continuation of their earlier behavior which goes beyond interest into trying to mold the topic area. The continued BLP and source issues land me here. I'm a bit on the fence about going with the narrower TBAN, but I have concerns about the behavior continuing in other contentious transgender topics, e.g. JK Rowling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm afraid the BLP issues push me here, especially as we're under a year from lifting a topic ban. This is an evocative topic, and I believe a wider construed topic ban is necessary. WormTT(talk) 13:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice to 8.1. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I would expect someone whose sanctions have been lifted to be beyond reproach, not continuing the same pattern of behaviour. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid a clerking headache, I would prefer a finer instrument but I support 8.2 if none of the alts pass. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per SFR/HJ. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per my comments in 8.1 Primefac (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As described at 8.1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We are now several years out from YFNS's last topic ban. I think she has matured as an editor and has proven she can write intelligently about trans topics. Her work on non-healthcare issues has been much less controversial than her work on healthcare ones. The concern that she might be a problem on topics like JK Rowling is possible, but I also suspect that we're going to have to hear another trans case before long (perhaps on JK Rowling), and I think she of all people can recognize that if she is the subject of another case that she will likely be shown the door. I also think her work on trans figures (historical and contemporary) has been much less controversial and rather productive. I think it would be a shame to remove her from all trans topics when clearly she can write about the uncontroversial ones. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist indefinite topic ban (alt)

8.2a) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (YFNS) is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed, with the exception of articles in Category:LGBTQ rights by location. Any uninvolved administrator may ban YFNS from any or all of the excepted articles, using the existing contentious topics authority, if they deem YFNS's conduct to be disruptive. This restriction may be appealed in its entirety twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. YFNS may make a request at WP:ARCA for additional groups of articles to be excepted six months after the passing of this remedy.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Category:LGBTQ rights by location -> Category:LGBTQ rights in the United Kingdom -> Category:LGBTQ history in the United Kingdom -> Category:LGBTQ-related controversies in the United Kingdom -> Cass Review. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opposing mostly as described on the talk page (YFNS requested this as a weaker sanction than some arbitrators' positions, so I shouldn't support it as a stronger sanction than my position), but also per ScottishFinnishRadish above (the exception is broken/pointless if phrased this way). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I did consider the idea of limiting the ban to allow "historical" transgender rights issues, per the talk page request, but I prefer to use broad strokes upfront and refine if there is improvement, so generally I do not expect to be supporting an alt. As for this particular alt, SFR has shown it to definitely problematic as written. WormTT(talk) 15:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Worm generally, and SFR's specific example. Daniel (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose as written (per SFR), but I'd be open to some sort of more limited restriction. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This seems a little bit too bespoke. Primefac (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I underestimated the breadth of the category tree. I apologise for wasting everyone's time, and thanks to SFR for catching the (in hindsight, obvious) problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Proposed after talk page discussion with YFNS. For otherwise-good editors who have a blind spot, I think it can be worth providing a route to return. Not sure where I stand on it yet but I'm leaning towards supporting this as first choice, largely because the area is already a CTOP so any further problems can be dealt with without requiring lengthy ANI threads or ArbCom cases. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist indefinite topic ban (alt 2)

8.2b) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (YFNS) is indefinitely banned from discussion of anti-transgender activism and post-2015 transgender topics, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may ban YFNS from any or all articles within the broader transgender topic area, using the existing contentious topics authority, if they deem YFNS's conduct to be disruptive. This restriction may be appealed in its entirety twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. My attempt at a more tailored sanction (and I support this over 8.2). There's plenty here for YFNS to write about, while clearly excluding the articles where her behavior was disruptive. I chose 2015 as a cutoff as that's around when this became a modern political issue (HB2 and controversy around changing the Gender Recognition Act in the UK). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The CTOP provisions lower the risk in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not interested in passing this off to the group that already asked us to look at this, and any admin could already topic ban them. There's plenty of contentious material before 2015, and there's a whole encyclopedia, including unrelated contentious topics, they can work on to demonstrate that their topic ban should be lifted in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 8.2. Daniel (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This seems a little bit too bespoke. Primefac (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 08:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As described at 8.2a. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I think 8.1 is already the appropriate scope, as explained there. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist indefinite topic ban (alt 3)

8.2c) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (YFNS) is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed, with the exception of Transgender history in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page. Six months after the enactment of this remedy, YFNS may request additional articles be excepted from the topic ban by filing an amendment request. Nothing in this remedy prevents an uninvolved administrator from imposing sanctions on YFNS under the existing contentious topic designation. This restriction may be appealed in its entirety twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support
  1. I'm open to alternatives, but I think this strikes the right balance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Only if 8.2 (first choice) and 8.1 (second choice) both fail. My preference is a stock-standard topic ban and I personally don't see the need for a bespoke sanction here, but if this is the only one that gets majority support, I'd prefer this over nothing. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure, second choice to 8.2b. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:44, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Somewhat out of a desire to see this adopted more often in sanctioning – even confining someone to their userspace to draft something good so that they're not walled off from improving. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ok, I can accept this as an alternative to 8.2, equal preference. A single article falling outside the topic ban so that YFNS can prove themselves, which can be removed by an individual admin if there's trouble. WormTT(talk) 08:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Per my responses above, and Primefac's comment at 8.1. Additionally, trans medical care is already covered in the article and there have been recent changes that fall directly into the problem zone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As described at 8.2a. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I think 8.1 is already the appropriate scope, as explained there. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I understand the intention but I still think we are splitting hairs. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Another attempt to craft something that allows YFNS to continue uncontroversial work but well away from the crux of the dispute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist banned

9) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. As described at 8.1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unnecessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Excessive. WormTT(talk) 13:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't think we're there yet. If YFNS was at the centre of another case, though, or brought to AE regarding a different CTOP, all bets are off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Not necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. We are not yet at this point for this editor. Primefac (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Void if removed admonished

10) Void if removed is admonished for their behavior in the transgender healthcare topic area.

Support:
  1. At a minimum. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Independently of 10.1 and 10.2. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Insufficient. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Insufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 13:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (Wildly) insufficient. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As with others, this doesn't come close to sufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Void if removed indefinite topic ban (healthcare)

10.1) Void if removed is indefinitely topic banned from the topic of transgender healthcare, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Second choice. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice to 10.2. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice to 10.2. Primefac (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my oppose to the same for Raladic. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Insufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too narrow. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too narrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Void if removed indefinite topic ban

10.2) Void if removed is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. First choice. Void's conduct went well beyond just transgender healthcare. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice to 10.1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice to 10.1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice to 10.1 (not exclusive with 11). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 13:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In addition to 11, and with no alternates. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Daniel. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Void if removed banned

11) Void if removed is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. ViR's conduct was some of the most severe, and persisted despite AE threads, a private warning, and continuous exposure to the topic area. ViR not only bludgeoned and overwhelmed discussions, but attempted to gain vengeance on editors like Raladic. I also consider their off-wiki conduct to be an aggravating factor. It is their battleground spirit that calls for their indefinite banning. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Eek. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Eek. The off-wiki evidence is really what puts me here. We need editors, not activists. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. After reviewing the history off wiki, the amount of warnings ViR's received and the repeated behaviour, I agree with this. WormTT(talk) 13:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Eek. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The conduct at issue has been persistent and egregious, and has continued despite opportunities to change course. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The bludgeoning is, on its own, whatever. The offwiki evidence, combined with YFNS's submissions (which I think could use some mention in the FoF, might write something up) and the bludgeoning, paints a very clear picture of someone who has aims for this project other than building an encyclopedia. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per CaptainEek. Primefac (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Colin admonished

12) Colin is admonished for their behavior in the transgender healthcare topic area.

Support:
  1. Colin should do well to remember this line out of principle 8: "merely because a person disagrees with you does not mean that they are here in bad faith, or that they are pushing an agenda." CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If I'm not mistaken, Colin is the only person here who has an FoF on incivility. A shame, given the fairly broad praise of his content prowess. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 15:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I think, if taken as a warning that tangible sanctions will be on the table if Colin doesn't change his approach to editing controversial topics, this might be sufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Colin indefinite topic ban (healthcare)

13.1) Colin is indefinitely topic banned from the topic of transgender healthcare, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Why not? Because of a "voluntary" withdrawal in a situation where a ban was about to be issued, or because administrators deadlocked on the appropriate remedy and not even ArbCom can make the decision? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hopefully sufficient. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Had multiple chances to avoid this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice to 13.2. WormTT(talk) 15:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. An appropriate scope. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. A very weak support, for a very roundabout reason. Given Colin's voluntary withdrawal, the pros and cons on either side here are vanishingly slim: it makes the withdrawal enforceable, which I don't think adds much because I take Colin at his word, but it also means he have to give a second look to his edits to make sure he's not violating it inadvertently, which doesn't subtract much because the topic ban is pretty narrow. But I find myself supporting for two connected reasons: first, I actually want Colin to stay far away from this topic area, so that second, he can appeal down the line and come back properly, which is something I would like to see him do. Sometimes self-imposed restrictions are "appealed", but I think there's a legitimacy that comes appealing an enforceable topic ban and having ArbCom agree that you're good to return. So, I find myself supporting because this allows the potential net positive of Colin having a standard, well-beaten path to reversing their withdrawal someday. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I don't oppose but if this just formalises something that is happening anyway, I'm not sure what it achieves. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. About five times I wrote that "Colin has failed to consider at any point that he might have been wrong" and each time deleted it because it gave me a pang. I think that statement is true. But do I think it supports a ban? I'm less sure. Given that he has withdrawn from the topic, it's mostly moot, but I'm not opposed to us making that enforceable. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It would appear to be a moot point but a voluntary restriction is easily backtracked, so similar to HJ I am largely neutral. Primefac (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Colin indefinite topic ban

13.2) Colin is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Prefer to keep to the wider area, first choice to 13.1 WormTT(talk) 15:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too broad. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too broad, Colin's misbehavior legitimately was limited to transgender healthcare. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 13.1 is fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too broad, 13.1 is better. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm not sure a broad topic ban is necessary but, as with YFNS, if Colin is at the centre of another case, or brought to AE regarding a different CTOP, all bets are off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Like the others I do not see the disruption spreading this far. Primefac (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Sweet6970 admonished

14) Sweet6970 is admonished for their behavior in the transgender healthcare topic area.

Support:
  1. At a minimum. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice to 16. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Insufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Insufficient. WormTT(talk) 15:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Insufficient. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Insufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Insufficient. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. As previously announced. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Sweet6970 indefinite topic ban (healthcare)

15.1) Sweet6970 is indefinitely topic banned from the topic of transgender healthcare, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Second choice. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Same as Raladic; this is a topic ban that allows Sweet to contribute to areas where they've previously caused a huge amount of disruption, like, as Eek points out, defending obvious trolls. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per leek. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Insufficient. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. A moot point as stricter remedies are passing. Primefac (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. As previously announced. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Sweet6970 indefinite topic ban

15.2) Sweet6970 is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. First choice. Defending obvious trolls at AE is a bad look. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. At minimum. Still debating how much the hateful nature of the conduct being defended, as well as Sweet6970's status as essentially an SPA, should be an aggravating factor. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 15:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The broader scope is necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Clearly necessary at a minimum. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As previously announced. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Sweet6970 banned

16) Sweet6970 is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concurrently with the topic ban, first choice to 14. Hate is disruptive, and so is sticking up for it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. While I believe there is a space in this area for discussion between sex and gender, and the possibility of making statements which could otherwise be seen as offensive, I believe the context of the statements made were not in that space and instead is clearly disruptive. WormTT(talk) 15:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Unfortunate but necessary, I feel. As with one of the above proposed bans, I would be fine with considering a sufficiently introspective appeal after six months rather than twelve. If this doesn't pass, I might draft something like a projectspace ban as a middle ground. Trolling and bigoted comments are disruptive and annoying, like a bee sting, but to see a respected member of our community indulge and encourage that behaviour amplifies the effect. It is anathema to a project built on community and collaboration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Concurrent with 15.2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As previously announced. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Samuelshraga admonished

17) Samuelshraga is admonished for their behavior in the transgender healthcare topic area.

Support:
  1. The frequent misrepresentation of other's viewpoints is, at a minimum, an example of repeated carelessness. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ... and very disruptive whenever the claims and diffs are complicated and readers might be tempted to trust rather than verify. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'd prefer a warning, but I'm not going to be super picky. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice to 17.1. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WormTT(talk) 15:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice to 17.1. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Second choice. I could see passing an admonishment and a topic ban together in some circumstance but here I think it's unnecessarily duplicative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Samuelshraga indefinite topic ban (healthcare)

17.1) Samuelshraga is indefinitely topic banned from the topic of transgender healthcare, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Samuelshraga's conduct was, in the grand scheme of things, not the worst. The sheer amount of time it took to unravel and understand the nature of the disruption, though, leaves me worried about whether the community would be able to keep his future participation in the topic area within bounds. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice to 17.2 WormTT(talk) 15:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Misrepresenting others' positions to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is exactly the sort of thing that makes contentious topics so corrosive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Samuelshraga indefinite topic ban

17.2) Samuelshraga is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Prefer to cast a wide net here. First choice to 17.1 WormTT(talk) 15:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. 17.1 is fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. agreed, too broad. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice to the narrower topic ban, but, again, they should expect a robust response to any further problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doesn't seem necessary quite yet. Hoping that remains the case. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per the others. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Samuelshraga banned

18) Samuelshraga is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Overkill. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WormTT(talk) 15:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Not needed. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I hope someone who values their participation here would take the very fact that this was proposed as a sign that they need to rethink certain aspects of their participation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Concur with HJ here. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Aaron Liu admonished

19) Aaron Liu is admonished for their behavior in the transgender healthcare topic area.

Support:
  1. Second choice to 19.1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Aaron's conduct was frankly quite mild, and he showed considerable wisdom in his comment on the talk page discussing his FoF. I originally did not include a separate FoF for him and rather intended to use him as an example for the close abuse FoF. With that said, I still think Aaron's conduct was subpar--and he recognized that. I might support a reminder or a warning, but admonishment is too far. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reminder now proposed as 19.1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 15:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too much, 19.1 is fine. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not quite this level yet. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Too much for just bludgeoning. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Aaron Liu reminded

19.1) Aaron Liu is reminded to avoid bludgeoning discussions.

Support:
  1. First choice to 19.1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Would also be fine with a less official word. This would have gotten a non-logged reminder from me acting as an AE admin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Reminded is right level. WormTT(talk) 15:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fine with a reminder. Anything more would be overkill. As the principle says, less is more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Aaron Liu indefinite topic ban (healthcare)

20.1) Aaron Liu is indefinitely topic banned from the topic of transgender healthcare, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Overkill. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 15:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Too much for just bludgeoning. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Aaron Liu indefinite topic ban

20.2) Aaron Liu is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Overkill. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 15:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Missed this one. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Too much for just bludgeoning. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Springee warned

21.1) Springee is warned for their conduct in transgender topics, broadly construed.

Support:
  1. Second choice to 21.2. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. second choice to 21.2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No preference with 21.2, a finger wag from Arbcom is a finger wag from Arbcom, which one of the three words we choose doesn't matter much. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Insufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WormTT(talk) 07:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Insufficient. Daniel (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Insufficient. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Usually when a topic ban is issued it makes the matter of giving a reprimand somewhat moot. However, the remedy that is passing is not entirely related to the context of this case, so I can see the arguement for giving one. In other words, I can see the usefulness here but I also am not sure it is strictly necessary. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Already getting admonished. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Springee admonished

21.2) Springee is admonished for their conduct in transgender topics, broadly construed.

Support:
  1. First choice to 21.1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'll draw a line between this behavior and Sweet6970: there's a somewhat mitigating explanation for Springee's conduct here, in that they tend to just be opposed to sanctions generally and failed to draw an adequate line on what conduct is too egregious for that philosophy to apply. Still, like I was quoted to say in the FoF vote, there are some things on which reasonable minds cannot differ. First choice to 21.1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No preference with 21.2, a finger wag from Arbcom is a finger wag from Arbcom, which one of the three words we choose doesn't matter much. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Primefac's abstention rationale in 21.1. This proposal isn't mutually exclusive with 22.2 and hence happy to support this. Daniel (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A restriction is happening, but as Primefac and Daniel point out, it doesn't cover all the behaviour. So, I support this, as a second choice to 22.1 WormTT(talk) 09:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
I believe an actual restriction is required. WormTT(talk) 07:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Worm. Daniel (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC) Moving to support. Daniel (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Insufficient (and also it's not really for transgender topics, but their approach at user-conduct enforcement). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per my comments in 21.1. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Springee indefinite topic ban

22.1) Springee is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. 2nd choice to 22.2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal choice. Call this first choice if it comes down to a tiebreak. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Independently of 22.2. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I support this. 22.2 is more important in my mind, but I support both. WormTT(talk) 07:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice to 22.2. Daniel (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Unconvinced this would be the right sanction, even if 22.2 fails. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 22.2 is the better sanction given the evidence provided. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I understand why people support this so I won't oppose, but after looking at the evidence again I think 22.2 better addresses the disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Springee indefinite topic ban (user-conduct enforcement)

22.2) Springee is indefinitely banned from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. with WP:BANEX (allowing to participate in discussions about themselves) in mind. The examples from finding 13 were comparatively well-visited; user conduct discussions often have 10 or less participants. Users who persistently defend disruptive behavior on noticeboards are a significant danger to the enforcement processes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this is the lighter-touch remedy and the one that makes more sense for this case. Bearing in mind that Springee does a lot of AMPOL editing, this seems to be a lot easier to keep to and still basically addresses the FOF. First choice to 22.1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I like Springee's answer and appreciate the introspection, but I would really like to know if there's anything different they would have said in their initial reading of the Younger thread (ignoring that the reported editor accused others of child abuse). Do you think your analysis would be the same in light of the text the reported editor is quoted as saying in the finding of fact? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As well as the topic ban. This is the kind of thing I was contemplating proposing for Sweet6970. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think leeky has it right, that Springee is largely opposed to restrictions and plays devils advocate liberally. However, given that they are clearly out of step with the community, to the point of disruption on some topics, I believe this solution is the right one. WormTT(talk) 07:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think worm's description plays devils advocate liberally sums it up. Opposing voices are important to developing consensus and challenging arguments to make sure they're strong, but at some point, normally around the time you're consistently defending disruptive behavior, it becomes disruptive itself. I'd also be fine with adjusting the scope of this remedy to indefinitely banned from discussions about user conduct or sanctions, except for reports at AIV which I think would better get at the problem without as much collateral. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice to 22.1. Daniel (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I appreciate Springee's willingness to introspect here, and based on the FOF this sanction should be both sufficient and minimal -- no one needs to participate at those noticeboards (noting BANEX). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per the others above. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Case retitled

23) This case is retitled to "Transgender healthcare".

Support:
  1. The "and people" wording is less than helpful, and it became apparent in Arb discussion that there were differing opinions as to whether "and people" meant transgender people, or just people related to transgender healthcare. I think with our clarification of the locus of dispute, and the scope of the evidence and remedies, that transgender healthcare is simpler and not open to misinterpretation. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The totality of the evidence in the findings of fact rules this out; see #Raladic, #Sweet6970, and scattered points in #Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and #Void if removed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "transgender healthcare and people" ended up being ambiguous, but for the reasons I've pointed out, "transgender healthcare" leaves a huge chunk of the evidence out-of-scope. I'd support something like "transgender topics", but I think this retitling obscures the scope of what we were considering. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There's more to this than just healthcare. I might support "and related issues" or similar, but that's usually implicit in case names. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm all for simplicity but this doesn't seem to be a good idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The current title isn't wonderful because I can understand why it's ambiguous, but I think that it's better than artificially narrowing the scope when we have quite a lot of conduct beyond the healthcare area. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I don't think this matters. It's going to live at WP:ARBTRANS or WP:ARBTHP and no one will say the whole case name. This is a bit bikeshed for me, but I wont stand in the way of progress if other people think it matters. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. By the time we get to the proposed decision, I don't believe this amount of change is necessary. But I won't stand in the way either. WormTT(talk) 13:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ambivalent to this. Daniel (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Bit of a bike shed issue but otherwise have no opinions. Primefac (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the arbitration enforcement log.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

For a summary table of votes by individual arbitrator, please see /Implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by automatic template check; the last edit to this page was on 08:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC) by Daniel.

Proposed principles
Number Proposal name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 12 0 0 Passing .
2 Arbitration Committee 12 0 0 Passing .
3 The Arbitration Committee is not an editorial board 12 0 0 Passing .
4 Disruptive editing 12 0 0 Passing .
5 Decorum 12 0 0 Passing .
6 Partisanship 11 0 0 Passing .
7 Bludgeoning 12 0 0 Passing .
8 Assume good faith 12 0 0 Passing .
9 Single-purpose accounts 12 0 0 Passing .
10 Meatpuppetry 12 0 0 Passing .
11 Treatment of scientific topics with multiple perspectives 3 4 2 Passage uncertain 2
_CabOEekADanSElliSHJM_LizAPfOSFR_SdrOleekSTBFOWTT
11.1 Neutral point of view 4 0 0 Passage uncertain 2
_Cab_EekSDan_Elli_HJM_LizSPfSSFR_SdrSleek_TBF_WTT
12 Enough is enough 9 0 2 Passing .
13 Conduct during arbitration cases 12 0 0 Passing .
Proposed findings of fact
Number Proposal name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of dispute 12 0 0 Passing .
2 Abuse of close review 12 0 0 Passing .
3 Reliable sources 12 0 0 Passing .
4 Raladic 11 0 0 Passing .
5 Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist 10 0 0 Passing .
6 Void if removed 10 0 0 Passing .
6.1 Void if removed (alternate) 5 0 0 Passage uncertain 1
_CabSEekSDan_ElliSHJM_Liz_PfSSFR_SdrSleek_TBF_WTT
7 Colin 10 0 0 Passing .
8 Sweet6970 9 0 1 Passing .
9 Samuelshraga 10 0 0 Passing .
10 Aaron Liu 9 0 1 Passing .
11 JonJ937 11 0 0 Passing .
12 Sean Waltz O'Connell 11 0 0 Passing .
13 Springee 9 0 0 Passing .
Proposed remedies
Number Proposal name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Reliable source consensus required restriction 0 6 1 Not passing Cannot pass
2 Special rules for close challenges 10 0 0 Passing .
3.1 AE participation restricted within GENSEX 1 8 0 Not passing Cannot pass One second choice support (TBF) to 3.2, one third choice support (Elli) counts as opposing because 3.4 passes
3.2 AE participation restricted 1 7 1 Not passing Cannot pass Two second choice supports (Daniel, Elli) counted as opposing because 3.4 passes
3.3 AE participation may be restricted 0 10 0 Not passing Cannot pass Six second choice supports (Eek, Daniel, leeky, Worm, SFR, HJM) counted as opposing because 3.4 passes
3.4 AE participation may be restricted by an administrator 11 0 0 Passing . One second choice support (TBF) to 3.2
4 Raladic admonished 3 7 0 Not passing Cannot pass
5.1 Raladic indefinite topic ban (healthcare) 1 7 0 Not passing Cannot pass Five second choice supports (Cabayi, TBF, Daniel, Elli, HJM) counted as opposing because 5.2 passes
5.2 Raladic indefinite topic ban 10 0 0 Passing .
6 Raladic banned 6 3 0 Passing .
7 Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist admonished 4 5 0 Passage uncertain 2
_CabSEekODanOElliOHJM_LizSPfOSFR_SdrSleekSTBFOWTT
8.1 Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist indefinite topic ban (healthcare) 2 7 0 Not passing Cannot pass Four second choice supports (SFR, Daniel, HJM, Elli) counted as opposing because 8.2 passes
8.2 Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist indefinite topic ban 6 2 0 Passing .
8.2a Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist indefinite topic ban (alt) 0 8 0 Not passing Cannot pass
8.2b Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist indefinite topic ban (alt 2) 2 5 1 Not passing Cannot pass
8.2c Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist indefinite topic ban (alt 3) 4 3 2 Passage uncertain 1
_CabAEekSDanSElliSHJM_LizAPfOSFR_SdrSleekOTBFSWTT
One third choice support (Daniel) count as opposing because 8.2 passes; one second choice support (Elli) to 8.2b
9 Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist banned 0 9 0 Not passing Cannot pass
10 Void if removed admonished 2 7 0 Not passing Cannot pass
10.1 Void if removed indefinite topic ban (healthcare) 1 7 0 Not passing Cannot pass Three second choice supports (Elli, Eek, TBF) counted as opposing because 10.2 passes
10.2 Void if removed indefinite topic ban 9 0 0 Passing .
11 Void if removed banned 9 0 0 Passing .
12 Colin admonished 9 0 0 Passing .
13.1 Colin indefinite topic ban (healthcare) 6 0 3 Passing . One second choice support (Worm) to 13.2
13.2 Colin indefinite topic ban 1 8 0 Not passing Cannot pass
14 Sweet6970 admonished 1 7 1 Not passing Cannot pass One second choice support (leeky) counted as opposing because 16 passes
15.1 Sweet6970 indefinite topic ban (healthcare) 0 7 1 Not passing Cannot pass One second choice support (Eek) counted as opposing because 15.2 passes
15.2 Sweet6970 indefinite topic ban 8 0 1 Passing .
16 Sweet6970 banned 8 0 1 Passing .
17 Samuelshraga admonished 6 3 0 Passing . Two second choice supports (SFR, Elli) counted as opposing because 17.1 passes
17.1 Samuelshraga indefinite topic ban (healthcare) 9 0 0 Passing . One second choice support (Worm) to 17.2
17.2 Samuelshraga indefinite topic ban 1 8 0 Not passing Cannot pass
18 Samuelshraga banned 0 9 0 Not passing Cannot pass
19 Aaron Liu admonished 0 10 0 Not passing Cannot pass One second choice support (TBF) counted as opposing because 19.1 passes
19.1 Aaron Liu reminded 9 0 0 Passing .
20.1 Aaron Liu indefinite topic ban (healthcare) 0 10 0 Not passing Cannot pass
20.2 Aaron Liu indefinite topic ban 0 10 0 Not passing Cannot pass
21.1 Springee warned 1 6 2 Not passing Cannot pass Two second choice supports (TBF, leeky) counted as opposing because 21.2 passes
21.2 Springee admonished 7 1 1 Passing .
22.1 Springee indefinite topic ban 3 4 2 Passage uncertain 2
_CabAEekSDanOElliSHJM_LizOPfASFR_SdrSleekSTBFSWTT
Two second choice supports (leeky, Daniel) counted as opposing because 22.2 passes
22.2 Springee indefinite topic ban (user-conduct enforcement) 9 0 0 Passing .
23 Case retitled 1 5 4 Not passing Cannot pass
Proposed enforcement
Number Proposal name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 Passing . Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 Passing . Passes by default

Notes

Per clerks-l, Cabayi is inactive on all items they have not voted upon. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Proposed_decision&oldid=1317660842"