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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Lightbreather	none	(orig. case)	27 February 2025
Clarification request: Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area	none	(orig. case)	22 March 2025
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5	none	(orig. case)	25 March 2025

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

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

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Amendment request: Lightbreather

Initiated by Lightbreather at 23:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Lightbreather arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Gun control topic ban - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Gun_control_topic-ban
Restricted to one account - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Restricted_to_one_account
1RR - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_1RR
Reverse topic ban - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Reverse_topic_ban
Interaction bans - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Interaction_bans_taken_over_(alternate)

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

Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Karanacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mike Searson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Scalhotrod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1] of notification Karanacs
[2] of notification Mike Searson
[3] of notification Sitush
[diff of notification Scalhotrod] (not possible)

Information about amendment request

Gun control topic ban - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Gun_control_topic-ban
- I respectfully ask to have the ban lifted
Restricted to one account - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Restricted_to_one_account
- I respectfully ask to have the restriction lifted
1RR - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_1RR
- I respectfully ask to have the restriction lifted
Reverse topic ban - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Reverse_topic_ban
- I respectfully ask to have the restriction lifted
Interaction bans - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Interaction_bans_taken_over_(alternate)
- I respectfully ask to have the interaction bans removed

Statement by Lightbreather

I successfully appealed my site ban in September 2022. Although I would have liked to have all restrictions removed at that time, it seemed like asking for too much, so I only requested lifting the site ban. I stated at the time that I would wait at least 12 months before asking to remove the other restrictions. The appeal can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1111600387#Lightbreather_unban_appeal, and what I wrote in "Dear community" stands: my promises and resolve since then remain unchanged.

In the two years since my site ban was lifted I have made hundreds of edits to dozens of articles, including the creation of two biographies (P. B. Young and Amy Kelly). I have abided by my restrictions and believe I have proved myself, as I promised.

Thank you for your consideration.

@Sdrqaz: Yes, those statements are still true. (The only situation I might revert more than once would be for vandalism, though I'd more likely report it at the vandalism noticeboard.) As for recent inactivity, I think that will probably be a pattern for me: Edit for some length of time (days, weeks, or months) and then, out of choice or necessity, be inactive when my energy is directed elsewhere.

There is one other website that I have volunteered at for nearly 14 years, without incident. If the committee wishes to know my identity there, I will be happy to email the link. Lightbreather (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz: To answer your follow-up question: Some might ask, If she doesn't plan to do the things she was banned from doing, then why lift the bans? Then again, if she doesn't plan to do those things, why keep the bans? More than that, the existence of the restrictions cause me social pain, like a badge of shame. I'd like to think after nearly 10 years I could remove the badge. Lightbreather (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: You've indicated that you're willing to be convinced. Are there any questions I can answer for you? Would you and the other arbs like a link to my profile on the other website I volunteer at? (nearly 14 years now without incident) Lightbreather (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know him, but appreciate the input from jps regarding what it's like to edit under restrictions. I mentioned the social pain. It's true I battled in the past (especially in the couple months prior to the start of the case against me), but I also had many positive interactions. Right now, I can't say hello or give barnstars to fellow editors. (I'm not even sure if I can click "thank" on an edit.) I can't add my name to a project's participant list. It's extremely isolating.

In addition, there are some things I can't do that might help with cleanup. For instance, I'm currently using the "Random page" feature under "Category:All articles with broken or outdated citations". Up popped a page that I think should be considered for deletion. Deleting articles is not something I'm very familiar with, so I started reading about how to do it. I thought, Aha! I think I can use this PROD thing, but I dug around in the article's history and found it had already been "prodded". The next step would then be taking the article to AFD - which I cannot do under my restrictions. There's an example of a practical reason I'd like to have my restrictions listed.

But more than anything, again, after 10 years, I'd like the chance to prove myself further - more than I have been able to since my site ban was lifted. Lightbreather (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RE the claim by Chess that I am unable to join a project, contribute, and seek review, that is untrue. In Jan. 2015 I set a goal to bring "Gun show loophole" to good article status, I invited others to join me, and we did it. Links: [4], [5]

Although there have been hundreds of edits in the interim and it has since been tagged NPOV and WEASEL. Lightbreather (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Karanacs

Statement by Mike Searson

Statement by Sitush

I haven't seen much of LB since her return, partly because I am less active due to health concerns and partly because she was and always will be bad news. She continued her antics off-wiki after being sent away, taking her attacks to various Wiki-critique sites etc - at least some of those should be documented. I know this will count for nothing because WP is far too forgiving but my opinion is that this is a leopard and the spots will not change. If she is doing good work in the areas to which she is currently restricted then let her continue there - we have plenty of other contributors who can edit the areas where she is restricted. - Sitush (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Before I fully refresh my memory on this case, just a note regarding the interaction bans:

Karanacs last edited in July 2024
Mike Searson retired in December 2019
Scalhotrod was banned by the WMF in June 2015
Sitush is still actively editing.

This means the first three bans are largely academic and the committee should not wait for them to respond but Sitush's opinion (should they choose to epxress one) should be taken into consideration. There was a significant amount of private information around this case (when I was on the committee), which arbcom would do well to review before making a decision. Thryduulf (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moneytrees

I don't know about everything else here, but I will say that the Scalhotrod Iban can be removed; AC has the history there, and the chances of them editing again is 0. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

LB and I have differed in the past. I'm glad she's back, water under the bridge, etc. The one request that should not be reversed in the one account rule, in my opinion. That's all a person needs. Everything else can be safely vanished, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Kenneth Kho}

I echo Carrite's sentiment, and I tend to regard lifting 10-years-old restrictions as low risk. But I also agree with arbs, who stated her edit volume has been low, about 400 edits since 2022, out of 17600 edits since 2007. I propose lifting all sanctions if @Lightbreather agrees to voluntarily comply with current sanctions until she reached 19000 edits through substantive edits! Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jps

I think I'll just offer a perspective from someone who has also struggled to get restrictions removed. Sanctions levied against me acted as a kind of "chilling effect" on my activities on Wikipedia, necessarily by design. The Catch-22 of the scenario of trying to get the restrictions lifted is that I had to simultaneously be active on-wiki or other wiki-adjacent spaces online that could serve as evidence of compliance and rehabilitation, I guess, while also abiding by editing restrictions which made me pause A LOT prior to acting. Easy peasy, say some. But I think that if you haven't labored under editing restrictions at this website, I'm not sure you really know what it is like. It's a very delicate "thread-the-needle" kind of activity.

Lightbreather indicates above that she considers these sanctions to be badges of shame, and for my part I definitely can sympathize with a feeling that I had like there was a yoke around my neck when I was trying to edit under restrictions. It is discouraging, and for me it was very demotivating for editing Wikipedia. Again, I think this is kinda the intent of sanctions, as the judgement of whatever authority that imposed them is that demotivating the person who is being problematic is a preferable outcome so as to protect the sanctity of the encyclopedia.

I say this not as a means to offer advice to anyone, but basically to offer another perspective from someone who has been subject to a variety of different kinds of sanctions. The other side of WP:ROPE is WP:TIGHTROPE.

jps (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil Einne

I wonder if the committee should remove the Scalhotrod iban even if it's reasonable to keep everything else in place. With a WMF ban and furthered by what Moneytrees has said above, it doesn't seem there's any chance of them coming back. And I assume Lightbreather understands it's unhelpful to be talking about an editor who was WMF banned. Frankly, it seems to me that particular iban could have been lifted with the unban. I know all this does mean the iban may seem moot anyway but if it will make Lightbreather slightly happier about things, I feel it's a reasonable change. As a two-way the committee could always turn it into a one-way if they feel that's necessary.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

Lightbreather doxxed other editors in the firearms topic area on the offwiki blog that Sitush briefly mentions. I don't think the gun control t-ban should be revoked. However, it's unclear what disruption is being prevented by the broad ban on User talk, projectspace, draftspace, filespace, specialspace, etc. I'm surprised SFR only mentions AfD as an example. Being unable to join WikiProjects, participate in good article noms/featured articles noms/etc, or talk to other users makes it difficult for Lightbreather to gain the experience necessary to reduce editing restrictions. The standard advice I give to someone looking to gain experience on Wikipedia is "find a WikiProject and start contributing to it. Eventually, seek review from others on article quality". LB is unable to do either. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

Plenty of time has passed. The case was complex, and some of the participants are no longer here, and that is maybe a good thing. I can't remember exactly what LB's beef was with Sitush, whom I love, but I'm sure it was nasty--but, again, time has passed and I do not anticipate a return to previous behavior in regards to Simon. I support lifting all restrictions, including the gun restriction. LB will be editing under a microscope anyway and I just don't think that a. we will have problems again and b. any such problems can't be handled without another arbitration case. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Lightbreather: Clerk notes

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

I've removed one of the party headers following a suggestion (see edit summary). Sdrqaz (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather: Arbitrator views and discussion

Hello, Lightbreather. I'm looking through the history of your case, but I would like to hear your response on a couple of items for now: in the 2022 appeal, you said I won't edit gun, gun control, or gun politics articles or comment on associated talk pages. Not just because of my topic ban, but also because I do not want to edit there. The topic still interests me as a person, but not as a Wikipedia editor. Are this and your 2022 comments regarding edit-warring still true? Could you also please comment on your recent inactivity? Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the reply, Lightbreather. This may seem like a silly question (I can think of several plausible answers), but if the statements at the 2022 appeal are true, why do you want those restrictions lifted? To be clear, I'm referring to the first three restrictions that you've listed. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recused. - Aoidh (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of history to read here, and I've looked through a lot of it so far. My initial thought is that they haven't made enough edits since being unbanned to reach extended-confirmed, so there's not much here to base our decision on. I also noted that ~50 of those edits were to User:Lightbreather/Push is a myth which points to the same issues they were initially banned for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The essay displays a lack of having gotten over (or at least an inability to not pick at the scabs of) their earlier on-wiki disputes and their writing it within a few days of their unban isn't great. That it makes up a little over 10 percent of their edits since being unbanned also doesn't inspire confidence. That, combined with their overall low activity and Elli's concerns makes me a decline, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to nix the Scalhotrod iban, and maybe tighten the reverse topic ban to only disallow drama boards broadly construed, or to explicitly allow AfD. The AfD example looks to the be the only concrete "sanctions preventing me from doing something constructive" example given and I can see giving a bit more rope to see if they're constructive with it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to review much of the context, but also not sure how I feel about the timing of this. Coming back after half a year with no edits to immediately appeal a t-ban isn't usually what I like to see. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this is a decline at this point in time, mainly per lack of recent activity. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Elli and SFR; PERM and resysop requests will often be declined if they come immediately after a long hiatus, and in addition there has not really been enough editing with restrictions to show they have been effective. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'll vote decline on this appeal due to the lack of activity pointed out by the other arbitrators above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally supportive of removing decade-old individual editing restrictions such as these for active editors, with the exception of the one account restriction. However, the qualifier there is 'active editors' — the lack of any edits by LB for the past 6 months, and very few in the past two years, make it hard to assess with any level of confidence whether it's the right decision or not to remove them. If you edit for a few months with no issues and come back here, my willingness to support will be a lot stronger. Daniel (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absent something more substantial here, I'd decline this request. Time is a great healer, and I can imagine that I would support this request in the future, however, we just don't have enough evidence of good quality editing. There was an initial flurry after being unbanned, but outside that first 6 months, and prior to this request, there are less than 50 edits in 2 years. Worm^TT(talk) 10:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, solely because of the lack of activity in recent months. Before I can consider lifting restrictions, I need more evidence of Lightbreather's change of behaviour, demonstrated by editing without concerns. My recommendation (speaking for myself, not the committee) is to edit articles outside of the topic restrictions, then return in six months with an appeal that outlines your positive contributions and why the restrictions are no longer needed. I think the IBANs can also remain in place, even if academic, so that everything can be considered together and in case the editors return. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be receptive to lifting the now useless iban, as well as the inverse topic ban (for the reasons Chess points out). But the rest should stay until we can have a longer track record. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. You've been active for a little over 3 weeks. The point of taking a period between appealing restrictions is that we can see you in action, not that we should see inaction. Cabayi (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area

Initiated by Tashmetu at 12:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Tashmetu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Tashmetu

I wanted some clarification regarding the judgment made in my case, the text was as follows: "For gaming the extended confirmed restriction, the extended confirmed permission of Tashmetu is revoked. An administrator may, at their discretion, restore it following a request at PERM at which Tashmetu shows that they have made 500 substantive edits."

It does not state anywhere that I am banned from any edit on the subject, only that I don't have permission to edit protected articles. But now I have an edit here that I'm told is breaking the rules placed upon me, so I need some clarification, am I forbidden to ever edit anything in anyway related to the topic(and if so,I would have appreciate it being made clear to me) or is it just EC protected articles that I can't edit until my permission is restored?

I'm sorry but this doesn't make much sense. There is such thing as a topic ban, so what is the difference between a topic ban and not having permission to edit EC protected articles specifically? Tashmetu (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Clerk note: moved to own section. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 15:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thanks everyone for the clarification. Is there a place where I can find what topics are EC protected or is it just Israel-Palestine I should steer away from?

Also am I supposed to do anything regarding my past edits in the area or is it just something for me to pay attention to in future edits? Tashmetu (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Editors who are not extended-confirmed may not edit anything related to the Palestine-Israel topic area, and this applies regardless of whether the article is EC-protected or not. It is also worth noting that this also applies more granularly than just at the article level - a non EC-editor may not edit material related to the Palestine-Israel topic area even in articles that mostly about other topics (they may edit the non PI-related parts of such articles). If you are unsure whether something is related, then it is permissible to ask but in general it is best to just assume borderline cases are related. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the judgement about which clarification is being sought is Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5#Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area, not the main case judgement.

@Tashmetu: You can find a list of topics that are under an extended confirmed restriction at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Active sanctions, although this is not ideal. For starters it took me a couple of minutes to find that, and I knew where to start looking, secondly you have to read the detail of each topic area to find out whether ECR applies and thirdly it isn't clear to me whether "discretionary sanctions that mimic WP:ARBPIA" indicates ECR or not. If you keep away from all the topics listed as having sanctions though then you wont go wrong.
As for past edits in the topic areas covered, just leave them. Any edit you make would be a violation of the restriction, even if it is solely regarding one of your own edits. Thryduulf (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

I agree with Tashmetu that the implications of the EC-restriction can be unclear. That's why I didn't report to Arbitration Enforcement, since it didn't appear as if Tashmetu was knowingly violating the rule.

Arbitration Enforcement might benefit from a warning template that explains that the revocation of extended confirmed applies to topic areas, and not only to articles that are under extended-confirmed protection.

Statement by {other editor}

Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area: Clerk notes

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

Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area: Arbitrator views and discussion

Thryduulf is correct: non-ECP editors may not edit PIA topics, so it is a de facto topic ban, but one which may be lifted more easily than a true topic ban. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree that Thryduulf is correct. I also agree with Chess that making this information more explicit would be helpful: I would advise AE admin revoking EC to post on the user's talk page that the user should not add any information to Wikipedia in topics with a EC restriction. (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase this that can be workshopped.) Now that Tashmetu knows this, I think they would benefit from staying far away from any article that might remotely be connected to Palestine-Israel. Z1720 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, PIA is under ARBECR which applies to the topic area, not just articles that are currently under WP:ECP, per WP:PIA. That said, the CTOP notice that Tashmetu received a few days after ECP was revoked, while it does link to Extended confirmed restriction, only says Additionally, you must ... have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days ... which may be confusing for someone who has 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, but is not currently extended confirmed because that user right was revoked. I think perhaps clarifying the wording of that template to specify that it is having the extended confirmed user right specifically that is required, not just having reached the 500/30 threshold, in addition to any verbiage an administrator gives when revoking ECP. - Aoidh (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh, I think that's a good idea, but we should clarify that distinction when it's important (i.e. when EC is revoked) instead of putting newbies through more term-of-art bureaucratic headache. That template works fine for most people, but admins should be clear about what EC revocation means when they do it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking that we should just be topic banning rather than pulling EC in these instances. It's cleaner, has clearer edges, and a well-defined appeals process. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

Initiated by Makeandtoss at 09:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Makeandtoss

Are articles like Hussein of Jordan (147 mentions of Israel) and Palestinians in Jordan (zero mentions of Israel) considered to be covered by ARBPIA as a whole? They currently do not have ARBPIA templates. [6]

Per the ARBPIA decision in 2019:

4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing
a. the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
b. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

These two examples are not really considered primary articles of the Arab-Israeli conflict (a), and the ARBPIA content within them -if any- is of course covered by (b). So can editors affected by the topic ban edit the non-ARBPIA content within them? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction made by SFR makes sense, if this is indeed the consensus among arbitrators here. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion

I see Palestinians in Jordan as covered. The lead contains Palestinians in Jordan refers mainly to those with Palestinian refugee status currently residing there... Most Palestinian ancestors came to Jordan as Palestinian refugees between 1947 and 1967. It's primarily about refugees from the Arab/Israel conflict who moved to Jordan. Hussein of Jordan isn't a primary topic, but parts of the article would be covered by ARBPIA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Shortcuts

This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Requests for enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against a previously alerted editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

Reports are limited to two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350

ImperialAficionado

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

Request concerning ImperialAficionado

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mr.Hanes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ImperialAficionado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBIPA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

20 January 2025 - Reverted an edit, claiming "Whitewashing" by contesting users, later editors are dumb-founded and somewhat frustrated that source nowhere supports Imperial's revert [7], an instance of blatant POV-pushing.
23 January 2025 - Reverting another user who rightly removed their unsourced part from the conviction parameter [8] but as usually, Imperial reverted [9] their constructive removal without actually going through the sources.
24 January 2025 - Adding the same unsourced inflammatory part without verifying from the source, ironically the edit summary was: Removal of sourced info.
24 January 2025 - Giving summary of The white washing POV editors are really a trouble, after doing the exact same thing.
18 February 2025 - Yet another instance of WP:IDHT & WP:POV WARRIOR.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

[10]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Passing this report (which was Initially made by HerakliosJulianus) from ANI [11] but for some reason it was closed by Liz suggesting to take it on AE.

The user in question has been deliberately pushing a certain POV as evident from above diffs. Not only that, the page he's authored & heavily contributed to -- Execution of Sambhaji -- which recently sparked controversy along with the Sambhaji page, looks like it was almost entirely written by an AI [12] and gives only a probability of 25% human written (To be more specific this old revision contains probability of 14% human generated contents). To think that such a sensitive, highly contentious topic could be written by an LLM is egregious.

What is even more worrying is their battleground mentality, which can be seen by falsely accusing [13] an editor of WP:HOUNDING just for taking their articles to AfD and then calling them a "troll" [14]. Given their blatant PoV pushing,WP:CIR and using LLM in hotly contentious TA, a Tban from IPA seems justifiable. Mr.Hanes Talk 20:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill @Valereee, I just wanted to ask if Imperial is actually facing any backlash from the Maharashtra government. I haven't seen any mentions of it in news reports. If he's not, then I don't think there's a need to give them any intermediary status of a week -- maybe 3–4 days of waiting response would be sufficient. Mr.Hanes

Talk 20:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, Understandable. Thanks for clarifying. Mr.Hanes

Talk 20:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, the source he has cited, i.e., The Mughal Empire, nowhere prescribes Rape, torture, and robbery during the Sacking of Burhanpur (1681) as such, which ultimately led to the situation becoming inflammatory in Indian politics. Please see this discussion for further context: [15] Mr.Hanes

Talk 20:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your later additions in your comment: @Rosguill, then a topic-ban would be an even better approach, not only to prevent their PoV pushing from IPA articles but also for their own safety. Mr.Hanes

Talk 20:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think enough time has passed -- it's already the ninth day since this report was filed, and we've been waiting for their unlikely response. Please take the appropriate action. Mr.Hanes Talk 15:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado Accepting a self imposed "chaos" sanction on yourself is completely different from being procedurally sanctioned for the issues raised here, I don't think it's about: "as I've mentioned in a discussion on my talk page, I would accept any kind of block/ban against me. You're neither accepting nor denying problematic edits. Also, I wanted to ask if you're taking breaks for your college exams or due to any legal issues? Mr.Hanes Talk 20:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16]

Discussion concerning ImperialAficionado

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

Statement by ImperialAficionado

I am so sorry for not being here. I was unaware about this discussion. Anyways, I do have objections against the claims raised against me here. Unfortunately, not spending my time again here in this platform to prove it. I am really sorry, and as I've mentioned in a discussion on my talk page, I would accept any kind of block/ban against me, as I won't create "chaos" again. Retiring from Wikipedia due to personal reasons (actually, was thinking about it for a while). Please don't think any of us are the reason for this. Thank you.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 18:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlvaKedak

@Rosguill @Valereee, I'm sorry but I'd like to add something here. The user in question has always been aggressive and waging edit wars in the entirety of the Indian topic area, so I don't understand why anyone should sympathize with them just because they maybe facing any legal troubles.

04:01, 17 February 2025: Reverting unsourced quotes
05:00, 17 February 2025: Removed infobox after realising that it's making mess more than any productive info, but later waged an edit war for its inclusion [17].
Misinterpreting the sources, just to push their "Ghurid victory" pov [18][19] later reverted [20] then later waging an edit war[21].
05:03, 17 February 2025: seems to me like they were on a spree of removing infoboxes.
08:32, 24 January 2025: Falsely Templating another user who tried to remove their unsourced material, they don't even bother to respond back but just quick to gain points [22].
[23]: Wikilawyering in an AfD in order to prevent newcomers from joining the discussion. Not the first time they have done this, they did it here too [24],[25] and [26].

07:34, 18 January 2025: Outright removing sourced info of 10,000 cavalry The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760 p. 33 without even bothering to verify it once.
Another removal of sourced content [27]

Given these editing behaviours I do not think they should be given an exemption for an IPA ban. AlvaKedak (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:44, 7 August 2024: Bluntly moving pages [28] without giving an adequate explanation as to how it contains OR content.
16:55, 6 August 2024: Yet another removal of sourced content.
08:11, 17 June 2024: Removing results with a vague edit summary.
Here, I do not know why they were attacking the editor just because the article mentions "Muslims" which could be supported by sources.
16:43, 7 May 2024: Another mass removal of sourced contents.

These are just some more CIR containing issues. I don't think this user genuinely wants to contribute here through a neutral pov. Please take these issues into consideration. AlvaKedak (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Extorc, I would like to ask as to how you actually ended up here in AE? From what I can see, the evidence was likely gathered from the EIU tool to create the SPI report, not from their edit history. While the OP is blocked, this hardly changes anything. I have presented more diffs and statements in the report, and the initial report was made by another user, HerakliosJulianus. Since many editors are already involved, it makes little sense to close this without action. AlvaKedak (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, @Rosguill I do not find a reason for logged warning regression from Indian politics/history T-ban. Mr. Hanes may have made the initial report by importing other users' initial complaints on ANI but the diffs presented by me are the reason why Rosguill is opined for a T-ban. It is concerning that we are about to give so much sympathy towards an editor who just recently made controversial moves to the extent that readers (especially pro Sambhaji readers) and the government prejudice that -- Wikipedia has bias -- . What if I make another report providing more diffs showing their problematic behaviour? Would that make us all ultimately conclude that Imperial would be T-banned? I really don't get the regression from T-ban to logged warning. AlvaKedak (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, let's suppose I file a report on another user or let's just say a user files AE report on me, so if I just say "I'm retiring permanently" on my user page then will I get a "get out from jail" card? This is a loophole and any problematic user can do the same in future, I'm not sure if he'd get a waiver or not like we see with Imperial. AlvaKedak (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

@Valereee: I'm INVOLVED here, so I'm going to post above the line. For what it's worth, I agree with the assessment of evidence below - IA may be operating in good faith but there are multiple instances of being too quick to revert and of taking insufficient care with respect to verifiability. Though there is grounds for some leniency for the CTOP notification having come so late (17 February, unless there was an earlier one I missed?) the user is not a complete newbie and can be expected to follow our PAGs, and in particular playing fast and loose with the sources is something I would take seriously. The novel solution is a good one, and I suggest explicitly allowing an appeal via email, if the concern is that the user may not wish to appeal in a public forum. If IA is under legal duress, as their last edits imply, I would not expect them to return any time soon.

Might I suggest ECP as a CT restriction? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Extorc

@Rosguill, Valereee, and Seraphimblade: The OP is now blocked as a sock. While Girth Summit had started to undo the damage the sock did so far, he has yet to do a lot more right now. I would personally recommend closing this report without action. >>> Extorc.talk 06:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ImperialAficionado

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

I think my thinking in that discussion closing is that since the OP was seeking a topic ban from IPA, that AE would be a more appropriate forum for this discussion. The other issues, such as possible AI use, could be discussed on the article talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like in a subsequent edit, here, ImperialAficionado cited a source. What POV are you arguing they are pushing? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification, Mr.Hanes, from your own reading of sources. In contentious areas of the project, I frequently see accusations of POV-pushing but it isn't always clear to me what POV it is that is being pushed. It often seems like simple disagreement over content. Accusations of "POV-pushing" are sometimes sanctioned while content disagreements are usually not. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a response from ImperialAficionado, while recognizing that there is a nonzero chance that they will not be editing for a long time, or possibly ever, given the retaliation they have faced from the government of India. Mr.Hanes's complaints of POV-pushing and edit warring to include unverified material have merit, but I also want to have realistic and humane expectations of ImperialAficionado's ability and willingness to respond given that they have apparently already faced sanctions much more arbitrary and powerful than what is within our purview here. I would propose that we allow a week for response, after which if there is no response we impose a tban on Indian politics and history open to immediate appeal. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Valereee (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill, since Mr.Hanes is getting impatient with the process and would like to see some sort of closure, I'm actually wondering if a p-block from article/article talk space, maybe even as an individual action, might be a better solution in the case of an editor who may have been scared away by their legal troubles? What I'd hate to see is a basically well-intentioned editor who may have a POV issue be tbanned from their main editing area and not actually even realize it. I could totally see this editor coming back in months from now and make some innocuous edit somewhere around the history of India and get indeffed. A pblock from article/talk would force them to at least realize there was a problem and give them an opportunity to investigate. It's not like they're currently editing and causing trouble. We can close this and discuss at their talk if/when they file an unblock. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable, although I think we should also be very clear to ImperialAficionado in a talk page comment following the block explaining that any further BATTLEGROUND behavior in relation to Indian history prior to appealing the block will be treated as recidivism and sanctioned. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. If they want to edit in Indian history, they either need to control their POV or stay away from anything controversial. Valereee (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee Having reviewed AlvaKedak's additional evidence here...I was already essentially on the fence between your limited proposal and the tban I initially suggested, and was more sympathetic to your proposal partly because only Sambhaji-related disruption had been identified thus far. I think that AlvaKedak's diffs here are scattershot: on their own they do not make a compelling case for much, and some of the evidence is a total miss (e.g. the claim that calling on closers to be mindful of sock/meatpuppetry at AfD is wikilawyering), but there's enough potentially-problematic behavior (e.g. lots of reverts over contentious infobox content for non-Sambhaji South Asian military history) that push me back toward my original "tban from Indian history and politics with opportunity of immediate appeal" even if the new diffs do not on their own present a case establishing a clear pattern of tendentious editing beyond a shadow of a doubt. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill, I don't disagree with your assessment. My concern is primarily that we're going to give a restriction not only without hearing any sort of defense but also without being sure the person getting the restriction will even know they have one. I could totally see this turning into IA's making an edit that violates their topic ban before they even realize they have one and someone blocking them as an AE enforcement -- possibly appealable only to ARCA -- which means no admin can even come along, discuss, and offer a conditional unblock, and they have to mount their appeal via proxy, which I think is generally awful. For me a p-block from article/talk space will prevent that while still protecting the encyclopedia from damage/disruption. Valereee (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow the "they won't be aware"--we'd place a talk page notice that will certainly leave them aware, this isn't a total newbie who doesn't know they have a user talk page. Otherwise, I see what you're saying about AE appeal--is it within our discretion to have the tban be appealable to any admin, with a note in the AELOG concerning the extenuating circumstances surrounding this original AE case? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I suspect that would be a novel use. Which I'm not averse to, but it would be best to get more opinions. Seraphimblade, ScottishFinnishRadish, Vanamonde93? Valereee (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, I think that would be fine with a consensus at AE to implement, especially considering the concerns around this situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, any administrative action, including an AE action, may be reversed or modified with the consent of the admin who took the action. So, if the admin imposing the sanction explicitly says "It's okay for any uninvolved admin to modify or reverse this sanction without consulting me", then that's allowed. We really don't need anything novel beyond that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Hanes, it's not uncommon for AE requests to sit open for much longer than a week, so I don't think this is an unreasonable extent of time to wait. We know that ImperialAficionado's final edits as of this time state directly facing legal issues and undo edits that they had made prior, so I think it's reasonable to conclude that ImperialAficionado at least has been, and possibly still is, under duress with relation to their activity on Wikipedia. Even if they have faced no charge to date, statements made by Indian authorities and also on social media give reason to believe that it would be prudent for their own safety for them to refrain from editing Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Hanes, editors are trusted to make their own decisions about their personal safety. Concern trolling is not appreciated, as it is battleground behavior. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlvaKedak, please post comments, once, in your own area. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sera, Vanamonde, SFR. I think Vanamonde's addition of appeal by email is a good one. Liz, do you have any objection to Rosguill's suggestion of a tban from Indian history and politics with opportunity of immediate appeal to any admin, including via email? Valereee (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection as the editor has retired from the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I think this plan we’re cohering around is still appropriate in light of ImperialAficionado’s not-quite-no-contest statement of intent to stop editing indefinitely. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Were we thinking Indian political/military history? That works for me. Valereee (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing archiving. Valereee (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to all for not being able to follow up on this in a timely fashion this past week. Do we have any further new opinion given that Mr. Hanes has been blocked as a sock of an account first blocked in April 2024? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually have any objection to just letting this archive unactioned, as IA seems to be making good on their intention to stop editing. I suppose we could log a warning for disruption at Indian political/military history so that if they ever return to editing and the issue comes up again, it'll be easy to find. Valereee (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think at minimum we do need a logged warning, because there was prima facie merit to the case's complaints. I don't have a strong opinion between that and the previously suggested topic-ban-open-to-immediate-appeal. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to go with either. Valereee (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlvaKedak, sanctions are not punishment. They are to prevent future damage. If IA comes back and starts editing problematically in a CTOP, a simple ping to me and/or to Rosguill will likely suffice. We can levy a topic ban or a block unilaterally in CTOPs, no need to even file a case here, and in the case of someone who said they were retiring and then came back in problematically in the same CTOP, I'd t-ban instantly and I'm sure Rosguill would too. And if in the meantime we've both been hit by a bus, a logged warning makes it a simple notification at ANI. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) AlvaKedak, methinks you doth protest too much, and you're over the word limit (something I've had to warn you about recently). But to correct your misperception: the partial clemency here is primarily due to 1) the cloud of offline legal harassment surrounding Sambhaji-related editing and 2) the case being revelead as fruit of the poisonous tree, as Mr. Hanes was revealed to not have been an editor in good standing. If it weren't for (1), we wouldn't be giving any credence to the defendant's statements of intent to retire. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Mountain of Eden

The Mountain of Eden is topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This is primarily for lack of response, so there is no prejudice against a speedy appeal, and an appeal that addresses the concerns raised here will be given serious consideration as basis to lift this sanction or downgrade it to a lesser sanction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning The Mountain of Eden

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Alalch E. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: The Mountain of Eden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

28 February 2025 Instead of allowing me to normally continue the discussion on the merits of the issue, the editor (not giving me a reasonable time to respond) pivoted to questioning my "real motives", which is an WP:ASPERSION, and the editor pinged four editors of whom three have Hebrew usernames or names, claiming that "they have edited the page", and while I suppose that they have edited the article, there are other users who have edited the article more extensively and who have not been pinged, making this a pretty clear nationalist WP:INAPPNOTE.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. (Log entry)

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. (Log entry)
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 21 July 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The reported editor countered my WP:APPNOTE in the form of my pinging a single and only other previous participant in a discussion concerning the image (whereas the current branch of the discussion concerns solely the caption), by an WP:INAPPNOTE in the form of their pinging four editors in relation to whom, seen as a group, it can be reasonably assumed that, they, the reported editor, (I am not accusing the pinged editors of anything) believed would bring him an advantage in continuing to enforce their preferred version of the caption. These editors are not especially prominent contributors to the article and had not participated in a related discussion.

The same editor had introduced that caption; I do not find the caption problematic on any "deeper" level. I was opposing it solely on mundane grounds of style and conventions on captions as captions. I like short captions I guess? Being accused of having ulterior motives with respect to this topic is emotionally upsetting to me and makes it difficult or maybe even impossible for me to engage seriously with this editor on that article's talk page. The reported editor is probably unaware that I have made approx. 70% edits and have a 60% added text contribution and have brought the article to GA. That is because my motives are to ensure that the article on this particular topic is in good shape. Throughout this time, since 2023, no one has accused me of "motives".

I would have responded to their previous comment in the thread, but after the accusation of having "motives" and the inappropriate notification, I am asking for corrective action before I continue discussing the (ultimately unimportant) caption.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1278193062

Discussion concerning The Mountain of Eden

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

Statement by The Mountain of Eden

I hope this complaint gets closed as a superfluous report. If I am reading the complaint correctly, the basis for this report is that the reporting editor is unhappy by my choice of editors that I pinged. They are free to ping additional editors.
As for WP:ASPERSION, I think my suspicions that the filing editor has unstated motives is consistent with their behavior of misusing policies and guidelines, as stated in their edit summary, and now filing this superfluous complaint.
What the complaining editor is neglecting to mention is that the one editor that they pinged is an editor who is not very active, so not likely to respond any time soon. It was therefore necessary to ping more active editors, which is what I did. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the reporting editor is behaving in a manner consistent with unstated motives by deleting the caption based on misuse of WP policies only after I added the words "award winning" and "Hamas", along with replacing the words "their return" with "abducting", in the caption. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

At 12+ days, this is now the longest break between edits for The Mountain of Eden dating back to June 2024, when their account was only eight edits old. They started editing about the Gaza War in July 2024, after 510 edits, within a day of qualifying for extended confirmed. starship.paint (talk / cont) 01:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The Mountain of Eden

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

The Mountain of Eden, pings to other editors are expected to follow the guideline WP:CANVASS--you are accountable for who you choose to ping, and are expected to be doing so in the spirit of giving all interested editors a say in the consensus process. Further, I'm really baffled by the continued aspersions here, given the extensive editing work that Alalch E. has put into that page that includes meticulous efforts to accurately document the gruesome violence committed by Hamas. If they have an ulterior motive to minimize mention of Hamas committing massacres, they're doing a spectacularly poor job of it. Accusations of an ulterior motive without solid evidence to back it are aspersions. Even if it wasn't quite so trivial to grab a half dozen diffs of Alalch contributing to that article, it still wouldn't be ok to accuse them of ulterior motives unless you had hard evidence of a pattern of such behavior. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a perverse irony in hearing an ARBPIA dispute where the actual details could have happened on literally any article: At its core, this is just two editors disagreeing about a relatively minor stylistic decision. (Another way to put that is, neither editor's preferred version would be wrong; the question is just whose is better. Which of course is not for AE to decide.) But this sort of thing happens when tensions run high. People see good-faith edits that touch on a sensitive detail of an article (in this case, a very sensitive detail) and emotion overcomes AGF. The Mountain of Eden spends almost all of their time on-wiki editing about individual killings in the Arab–Israeli conflict. On one level, that's commendable. On another level, it does seem to contribute to a level of jaundice. So my current inclination is a balanced editing restriction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill or @anyone else: Any thoughts on this? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the reasoning that it could break a possible feeling of tunnel-vision on Mountain of Eden’s part and thereby reduce hostility. My concern is that MoE hasn’t acknowledged that their actions were out of line, which makes me think that a complex sanction like BER is a doomed-to-fail formality.

A possible tangent, but bears stating: I don’t agree that this is a dispute where the actual details could have happened on literally any article: At its core, this is just two editors disagreeing about a relatively minor stylistic decision. Alalch E.’s expressed views here are a stylistic preference; MoE’s expressed views here are that Alalch E. has engaged in pro-Hamas POV pushing. That’s a uniquely PIA problem. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or put another way: If MoE responds now with an acknowledgment of wrongdoing and clear commitment to do better, I think they're in logged warning territory (if they'd done that as their first response, without trying to first dismiss report out of hand, they could have avoided a warning). If they totally ignore this and/or double down, they're in tban territory. BER territory would be if they give some sort of ambiguous response that falls between those poles. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Mountain of Eden, after making dozens of edits almost every day for nearly three months has taken a break in editing that almost exactly coincides with the suggestion of a balanced editing requirement. I am going to support a BER or TBAN, appealable immediately upon their resumption of editing and making the acknowledgements Rosguill is suggesting. Valereee (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, Rosguill, any thoughts regarding the above suggestion from Valereee, since no response has been received? The Mountain of Eden, I would note that you still have the option of responding, and your choice whether or not to do so may affect the outcome here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my recommendation of a tban given that we have seen no further response from MoE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a TBAN, without prejudice against early downgrading/lifting based on a reasonable appeal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above, I think either a tban or perhaps the balanced editing restriction? As an aside, can I complain about the closeness of WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBIPA shortcuts? It's occasionally very confusing... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I keep it memorized by remembering that IPAs were sent to India. It's even more confusing when you remember that the PIA code for the alert/first template is...a-i. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hu741f4

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

Request concerning Hu741f4

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AlvaKedak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Hu741f4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ‘’how’’ these edits violate it

03:43, 1 March 2025: Although previously removed [29]. But later changed their mind for some reason (perhaps POV bias?) to add such content, when several sources have been presented which clearly differ with this view in the talk page.
09:48, 28 February 2025: Constantly pushing a certain viewpoint [30] with no regards of NPOV or highlighting the other side, clearly just here to defame.
14:39, 26 February 2025: Calls a test edit made by an IP address vandalism and does the same with a new editor. [31].
08:45, 27 February 2025: Labeling a reputed scholar as a “Hindutva mouthpiece” without backing the statement with any reliable source. They have tried to poison the discussion with multiple inflammatory claims [32][33]. Such an aggressive behavior in a area dealing with a contentious topic is not healthy for the community.
16:30, 26 February 2025: Readily removing the inline template without addressing the issue.
08:10, 26 February 2025: Arguing against an attempt to fix the NPOV issues in order to circumvent the process, this shows their regressive nature more like stonewalling.
[34]: Cleverly changing the sourced wordings to showcase a certain side with wrong doings.
02:21, 23 February 2025: The level of falsification escalated when they attempted to include unrelated pieces of information that has no relevance to the article. The inclusion of atrocities committed by common soldiers during the later Maratha invasions of Bengal in mid 18th century which didn't have anything to do with Sambhaji is quite concerning.
01:36, 23 February 2025: On top of their frivolous edits, they persisted in arguing over irrelevant additions, showing a clear indications of WP:IDHT.
07:09, 15 February 2025: Removed sourced contents, claiming Unverified claim unsupported by the cited source.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [35][36]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user continues to exhibit a confrontational editing style, unnecessarily contesting obvious attempts to resolve issues. It would certainly be better if they refrained from editing this topic area altogether, as the mess they’ve created is still under scrutiny and may take more time to fix. One may need to go through their all additions and verify the sources. AlvaKedak (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, @Valereee see if that will do:

23:26, 5 February 2025: Removed precise notion despite the source outright supporting it:

But there was mounting evidence that among the Bengalis, the Hindu minority was doubly marked out for persecution.

01:50, 4 February 2025: Citing a dubious primary source from an unknown publisher.
00:08, 2 February 2025: Removing sourced contents claiming it was all "unnecessary" just to promote their fringe views.
18:17, 31 January 2025: Removed a decent source along with the controversial phrase, which primarily revolves around Ved Bhasin.
19:55, 24 January 2025: Once again removing long standing content along with the sources, just to push their pov. When challenged for their disruptive removal, they proceed to refer to the IP User's edit as "vandalism" [37] without realising it's them who are involved in vandalism.
17:45, 23 January 2025: Falsely claims that the source doesn't mentions this statement when it does.
23:39, 30 December 2024: Again removing sourced contents. It should be apparent by now that this user wants to remove any Indian mentions from articles.
12:16, 30 December 2024: At this point this seems more like a religious hatred than just trolling. Adding a citation that is poorly source to add the slur in the list.
04:45, 30 October 2024: Yet again they're on the spree of removing any sourced 'Indian origins' long standing contents.
Another instance of WP:IDHT [38]. AlvaKedak (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, on #8 they are clearly hallucinating the contents. Why did they add later instances of mid 18th century conflicts between Marathas & Bengal Subah to this page of the monarch who died in 1689? what relevance does it have here? They are clearly not here to contribute constructively and neutrally but to perform destructive edits with only one certain point of view. Their aggressive behaviour is not in compliance with this cooperative encyclopedia. The utter un-seriousness in the editing pattern and discussing behaviour is a serious issue. AlvaKedak (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, I am pretty sure that I have not shown more than 20 diffs. Also, do additional comments and replies to admins and users count? Please restore my recent given diffs. AlvaKedak (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, there are only 257 words in my first 10 dffs, the other 10 diffs has not more than 336, I can reduce it by removing the quotes and other extra details. But I'm curious as to why User:Abhishek didn't get reverted when they crossed the word limit [39]. AlvaKedak (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, not really, please check again through Wordcount.net. Both of my 20 diffs and comment allegations doesn't contain more than 591 words (including numbers and dates). I don't know how to link my result, but you can get the same result by pasting the text from this note link: [40] AlvaKedak (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, it was an unintended ping because it was the first time I used the "Ping" template. I was testing it by taking the usernames of other editors here but didn't realise it'd turn it out this way, should have used my sandbox. I apologize to Capitals00 for bothering them.

@Valereee what must I do? Should I present all of my other 10 diffs without any explanation, or should I provide just a 3-5 word explanation for each? All, I want to say id that please have a quick look through the diffs just once for they are more problematic than the former diffs. AlvaKedak (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee thanks for the suggestion. I have looked through the previous diffs that I provided. I will do something to include all of it here again by either collapsing redundant comments or removing them. AlvaKedak (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any remedy in action here? Please re-evaluate the later given diffs [41] swiftly, @Hu741f4 seems to be making non-apologetic apology, in essence, they are attempting to defend themselves by saying something along the lines of "I was not wrong, but if it was reverted then alright". This user is involved in WP:COI, all of these issues do not help to gain confidence in the improvement of their editing behaviour. AlvaKedak (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, I apologize if I did not make my statement clearer. I am not accusing them of paid editing but rather pointing out that they may be alignment with a personal, religious, or political viewpoint for their edits, as evident by the given diffs. This user is in no way following WP:NPOV. AlvaKedak (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [42]

Discussion concerning Hu741f4

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

Statement by Hu741f4

Article edits:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1278215040 This piece of info isn't my addition. Someone else added that. The edit which this user is citing is reversion of my previous edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1278214650 where I had removed that info. Many of the edits which this user is citing (as edit number 8) was reverted by me just moments after I realized my mistake for example here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277169207 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277168808 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277169019

2)This edit is supported by multiple sources, all of them use the term "historical inaccuracies"

3)All the three edits by this user were vandalism. In one of those edits, the user changed the name of vice chancellor to Himanta Biswa Sarma who is the CM of Assam. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Science_and_Technology,_Meghalaya&diff=prev&oldid=1277721484

5)I gave the reason in the edit summary (please check) To put this tag, the sources should fit under description of insufficiently reliable sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources

7)The previous wording was this: On 22 February 2025, Israel refused to release 620 Palestinian prisoners as stipulated,because repeated violations of the deal by Hamas, instead instituting an indefinite delay despite Hamas releasing six living hostages". Because it consisted typo like missing "of" and the wording wasn't neutral as it implied that Hamas was indeed violating the deal, I added the word "accused" and fixed some grammatical mistakes. Another thing to note here is that this entire edit which I modified failed to mention that it is a quote. The user who made this edit later sent thank on my edit. I did nothing wrong here

8) I reverted that just moments after I realized my mistake for example here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277169207 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277168808 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277169019 There isn't even a minute delay in reversion

10)This is the only legit accusation. I was indeed wrong here. I mistakenly searched page 168 of "Snedden, Kashmir: The Unwritten History, 2013" instead of Snedden, Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris, 2015". Thankfully this edit was reverted.

Talk page edits:

4)I cited the source— The satyagarah Magazine.

6)Just an opinion Overall I didn't break any Wikipedia guidelines or rule except in one case (mistakenly).

Reply to fresh accusations

Pinging other involved editors @Koshuri Sultan, Capitals00, Seraphimblade, Valereee, and Rosguill:

23:26, 5 February 2025: The wording of the article implied that Genocide was comitted "especially" against the Hindus, but this isn't true since majority of Bengalis who were targeted were not Hindus. Even if you look at citation, you'll find that this isn't exactly what the source is saying. "Including" would have been a better word choice. Nevertheless, I accepted the revert when someone reverted my edit saying that this was added after consensus and I stopped editing that article.

01:50, 4 February 2025: The book is an English translation of Tafsir ibn Kathir. This isn't the only refrence that is cited to support that info. There are other citations too which are reliable. The aim of the edit was to show the translation of Tafsir ibn Kathir. I understand that I should have provided a better and reliable translation of Tafsir ibn Kathir as source.

00:08, 2 February 2025: Unnecessary because it was duplicate. This info was mentioned twice in the article— at the beginning and also at the bottom of the same section. Another thing to note is that the source cited in the footnotes after this, doesn't mention this info.

18:17, 31 January 2025: The link redirected me to a website which was full of adverts. So I removed it as I thought it was unreliable (I was careless but there was no dishonesty or hidden agenda from my side), but now since you pointed that edit, I revisited the link and realized that despite all those adverts, it contains a speech by Ved Bhasin. I'll be taking extra care from now.

19:55, 24 January 2025: Indiatimes.com pieces composed by people who have no expertise in history of food can't be used as citations especially when academic sources are saying otherwise. There is a policy that sources should be reliable in context see WP:SECONDARY and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. We need a source like K. T. Achaya

17:45, 23 January 2025: Yes! The cited source doesn't mention "in accordance with ceasefire term" https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-troops-kill-gaza-terror-operative-who-posed-a-threat-amid-ceasefire/

23:39, 30 December 2024: Yes! The cited source doesn't say anything like this regarding the "Binomial coefficients". You can check it out yourself.

04:45, 30 October 2024: Yes! The cited source doesn't mention use of "Sine rule" by Brahmagupta and I discussed that with other editors in the Talk page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Law_of_sines&diff=prev&oldid=1254263327 They had similar concern regarding this piece of info. The content has been modified. This is the problem with many articles that are related to India. You'll find several contents that have citations, but on checking you'll find that what the cited source says, is very different from what the article says.

12:16, 30 December 2024: Indeed my mistake. I accept it, as I wasn't familiar with WP:GSNR back then https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1279466825

[114]isn't that simple. Check my replies and also check other sections including this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system#Recent_edit_by_Jacobolus and the later three sections. Other editors like M bitton agreed with my edit.

That slur is widely used on social media. My citation includes a Google search result demonstrating its use on platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and others. I recall reading a Wikipedia policy that permits the use of social media as citations under specific circumstances. I wasn't familiar with WP:GSNR at that time. Hu741f4 (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Moved to correct section; please respond only in your own section Valereee (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Lately, I have been very busy with my real life, and I may not be able to reply to every accusation and new accusation being brought against me by this editor. Although the wording used by this editor against me is very harsh, I did my best to reply to each and every diff and concern (including the most recent one). Many allegations are baseless, but some (atleast two) are true, which I have accepted. I am still thankful to Valereee for giving me an opportunity to reflect and improve. Whatever decision the admins take against me, I will gladly accept it, but they should look at my defense as well. Thank you!

Yes! I am thankful to all the editors who helped me learn more and more. In fact, I am also thankful to AlvaKedak for pointing out my previous mistakes, which I need to reflect upon to become a better editor. Although most of the 20 diffs that he mentioned were taken out of context and may not be sanctionable, he still made some valid points about areas where I need to improve. Hu741f4 (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Koshuri Sultan

My analysis:

1st diff - There is nothing wrong with making a self-revert.
2nd diff - There is no evidence to "defame" anybody here. The added sentences are supported by the cited sources, and are neutrally composed.
3rd diff - You can call it "test edit", but it is not outrageous to call it "vandalism".
4th diff - Yes Gajanan Mehendale has been discarded as a source before as well.[43][44][45] What Hu741f4 is doing is not anything wrong.
5th diff - The tag itself was recently added without enough basis. Nobody restored the tag again.
6th diff - Yes there is "no need to attribute each and every piece of information to its author in the article (especially when the information is supported by multiple independent reliable sources)". What is wrong with saying that?
7th diff - Totally irrelevant to WP:ARBIPA.
8th diff - This was added to support the claim that "Jadunath Sarkar notes that the Marathas were notorious for gang-raping women during invasions". I don't find it outrageous.
9th diff - What is exactly "irrelevant" about it? I also don't see where did you mention any "frivolous edits".
10th diff - It is possible that Hu741f4 believed that the mentioned atrocities are being attributed to Indian army since the preparator is not mentioned. If Hu741f4 restored his edits again then that could be a problem, but I don't see him doing that.

That said, I believe the OP deserves a WP:BOOMERANG here. With only 400 edits his talk page is also full of warnings.[46][47][48] Koshuri ^(グ) 14:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

I don't know why I was pinged above at all. I don't see a merit in this report. Upon seeing the recent history here I would like to see some discussion over this comment by AlvaKedak; "All of the above diffs simply shows that this user is not here to build Wikipedia by collaborating with other users but for a specific cause to push their "anti-Indian" pov or should I say trolling and IDHT in a contentious topic area. The user should be indef'd, a Tban may not suffice." Not only is this demand totally baseless but it also beyond the pale when it comes to violating WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND. @Seraphimblade, Valereee, and Rosguill: What do you think? Capitals00 (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hu741f4

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

My assessment of the evidence:

Does not demonstrate any problematic editing, speculation as to the editors' motives in this edit is not well-founded
Does not demonstrate problematic editing. Additional diffs are needed to demonstrate that this change is constant or WP:UNDUE
I'm not convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that this was vandalism, but at the same time I'm not seeing any serious issue with Hu741f4's conduct here.
Hu741f4's talk page arguments here are all fair game. Arguing that Mehendale is aligned with Hindutva based on a Satyaagrah article praising him is a weak argument, but I don't think it's tendentious, and the other arguments seem sound.
Additional diffs concerning related edits and talk page discussion are needed to assess if this was tendentious. Based on the initial report, the evidence presented does not demonstrate it.
Again, potentially could be part of a pattern of problematic editing, but this comment on its own (or together with the other diffs in the initial report) does not demonstrate that.
Ironically, this may be the most problematic diff thus far, as it's not an accurate edit summary. It does not, however, fall within the India, Pakistan Afghanistan CTOP but rather in the Palestine-Israel articles CTOP, so unless there is additional evidence of a problem in Palestine-Israel articles, I don't see cause for action here nor does it strengthen the case of the other diffs in the complaint.
I don't see any falsification here, and I note that the text added in this diff was added as a relevant quote inside a citation used to directly support the claim. While this quote does not mention Sambhaji, a footnote clarifies its relevance: The Maratha soldiers were notorious for their practice of gangrape in invaded territories from a very early time. In 1688 when they invaded the Goa districts under the eyes of their king Shambhuji, they committed this kind of outrage... It can be argued in a content discussion that the source in question is not WP:DUE or reliable and thus should not be included, but the argument that it's irrelevant to the reign of Sambhaji or misrepresenting what the source says seems inaccurate.
I don't see any indication that this comment was inappropriate, as it seems an adequate, lede-friendly summary of the cited content. Again, there's room for disagreement and discussion over the content, but there's nothing in this diff that demonstrates tendentiousness or noncompliance with policy.
This one is iffy, although I think that Hu741f4's explanation is adequate. FWIW, several combinations of keywords that I tried searching to determine if the cited source backed up the content, such as Hindu and Sikh rape, Mirpur rape, Poonch rape, etc., generally did not turn up the relevant content. It was only by copying exact text from the page 167 preview that I was eventually able to unearth the supporting phrase ...in Mirpur District and the Poonch Jagir, Muslims killed large numbers of Hindus and Sikhs, raped and / or abducted females... While this is apparently not the case of what happened with Hu741f4's edit, per their explanation that they searched for the wrong source and appreciate the revert, I think it is very plausible that a well-intentioned editor could come to the wrong conclusion about whether Snedden supported the claim in question based on available Google Books resources.

In general, it does not appear that these complaints have merit, and they seem to have a similar issue to what has been on display in the case against Akshaypatill above, so I'll repeat my comments from there: simply provid[ing] examples of edits that align with a purported view...is not enough to justify a sanction. To justify sanctions here, it must be demonstrated that the edits are consistently in violation of policies, guidelines, and/or blatantly disrespectful of other editors they are working with. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlvaKedak, regarding diff #8, in their response here Hu741f4 noted their own error and that they corrected it themselves within 30 minutes of the first edit, without anyone else asking them to. Given that the source in question mentions both details from the 1740s campaigns and from Sambhaji's 1680s campaigns, the error seems understandable, and Hu741f4's seemingly-unprompted self-correction makes this particularly poor evidence of tendentiousness. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlvaKedak, please respect the 500 word/20 diff limit. It is your responsibility to make a compelling case before you hit that limit. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlvaKedak, Wordcount.net puts your prior comments at 1047 words. As for the different response to Akshaypatill, I think there's a significant difference between responding to questions/comments by others in defense of yourself and bringing in a fresh new batch of allegations. While defendants don't have free reign to say whatever they want, I think it's appropriate to be a bit more lenient with their word count limit as long as they're being constructive and relevant, and especially if they're responding to new allegations against them. The purpose of the word limits is to encourage reports that are to the point and focused on strong evidence, and to discourage fishing for sanctions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlvaKedak, pasting the text that you linked (for convenience), I get 1,167 words 7,191 characters

in WordCounter, 1202 words in a desktop word processor app. If I exclude the initial diffs from the word count (not standard, but trying to figure out how to reproduce your different result), I get 856 words. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlvaKedak, now that Capitals00 has brought it to our attention, can you explain why you pinged and addressed them in your second additional comment statement? Feel free to take up to 200 additional words for this response (if that isn't enough, say what you can and request an extension). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)These look like content issues and disputes to me. It is not up to AE to decide who is correct or incorrect in content matters; that is a matter for discussion and if need be further dispute resolution if consensus can't be reached that way. I do not see any sanctionable behavior here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Koshuri Sultan, please don't call for a boomerang here at AE. This isn't ANI, things work differently here. Valereee (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AlvaKedak, it isn't just the original diffs. We count every word you write, including responses to us and responses to the comments of others. My count agrees with Rosguill's except for the fact your most recent response added another 50 words. The point here is to keep the entire discussion brief enough that uninvolved admins will want to bother trying to read it all. This forces you and other commenters to focus on what's important instead of quibbling about trivial or tangential details. Valereee (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AlvaKedak, it's unfortunate that you've gotten into this kind of situation as a very new editor, as you don't really understand how AE works, but I'm not sure how to recommend you fix this. In general you can delete anything that no one has replied to, but again unfortunately most of what you'd written, someone has replied to. I guess you could collapse stuff you think is probably not essential that has been replied to, which will tell admins you don't think they need to consider it. In future: plan better. The fact we limit you to 20 diffs does NOT mean twenty diffs are better than ten. You can give us the 5 diffs that best illustrate the problem, note something like, "I have fifteen more diffs if anyone wants to see more, but I felt like these five were the most compelling."

That said, I did go look at one of the second set of diffs, and yes, it was problematic, and Hu741f4 did not include it in their response to you (both since deleted as a clerk action). Hu, can you explain this addition to a list of religious slurs that you cited to a google search? Valereee (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hu741f4, so you're clear now that you cannot use a google search as a citation? Are you also clear with what can and cannot be used from social media? Because if you aren't, don't use social media as a source, and especially not in a contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hu741f4, your responses have been moved to your own section. All responses here need to be in your section, so various people have moved them there. Valereee (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlvaKedak, forgive me if I've missed it in this long discussion, but what conflict of interest are you referring to that Hu has? Valereee (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm seeing consensus to close this unactioned as primarily a content issue, maybe with a warning to all three of these fairly new editors that CTOPs are not a good place to learn basic policy. If no one objects, I'll close it that way tomorrow. Valereee (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnadams11

Per admin consensus in this thread and below, Johnadams11 is indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, appealable to WP:ARCA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Johnadams11

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Johnadams11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Johnadams11 received a couple of CTOP notices in September (link) and was subsequently warned for failing WP:ECR again (link). He kept editing in pages within the PIA topic, opening discussions that were not edit requests, mostly in Talk:Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip well before reaching ECR in February 7 (link). Almost 25% of the total edits made there are from him, the majority before being EC. As a result, he was temporarily blocked in January 27 for a week (link). But at that point he had more than 400 edits so he reached EC shortly afterwards. The focus has been almost solely on PIA articles or about the topic after getting to 500 edits.

Johnadams11 has been repeatedly trying to push for a redefinition of children related to Palestinian victims of the Gaza war. He created 4 discussions in Talk:Casualties of the Gaza war, 1 of which was removed because he wasn’t EC at the time; the other 3 were posted in a period of 4 days (Jan 27, Feb 7, Feb 8, Feb 11). He also accused one of the participants of the discussion of bad faith both in the discussion itself (link) and on their talk page (link) for pointing out that there were numerous discussions about the same topic, the RfC was malformed, and that behaviour seemed like WP:BLUDGEONING. In my opinion, this kind of behaviour on multiple pages looks like WP:FORUMSHOP.

Additionally, on Denial of the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, he removed sourced content, and when reverted, removed it again, arguing that because a discussion initiated previously on the talk page failed to attract editors for a couple of days, that meant consensus was void. The WP:ONUS falls on the person removing content if it has been there for a time, and the status quo should be maintained while a discussion is in place. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how consensus works. On the same page he refused to comply with the 1RR sanctions in place in the topic area (link) though this was later reverted by another editor.

He has also engaged in WP:VOTESTACKING here, seemingly alluding to me specifically, since I interacted with this user in the discussion mentioned there. I don't see how asserting that I am testing his limits cannot be interpreted as a personal attack and casting WP:ASPERSIONS.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2025-01-27 Editing Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war in violation of the restrictions in place.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 2025-01-27 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2024-09-07 (see the system log linked to above).
Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Re: was the 1rr a removal or a revert: There were only 21 edits between the first version of that section being added in October and John's removal. 14 were specifically editing that section. The edit prior to John's removal also involved updating that section. If you add content and then the next edit is removing a big chunk including your addition, that seems like a revert to me. Especially while the section is actively being discussed. I can add the individual diffs if an admin will give me the okay to exceed the diff limit. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: I'm not sure I understand your comment – are you agreeing that this particular behaviour constitutes a revert? I share the sentiment that removing content added a long time ago shouldn't count as a revert. However, that doesn't apply here: the section that was removed was actively being worked on and had new content added right before John removed it. To me, that falls under the definition of reversion in Wikipedia:Reverting#What_is_a_reversion?. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth documenting here that John has more or less admitted (more on this here) that he planned to file - and then did file - a retaliatory AE topic about me. Hello. Your recent filing of an AE request against me elevated my interest both in the subject of AEs and in your editing history. I've now observed a number of edits that in my opinion raise serious questions. I was dropping in to ask if you'd prefer to discuss them here before I build an AE. is how he phrased it. I stand by my edits and will/have engage/d with the topic in good faith, naturally, but it seems like relevant information for this topic as well. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification on user talk page.

Discussion concerning Johnadams11

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

Statement by Johnadams11

The discussion about my pre-EC editing history is largely accurate but doesn’t emphasize what I believe to be an important dimension of that history. The accusation that I “kept editing in pages within the PIA topic” masks the fact that 100% of these were Talk comments, and that all were related to my not comprehending that the absence of platform locks was not a signal that I was free to participate in Talk. I wrote a (too long) comment] on this dynamic in my appeal of my block. More importantly though, I also sought to prevent other editors from falling into the same misunderstanding that I did, by recommending an improvement to the way templated warnings on Talk pages are presented -- and I’m more than a little proud that my recommendation was later adopted, and is presently in place.

On Casualties of The Gaza War, I do indeed believe that the article’s clarity would be meaningfully improved with a single sentence of definition. (The word “children” is used 57 times at my last count.) This is by no means a "redefinition" as the article contains no definition at all. My error in discussing this on Talk (I have never edited the Article) appears to be that in seeking to drive discussion on this question, I added new topics in Talk instead of creating new sections within the initial topic. Here I thank an editor for teaching me this. Ultimately, I chose to start an RfC, which indeed was a very specific wish for “comments” more than a wish to frame the discussion with a formatted list of choices. I do see now that I properly should not have inserted my own opinion here, but any read of what I wrote shows no agenda other than consensus seeking. Later, after some furious replies about how the RfC was “malformed,” and after seeking advice from an admin on the matter, I, in an abundance of caution (and of cowardice) chose to remove the RfC.

The accusation that I accused another editor of bad faith is not in my opinion coherent. I made a comment on the tone and style of a reply to my RfC, and then quickly removed that comment, because as I said in the edit comment, it really didn’t further the discussion. I also went to an editor’s talk page to ask for their comments on the merits. IMO, one would have to do a fair amount of construction to find some sort of accusation of bad faith in either of these.

On the Denial of the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, 1RR accusations, this began with a discussion on Talk describing the edit I wished to make. In a week of seeking discussion and consensus, no one had commented, so I made the edit. This edit was reverted, and I reverted back. I have now been coached (see below) that instead of my last revert, I should have gone back to Talk. Lesson learned. I hope it’s clear though the time sequence and the discussion that I was indeed seeking consensus and that the last revert, is in part, a function of not having gotten any participation. That said, if one finds that my initial edit was a “revert” then I am surely guilty of a 1RR violation. It was exactly because the content I had edited was inserted last October, and because I retained the basic thought for the content I'd removed, that I did not see it as a revert. I was fully conscious of 1RR at the time I made the revert of smallangryplanet's edit and believed it lawful because I did not see the initial edit as a “revert.”

On aspersion casting, Even if my comment is understood to apply to some specific editor (who was not named), I specifically said that I WAS assuming good faith. I merely added that certain behaviors were “testing my limits.” Bad faith obviously exists in our world, and I can't imagine I am being asked to ban that possibility entirely from my consciousness.

I’m not sure what the “1339” discussion of the Israeli Bombing of the Gaza Strip article means exactly, but I think it’s important to note that by my count, I have made fewer than ten (generally single sentence) edits to the Article itself.

I really do try to be polite and kind with everyone I talk to on WP, and I welcome anyone who takes the time to read the body of what I’ve tried to contribute here.

Going forward I recommit myself to hyper sensitivity to CTOP, constructive collaboration, consensus building and strict adherence to policy. Johnadams11 (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valeree Hello. Thanks so much for your thoughtful review of all this. I see that the error I made was that because SAP had not commented on my request in Talk, and because their revert of my edit also did not contain any comment on the merits, I didn't think a return to Talk would be fruitful. I do understand now that this is recommended protocol, and shall abide it. Thanks again. Does your (amazingly rapid) review of this case mean I do not have to post a formal reply? Thanks again. Johnadams11 (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC) Moved from results section; please comment in your own section, including when responding to others. Valereee (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee Thanks for filling me in. It's interesting. For me, I have a certain time capacity (as must we all) for contributing to WP, and because certain articles intersect my area of study, and because they are to me, "important," I've focused on them. Many of these topics, as one example: my productive collaboration with another editor on Yom Kippur War, which required a non-trivial amount of off platform study. In any event, I'll obviously comply with whatever rule changes or restrictions are applied. Thanks again. I'm now a proud knower of the 1339 filter! Johnadams11 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee If I understand WP:AGF, the whole notion of inferring "retaliation," seems at odds with it -- at least right now. If my case turns out to be brazenly frivolous on the merits, then I think it would be reasonable to explore motive. However, I don't see that as the sequence here. Can you explain? Johnadams11 (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee Thanks for the reply. Yes, after an editor had lodged formal charges against me (which I believe are frivolous, and contained brazen aspersions), I became curious both about the process, and about who it was exactly who was doing this against me. Further, the note you reference was a specific attempt to NOT file the AE. For you to come to the conclusion that you have, you must find that that note was written in bad faith. Something you have no evidence for, and which again (in my view) is a violation of WP:AGF. I promise you, it's not hard to convince me of my own errors. But so far, your case is not especially convincing. Johnadams11 (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Johnadams11

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

Looks like Johnadams11 has triggered filter 1339 over a hundred times in the past six weeks, if I'm understanding that correctly? And #1 editor both by #edits and amount of text at Talk:Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip is a pretty shocking statistic for someone who's barely ECR.

SAP, I find their argument that the first removal on Denial of the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel wasn't a revert is pretty plausible. If the content had been added 25 hours earlier, I'd consider it a revert. But if it was added in October, a removal in March is arguably just a removal. I don't find the diffs referring to accusations of bad faith very compelling. The misfires on trying to get a discussion started about the definition of children are pretty annoying, the kind of thing that justifies making PIA ECR-only, but I'm not sure they rise to the level of more than a warning for disruptive editing at this point when the editor is this new and still learning how to productively start a discussion? The canvassing they did to that RfC was definitely not okay, and the user they canvassed should have ignored it.

JA11, I'll point out that if someone is objecting to a revert you've made, just revert yourself and go talk. In fact if you get reverted at a CTOP, just go talk in the first place. You were arguing in your edit summary for that revert that no one had responded in over a week to your suggested removal. That was a valid reason for making the removal. It was not a valid argument for making the revert instead of going immediately to the talk page to discuss an edit you'd made at a CTOP that another editor was objecting to. The fact I find your argument about the first removal not being a revert plausible does not mean it was an okay thing to do, and other editors may disagree with my take on that. I'm going to say what I say to all new editors who jump right into CTOPs: that's a terrible place to learn how to edit. Editors have pretty much zero patience with newbie mistakes there. And this particular CTOP is the most contentious on the entire site, even experienced editors get into major trouble there completely innocently. Valereee (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnadams11, no, you'll still want to respond. AE cases are almost never decided by a single admin, and never before giving the editor who is being considered for enforcement a chance to respond. Please respond in your own section, as if you were talking to yourself. Valereee (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 1339 checks what percentage of an editor's edits in a thirty-day period were within the PIA CTOP. There's a new restriction we can apply that requires fewer than 1/3 of a given editor's edits fall within the CTOP, which is designed to discourage single-purpose accounts within the topic. Valereee (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnadams11, we get it. It's taken 24 years for us to try this restriction. We don't like restrictions, we really want WP to be editable by anyone, but the literally constant disruption within the PIA (Palestine-Israel-Arabs) topic finally made us decide we were going to try this "balanced editing restriction" in hopes that it will help. Literally just placed the first one a couple days ago. Valereee (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smallangryplanet, yeah, as I said above, other editors may (completely validly) disagree about my take on whether that represented a vio of 1RR. This is for me sort of a gray area...is a removal of content inherently a revert, because it's removing content someone else added? I'm open to argument. Valereee (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have generally not been impressed with the "removal is always a revert" argument. If the removed text was added recently, I would generally consider that a revert, but I have a hard time saying with a straight face that removing years-old text is a "revert". At that point, I think that's just a normal part of the editing process. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SAP, JA11 is saying the bulk of the removed content dated back several months, are you saying that's not correct? I will say that it's absolutely true that the first removal came only after JA11 had opened a section about it and then waited a week with no response before making that removal. To me that looks like a good faith removal, even if part of the content removed had been added/changed more recently. Valereee (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that in § Smallangryplanet I've suggested, at a minimum, a TBAN of JA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Johnadams11, immediately after being warned about new editors and contentious topics, and before your own case is even settled, you file what appears to be a retaliatory case. Literally sitting here shaking my head. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnadams11, you literally said on their user talk Your recent filing of an AE request against me elevated my interest both in the subject of AEs and in your editing history. You said this was your motivation. I didn't have to "infer" anything. Valereee (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you don't find it convincing, JA11. If you believe I've violated AGF, you can open a section at WP:AN. If you believe I've done so in a way that violates admin acountability, you can open a section at WP:XRV. Valereee (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments in SAP's section, if there's no objection from other admins by early tomorrow UTC, I will close this as an indef TBAN, appealable to ARCA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. Valereee (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Holding off pending comment from JA after discussion on my talk. While JA is already over the word limit, I'm willing to be lenient for an issue that arose after the initial filing, so I have granted an extension of 238 words past the current word count, specifically for JA to discuss the "sadly" diff and their reaction to it. Equitably, @Smallangryplanet, you get the same extension with the same limited scope, but please don't take that as me saying a reply is needed; just letting you know you have the option. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closetside

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

Request concerning Closetside

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Closetside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Closetside came back from a 9 month break and in the course of only a couple of days they amassed more than 200 edits, which is not against any policy, but disruptive or tendentious editing certainly is.

Nuseirat rescue and massacre

One of their first actions was moving Nuseirat rescue and massacre to Nuseirat raid (diff). The name was decided after multiple discussions over the course of many months. They then proceeded to remove large sections of the article to accommodate this undiscussed move, since it changed the scope of the article The edit summary said “Mentioned in ARBPIA5 as a fiasco”. When questioned further, they failed to provide a quote that would attribute this to ARBCOM as they had claimed previously. They kept arguing that the updated lede (reflecting the change of scope and ergo inconsistent with the article title) should be kept since the consensus was for the name and not the lede. After being reverted by multiple editors, they reverted back to their version.

12 February 2024 Rafah strikes

Transformed the page into a redirect against consensus; there was a merge proposal less than a year ago which failed. When reverted by M.Bitton – explaining that this was against consensus – they reverted M.Bitton immediately, without providing a reason. They then proceeded to remove large sections from 2024 Rafah hostage raid, excising mentions of the undiscussed merged page and, when reverted, reverted back citing “DONTLIKEIT filibustering”.

Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre

Again, they moved the page (to Shadia Abu Ghazala School corpses) without any kind of discussion, and tweaked the content to reflect the new name. After the original version of the article was restored, they reverted those changes again (but self-reverted eventually).

Wadi Gaza and Besor Stream

Another undiscussed move followed by large removals of content to accommodate to the new scope. When reverted, they moved the page again. When M.Bitton contacted them on their talk page they accused him of harassment, arguing that bold move edits against established consensus shouldn’t be reverted without an appropriate reason, as if the WP:ONUS isn’t on the person doing the bold change, something that was explained to them. They refused to self revert, and reverted back to their first version.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2025-03-09 blocked for a week from List of military engagements during the Gaza war for edit warring

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 2025-03-09 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2025-03-05 and 2023-09-10 (see the system log linked to above).
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 2023-09-24.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There may also be some relevant diffs in the American politics post-1992 CTOP; will need admin approval to go over the 20 diff limit, however - let me know if you'd like me to do that. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that Closetside tends to argue for less weight to be given to sources they consider to have a "pro-Palestinian bias", or for dismissing them altogether, cataloguing them as hyper-partisan and dubious. They have called the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor an "an anti-Israel NGO" and put their status as a human rights organisation into question because of that perceived bias, even alluding to them being a "Hamas front". For this editor sources seem to be either insanely pro-Palestinian or neutral. I don't think this black and white mindset is good for someone to have in this CTOP. I can provide relevant diffs but again would need admin approval to go over the 20 diff limit. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the substance or subject of the case and hopefully nothing will come of it but just in case we see extra attention on this case I should note that it was screenshot and shared on twitter link archive. Again, very much not saying that this has any connection with the editor in question, only adding this note in case we see an uptick in attention here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification

Discussion concerning Closetside

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

Statement by Closetside

Yeah; I messed up. I will revert those edits accordingly. Closetside (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I feel that @M.Bitton didn't give a non-WP:DONTLIKEIT reason, I should have waited until I got consensus to rewrite articles. My apologies. Closetside (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I self-reverted those changes and I will not reinstate them until there is consensus. Closetside (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned my lesson. I will not move a page without consensus nor reinstate a reverted bold change until I achieve consensus. Closetside (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did those reinstatements because I erroneously thought that if an editor is blocked for a significant amount of time, like @M.Bitton is, that would negate their viewpoint from the perspective of determining consensus. However, this is not the case, so I self-reverted those bad edits. Closetside (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smallangryplanet’s last quip is ripe for WP:BOOMERANG. Smallangryplanet does not understand NPOV, which calls for placing less weight on biased sources for neutral characterizations. I never categorized pro-Israel sources like Arutz Sheva, The Jerusalem Post or the Times of Israel as neutral- that was a cast aspersion. Furthermore, EuroMed’s bias is obvious - it does not report on Palestinian human rights violations against Israelis. If this editor cannot recognize that, maybe they shouldn’t edit in PIA.

Finally, this editor is repeatedly guilty of quote mining sources to support a proposition, when the source either doesn’t state that proposition or states the opposite proposition. When another editor pointed this out on the active RfC Talk:Gaza genocide, they falsely accused them of casting aspersions. Additional evidence is on the RM for Talk:Shadia Abu Ghazala school massacre. Raskolnikov.Rev is guilty of this offence as well per the above RM, although let’s limit this discussion to two parties.Closetside (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Closetside

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

It looks like Closetside has relatively well recognized that they need to stop both edit warring, and unilaterally changing article titles when it can reasonably be presumed that such a change will be controversial. So long as that behavior actually does stop (and I will note to Closetside that they are quite correct, it does need to stop), I don't see a need for any additional action here, and apparently over the course no one else has either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BePrepared1907

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

Request concerning BePrepared1907

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: BePrepared1907 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA / WP:EC / WP:GAMING

BePrepared1907 created their account in 2015, making 50 edits that year. They edited occasionally from 2015–2022. By October 2023, they had under 100 edits. In November and December 2023, they added 454 edits, becoming ECR:

317 in November (including 129 on November 30 and 70 on November 27)
137 in December (94 on December 3)

Most of their edits involve adding/updating descriptions, adding the same source across articles, or wikilinking, suggesting possible gaming. After some inactivity, they resumed regular edits in August 2024, becoming a SPA. Many of their contributions focus on deleting content, often citing POV or SYNTH issues, though many edits lack descriptions.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Adding POV changes with misleading or no edit descriptions (diff, diffs) (diff, diff, diff)
Restoring content added without consensus (diff) which was also the subject of a discussion involving multiple socks pushing for the lead to be updated. The content was restored by Shoogiboogi, a blocked sock, reverted, and then restored again by BePrepared1907.
Failing WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:EW (diffs). The same content was previously added by Shoogiboogi in the Gaza genocide article.
Failing WP:NPOV (diff). Shoogiboogi did the same edit after a couple of weeks.
Removing a quote criticising hasbara, with the summary “Why is this big POV quote by a French communist notable at all?” (diff)

Recently the user Boksi was blocked for being a sock of Galamore. I noticed some similarities between Boksi and BePrepared that might warrant a closer look. I am not familiar with Galamore so there might be some behavioural clues that I am missing. Since November 2024 – when the Boksi account switched to being a SPA in PIA – there have been some instances where the edits are similar or outright identical, for example:

Template:Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–2024) infobox (Boksi, BePrepared)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for the destruction of Israel (2nd nomination) – both of them voted which doesn’t say much but it is a weird coincidence that both forgot to sign and had to add a signature later (Boksi, BePrepared)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian suicide attacks – both of them also voted here on the same days of the previously mentioned AfD, Boksi on January 9 and BePrepared on January 15 (Boksi, BePrepared)
Criticism of Amnesty International (BePrepared, Boksi) both do the exact same revert with a 12hr difference. Seemingly to avoid edit warring. It was the first edit on that page by both accounts. The content being reverted was also highlighted off wiki (tweet)
Palestinian suicide attacks – again, same revert within a day (BePrepared1, Boksi1, BePrepared2, Boksi2)

I have also noticed they are usually never online the same days or, for the few days when both accounts are active, never at the same time. Both have long periods without editing. The day after Boksi was blocked, BePrepared was active again, after 10 days of inactivity. Might be worth looking into.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2025-01-12 Not a sanction as such but they've been accused several times in that SPI of being a sock and investigations are as far as I can tell ongoing.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2024-09-28 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note that this is not a request for an SPI, I included that information for context, but that investigation is already happening over on that corner of the site. This is for AE regarding ARBPIA/EC/GAMING, and a separate issue. I could open a new SPI as well/in lieu if that's what you recommend? (cc @Liz) Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff of notification

Discussion concerning BePrepared1907

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

Statement by BePrepared1907

Thank you for reopening this thread. I appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns regarding my topic ban related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I want to acknowledge the issues that have been raised about my editing behavior and the allegations of potential sockpuppetry. I understand that my recent activity may have raised some flags, and I take these concerns seriously. To provide some context, I created my account in 2015 and initially focused on topics related to global scouting. My shift to the Arab-Israeli conflict was motivated by a desire to contribute to discussions I find important, but I realize now that my approach may not have aligned with community expectations. I recognize that my editing patterns, particularly the volume of edits, may have suggested gaming the system, which was not my intention. Regarding the sockpuppetry allegations, I want to clarify that I am not involved with any other accounts. Any similarities in editing patterns with other users are coincidental, and I am committed to editing independently. I apologize if my previous message seemed overly formal or not reflective of my own voice. I assure you that I am committed to engaging in this discussion authentically and constructively. I am open to feedback on how I can improve my contributions moving forward. If there are specific areas where you believe I can adjust my approach or guidelines I should pay closer attention to, I would greatly appreciate your guidance. Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to your feedback. Best regards, BePrepared1907 (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I want to clarify that I have been traveling in Asia for the past year, which has limited my time for Wikipedia. This travel has made it challenging for me to engage consistently with the community, but I am eager to return and contribute meaningfully. I appreciate your understanding in this matter. BePrepared1907 (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Tamzin, I wrote my comment here. I do use LLM to help with my English. I am currently traveling in Asia and don't have much time, but just wanted to make sure you all know I am a real person and not working with anyone else regarding my edits in Wikipedia. BePrepared1907 (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)moved from discussion section, please comment only in your own section. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will only be focusing on minor fixes while I am not available. Thank you for the understanding. BePrepared1907 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC) likewise moved -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

"never at the same time." is not quite right. Both accounts edit in short bursts of a few edits (ban evading actors operating multiple accounts sometimes display this pattern), and sometimes the bursts are close to each other. Not often though. Examples include 2024-11-10 and 2025-01-15. You can see the pattern here. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

This is a very likely sock account of Galamore based on overlapping editing with Boksi and Shoogiboogi. But whether or not this user is confirmed as a sock, their behaviour regarding POV-pushing should be taken seriously here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of BER. If a user's editing in a topic area is unacceptable then they should be topic banned; and if their editing is acceptable then they should be allowed to edit as much as they want. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could see it being useful for bludgeoning or similar, but in this case it's the quality more than the quantity of this user's editing which is problematic.

I don't see why reducing this user's disruptive editing (which appears to me to be POV-pushinhg) would be preferrable to preventing it altogether. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BePrepared1907

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

AE is to investigate possible violations of arbitration case guidelines. If you have suspicions about possible sockpuppetry, please file a case at WP:SPI. All editors and most admins who would respond here do not have the privileges enabled to investigate sockpuppetry claims. Plus, it just belongs at SPI especially if it relates to an existing case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Smallangryplanet, my concerns with sockpuppetry claims on any noticeboard is that at times they can be brought up to disparage an editor in a way that regular admins on the project can't verify to indicate that they are accurate. That's why filers are directed to go to SPI if they have these concerns. This is just my point of view, but I think it's best to only bring up claims and charges that can be supported by diffs so editors and admins can see the argument that is being made. Raising issues that can't be verified, here, can just serve to prejudice other editors against the accused editor. I'm not accusing you of doing this, you just posed the question to me about SPIs and this is my general response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't have a problem with sockpuppetry allegations being made outside of SPI, as long as it's in the pursuit of an administrative remedy and not a mere aspersion. Bringing this up at AE has the disadvantage of potentially fewer sockpuppetry-oriented admins, but the advantage that we can also consider whether edits are sanctionable under CTOP. (I mean, we can do that at SPI, and occasionally do, but it's not our mandate.) On the socking front, I hope to be able to post thoughts in this space within the next 24 hours, but I need to talk a bit more with a few other admins who are familiar with relevant SPIs. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on some information I can't post on-wiki, I'm pretty confident that the same person is in control of the account as when it made its first edit to hewiki 19 years ago, which rules out being an Icewhiz/Galamore sock. What's harder to say is whether any meatpuppetry or tag-team editing is going on. The evidence above paints a concerning picture in that regard. It occurs to me that this, a case of an editor whose edits until a few months ago were almost exclusively about global scouting, and whose edits since are almost exclusively about the Arab–Israeli conflict, is the exact sort of person who the new BER would make sense on. Note that that remedy explicitly says it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive. I think this is such a case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to a BER but would suggest that it be narrowed it to the current conflict rather than all of PIA (as a rough consensus administrators are not bound to the standard set of restrictions there is nothing stopping us from modifying BER in this way) given this user's past editing. On the socking front, with additional behavioral evidence I see now I agree 100% with Tamzin's assertion that I think this is the same person behind the keyboard as it was in the past and if I'd had been aware of that behavioral evidence when I was doing the CU I'd have probably labeled it Unlikely. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: A BER for anything other than the full topic area would be significantly harder to track, since the rate of in-area edits is meant to be tracked by 1339, meaning that BePrepared would have to manually calculate his percentage rather than relying on n-ninety-five, and so would any admin checking compliance. Plus if we're talking about, like, a page on a Zionist youth movement like Young Judaea, I don't think most of those are ECP'd to begin with (and thus don't count toward the BER dividend); and even if they were, the BER wouldn't stop him from editing them, just limit his rate. Now, since a BER includes a namespace-specific TBAN, I'd be fine with something like "is subject to a balanced editing restriction, except that the topic ban in WP:BER's second bullet point shall not apply to content that a) relates to youth movements and b) does not relate to the Gaza war (2023–present)". I'd be fine with the same exception if there's consensus to TBAN rather than impose BER. But I'll reserve judgment until BP (who often goes weeks between edits) responds. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taken individually many of those edits may be justifiable or excusable. Taken together I am seeing a pattern of reflexive reverting and insufficient engagement with contentious edits in both edit-summaries and talk-page engagement. I also find the tag-team evidence concerning: there are far too many instances of a first edit being to revert in support of a blocked editor, or to revert a perceived opponent. I support a BER at the bare minimum, and would strongly prefer we include a logged warning. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BePrepared isn't an every-day editor, but by my count this is the longest he's gone without editing since he began routine PIA editing in August. I won't suggest bad faith there—maybe he's just busy—but it's not tenable for us to keep this open indefinitely, and not equitable for us to close this without action when there's a colorable case for sanctions. If this continues a few days longer, I suggest an interim TBAN that will expire upon the final resolution of this thread (unless the thread's end result is to TBAN), and then provisionally closing this thread, reopenable at any time on BP's request. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had initially closed as follows: Resolved provisionally, and without prejudice, as a single-admin CTOP action: BePrepared1907 is topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. I am closing this thread for now, but at any point in the future BePrepared can ask on my usertalk or at WT:AE for this thread to be reopened (and, if necessary, unarchived). This topic ban will terminate automatically upon the final resolution of this thread. (If the final resolution is to TBAN, that should be logged as a new sanction.) BP has now exercised that option, and so I am reopening this. @BePrepared1907: Please comment above at your soonest convenience. As I noted on my usertalk, please keep in mind that the TBAN remains in effect for now (although you are exempt from it here). Also, your comment on my usertalk looks like it was written by an LLM. I'm not going to hold that against you, but please, for your response here, we'd like to hear about things in your own words. Also, courtesy ping to Smallangryplanet that this has been reopened. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking the combination of inexperienced editor, ARBPIA5/Arab-Israeli conflict, and regularly unavailable for lengthy periods is a terrible one. BePrepared1907, I would highly highly recommend that you not edit anything even slightly contentious within the Arab-Israeli conflict until you are reliably available to discuss concerns about your editing. If you're going to make an edit in the most contentious topic area on Wikipedia that someone somewhere might possibly object to, you need to be available to discuss it. If valid concerns about your participation in topics around the Arab-Israeli conflict end up here again, a tban is a likely outcome, and that would definitely prevent you from working on things like Young Judea and Hebrew Scouts Movement in Israel. Valereee (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have a statement from BePrepared, I stand by my statement above in favor of a BER, with a carve-out from the included TBAN for content about youth movements if it doesn't relate to the '23–present Gaza war. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So how does this work w/re things like Hebrew Scouts Movement leaders praise scouting youth for wartime activism? HSMiI is not bannered to be caught by filter 1339...so the tban comes into play, and this is something BePrepared could not add to that article? Or do we banner the article, and BP could add that in, and it gets included in the 1/3 limitation? Valereee (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The TBAN only applies outside mainspace in the first place. So all this would matter for is like, BP wouldn't be violation if he chose to take Hebrew Scouts Movement in Israel to GAN. There's no mainspace TBAN in either case, so yes, he'd be allowed to edit about the link you gave; whether it counts toward the numerator for the BER would depend strictly on whether the article in question has the talkpage banner, as the BER is defined in purely technical terms. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to close this with a BER, but I'm hoping to hear from the clerks' team first for clarification on how we should handle cross-namespace moves. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dancasun

Origin of SARS-CoV-2 upgraded to ECP --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Dancasun

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dancasun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBCOVID-19

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

00:50, 15 March 2025 WP:ABF, accusing another editor of reflexive resistance to correcting outdated information and biased language and stating that they have a lack of good faith.
01:00, 15 March 2025 WP:ABF, accusing me of reflexive resistance to correcting outdated information and biased language and stating that I have a lack of good faith.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 20:30, 14 March 2025 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Johnuniq ECP is probably a good idea. Almost every time there is some minor reporting concerning the lab leak there's an influx of editors (often with very low edit counts) that come along to WP:RGW at related articles. TarnishedPath^talk 01:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

11:37, 15 March 2025

Discussion concerning Dancasun

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

Statement by Dancasun

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dancasun

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

I recently fully protected COVID-19 lab leak theory due to a small edit war. It was previously WP:ECP. The issue was a news report "German spy agency concluded COVID virus likely leaked from lab". That same issue is now at Origin of SARS-CoV-2 (example diff). Perhaps the latter article should be ECP protected? ToBeFree reduced protection to semi last December. Dancasun has 26 edits and so may not be aware of the significance of the "Introduction to contentious topics" section on their talk. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It always seems a little like overkill to bring an editor to AE who has only made a dozen or so edits. I mean this is the highest level of enforcement bureaucracy and I doubt they have any familiarity with administration enforcement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree but the reason for bringing an issue here is that if Dancasun were to add the material again, the established editors would be stuck because they know that engaging in even a small edit war would be evidence that they should be sanctioned. It is not satisfactory that an inexperienced editor can force material into an article on a contentious topic. I would have resolved the matter by applying ECP but it was recently downgraded to semi so I think it's best to get some agreement here first. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for the ping! I don't (and will never) object to increasing protection wherever I have tried decreasing it. As long as even one single edit happened since the protection decrease, I wouldn't even view it as an undoing of my action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RememberOrwell

No consensus to impose any penalties beyond the informal warning of RememberOrwell by Seraphimblade about personal attacks --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning RememberOrwell

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bon courage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: RememberOrwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBCOVID-19

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

User is repeatedly adding excerpts for a disinformation web site to the article lede (such sites are described in the article[49]).

08:25, 15 March 2025 first addition
8:31, 15 March 2025 Reversion of material

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

CTOP notice.[50]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[51]

Addendum

Note RememberOrwell self-reverted after being given an AE notice, rendering my particular complaint largely moot. Bon courage (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning RememberOrwell

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

Statement by RememberOrwell

I already posted this reply to my talk page before this section was created:
I don't find it. FYI, I moved the image down, I didn't notice 'till after that you had removed it. Also, you lied. The image I added didn't introduce a link at all. RememberOrwell (talk) 1:59 am, Today (UTC−7)
Also, I've already self-reverted edit 2, above .
Also, I didn't even intentionally edit this page initially. I clicked edit on the Covid-19 misinformation page and it results in an edit page for Ivermectin_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic - which I didn't notice 'till after I submitted my edit (marked "first addition", above).

To be clear, #1, "I moved the image down," means there was no intent on my part to revert the reporter's edit.

I wouldn't have mentioned the lying, if it wasn't the case that I've noted the reporter's talk page (and edit history are) full of evidence of them frequently stating outright falsehoods, some in the form of personal attacks, and fair constructive criticism for "wasting other people's time and energy for them, and gaming the system, which is obstructing the improvement and development of articles."

Also, why shouldn't I be adding images to an article on misinformation, such as Covid-19 misinformation in the first place? That's appropriate, no? I would argue my edit is intentionally mischaracterized as adding "links" "for a disinformation web site to the article lede". Isn't there a clear policy strongly encouraging adding appropriate images to an article almost entirely bereft of them? It's essential to a good or featured article, no? And did I not caption the image appropriately?

To be clear, I clicked an edit button at Covid-19 misinformation to add this to that page:

It didn't work right. So I edited the page to move the image down, so that this second attempt to add this to the to Covid-19 misinformation page would work. I wonder why it didn't work and how I'd get it to work - if there's support for putting it back in the article.

Statement from TarnishedPath

Please refer to Special:Diff/1280722344, a comment made during a discussion at WP:ANI. In his comment the subject made insinuations that there are WP:PAID in a discussion Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory without providing a skerrick of evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Aquillion

I feel their ANI and talk page comments are a more serious problem than their article edits. Just from the diff above:

I didn't buy the rationale or irredemability, but said nothing, not wanting to be beaten up, so to speak, as is the norm on this topic.
I see lots of such behavior from several editors on the topic indistinguishable from that which I would expect of a paid editor.
It seems to indicate such desperation it scares me... plus I mean I would not be surprised to see that only if someone was pleading because their life depended on being right, but added as commented out for some reason.

These show a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, WP:ASPERSIONs, and are generally not the sort of behavior that such a tense topic area needs right now. And their other comments are no better: (These generally fall under WP:ARBPS instead)

Here, You keep dodging questions and You are full of nonsense.
Here: Your irrational, unfounded beliefs don't matter.
Or on Havana syndrome: But it is odd that you are now saying stuff thats BLATANTLY FALSE.

Generally just WP:AGF failures, WP:ASPERSIONs, and incivility. --Aquillion (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning RememberOrwell

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

One wonders why this is at AE, and not Talk:Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. It looks to me like RememberOrwell added the disputed material, re-added it once, and then self-reverted, so the talk page seems the logical next step to me. That said, RememberOrwell, it is not acceptable to call people liars. You can certainly point out that you believe someone is mistaken, but calling them a liar is a personal attack. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless any uninvolved admin sees any cause for action here within the next day or so, I will close this with an informal reminder that talk page discussion and not AE threads should be the first resort for disputed material. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RememberOrwell, I was initially going to just informally caution you regarding the civility issues, but with the later material that's been presented, the incivility seems to be a pattern with you, even as far as the same manner of thing (That's what, the third <cough> falsehood Rusalkii has posted in this discussion?, in [52]), is similar to your habit above of accusing people of lying), and the others above are also concerning. If you are going to be unable to remain civil when you are frustrated, you should not be editing in contentious areas. Does that need to be the outcome here, or is that something you think you could improve upon? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least I think this needs a formal warning. I tbanned BabbleOnto after finding they already had an AE warning for this kind of thing, and then went about preparing an SPI report for the two editors, only to find one had already been made (result: technically unrelated). The behaviour goes back for months. -- asilvering (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the edit was self-reverted, and even the filer considers the complaint mostly moot, then it would seem to have mostly stopped being an AE issue in any case. That said, I would be remiss to say nothing about the incivility in some of these diffs, especially their remarks in the NORN thread to Rusalkii — which I saw a few days ago and struck me as unusually rude, even for Wikipedia, and basically warranted by nothing. Part of the problem here may be that, especially editing in a CT area, they may be seeing a lot of bad examples of how to behave. But even if the rules are unfairly enforced, they nonetheless exist, and at any rate Rusalkii has got absolutely nothing to do with the COVID stuff anyway; it's one thing to snap back at someone who has been needling you about politics stuff all day, but it's another thing to go off on a person who never even did anything besides mind their own business and edit properly. I would not push for a siteban or anything, but I'd really strongly recommend they try to not do stuff like this. jp×g 🗯️ 13:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smallangryplanet

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

Request concerning Smallangryplanet

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Johnadams11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. Edits the lead of the 10/7 Hamas Attack Article to delete language that had been in the Article for more than six months. His edit comment provides no justification for the removal and employs language that is highly suggestive of bias.

2. In an RfC concerned with how the Gaza bombing is compared to WWII bombings, he provides links to several sources and states the content in the article and the cited sources refers to the level of destruction of the WW2 bombings, not their casualties. However in two of these sources [53][54],the comparison is made specifically to emphasize the importance of the casualty count -- essentially the opposite of what was represented.

3. In a debate with another editor about “war crimes” being classified as an “attack type," he claims that articles on the My Lai Massacre, 2002 Mombasa Attacks, and Armenian Genocide, have have multiple items, some of them not, under the strictest of definitions, an "attack type". However, of the nine attack types across those articles, one one (“genocide”) was not inarguably an attack type.

4. Updates the total Gaza casualty count to 70K, using a Lancet estimate that is seldom or never presented in the absence of the number published by Gaza Health Ministry. The Lancet number is therefore inconsistent with the primary numbers in the Gaza War Article, The Gaza Casualty article, and the Gaza Casualties Template. Later, while engaged in a conversation about the inconsistency of these very numbers, he again edits the first Article, and leaves his misleading data in place.

5. Updates the casualty count in the Gaza Casualties Template, saying he is doing this sadly. reflective of emotional bias.

6. Removes a statement regarding the spread of anti-semitism in China, commenting that Better source needed than VOA which is US state media, a self-declared adversary of China. However the content he removed was supported by TWO citations, only one of which was VOA. Curiously, just three days prior he had assured another editor that he doesn't go around removing every reference to (VOA).

7. In an AE request, he alleges that another editor had sought to "redefine" children, when the clear basis of the referenced discussion was that the article contained NO definition. In that same AE request, he falsely represents that an Article which prior to 3/6 had not been edited in eleven days except for a single link addition, was actively being worked on.

8. In an AE Request, he frames as an indictment the idea that another editor is downplaying Palestinian suffering. This reflects an editorial standard that precludes any justification for a less forceful depiction of suffering — an approach that is clearly at odds with the principle of neutrality.

9. Manufactures a notion – “demand for condemnation” – which simply does not exist in his citation. The edit history shows he progressively iterated towards this version after rejecting more accurate edits.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): Diff on notification on User Talk Page.

He has also filed four AE requests this year.
-Johnadams11
-Closetside
-BePrepared1907
-שלומית ליר

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Tamzin I'd really like to engage with your read of my Request, but before I do, I'd like to know whether 1) You are interested in hearing what I've got to say, and 2) Whether we should wait until SAP responds. Thanks. Johnadams11 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My intention on point five was merely to raise the subject of the probable bias of an editor who lacks the ability to prevent his own sadness from permeating his work. I made no comment about sadness generally. Johnadams11 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notice on Talk page.

Discussion concerning Smallangryplanet

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

Statement by Smallangryplanet

Per Tamzin's request, I'll respond to points 4 and 9.

4: As Johnadams11 points out, I was discussing this issue in a conversation they (John) were involved in – on a different article – and consensus in that conversation was to use the 70,000 figure. My edit to the casualty count article remains in place. If Johnadams11 has an issue with using the Lancet study, why take it to AE and not the talk page for that article? Regarding disagreement between primary sources: there are none that contest the Lancet study's figures, which have been reported on in many RS (i.e. the BBC). There is no alternative figure except for the Gaza Health Ministry one, which is the one the Lancet study investigated and concluded was an underestimate. That's why there was consensus to use that figure. I will also point out that the second edit of mine he mentions is a JWB copyedit with no material change to the article's content, deliberately, as I often do 'wikignome' or recent changes patrol things during downtime at work.

9: This one is interesting because that diff shows me reverting my own potentially NPOV edit (wholly disconnected from the past...) with one far more in line with the article topic itself. While my change is no longer on the page, I believe what I was trying to do was summarise the paragraph beginning But comparisons between Hamas and ISIS abound in part because they can be politically useful... in the Time reference. It's true that that paragraph doesn't use the word "condemn" – if the text was still on the page, I think it would make sense to modify it to say "often in combination with outreach attempting to convince Western allies that Hamas is a threat to their own nations." or similar. I could/should also have added "subject matter expert Monica Marks, writes that..." to denote it as being sourced from an opinion piece. (I've added it to the current version of the paragraph.)

Please let me know if there are any additional questions, thank you for your time! Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

I just looked at a couple of the points Johnadams11 made:

1. "Edits the lead of the 10/7 Hamas Attack Article to delete language that had been in the Article for more than six months. His edit comment provides no justification for the removal and employs language that is highly suggestive of bias."

- Smallangryplanet (=Sap) rm the sentence "The attacks initiated the ongoing Israel–Hamas war" with the edit-line "The conflict between Israel and Hamas did not begin on 7 October 2023"
  - My comment: seriously, does anyone think that the Israel–Hamas conflict started on 7 October 2023? I don't think so.

5. "Updates the casualty count in the Gaza Casualties Template, saying he is doing this sadly. reflective of emotional bias."
- - My comment: Who isn't sad about updating causality figures in any conflict? What is called "emotional bias" I would call "normal human feelings",

Huldra (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by VR

Regarding #4. The Lancet has published (at least) two groundbreaking studies on Gaza war casualties:

Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential: estimating >186,000 indirect deaths in Gaza.
Traumatic injury mortality in the Gaza Strip from Oct 7, 2023, to June 30, 2024: a capture–recapture analysis: estimated >70,000 deaths in Gaza due to traumatic injuries as of Oct 2024.

The Counting the dead in Gaza study was somewhat controversial, although there seems to be consensus (here) that it was reliable enough to use. But SAP cites the Traumatic injury mortality in the Gaza Strip study, and I haven't seen any significant criticism of that particular study. I would consider the Lancet study a secondary source, as it synthesizes data from several WP:PRIMARY sources: the Gaza Health Ministry, social media etc. The study has already been cited 14 times by academic sources, and also by Guardian, AFP, Reuters, NYT etc. Therefore I think it was, at the time, reasonable to use this instead of GHM casualties. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin, @Valereee, can you clarify if you consider the Lancet publication to be a primary source? And what do you suggest SAP should have done here? Used another RS that quotes this study, like this? Or something different? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Smallangryplanet

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

Prior to filing this request, Johnadams essentially admitted that it is retaliation against SAP for filing the above request against him. Johnadams' evidence includes, among other things:
- The fact that SAP has filed four AE requests. JA doesn't argue that any were abuse of process; the only one yet closed resulted in a warning.
- SAP's participation in PIA5, even though the evidence JA is complaining about was cited in ArbCom's final decision
- Most shockingly, an objection to SAP saying it is sad that 50,000 people have died in Gaza
That last bit is the one that really gets me. I don't know what can better signal a battleground mentality than having a problem with someone describing themself as "sad[ ]" that 50,000 people—undisputedly mostly civilians, and for what it's worth including almost 2,000 Israelis—have died. If someone is really in so deep to the echo chamber on one side of a conflict that they see it as partisan to not want civilians on the other side to die, and they're bringing that viewpoint into conflicts on-wiki, they need to be removed from that topic area on Wikipedia. And before someone goes there, yes, I would absolutely be as outraged about someone who objects to calling October 7 sad.
This isn't to say SAP has done nothing wrong. I will reserve judgment on that aspect for now. But my immediate reaction to this is that JA needs to be TBANned at a minimum. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with Tamzin. Of course it is sad when people die during a conflict anywhere, and I really don't trust the judgment of anyone who would criticize someone for saying so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now taking the time to look closer at the case against SAP:
1. Pure content question. As to the edit summary, I don't see how that shows bias; it's objectively true.
2. The cited sources in the article (oldid) do not include the two that JA is referencing; SAP mentioned those in their talkpage comment to show that prominent figures have made the comparison. You can agree or disagree with their logic, but it's not bad-faith.
3. Pure content question
4. Editors in this topic area need to be extremely cautious about how they present primary sources. Asserting that one primary source' findings are objective fact, even when other primary sources disagree, borders on misrepresentation. I find this diff troubling for that reason.
5. The "sadly" diff, covered above.
6. If I'm reading this correctly, the only source removed other than VoA was Newsweek, which is of questionable reliability in this context. Even if it was a valid source, there's no reason to assume bad faith about its removal.
7. Whether these are valid arguments can be decided in that AE thread, which is still open. Neither strikes me as clearly bad-faith, though.
8. Cited as evidence by ArbCom, as noted above. While ArbCom didn't cite the exact words at issue, at a minimum it would be double jeopardy for AE to sanction someone for a comment made in arbspace that ArbCom did not take issue with.
9. Also somewhat troubling. I would like to hear from SAP where in [55] they get the condemnation line, and why they think an opinion piece was appropriate to cite in this circumstance.
Reading through this also makes me realize how often in their report JA is referring to themself in the third person without being clear about that. They are the initiator of the discussions in 2 and 4 and the "another editor" in 7.
Anyways, in summation, that's #s 4 and 9 that read as credible complaints, which I'd like SAP to respond to. The rest of my analysis only strengthens my already-very-strong inclination toward a TBAN or indef for JA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the retaliatory nature of this filing and the concerns in the request about JA, I'm on board for a topic ban. Not quite so ready for an indef, but I haven't had time to look at JAs editing outside this topic area. The retaliatory filing definitely makes it clear that they are in full battleground editing mode for this topic area at least. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: My intention on point five was merely to raise the subject of the probable bias of an editor who lacks the ability to prevent his own sadness from permeating his work seems like completely a nonissue for any normal person. Let's just let that one go, JA11. Valereee (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I closed JA's thread a few days ago with a TBAN. Back to the matter at hand, I do have some concerns about 4 and 9, as I said, but there's no evidence that this is a pervasive issue or one persisting past attempts at correction. So I suggest we close with an informal warning to be more careful when using primary and opinion-based sources. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
VR, no, Lancet isn't a primary source, but the source they're using is, and in a CTOPs that needs to be handled with care if other sources are disagreeing.

Genabab

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

Request concerning Genabab

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Chess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Genabab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA5#Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

2025-03-17 Argues that "massacre" should be included in an article title because of the number of children killed. This disregards WP:NCENPOV, which says non-neutral descriptors in article titles should be chosen based on reliable sources.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not applicable for this specific editor. However, three other editors were sanctioned by ArbCom for disruptive editing cited to FOARP's evidence about dubious reasoning on the term "massacre" in requested moves.[56][57][58]

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2024-04-08

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The comment thread should be hatted (I can't myself, because I'm WP:INVOLVED) and a warning given not to use independent reasoning/original research to determine whether an event is a massacre, because it clearly contradicts article titling policy and sparks WP:NOTFORUM violation over editors' subjective perceptions on whether the event was a mass murder targeting civilians or a legitimate military operation.

Specifically, the policy is WP:NCENPOV which says that articles should, in order of preference, be titled with a WP:COMMONNAME, a "generally accepted descriptor, even if controversial", and finally a neutral descriptive word. The word "massacre" is given as a specific example of a word of "questionable neutrality". Arguments at requested moves to include the word "massacre" should, by any reasonable interpretation of policy, use reliable sources to demonstrate that the word "massacre" is a common name or a generally accepted descriptor.

This is an issue for Arbitration Enforcement because WP:ARBPIA5 resulted in multiple bans as a result of evidence presented by FOARP with regards to editors selectively interpreting article titling policy related to the term "massacre".[59] The topic area would benefit if AE admins intervened early to remind editors that they should try to follow content guidelines.

@Seraphimblade: I don't really want a sanction. I'd rather see mild disruption in the area stop before it rises to the level of sanctionable behaviour. If that's an inappropriate use of AE then go ahead and close without action. But my impression of the recent WP:ARBPIA5 case is that things like the balanced editing restriction indicate that ArbCom is interested in trying to address issues before they become t-bannable with less severe/punitive remedies. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[60]

Discussion concerning Genabab

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

Statement by Genabab

I don't think there's a lot to seriously respond to here. All I'll say is anyone who checks that talk page will see that I do also highlight how RS describe the events there as a massacre, alongside previous RFC's consensus on the issue, which has been ignored by the complainant.

@Valereee On your post on the results section.. Did you check the talk page? I follow it up with citations of RS's and previous RFC decisions on the matter... I feel like I'm the only person aware of that here...

@Valereee, I'm not sure I understand what the functional difference between "Oppose, I think enough highest-quality RS are calling this a massacre,[1][2][3]" and " this opinion of yours is backed up by X, Y, Z" is supposed to be. Ultimately, RS's are being cited. Isn't that the point? For example, in the message beginning "Partisan doesn't mean not Reliable." I go on to list a few sources that call it a massacre (UN, Guardian, etc..) and in the messages after that I repeat the fact that RS' say that the majority who died were civillians. What's the difference between that and what you don't take issue with?

Statement by The Kip

It may be worth noting that Genabab does have a semi-recent logged warning for conduct in the ARBPIA/A-I area; that said, as stated below I’m not sure if this singular diff can truly be considered sanctionable. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by VR

Whether a title should include "massacre" is a frequent debate in this area. I think Genabab's comment is reasonable (but one I disagree with). There are two issues here:

is "massacre" always a POV title, which can only be used if its also a WP:COMMONNAME? Some think so (I do too), but if this is not the case, then Genabab's comment can be reasonable.
how the heck do you determine what's a COMMONNAME? It's not simple, see this discussion between myself and the OP.

Whether or not "massacre" is always a POV title seems to be disputed. For example, in this RM, the first closer (who later vacated) said:

Ayenaee argued very forcefully and convincingly that it was a massacre (and I agree: it was a massacre, and I thank Ayenaee for their contribution to this discussion). For this reason, it was hard to give a lot of weight to the argument that "massacre" is a POV name, since it is clearly accurate given the facts. Showing that it was a POV name would require casting doubt on it having been a massacre from non-fringe viewpoints, but this was not done and likely could not be done.

The second closer, an admin, said:

I might have entertained the argument that, by nature of being a descriptive title, NDESC considers the content in the article in whole, instead of the specific turns of phrase journalists choose. The citation of The Guardian [being used to support the descriptor "attack" instead of "massacre"] was particularly sloppy, given that the article also refers to it as a part of a pattern of "assuault"s and takes the tone of horror in covering the entire tragedy.

I tried a community discussion on this very issue, but there was no conclusion. No one should be sanctioned for an opinion the community itself is so confused about.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 11:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Genabab

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

This is an opinion provided at a move request soliciting such opinions. While a pattern of non-neutral editing can indeed be cause for concern and/or sanction, that requires establishing such as a pattern. I do not see any grounds for sanction here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I do see this as an unhelpful argument: "I mean 64 children died. Imagine if 64 children died in any other context, it would be called a massacre with just that alone." I don't see that as grounds for sanction, but Genabab, that's not a policy-based argument, and at PIA it's especially unhelpful. Valereee (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Genabab, I hadn't looked at the talk page, but I now have, and what I see is you making a non-policy argument in an RM, and when someone objected, having a long argument that this opinion of yours is backed up by X, Y, Z. If your initial argument had been "Oppose, I think enough highest-quality RS are calling this a massacre,[1][2][3]", with 1, 2, 3 being links to those highest quality sources using the term massacre, and then stopped arguing, you'd have been on safe ground. This is not just a CTOPs, it's a contender for Current Most Contentious Article™. Valereee (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Seraphimblade and Valereee. Suggest closing with an informal warning per Val. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mgfdhsrhe

Blocked by Girth Summit as a sock. Valereee (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Mgfdhsrhe

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mgfdhsrhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA General Sanctions (30/500)

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

This editor achieved 30/500 largely by a sequence of trivial edits.

4 October 2024 This is 13 separate edits in the space of 2 minutes, adding one item to a list in each edit.

5 October 2024 This is 24 edits which in total accomplished almost nothing. Most of them are addition or removal of one character without an editorial purpose: delete a character, delete a character, delete a character, and so on.

5 October 2024 This is 85 edits removing about 15 consecutive words one character at a time.

5 October 2024 This is 21 edits removing one character at a time.

5 October 2024 This is 47 edits removing part of a sentence one character at a time.

Within a few edits after this, the editor reached 500 (or close to it) and made their first ARBPIA edit.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

CTOP notice on talk page. Note that the notice was delivered after the above sequence of trivial edits. However, I suggest that the very fact of making all those trivial edits just when they were needed to reach 500 is sufficient evidence that they were aware of the 30/500 restriction.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Mgfdhsrhe

Statement by Mgfdhsrhe

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mgfdhsrhe

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

FMSky

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

Request concerning FMSky

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BMWF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: FMSky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/GG, WP:CT/YA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

21 March 2025 FMSky changes "Marketing and release" to "Delays and controversies"
03:35, 21 March 2025 FMSky reinstates change.
05:51, 21 March 2025 FMSky deletes the header entirely after being reverted by Truthnope (disruptive editing)
06:06, 21 March 2025 FMSky adds whose portrayal drew controversy concerning Yasuke
06:43, 21 March 2025 FMSky reverts.
22:28, 21 March 2025 FMSky reverts.
22:49, 21 March 2025 FMSky reverts.
22:28, 21 March 2025 FMSky, after failing to obtain consensus, insults 4 other editors without any provocation Seems like people's aim here is to pointlessly bury facts and run from reality
22:49, 21 March 2025 FMSky leaves a discriminatory comment and then says he is done editing After having looked at the participating user's wiki pages I have now concluded this wont lead anywhere so Im out for now. Notably, the participants at the time included someone with LGBTQ support on their user page, and two who identify as "she/her".
03:29, 22 March 2025 FMSky returns and vandalizes the lead with an unexplained removal.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

00:30, 30 November 2021 Edit warring block
10:14, 3 October 2023 One year topic ban from GENSEX by community consensus for behavior on What is a Woman? (discussion).
06:43, 30 September 2023 Indefinite topic ban from two pages in American Politics

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

[61][62][63][64][65][66]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Behavior since his edit warring block and two topic bans appears to have gotten worse over time.

Removal of negative information on various political figures[67]
Admin reprimand to be civil in contentious topics[68][69]
Other admin reprimands[70][71][72]
Violations of his GENSEX topic ban[73][74]
3RR violation on Sweet Baby (GENSEX)[75][76]
Violation of contentious topic enforced BRD restriction at Donald Trump[77]
Bizarrely hostile oNlY tO mAkE cOmMenTs a mOnTh lAtEr, write this garbage on your twitter feed comment at user[78]
Removing information related to sexual assaults[79][80][81]

Edit war warnings in the last year only: [82] [83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[92]

Discussion concerning FMSky

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

Statement by FMSky

What is this exactly? My topic ban in the past (that wasn't GENSEX like you claimed) expired in October 2024. And the diffs you posted are mostly years old. Completely ridiculous. The comments towards the user pages was meant to say that it's hard to have a neutral discussion when users have biases (though I have since retracted that statement and acknowledged that I should not have casted aspersions 1.) -- FMSky (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(link) I find it incredible that this report is coming from a user that has no other talk page entries other than edit-warring warnings and dispute resolution notices. This page isn't your personal battleground. Work on improving articles instead like I try with every edit I make.---FMSky (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: why a topic ban for Yasuke, i have never edited that article once in my life and don't plan on either. Don't even know who this guy is, he was just part of the controversy section in the assassin's creed article I edited

Edit2. Bro what is this I just want to improve articles 😭

Yeah I moved the controversy about him to a separate section. I only know he was a black samurai and that that's the reason for the mayor controversy in the game FMSky (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you all of a sudden FMSky (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC) as explained I only heard about him I the context of assassin's creed moving to correct section Valereee (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit3: I acknowledge that I made a mistake and it was clearly wrong to comment on and assume the potential motives of others (~~it was especially stupid since, in hindsight, most seemed to agree with them and I was in the minority~~) and I won't do it ever again. I just got too emotional too quickly (maybe because I've had some run-ins with the user BMWF in the past, idk, but to be fair I also quickly retracted my initial comment). I will also not edit any articles related to Yasuko and Assassin's Creed Shadows for the next 6 months and afterwards will abide by a 1RR. --FMSky (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit: I'm extremely overwhelmed rn and not feeling too well, I dont even know what to say. I never called anyone the "F" word, what the hell? I cant do anything right now other than see how this plays out. Note that Summerfell1978 is a user that has had 3 blocks since registering this January, including a month long one. Im just gonna say every edit I ever made on this website was meant to improve articles --FMSky (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update on user BMWF (who has not once commented here since making this thread): They are now edit warring with admins (1, 2) on the page Assassin's Creed to try to get controversial content removed. I also want to add that this thread is the weirdest internet experience I've had in my entire life. --FMSky (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RelmC (which weirdly sound like "real mouse" when spoken): "retaliatory" was also a word that the user REAL_MOUSE_IRL used (1, 2), are you the same user by any chance? --FMSky (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update on NutmegCoffeeTea: They have now admitted on editing while logged out 1, so I'm hoping their comments here in this thread can be hatted and the user blocked. Thanks --FMSky (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 12.75.41.118

I find it hard to maintain good faith in FMs answers when they say they doesn't know who Yasuke is [[93]], but recently made edits to mainspace about Yasuke [[94]] 12.75.41.118 (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same person I've always been? What sort of question is this? Are you really new to the concept of IP users after 4 years? You should move your comments to your own section 12.75.41.118 (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For assistance, here is FM yelling with caps [95]. Its a shame FM is suddenly feeling overwhelmed, at least he is still feeling OK enough to edit the bio of the singer of a white power band (author of such songs as Ha Ha Holocaust and Fetch the Rope). [96] 12.75.41.51 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, FM has decided to be disingenuous. I warned him for his attempts to canvas someone to the conversation [97], but he immediately called me a sock, ran to NMTs talk page, and continued personal attacks against me. I asked him to strike his aspersions, but he came here to say NMT admitted to socking? C'mon. Stop digging. The diffs are all visible to everyone. 12.75.41.51 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daisy Blue

I've had FMSky's talk page on my watchlist from having notified the user of my AN request regarding their edits (perhaps notably in relation to the opening statement here, on the AN page, one user described FMSky's comment aimed at me as casting aspersions). Though FMSky is usually very quick to remove things from their talk page, which makes it harder to locate the prior edit conflicts or warnings, there indeed seems to be a pattern of making contested edits to reduce or remove information related to sexual assault: 1, 2, 3. I think there is other activity on the part of FMSky that is not neutral in nature, but those topics related to politics and culture wars in the context of gaming are possibly broader than the scope of two contentions topics or the indefinite topic ban. Daisy Blue (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborating on the diffs in response to Tamzin. The edit summary of 1 was WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, however, the removed content also included information supported by multiple Variety sources. For 2, which consists of multiple edits, FMSky provided misleading edit summaries like "ce" and "rm emotional note" that did more than what the summary states. The latter removed not only the hidden "emotional" comment but also information on a petition related to the rape conviction. 3 is arguably the least problematic of the diffs and was included here in the context of the others. The template added by FMSky asks for the section to be trimmed, but FMSky offers no reason for the template placement. In each case, FMSky's edits were reverted by opposing users, who then took to FMSky's page. Each affected article still contains information on the sexual abuse allegations and the rape conviction. Daisy Blue (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

I have come across this user removing negative medical content from articles about (what might be called) "heterodox" right-wing figures on social media, in a way which might savour of whitewashing. Given the conjunctions of multiple WP:CTOPS it is especially concerning when this is done using less-than-accurate edit summaries like "ce" for substantive changes, e.g.[98] Bon courage (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

I find this complaint hard to follow. I do see some issues where editors should be going to talk pages to discuss issues. I'm not sure I understand the editor bias comments. I generally think it's best to avoid making any comments about editor motives but 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. I think we would all presume different biases when it comes to say firearms if someone has an NRA For Ever box vs a "This user feels guns are never the answer". I do find it concerning that two of the editors here haven't reached EC status. The editor filing the complaint has just over 200 edits, the IP editor shows 4. While an IP editors in article space might make good points but it also would allow an individual to evade scrutiny since it's harder to associate their other actions with their comments here. Perhaps it's due to the way I took a long time to learn the ropes, when an editor who has just over 200 edits files an ARE I have to wonder how did they learn this? Did they have a previous account? I will note I have no other evidence and I'm not going to dig for it but this is just a general concern I have.

My suggestion to FMSky, a while back an admin suggested (while holding a stick) that I adopt the same self imposed 1RR that they used. They argued, and I found this to be true, that slowing down and going to the talk page often results in the same end point while avoiding giving anyone any evidence to suggest you are acting imprudently. I also suggest strictly avoiding suggesting motives for the edits of others. There are many editors whom I suspect are extremely biased and are here to RGW or POVPUSH. However, I also know what it's like to be accused of such things. It doesn't make reaching any consensus easier. It's easy to look at user pages and get an impression that may or may not be true to their editing. However, it's best to just avoid it. Note that commenting on how the edits might look to a third party reader is OK. Saying "You are whitewashing..." isn't OK but saying that edit will read like the article is whitewashing is OK.

I don't understand how this is a GENSEX related issue as it has nothing to do with gender or sexuality. I believe GENSEX was born from gamergate but I don't see how all complaints about editors in game related areas would be GENSEX.

For what it's worth I don't see anything bright line actionable but I would suggest FMSky slow down and start a RfC if you feel your version is correct. I have been involved in cases where I felt my edits were correct but a local consensus of perhaps 3 other editors disagreed. After the RfC the consensus for what I had suggested was clear. Other times the consensus was clearly against me... because everyone else was wrong :D Springee (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summerfell1978, your recent BLP violations were rightly reverted and may warrant a BLP tban. You were blocked for edit warring and caring aspersions. Recently you pushed to have Musk called a Neo Nazi in wiki voice as well as continuing to cast aspersions against wiki editors [99]. I'm not sure I would trust that you understand the difference between following an editor around to bother them vs to fix the mistakes they make. Springee (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Summerfell1978

Ever since I began to use Wikipedia (few months), I feel threatened by FMSky. He has followed me on various pages repeatedly, and reverted edits. A few days ago he lashed out and used the F word, which I found odd for someone who has 200,000 edits and experience with all Wiki laws. I find his editing to also be incredibly biased towards far-right ideologies. It makes me feel unwelcome to Wikipedia, and that I have no influence in making the encyclopedia a better read, which is why I try to stick to medical and scientific articles because those pages aren't the focus for politically biased editors or bullies who are trying to make all articles written in a way that they want, rather than what should be objectively. I apologize if this goes against Wiki rules but I am adding my input as the voice of a novice and brand new editor. -Summerfell1978, 20:08, March 23, 2025

FMSky threatened me a few days ago by using a clap emoji between every word, using all caps, and saying the F word. I don't believe it's his first time to use eye-catching formatting. Just bringing it to your attention. I will not bow down to bullies and stay quiet in fear of retaliation. Summerfell1978 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC) moving to correct section. Summerfell1978, please comment only in your own section. Valereee (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2:

diff1

Supporting my earlier claim that he has been following and harassing me on several pages, making me feel threatened that I can't participate on Wikipedia. He literally just did it again 2 seconds ago.

diff2

diff3

Here they are with brand new patronizing comments again making me feel unwelcome. Also insulted me by making me feel inadequate or useless. I've spent serious time contributing to medical articles and he calls me a troll? Feels like I'm walking on eggshells. And that I literally can't post or talk without bothering him or involving him, when he has been following me around on Wikipedia all month like some strange obsession to shush me. I've been here for a month, give me a break. I'm learning the ropes. You have 250,000 edits. Summerfell1978 (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: FMSky's reply @FMSky you said you never used the F word but you did to me just a day or two ago. Second of all, being overwhelmed and not feeling well is a cop-out. Every criminal who faces a judge says this. It's not an excuse. Third, hard to agree that "every edit made on this website was meant to improve articles", even a new user like me who just hopped on Wikipedia to look at the past posts found that you tried to mock "anti-transgender" by making fun of transgender rights saying "anti-transglutaminase". --> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1178387997#Proposal:_1-year_transgender_topic_ban

Edit3: Responding to Tamzin because xe requested that I provide a diff to xem regarding the incident mentioned. I'm new to wikipedia, it took me some time to even find it. I apologize in advance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Curtis_Yarvin#c-FMSky-20250320233800-Summerfell1978-20250320205100

Edit4: FMSky is contacting Wikipedia editors to leave positive comments about him and to "put in a good word" because this is discussion is a plot to cancel him. The reason for me bringing this to the attention of the public is to act as a paper trail in case there is an uptick in odd or inauthentic responses in a short span of time. [[100]]

Edit5: FMSky has began to accuse a user of being a an owner of another account because both those accounts have used the English word "retaliatory" before. He has also taken action against the user, which prompted said user to call his action's "retaliatory" for beginning an arbitration investigation. FMSky needs to promptly be dealt with, as it seems that he is taking this situation as some sort of joke. In evidence in diff listed above, he believes this is an attempt to cancel him, and mentioned that this arbitration is the weirdest experience in his entire life. [[101]]

Edit6: FMSky has a clear anti-trans bias, and since he has been reprimanded before regarding gender, he should know better, especially considering his 250,000 edit experience. I found this exchange between FMSky and other users to be inexcusable. There is an odd obsession with not letting trans people identify as a specific gender, or targeting transgender pages to edit their page and decide how their description should be based on FMSky's interpretation of what is and what isn't allowed to be documented. [[102]]

Statement by Horse Eye's Back

I have come across similar issues with FMSky but did not realize that they were so widespread. See for example Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 11#This page has a bunch of lies and this edit[103] in that context. Another one disputing RS right/far right characterizations[104]. This edit is also in that same vein[105], just mean spirited and derogatory of the project overall. As for "Removal of negative information on various political figures" well yeah theres plenty of that [106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113]. Not in any way meant to be exhaustive, this is literally just off the top of my head. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by REAL_MOUSE_IRL

This SPI case is plainly retaliatory. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the request to stop the aspersions has been honoured in this thread, the temperature continues to be raised at SPI (now at 5 participants from here and 4 random IPs) and Kowal's ANI thread. Even the ANI notice was needlessly confrontational IMO. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kowal2701

We should be wary of the weaponisation of these avenues to get rid of opposing POVs. Their previous topic ban from GENSEX seems harsh (I despair a bit when topic bans are imposed by "community consensus" when it's often just a group of people with similar POVs, but not saying that's what happened there). I don't think it's absurd to look at someone's edit history, see they have pronouns in their bios, and assume they have liberal POVs, while far from ideal behaviour, that shouldn't warrant a TBAN from an area unrelated to the articles this is about. Think we'd do better to have constructive dialogue with FMSky to address said issues Kowal2701 (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my first interaction with FMSky was when a POV pusher he was dealing with came to my talk page asking for my help and I enabled them, they were later banned User talk:Kowal2701/Archive 1#Hello, just in case anyone takes my comment in the context a war of POVs Kowal2701 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RelmC feel free to elaborate Kowal2701 (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that was regarding liberal POVs? I couldn’t think of a term to describe the gender identity POV, think it’s quite clear what I meant. One of my first edits on this site was adding "far-right" to Melanie Philips lol Kowal2701 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RelmC

I provided FMsky the substantive CTOP notice here: [114]

Admin Valereee mentioned that FMsky had not been made aware until after the edit warring. Amongst the diffs not provided are many posts on the mainspace article after being notified on their talk page of the CTOP, continuing to edit war for many hours after: [115] [116][117][118]. I originally saw the notification of a new section and was curious if it was in relation to the RFC conducted on the page a few months ago. I saw some claims from FMsky which did not match my understanding, and I in good faith asked them if they could cite their source. They provided two sources which did not say their claim [119] (7 mins past midnight my time) and instead of responding to myself and masem pointing this out, they started casting aspersions [120] (17 mins past midnight) and then made the comment about our user pages [121] (29 mins past midnight). I asked them to clarify why they believed this since a quick look at the relevant user pages showed nothing of note at all - except mine which just says I'm queer - and they refused to answer the question repeatedly, just casting more aspersions of bad faith, and collapsed the reply chain rather than answer what about our user pages they were referring to [122][123] [124] [125]. Since this arbcom started the User has opened a retaliatory SPI against Nutmeg by using Springee's comment as evidence, and then another user accused me of being Nutmeg's sockmaster, which FMsky replied to by saying: "based on the whole coffee and assassin's creed thing (which is quite a weird coincidence) it looks likely indeed" [126] and "I'm also now quite sure that user REAL_MOUSE_IRL is another account of Relm." [127]. I was content to just let this case play out without saying anything but this is ridiculous levels of retaliation when I was not even involved in this aside from FMsky attacking me on the basis of my user page for a reason that have still yet to identify. --Relm (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think it's absurd to look at someone's edit history, see they have pronouns in their bios, and assume they have liberal POVs, while far from ideal behaviour, that shouldn't warrant a TBAN from an area unrelated to the articles this is about." - Kowal271[128]

I believe this says enough about what's going on here. Relm (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked FMsky's recent edits and is it allowed when an arbcom case is opened to go requesting people come to back you up with good comments? [129] Relm (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NutmegCoffeeTea

Some observations:

FMSky is attempting to game arbitration enforcement in response to this report.[130] He is also laughing at and making fun of this board and the administrators here with the crying emojis and the "pretend its a joke" thing (see his prior history of facetious trolling)
Kowal2701 is a not a neutral editor. He has a history of eurocentric white supremacist editing on African history related articles.[131] That he is defending behavior by FMSky (someone who frequently edits white power music bands) that involves proactive discrimination against women and LGBT editors on a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with those things (a samurai video game)... the admins can make of that what they will. It is not the first time that my views have been dismissed based on who I am. I have to admit I'm sad to see that this is becoming a place where certain people can't even participate in discussions without being harassed based on their identity. FMSky's disruption related to verifiable sexual assaults and in other topics is also concerning. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nfitz

I feel the comment by User:12.75.41.118 about Yasuke may be overstated. I don't think moving a paragraph that contains a mention of Yasuke requires any knowledge of the subject. Given what else is documented, the whole Yasuke issue may be a diversion and a red herring. I'd suggest focussing on the rest of it. Nfitz (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning FMSky

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

Diff #9 is pretty bad, and FMSky is still justifying it by saying that the users "have biases". In a literal sense this is true, since no one is without bias, but in this context it is presumably intended to mean an unreasonable or close-minded bias. Let's look at the user pages involved:
- Truthnope's simply explains his username.
- NutmegCoffeeTea's says she is a PhD student with she/her pronouns.
- RelmC's says she takes she/her pronouns; is LGBTQ+; is Goth; supports trans right; drinks coffee; designs clothes; is an expert in history; is interested in East Asian culture and Chinese culture in particular; participates in the LGBTQ+ studies, Women in Red, China, Chinese history, and Singapore wikiprojects; and has varying levels of proficiency in English, Chinese, Japanese, and ancient Greek.
- Masem's says that he has a blog and an Xfire account; uses or used Google, Gmail, iTunes, Kopete, GIMP, Firefox, Windows, macOS, Debian GNU/Linux, the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection, and XBOX Live; is a professional gamer, particularly of Japanese and retro games, without console preference; likes video game music; likes (or is implied to like) Katamari Damacy, Portal, MST3K, Doctor Who, Adult Swim, The Amazing Race, Survivor, and anime; participates in wikiprojects Video games and Television and the CVU; has a number of GAs/FAs/FLs, most/all in the aforementioned topic areas; and is a Wikipedia administrator.
I do not think it is a failure of AGF to assume that, rather than referencing Truthnope's pro-username-explanation bias or Masem's pro–Amazing Race bias, FMSky was inferring a bias based on NutmegCoffeeTea stating her pronouns and RelmC being LGBTQ+, supporting trans rights, and also stating her pronouns. The penultimate of those is, in fact, a bias. The rest, however, are not biases, and regardless the talkpage discussion had nothing to do with trans rights.
I can only take from this, then, that FMSky was trying to disqualify the perspectives of two other editors on the basis of their identity, and in one case also on the basis of unrelated political views, and that despite striking that he maintains convinced that these userboxen are evidence they are non-neutral on the topic of um... how a 16th-century African-born samurai is depicted in a video games. One thing I always try to look out for in CTOP cases is when someone is clearly locked in on a partisan battleground mentality, and this is a pretty glaring instance of it, alongside the edit-warring and previous sanctions. Not to mention it being a straightforward personal attack. I think the minimum appropriate sanction here is indefinite TBANs from GENSEX and YASUKE. A 3-month 1RR on Assassin's Creed Shadows also seems like a good idea.
Disclaimer: I consider myself recused from parts of GENSEX that I have significantly edited in, or users I have had disputes with. To the best of my recollection, I have never been in an editorial dispute with FMSky, nor does this matter touch on anything related to content I have edited. Please correct me if I am wrong. Either way, I do not intend to be the one to close this.
-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting Special:Diff/1281876241—since overwritten, but continuing to accuse the users of bias without explanation or evidence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky: Don't even know who this guy [Yasuke] is ← Huh? You made a section within the article about the fictional version of him, calling his portrayal "the main talking point about the game", and then started a section on talk about that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky: For the second time, please stop editing your comments after people have replied to them. I've reverted you. If you want to say more things, make a new comment. That's fine so long as you stay under the word limit. And, per WP:YELLING, please stop using eye-catching formatting like <big>...</big> and {{red}}. Your words should be able to stand on their own without needing a larger font size or brighter color than others'. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear what other admins have to say, but I'll just add briefly that I hold a very high bar for faulting edits that removed potential BLP violations. I'm not presupposing either way, but I'd need to see more than just some diffs of removals; I'd need to see an argument for why these diffs are not just invalid BLP enforcement, but not even something that could reasonably be mistaken for valid BLP enforcement. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FMSky received a CTOPs alert on Yasuke after this happened, but definitely this is edit warring (unless I'm missing where FMSky is claiming a 3RR exemption for BLP?) FMSky, please respond in your own section, including when responding directly to other people. This together with the 500 word limit is intended to prevent trivial quibbling such as "Who are you all of a sudden" and to keep parties on point. Valereee (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, my comment about BLP violations is about the sexual assault–related removals. Good point on Yasuke though. I'd be fine with leaving that as a logged warning (maybe a final warning for culture-wars-related disruption in general?). Something needs to be done about the continuous GENSEX disruption, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, agreed on being very tolerant of overcorrecting for BLP vios, although FMSky, if that's what you're doing, you need to make that clear in your edit summaries in order to claim an exemption. Logged warning for Yasuke fine by me since they weren't made aware.

GENSEX in general...FMSky, I'm concerned that you seem to have a point of view that you aren't able to neutrally edit past, and frankly an editor with your experience is expected to not get too emotional too quickly in CTOPs. If you can't control it, don't edit in CTOPs. Period. Serious as a heart attack, here. Why should I not recommend a tban from GENSEX? Valereee (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: To your question, GENSEX comes into play because FMSky is imputing bias based on users' genders and stances on gender issues. Your gun control comparison doesn't really work because the userboxen have no relevance to the content dispute; it's pure innuendo. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Summerfell1978: You need to include diffs of misconduct you allege here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Summerfell1978: First off, I'm just going to ask you and @FMSky to leave each other alone (outside of this page) while this case is pending. That's not a formal IBAN, but it could become one of it needs to be. Secondly, Summerfell, please immediately provide diffs of the misconduct you are alleging from a few days ago, or strike the allegations. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yeah, that's not a great diff. I don't care about the "fucking" part, but the all-caps hand-clapping schtick is obnoxious. That said, Summerfell, it's in response to you attempting to insert BLP violations based on OR, so I'm inclined to call that aspect of things a wash. Y'all are both very close to serious sanctions, and need to just leave each other alone and stop editing about politics and culture-war stuff. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FMSky, the clapping is over the top. I understand the frustration with new editors leaping right into CTOPs, but walk away from the keyboard.

Summerfell1978, I am going to give you the advice I give all new editors leap right into WP:CTOPs before they have even a basic enough grasp on Wikipedia policy/guidelines to realize there's a lot they don't know: Contentious topics are a really, really bad place to learn to edit. Other editors at CTOPs typically don't have the energy or patience to help you learn. You should consider editing in other places while you learn, because frankly this in response to this, along with this literally yesterday, are making me wonder if you're cut out to work in a collaborative environment at all, much less at CTOPs. Valereee (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, FMSky, I'm sorry that you are finding the AE process overwhelming and stressful. But please do not resort to casting aspersions on participants here or canvassing editors like you did here. Just explain your edits when editors have questions about them and be patient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General warning. I am going to block the next person who casts aspersions in this thread. That includes any more comments by FMSky accusing people of socking without evidence. (No, IP 12.75 replying to your accusations against NCT is not NCT "admitting" it.) That includes any more comments by User:NutmegCoffeeTea and IP 12.75 implying without evidence that FMSky editing about white supremacists makes him a white supremacist. Everyone needs to chill out, and if you can't edit this noticeboard without violating WP:NPA, please do not edit it at all. (Also, Rsjaffe, I think your protection of User talk:FMSky may give the mistaken impression of endorsing FMSky's unsubstantiated sockpuppetry accusations against 12.75. While they shouldn't have been continuing to comment there after being asked not to, I'm not sure protection is the appropriate response.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was basing the protection partly on the prior history of protection on that page, showing a history of issues. I was unaware of the context here, and I am correcting my error by removing protection. Thank you for pinging me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. To be clear, IP 12.75, this is not an invitation to go post on that page. If any of y'all continue posting on one another's talkpages after being asked not to, that may be the basis for a block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re Summerfell1978: This in response to this, mentioned by Valereee above, is amazing. I have blocked S for two weeks, and IMO the next attack or other nonsense from them should be immediately followed by an indef. Bishonen | tålk 10:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Akshaypatill

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

Request concerning Akshaypatill

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Akshaypatill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

26 February - Reverted a long-standing lead. This happened when there was no consensus to accept his edits per discussion last year.
26 February - Removed sourced content by misrepresenting the sources
26 February - Removed sourced content even after knowing the lead has been discussed a big time
26 February - Edit warring. Believes that the information can be discarded if the cited sources are "couple decades old".
26 February - "these are blatant lies", see WP:NPA.
27 February - Edit warring to retain his version without consensus.
27 February - Making false claims such as "version you restored includes irrelevant points like 'the revival by Phule', that are hardly mentioned in the body of the article", when the version does include enough details about how Phule revived the legacy of Shivaji.
27 February - Repeating himself and not understanding that he is using unreliable source. See WP:IDHT.
27 February - "no excuse why you lied over there", see WP:NPA.
27 February - Falsely claiming that the lead violates "MOS:INTRO", and is eager to "correct it according to WP:WEIGHT", instead of gaining consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [132]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

While there are a number of behavioral, and competence issues with Akshaypatill, what I find bothersome is, that Akshaypatill came back after not editing for 23 days to wage edit war on multiple articles.[133]

He never edited the article on Sambhaji before.[134] The edits which he disputed here were added by several editors, but also by Ratnahastin.[135] On Shivaji, the lead was overhauled by Ratnahastin,[136] but Akshaypatill never made any objections to it when he was reverting there weeks ago.[137] Akshaypatill stopped editing after he responded to a report made by Ratnahastin at the beginning of this month.[138]

It becomes clear that Akshaypatill is becoming active only after Ratnahastin has stopped editing. It does not look good because he is exactly disputing the edits of Ratnahastin, thinking he is not around, and as such it might be easier to revert his edits now. This appears to be a clear case of WP:TE and WP:GRAVEDANCING. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: You are wrong on several points here. I am not failing to assume good faith or casting aspersions anywhere. The problems highlighted here are long-term with Akshaypatill, and he is committing them even after the warning. [139] Since you topic banned GA over a single misrepresentation on talk page (which he already acknowledged before the sanction) then you should think of a broad topic ban for Akshaypatill. Sources are analysed as per WP:RS. For example, the books from Sanjeev Sanyal and Vikram Sampath also have good reviews but we don't use them for sourcing. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Akshaypatill is now goading another editor by pointing out why how he is "new here, I would suggest you to get familiar with the policies and how we accord weight to content and how we decide whether to keep the content in question or not", without having been provoked by the next editor at all. Having already seen him doing that against GA last time on Talk:Sambhaji he is absolutely not learning how to edit on an already heated subject. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: This is the right place to discuss the conduct of other editors, as such, people should not face sanctions for proving evident Hindutva-based civil POV pushing from Akshaypatill. How Akshaypatill's acknowledgment of the edit warring can be treated as authentic? He was reported initially for edit warring and other violations, for which he said "may look like edit warring, but it is not intentional [...] I promise I will be more mindful in my edits",[140] and then went back to restoring some of his reverts.[141][142] One cannot say that there was an "acknowledgement" of edit warring because if there was any, then Akshaypatill wouldn't have made the reverts again. These actions of Akshaypatill have only verified the credibility of this report. On both, Sambhaji and Shivaji, he is the only person (see WP:1AM) who is disputing reliably sourced content. Nobody else has restored his edits in either article. If you are going to describe my comments as a part of the failure of AGF, then you should review these examples. Most of these haven't been mentioned above:

The removal of highly particular content on Sambhaji article,[143][144] with misleading edit summaries, that was first objected to by the Hindu nationalist government of India, the BJP. To justify his edits, Akshaypatill then cited a dubious source[145] who demanded not only the withdrawal of the concerning Oxford University Press-published book (a common tactic employed by Hindutva supporters to attack the scholars), but has also served the BJP's government over the subject of Shivaji.[146]
Unnecessarily requested deletion of Nandini Sundar,[147] a critic of the BJP.[148]
Edit warring and POV pushing on Muhammad Ghor,[149][150][151] which was later discussed on an ANI thread.[152] On talk page, he was pushing the same Hindutva POV; I hold that Islamic iconoclasm always has both a political and a religious dimension, that it was far more widespread than he allows, and that it is not just a phenomenon of the political frontier.[153] This is a revisionist Hindutva view of the Muslim history about which you can read at Persecution of Hindus#Historiography and distortion.
Warned for edit warring, personal attacks, failure of AGF and wikihounding by Bishonen.[154][155]
Removed references that were speaking about political propaganda being spread by the BJP with this movie.
Added an unreliable source on Subhas Chandra Bose (appropriated by Hindutva supporters) to waterdown the lead[156] and then made multiple reverts to retain it.[157][158] He also filed a pointless DRN.[159] These actions of his were exhausting patience of other editors. Later on, he expressed his displeasure with the lead of this subject, though without any basis.[160] After he started to get responses from the interested editors, he would falsely accuse one to have been motivated to "disrupt the discussion".[161]
Just like Bose, Shivaji is also appropriated by Hindutva supporters.[162] It has been observed for years by other editors, such as Fowler&Fowler,[163] Vanamonde93,[164], and others that Akshaypatill has been glorifying Shivaji. This type of addition only speaks of Hindutva-based POV pushing. Also see this outright whitewashing. That time too, he edit warred to retain his glorification of the subject.[165][166] Even after getting reverted by a total of 3-4 editors,[167] he would make a comeback after 1 month to restore his glorification of the subject.[168]

Nobody would doubt at this stage there is a prolonged pattern of Hindutva-based civil POV pushing from this editor. It will not benefit the encyclopedia that we are talking about warning this editor again and again (past warnings[169][170][171]) over the same editing pattern. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill and Valereee: In the last few days, Akshaypatill wrongly added "failed verification"[172] tag to a sentence which he removed in the cited reverts before, despite the source completely verifies the information. After this report was archived, Akshaypatill went ahead to argue on Talk:Rajput, where I am having an ongoing dispute, despite having no previous history on this page.[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Akshaypatill&page=Talk%3ARajput&server=enwiki&max=[173] On the talk page, he is using Lulu.com,[174] a well-known self-publisher, as a source. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [175]

Discussion concerning Akshaypatill

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

Statement by Akshaypatill

@Valereee You are right. I crossed the lines there. I should be more careful with the choice of words and I will.

@Rosguill I always try to adhere to the policies. And I always start conversation on the talk page when there are some disputes. I agree, my edits on Shivaji, for especially the lead may look like edit warring, but it is not intentional. The lead is not according to the WP:LEAD at all. For example, there is a whole paragraph in the lead regarding the "Shivaji's service to the Mughal emperor". But it was actually a brief period between around 1667 and there is nothing notable happened in this period. A whole paragraph on it is WP:UNDUE. Almost 70% part of the whole body of the article is about Shivaji's struggle with the Mughal emperor and other powers, while the lead gives an impression that Shivaji was working for them. You also saw it with Phule part. It is also WP:UNDUE.

This [[176]] is the version of lead I was talking about, which was written mostly by MatthewVanitas which aptly summarizes the body of the article. It was in place since 2016 till a few months ago when someone changed it. The article was also contested for Good Article review back then.

Anyways, I promise I will be more mindful in my edits and my choice of words. Also, I apologize to the @GenuineArts for the 'blatant lie' comment. Thanks.

@Valereee Just to clarify about the Capitals00's latest comment, I have no idea what Capitals00 is referring to. There could be some misunderstanding, as none of those edits on B. R. Ambedkar are mine. Honestly, I don't even remember participating in discussion on talk page of B. R. Ambedkar ever. I have been making time out of my busy schedule to contribute on Wiki and none of my edits are without reliable source or a valid policy based argument. The accusation of taking advantage of absence of Ratnahastin is really upsetting and disheartening for me.

This actually should be discussed on the talk page, but I think I should clear my stand. Whether Shivaji was illiterate or not is a debatable topic and Historians have varying opinions. Moreover, the Capitals00 hasn't established the notability of the letter, because the letter is not historically significant at all. It's just a man thanking another, which We have already mentioned in the previous sentence in the article. We have thousands of letter regarding Shivaji, if we decide to allow them, the article will be in a mess. The quote from the letter is clearly a WP:UNDUE. And I am not making the 'claim', it's a reliable source that says that this letter is written by Udiraj Munshi and Udiraj Munshi wasn't serving Shivaji. If Shivaji wanted to write a letter, he would have asked his own people and not one from the people which were at war with him recently. I would request Capitals00 to continue this on the talk page of the article rather than here, as it just wastes time of the Admins.

@Rosguill Let me explain as there are many misunderstandings here. At Sambhaji, I was bringing attention to the new research by scholars like Dr. Pawar and Mehendale that is in contrasts with the older views. I never have said anywhere that older sources are not reliable. Instead I was asking more emphasis on Mehendele and Pawar because they goes deeper into the matter, unlike the other sources, which are mostly passing remarks on the matter. Also, about the quotes in Shivaji, what you are missing is context. The other quote, which I had supported, was in section of Shivaji's 'Religious Policy'. The letter provided glimpse into the secular nature of Shivaji's policies and how he urged Aurangzeb to treat everyone equal irrespective of the subject's religion. As Gordon say's, Shivaji didn't wanted to create a Hindu nation as believed by propagators of Hindutva. His policies were secular. The current letter which Capitals00 want to include does not provide any such insight. It is just plain thanking letter. For that Sarcar's quote, the book is not available on Google Books to preview. I have scanned copy of it and I can provide you with it, if you want to have a look. Also, Gordon haven't quoted the letter in his book as you have cited. Moreover, you again wrong when you say I am deemphasizing the Shivaji's correspondence with Aurangzeb, while a good chunk of that part of body is written by me using the Gordon's book and some other scholarly work as the source. Without any intention to disrespect you, I would say, most of this is content related and you not being much familiar with the subjects, I am afraid, your judgement is being affected by it. Also, regarding the OpIndia's diff, check out Valereee's comment below. Thanks. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill Pinging again, because I think I made a mistake in pinging in the above comment. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill Okay. Let me explain it again. First, most of the 'Religious Section' in the article body is written by me and I have given more weight to Stewart N. Gordon because he has went deep into the matter and he is expert of Maratha history. Moreover, the book is published by a reputed publication like Cambridge University. But that quote was already there, it was not added by me. You can see it here- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shivaji&oldid=1007855347#Religious_policy. It was there before I actively started editing the article. When I rewrote that section using Gordon as the source, I did not remove it, because it was complementing Gordon's views and gave glimpse into the secular religious policies of Shivaji as opposed to the Hindutva ideologist who want to portray Shivaji as symbol of Hindutva, while the truth is, it was just coincidence that all the opponent rulers at the Shivaji's time were Muslims. Shivaji didn't oppose them because they were Muslims, but because he wanted self rule. I would suggest reading that quote from the link above, it will help you understand my argument. It's all about context. Now the letter which Capitals00's want to include has nothing of such significance. It is simply a thanking letter from Shivaji to Aurangzeb and I would argue it is being added out of context. Now, regarding the 'recent source that states this side-by-side', I think you are again misunderstanding. The book you cited above is written by Gordon and I am certainly sure that he doesn't have quoted the letter. Now about the lead. You are misunderstanding it here too. The struggle between Shivaji and Aurangzeb was going on for a long time. In between this long period, for a brief amount of time Shivaji accepted vassalage of Aurangzeb due to adversity. But most of the other time, they were fighting against each other. Now if you read the lead, the lead only focuses on that short period of vassalage while ignoring the long period where they were fighting each other.

I wouldn't argue on the edit warring part as I think I may have crossed lines a few times, but I can confidently say that all of them were to make the articles better and more reliable and not in some ill intentions. Thanks. Akshaypatill (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, Valereee This is regarding the accusation of POV pushing by Koshuri Sultan. Let me explain. As you can see in the article itself[[177]], Shivaji signed Treaty of Purandar on 11 June 1665 and accepted vassalage of Mughals. on 12 May 1666, Shivaji was made to stand at court alongside low-ranking nobles, whome he had already defeated, so he revolted in open court of Aurangzeb and was put in jail soon. On 17 August 1666 he escaped from the jail and went in hiding.[[178]]. So, there was really a brief duration for which he actually worked under Mughals. Two years later, in 1668 Aurengzeb restored some of Shivaji's rights and his son's rank.^[1] Soon again, the peace broke down again in the fall of 1669 and Shivaji launched rapid attacks to recover the lost forts in his claimed territories.^[2] Now compare this brief period of time with the length of the Shivaji's career. So, basically, the event itself is definitely significant, but the weight which is being given to the matter is clearly WP:UNDUE. Also, there in no weight given to the aftermath of the event, like how Shivaji took back his forts soon in the lead. (For example, we have a dedicated section of this reconquest[[179]], but there is no mention of such in the lead.) Meanwhile, even the thanking letters of that vassalage periods are being quoted as is in the body of the article, which aren't even significant. There is a lot of WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION problems in the article.

@Rosguill, Valereee Pinging again. Not sure, but I guess I again made a mistake while pinging in the above comment (forgot to sign the comment). Akshaypatill (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding the Koshuri Sultan's latest comment that says the 'Shivaji worked for the Mughals even before the battle of Purandar', for which they doesn't provide any source or reference. And I believe they are wrong here. As Mehta put it^[3] - Prince Aurangzeb, then the Mughal viceroy of the Deccan, was at war with Bijapur in 1657. Shivaji took his first jump into the national politics by offering his assistance to the Mughals against Bijapur in return for the recognition of his integrity as the legal ruler of the Bijapuri territories under his control. On the receipt of an evasive reply from Aurangzeb, Shivaji lost no time in taking up cudgels on behalf of Bijapur. He put Aurangzeb to embarrassment by organizing a raid on the southwestern border of the Mughal Deccan.

First, there is difference between 'working under/for someone' and 'offering assistance to someone'. And most important factor here, in this case, the offered assistance didn't even materialized into a ally due to Aurangzeb's evasive response. Akshaypatill (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

This user was warned with a topic ban about 3 years ago for failing to abide by the consensus process.[180] In 2023, I had thought of reporting him over his edit warring to whitewash the page of fake news OpIndia.[181][182] Even after making reverts, he made no presence on talk page.[183] What is happening today is simply a continuation of the long-term Hindutva POV pushing from this user. Capitals00 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Let me provide you more insights. There was no ongoing dispute on Shivaji when Akshaypatill began to remove sourced content. In the last 10 days, nobody else appears to have edit warred on Sambhaji except Akshaypatill.[184] There do appear to be cases where editors are taking advantage of the apparent disappearance of Ratnahastin. See this one more recent example, despite the multiple discussions over the same sentence between this editor and Ratnahastin,[185][186] from more than 1 month ago. Capitals00 (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this warning "indicates "long-term" problems is from over three years ago, and that's three years in which the editor made fewer than 100 edits, the vast majority of them in the past few weeks at either Shivaji or Sambhaji or their talks," however, it is also clear that Akshaypatill has not provided enough indications to prove any change in his approach. During that period we also saw indefensible edits like this and this. Capitals00 (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Check again. The source does mention Opindia.com to have embraced the form of "trolling and fake news".[187] The entire article version of that time also described how OpIndia is spreading fake news. The fact that Akshaypatill is still defending his edit above shows there are indeed long-term issues with his editing. Capitals00 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill and Valereee: Even after making apologetic statements following this report, Akshaypatill is now continuing the edit war by removing the same quote over which he had already made 2 reverts on 26 - 27 February.[188][189] His explanation that "as the admin clarifies here [[190]], We don't include lengthy quotes in Wikipedia articles."[191] is not making sense because the comment, he is citing as the basis, actually concerned a quote which is more than 210 words, while the one he is removing is just 74 words.

On the talk page, he claims that the letter was also removed because it "was actually written by Udiraj Munshi".[192] First of all, Shivaji was illiterate, and that's why he couldn't write any letters. Secondly, if Akshaypatill wants to maintain the standard that "did not write = no responsibility," then I wonder why was he restoring this letter, by ignoring this discussion, when it was also not written by Shivaji himself.

His another recent removal is reflecting his other 2 reverts. He removed a source by describing it as "unreliable", when it is not unreliable, and the publisher has no particular political motivation. It has been cited by dozens of scholarly sources,[193][194], and the information is not even controversial but is already backed with more reliable sources.

His recent message above completely falsifies what I said. It confirms there are more WP:CIR issues. I was only saying there are cases where editors are targeting the edits of Ratnahastin after his apparent disappearance. I did not say they are all one person, contrary to what Akshaypatill is claiming. I also did not say Akshaypatil edited Talk:B. R. Ambedkar.

I am sure this rampant falsification and edit warring from Akshaypatill leave no doubt regarding this AE report. Capitals00 (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Koshuri Sultan

After having watched the talk page discussion for days, I would say AkshayPatill appears to be engaging in POV pushing to remove the letter that portrays Shivaji as subservient to the Mughals [195] This follows their earlier removal of content from the lead that showed Shivaji's service to the Mughals [196]. In both cases, they are either stonewalling or finding any reason to get that part removed by calling it not notable despite the letter being relevant to the preceding passage, and the fact that Shivaji was serving Mughals [197] even before the Battle of Purandar. Koshuri ^(グ) 06:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AkshayPatill has ignored my argument where Shivaji worked for the Mughals even before the battle of Purandar. He was the one who provided Aurangzeb (viceroy of Deccan at the time) with passage to invade the sultanate of Bijapur, he provided his service there and when Aurangzeb left to fight for the throne, Shivaji conquered territories in the name of Mughals. AkshayPatill is completely ignoring the early career of Shivaji, which was mostly serving the Mughal rulers. The Mughal emperor regarded Shivaji as a rebel zamindar because he was not very loyal as proven by the fact that he would engage in hostilities from time to time. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done anything wrong by simply bringing the diffs that show concerning behaviour of Akshaypatill. Valereee is correct that Akshaypatill is engaging in sealioning which is becoming difficult for other editors. Now after these findings, it seems that he has been repeating the same misbehavior for years, even after warnings. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill The last AE was filed over his edit war on Shivaji, and this report is filed over one of those reasons, but now with additional evidence, one can see this is going on for a longer period. None of that had to happen given he edit warred on Shivaji for years, and had sufficient inputs even over his use of Gajanan Mehendale as a source, where experienced editors including admin RegentsPark told him not to use this source.[198][199][200] Yet he is using this source even today.[201] I cannot think of any justification for that. Last year,[202] he was raking up his dispute over the lead, and apparently misrepresented Vanamonde93.

Ideologically motivated editing is simply not compatible with the standards of Wikipedia. Akshaypatill has been doing it for years regarding articles that are highly prone to ideologically motivated Hindutva editing, and is still not listening to the inputs and warnings he had until now. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LukeEmily

Other than some inadvertent mistakes (example "lying", which may be unintentional miscommunication - they may have meant that source was incorrect), mostly looks like a content dispute. I think the editors should continue discussion of the content on the talk page. Don't understand why the content is being discussed here. Just my 2 cents.LukeEmily (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fowler&fowler

I noticed my name mentioned here in some previous context involving Askhaypatill. I don't remember the context and only vaguely remember Akshaypatill causing heartache.

I want to say, though, that WP:Civil POV pushing has become quite the norm in South Asia-related topics. Editors who engage in it are careful not to cross the lines themselves but keep tabs on other editors. When these others become impatient with what would have been called (Civil) meatpuppetry in the old days, they quickly report them to the powers-that-be. Unfortunately, I have found the reporting editor Abhishek0831996 very much in such a group. Their editing history at Indian National Army and Mahatma Gandhi gave me pause for thought, as did that of Capital00 on Gandhi and Azuredivay (who is not here) on the INA (where eventually I had to ask folks at RS/N to help out). I thought at first they were part of a cohort in high school or colleagues in an office doing this for hijinks, but I could not find a theme of dogma or bias. These editors report other editors for what are often superficial but easily punishable forms of offense, but they get away with bias or collusion that prove harder to identify and slippery for punishing. I'm not saying that Abhishek* or Capital00 are in the wrong, but admins should perhaps consider how often these editors report others at AE or ANI. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Akshaypatill

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

I have yet to review the provided diffs in detail, but I will note off the bat that accusing an editor who has about 2,500 edits over the course of 7 years of tendentious behavior because they didn't edit for 21 days seems like a stretch. Taking a break after getting hauled to AE seems like an understandable human thing to do, and it's worth noting that Akshaypatill's response to that AE thread was exemplary, to such a degree that Ratnahastin actually withdrew the complaint. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assessment of evidence in initial complaint:

Akshaypatil's edit at Shivaji seems poorly-justified; I can't even identify which prior revision they reverted to. The material removed was attested in the body, so their edit summary doesn't really justify their change, nor does the state of the talk page at the time of the edit justify it Special:Permalink/1277173260.
This edit seems like it's in a gray area. Both of the cited sources appear to refer to the sack of Goa in 1688, which is the basis of Akshaypatill's argument that this is "one incident". The quoted text from the sources suggests that rape by Sambhaji's forces was widespread at the sack of Goa, which complicates but does not entirely refute the "one incident" claim. Unhelpfully for us, the second cited source suggests that this behavior was typical of Maratha forces--on the one hand, this suggests that this was not an isolated incident; on the other, it suggests that this behavior was not unique to Sambhaji, raising WP:DUE questions and undermining some of the other claims in the article at the time.
Another borderline edit. There's some merit in arguing that Akshaypatill should have expected pushback and not made that edit at that time. That having been said, they made arguments clearly justifying the edit on the talk page 2 hours prior.
Very similar to the above, although in this case both the repetition and the timing cross over into more clearly unacceptable edit warring. Edit warring against a bad argument is still edit warring.
I dislike it when editors accuse each other of lying outright, but in this case GenuineArt did pretty severely misrepresent the source that they brought to the table. I would have been willing to assume ignorance or haste on their part, but they doubled down when I asked them about it, and I issued a topic-ban as a result because yeah, they were tendentiously misrepresenting information to a point that "blatant lies" is not much of an exaggeration. I would generally expect editors to do a better job of assuming good faith than Akshaypatill did in that comment, but GenuineArt went on to clearly demonstrate that they were not, in fact, here in good faith.
This is edit warring. The status quo is muddled, as at this point in the fight both sides have invoked last good without clearly identifying what they're referring to. Akshaypatill is more active in the edit war than their opponents at this point in time, so that further makes them look bad.
This argument seems to be within editorial discretion. Phule is mentioned in the article body, but briefly, so it's fair game to argue that this isn't WP:DUE for the lead.
Akshaypatill's arguments here are valid: the Oxford Bibliographies endorsement is a strong argument in favor of citing Mehandale, arguably the strongest presented in defense of any source in the bibliography thus far. The counterargument at this time is limited to relatively weak sources asserting that Mehandale is favored by Hindutva ideologues/activists/publications, without reference to academic sources or to any response to the Oxford Bibliographies review; not a particularly compelling argument. The accusation here borders on tendentiousness.
Again the lying, but in this case GenuineArt was in an even deeper hole and trying to argue that they were not aware of CTOPs despite clearly being aware of them.
I'm not seeing any problem here other than the assertion So I am going to correct it..., which would be edit warring at this point in time. However, no subsequent edits to Shivaji have been made, so there was no continuation of the edit war. Otherwise, Akshaypatill's arguments are within the realm of editorial discretion for a discussion of what goes in the lead.

I think I need some time to think over what remedies are appropriate in light of the above. Akshaypatill has engaged in some edit warring, but the attempts to demonstrate tendentiousness and civility breaches beyond that fall flat, and in a few cases themselves cross into the realm of tendentiousness. I would appreciate further admin input on sanctions; very tentatively, I think that perhaps either a 1RR or at most a temporary pageblock (but not talk page block) restriction from Shivaji and Sambhaji might be warranted for Akshaypatill, and a logged warning for failing to assume good faith and casting aspersions for Abhishek0831996. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the additional diffs provided by Capitals00 demonstrate concerning behavior by Akshaypatill. In particular, the double standard regarding the two letters from Shivaji seems like POV-pushing to emphasize Shivaji's anti-Mughal actions and de-emphasize his collaboration with the same. There's still some wiggle room provided by Akshaypatill's argument that the provenance of the letter is clarified by J. Sarkar's House of Shivaji: Studies and documents of Maratha History, but this argumentation leaves much to be desired: the argument does not provide a clear quote from that piece supporting their claims, nor does it note that the Sarkar book is from 1955 whereas sources supporting mention of the letter are more recent, such as Gordon 1993, and does not engage with the coverage in the more recent source to explain why the direct mention of Shivaji's correspondence with Aurangzeb is insufficient for establishing a due mention. This omission is further galling when we remember that at Talk:Sambhaji, Akshaypatill has been arguing that even sources published 20-30 years ago are outdated and worth discarding entirely in favor of more recent scholarship. I don't think these are CIR issues--this looks like civil POV-pushing, and on that basis I'm now thinking that a topic-ban from Indian politics and history is warranted. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akshaypatill, I'm realizing I misunderstood part of the situation concerning the inclusion of the letter text, as I had focused on the edits to the lead here and didn't realize that there were also edits to various sections, and had not read the quote text. I think that the question of including block quotes of the letters is within editorial discretion. I'm still troubled by the edit warring and the argument that Shivaji didn't write a letter without engaging with the recent source that states this side-by-side with the other arguments in favor of including letters by Shivaji, which seems to motivate questions of inclusion/exclusion of details in the lead. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akshaypatill, I think you partially misread my comment--I meant to impart that the argument that Shivaji didn't personally write a letter was deployed side by side with supporting the inclusion of another letter attributed to Shivaji, not that the source mentions these things side by side. But the clarification that this discussion was purely about the inclusion of a quote in the body, and not also weight in the lead, means that the argument isn't tendentious, so my concern regarding that argument has been addressed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996, what exactly do you think was inappropriate about the goading diff? Akshaypatill seems to be giving accurate advice to an editor who is in fact new, and who does not appear to have been providing sources to back their claims, and who frankly has a username that makes it rather hard to assume entirely good faith in the current broader context of fights over Sambhaji. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally unimpressed by the evidence brought against Akshaypatill that simply provide examples of edits that align with a purported view. This is not enough to justify a sanction. To justify sanctions here, it must be demonstrated that the edits are consistently in violation of policies, guidelines, and/or blatantly disrespectful of other editors they are working with. Other than the edit warring, which Akshaypatill has already apologized for, I'm not seeing such evidence. Given that the quality of evidence brought against Akshaypatill seems to be diminishing at this point, I think we should bring this to a close. My current thoughts are that, with Akshaypatill's acknowledgment of the edit warring, we're either in logged warning or 1RR territory for Akshaypatill, and warnings for Capitals00, Abhishek0831996 and Koshuri Sultan regarding AGF and the standard of evidence expected to justify editing sanctions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just been thinking the other editors need to adjust, too.

I am sympathetic to issues of wp:sealioning, and it's possible that's what's going on with Akshaypatill's editing. But between the walls of text here, the throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks, and the not-very-compelling diffs, I'm just not seeing it. At least not clearly/yet.

I do understand how frustrating it is that sealioning is difficult to prove and tedious to assess. I would like to at least warn Akshaypatill that this seems to be what the editors you're working with at these articles think they're seeing, and if it does become clear that's happening, for me that's an automatic indefinite partial block from a particular article and its talk. Valereee (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996, you've gone significantly over the word limit with your most recent comments. At a glance, you don't seem to have taken on board the criticism that you need to demonstrate how the edits are tendentious in Wikipedia terms: it is not enough to present a handful of diffs that can be construed to align with a viewpoint, you must demonstrate how such edits were undermining/ignoring/disrespecting existing consensus and other editing best practices. To a point, I think you're putting the cart before the horse with arguments like To justify his edits, Akshaypatill then cited a dubious source [Mehendale]--the jury is still out on whether Mehendale is a reliable source in this context. If, after further discussion, there is a resounding consensus that Mehendale is totally beyond the pale and Akshaypatill refused to acknowledge that this was a consensus view then it would be problematic argumentation and edits on their part. Your arguments that Mehendale is not reliable belong on the article talk page and/or other content discussion forums, not here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koshuri Sultan, this goes for you too. Pointing at a diff that contains a dozen of scattershot allegations with varying degrees of evidence and saying Now after these findings, it seems that he has been repeating the same misbehavior for years, even after I identified that the diff in question is both out of process and not particularly solid argumentation, is tendentious. All of you need to drop this shotgun approach to AE and limit yourselves to calling out examples of misbehavior that are unambiguous. Your failure to differentiate between edits you simply disagree with and edits that actually violate Wikipedia policy is a problem that scuttles your complaints here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koshuri Sultan, your latest comment is more of the same. "Disagreeing with Tranga Bellam [or other experienced editor] on a source's reliability" is not a sanctionable offense. The diff from Regents Park further expresses ambiguity as to when and where Mehendale may be appropriate to cite. TB's arguments raised against Mehendale are valid for you or other editors to raise on a talk page in opposition to Akshaypatill's arguments in favor, but they are not a clear and established consensus that is tendentious to ignore (much less several years after the fact). It may be that Mehendale's work is overdue for discussion at RSN or an RfC so that we can establish such a consensus, but this remains to be done.

The diff regarding apparently misrepresented Vanamonde93 doesn't seem to show Akshaypatill misrepresenting Vanamonde93--Vanamonde93 appears to have made a vague statement, whose interpretation Akshaypatill and Padfoot disagreed on, but both readings seem plausible. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akshaypatill, saying another editor is lying is not okay. It is okay to say "That is not correct" or "That is not true" or "That is not what the sources say". You cannot say, "That is a lie." Do you understand the difference? I'm happy to explain further if this just sounds like semantics, but there is a very real difference and you do need to understand it. Valereee (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, @Rosguill, I find it not unreasonable that GA, who has only 2400 edits over ten years and in 2024 didn't edit at all, could possibly completely forget something they did five years ago which wasn't even called the same thing back then. It's such a silly thing to intentionally lie about -- so easy to disprove -- that I'm inclined to accept that explanation. (Which, btw, Akshaypatill, is one of the reasons we don't call people liars for saying something that isn't true: it's possible they're simply mistaken.) Valereee (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that part is plausible, but the way that they have tried to wikilawyer over it (as well as other aspects of the issue) and their continued inability to admit fault or drop the stick of attacking their perceived opponents put them deep into “AGF is not a suicide pact” territory. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Akshaypatill, we don't actually deal with content disputes here, only behavior. Unless another editor is incorrectly interpreting a source intentionally or from lack of competence, which are behavior issues, it probably isn't relevant here. The two of you may disagree over things like whether "there is difference between 'working under/for someone' and 'offering assistance to someone'", but the place to discuss that is somewhere along the WP:Dispute resolution process. Valereee (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhishek0831996, you appear to be doubling down on the accusations of bad faith regarding the timing of their edits somehow rising to the level of some sort of stalking of Ratna or of gravedancing, etc. Half of India has showed up at Sambhaji in the last two weeks, and almost none of them had ever edited it before. And this is an editor who regularly goes weeks or months between edits, and that warning you're referencing in your most recent reply that indicates "long-term" problems is from over three years ago, and that's three years in which the editor made fewer than 100 edits, the vast majority of them in the past few weeks at either Shivaji or Sambhaji or their talks. Valereee (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhishek0831996, that didn't feel like goading to me. It's a brand new editor in a CTOP. Valereee (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals00, we don't generally get into content here, but to address the behavioral aspect of the issue in the context of your description of a particular content removal being "indefensible": to me the removal of "Fake news" from an infobox parameter "type of media" doesn't look "indefensible". If I were editing an article about a media provider I'd want to see multiple RS saying the equivalent of "X is a fake news website" to use that in the infobox. Using such a categorization in an infobox is an extremely strong statement in Wikivoice that to me intends to convey something along the lines of "The majority of experts agree X publishes almost exclusively fake news." There's a single source cited for that inclusion in the infobox, and that source doesn't even quote what that source said. Valereee (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00, again, not getting into content, just behavior: the fact a source says a site includes "trolling and fake news", while valid for including that content in the article, it does not necessarily support inclusion in an infobox that a site is a fake news website. Those are two different things. Which means removing that from the infobox is not necessarily a behavioral issue. Valereee (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler, noted. I am very interested in sealioning, and I do see the issue from both sides. Please keep us updated. Valereee (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee and Rosguill: This was archived by the bot without a closure. Can this be hatted as no action? (I haven't read it all.) - JensonSL (SilverLocust) 06:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, sorry...that would have been an oversight, although I'm not sure either of us was sure what was happening. F&F's characterising the interactions among multiple editors as sealioning is credible. I'm wondering about maybe a logged warning for what looks like sealioning for Ashkaypatill, but honestly I'm not sure they all aren't doing the same thing, and I feel like the next time any of these editors shows up here, they should do it with zero diffs that are not compelling and strictly enforced 500 words for all, exceptions granted only for the accused. So maybe we need to unarchive and close it that way? Valereee (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Akshaypatill needs a logged warning for edit warring, and that Capitals00, Abhishek0831996 and Koshuri Sultan need logged warnings for failing to assume good faith. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've unarchived this case, which had been archived unclosed, so Akshaypatill, @Abhishek0831996, @Koshuri Sultan, @Capitals00 are aware. Valereee (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Fowler&fowler, LukeEmily also commented. Valereee (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My impression of Abhishek's most recent complaints is that they once again fail to rise to the level of evidence of disruption necessary to warrant sanctions. The failed verification concern has been further discussed on the talk page and seems to be a matter within editorial discretion: the cited statement The exact status of these lands was ambiguous because of the abrupt departure of Aurangzeb for the north. Bijapur, by the peace treaty of 1657, had ceded to the Mughals all territory it had conquered from Ahmadnagar. This included the northern half of the Konkan coast; there was no time, however, to set up an administration. Shivaji could, therefore, claim that he was seizing the territory in the name of the Mughals, on the basis of his offer to serve them does not unambiguously translate to Shivaji conquered territories ceded by Bijapur in the name of the Mughals. The current article text that Akshaypatill disputed erases ambiguity that is contained in the cited source; perhaps the current text is still appropriate and can be supported by additional RS, but it is within editorial discretion for Akshaypatill to argue that this phrasing fails verification. The argument at Rajput seems underdeveloped, but it seems that Dr. Sanjeevkumar Tandle is being presented by Akshaypatill as a relevant expert; perhaps that's poorly supported and can be disputed in discussion (I don't see any Google Scholar evidence immediately supporting that they are an influential scholar), but that is a content question that must be decisively resolved before it can be determined that merely citing Tandle is tendentious. Once again, you have put the cart before the horse and failed to differentiate between edits you simply disagree with and edits that actually violate Wikipedia policy. I am extremely close to recommending further sanctions for this battlegrounding waste of time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
^ Richards, John F. (1993). The Mughal Empire. Cambridge University Press. p. 210. ISBN 978-0-521-56603-2. ^ Gordon, Stewart (1993-09-16). The Marathas 1600-1818. Cambridge University Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-521-26883-7. ^ Mehta, Jl. Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. p. 538. ISBN 978-81-207-1015-3.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[3] Richards, John F. (1993). The Mughal Empire. Cambridge University Press. p. 210. ISBN 978-0-521-56603-2.

[4] Gordon, Stewart (1993-09-16). The Marathas 1600-1818. Cambridge University Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-521-26883-7.

[5] Mehta, Jl. Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. p. 538. ISBN 978-81-207-1015-3.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]