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: Palestine-Israel articles 5	none	(orig. case)	3 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]

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 {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'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]
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]

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

While specifics may have to be determined case by case, the general consensus among arbitrators is that, while non-punitive reverts and deletions aren't made impossible by someone now being extended-confirmed, there is probably no need to do so if someone managed to participate in this area without attracting attention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Swatjester at 20:22, 1 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:

Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Swatjester

What is the process, if anything, for dealing with editors who ignore the 30/500 ECR requirement for editing within the PIA topic space and are not detected until after they have achieved extended confirmed status? I recently came across an editor with ~3 months of editing time and 900 edits, nearly all of which was within the confines of the ARBPIA space or closely adjacent. Somehow, this editor was never caught -- they'd never even received a welcome message or talk page communication from any editor on any topic, let alone a CTOP notification, so its entirely possible they were unaware. However, this implies that as a now-EC editor, they're still unaware, which is not a great situation for someone actively editing within the space. It's also entirely possible that they *were* aware and were simply ignoring the provisions. I'm looking for categorical guidance here about the intended process, rather than feedback about handling a specific editor -- I have seen guidance about how to handle scenarios where an editor is obviously gaming the system, but how should these editors be handled when they essentially ignored and walked past the ECR provisions entirely? Apologies if this is the incorrect venue for asking.

Thanks to the committee for the thoughtful responses. What I'm taking from this is the following: No explicit process exists, seems like there's some support for discretion to revert problematic edits from that time period if they exist but avoid being punitive (so basically, operations as they're normally supposed to be); and also just saying "that sounds like a lot of work and a pain in the ass, how about no harm no foul if they're not causing problems" is a viable approach as well; and editors that didn't get a heads up should at least get one so they're not wading blindly into a minefield. That all tracks. Happy to leave this open for further discussion if anyone else cares or has input but I've got the clarification I was looking for if the clerks want to close. Thanks again. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I find the responses here a bit odd. That might be because my view is that people who evade EC restrictions in PIA, despite having been informed, should be mercilessly crushed or at least something should happen. Sanctions should be punitive for people who think rules don't apply to them, a view that is quite common in PIA. The responses here may be based on some questionable assumptions. It's not difficult to evade scrutiny/not be noticed, and touch topic area related material, especially if you avoid discussions. An edit not being reverted doesn't tell you anything about the edit or the editor. It's just an absence of information/action. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question "...where has despite having been informed come from?", from an apparent basic reading comprehension failure, another thing that should be mercilessly crushed, or at least mocked at the very least. Zero cost for foolishness is another one of Wikipedia systemic issues. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:51, 3 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

My initial reaction is that if someone manages to avoid scrutiny in the area while not being EC until after they reach EC, then good for them. Sanctions should not be punitive, so retroactively applying ECP restrictions such as rolling back changes seems problematic to me. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Primefac – if you don't come across as the kind of person who needs to be reigned in, no harm, no foul. If there's continuing NPOV violations, that's something to focus on, but otherwise, I wouldn't see a need to enforce ECR at that point. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If one wishes, they could enforce the extended-confirmed restriction on pre-EC edits – for example, the restriction allows administrators to delete articles created in violation of it, but also gives them discretion on whether to do so. Swatjester, I don't want to hamstring you on what you choose as an enforcing administrator. As for what to do moving forward, making them aware of the contentious nature of the topic seems like a good idea to me. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sean.hoyland: For Swatjester's case study, where has despite having been informed come from? Sdrqaz (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[first naive thought] Someone got away with editing in ARBPIA without being challenged or investigated by editors on either side of the ideological divide for three months? Either ARBPIA is becoming less fraught or we need more editors like that.
I'm in line with Primefac's viewpoint. Winding back 500 3-month-old edits (which are presumable not otherwise objectionable) seems like officious make-work. Sdrqaz's suggestion of a CT awareness message would be a helpful & courteous move. Cabayi (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with others. No need to revert the edits if they're fine, and no need to retroactively sanction them if they're editing productively, but the restriction can be enforced against those edits if necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sean.hoyland, this is dealing specifically with a hypothetical editor who never even received a welcome message or talk page communication from any editor on any topic, let alone a CTOP notification. That's (probably) not someone who evaded EC restrictions in PIA, despite having been informed, or someone who thinks rules don't apply to them. No one reads any talk page notices or edit notices, which is why we don't count those for awareness. Who knows if any of the pages even has such notices? I know the current ruling is that CTOP alerts cannot be delivered in an automated fashion, but perhaps it would make some sense to allow that, at least in this topic area.
I think most people are aware that I held a pretty hard line on ECR, but I always made the editor aware and gave a warning. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of sanctioning or pulling privs because, assuming a little good faith, someone broke unintuitive rules they didn't know about. I know there's an enormous amount of socking in the topic, but at least some editors have to be new, right?
As for how to handle it from an admin perspective, the first thing I would do is review their edits for obvious npov issues or other problems. They can be given a logged warning along with the CTOP alert, and if there are significant issues with their editing the can be blocked as a normal admin action, or brought to ANI. If the edits aren't bad then we're back to not sanctioning for something they were unaware of. Alert them and shrug, confident in the fact that there's really no good way to police this type of rule with perfect effectiveness. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way everything is currently worded, explicit awareness is required to sanction (but not warn) an editor. With this hypothetical editor and the wording of Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Enforcement of restrictions in mind, while such edits may be reverted, it is not strictly required and so the specifics of a given circumstance should determine whether those edits should be reverted on a case-by-case basis. Since this hypothetical editor was never notified, then they can be warned against future disruption if the edits were otherwise disruptive (per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Warnings) but should not be sanctioned for any pre-awareness edits (per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Enforcement of restrictions). - Aoidh (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 non-contentious topics 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

Edax Mendacium

By rough consensus of admins, Edax Mendacium is topic-banned from American politics post-1992, and is given a logged warning to comply with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This supplements an individual admin action by Seraphimblade partially blocking them from Sundar Pichai; there was no discussion about what to do about that, so it's up to Seraphimblade to decide whether to lift that as redundant or leave it in place. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:12, 28 February 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 Edax Mendacium

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Novem Linguae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Edax Mendacium (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

AMPOL
BLP

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

2025-02-12 A revert (edit warring) after receiving AMPOL user talk alert. This is after receiving an edit summary from me of partial revert of the two paragraphs objected to on the talk page. please see WP:BRD. leaving the third paragraph about DEI for now. Edax Mendacium's wording changes are objected to by Alenoach on the talk page, in the section Talk:Sundar Pichai#Political positions. Edax Mendacium is ignoring the objections on the talk page and making the changes anyway.
2025-02-12 A revert (edit warring) after receiving BLP user talk alert. This is after receiving an edit summary from me of please get consensus for your controversial edit on the talk page

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)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I've had bad luck at the edit warring noticeboard before, and this is a CTOP area which requires more careful editing than normal, so starting here.
Edax Mendacium, the root problem is that you made your edit a couple weeks ago, were reverted, started a talk page discussion, the talk page discussion didn't go your way (received an objection). Then today you tried to reinstate your edit, I reverted it, you tried again, I reverted it, you tried again. From my point of view, you are well beyond WP:BRD here. You are at BRDBRBRB. In an area as sensitive as a CTOP, you need to be more careful about getting consensus for controversial edits. It feels to me like you are the one doing the bullying by trying to push through your edits over other's objections.
Also please stop calling other people's edits WP:VANDALISM, as you did here. Disagreements about editorial content are not vandalism.
Finally, your edits don't really add much new content. The "old edits" still talk about Project Nimbus and the inauguration. Your edits change the wording/tone, and that is what I believe is being objected to on the talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I do not want to edit war, the objected-to revision is still the top revision. I think self-reverting and apologizing would be enough to close this report with no sanction. And of course the objected-to revision can be put back if a consensus is gained on the talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed pblock below sounds good to me. Sends a message but isn't too harsh. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user restored their controversial edit today [4], in my opinion continuing the edit war. Instead they should have waited for a consensus on the talk page, in my opinion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk diff

Discussion concerning Edax Mendacium

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 Edax Mendacium

As you can see I am not a power user like you are. I can see that you're ignoring the things I am writing and attempting to bully me and bury me in jargon and maneuvers which I don't understand.

I* am the one who is being ignored. Both you and Alenoach ignored my contributions to the talk page.

I made an edit, which was removed without sufficient information. In good faith I engaged on the talk page, which this admin chose to ignore, instead engaging in an edit war by repeatedly removing my edit.

The edits are notable and easy to justify as they are well-sourced, notable, and relevant. Removing them is not, nor has any coherent argument been made to the contrary.

Consensus should be required in the other direction (removing up to date information about pinchai), as everything in the edit is well-sourced and notable. Aside from conforming to the formats of many similar pages of prominent businesspeople who engage in politics.

Result concerning Edax Mendacium

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

Edax Mendacium is a very new editor who clearly does not yet understand that the Neutral point of view is a core content policy and that complying with it is mandatory for all editors. They do not yet understand that pushing a political point of view in article space is not permitted, especially in a biography of a living person. I happen to share aspects of their point of view which I am happy to discuss in detail off-Wikipedia but not on Wikipedia. This editor must learn that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy of any kind, no matter how righteous they may feel. So, the question arises: how to deal with this new editor? In a sense, this is up to Edax Mendacium. The editor can acknowledge the policies and guidelines that are being explained to them and promise to comply. On the other hand, they might choose to dig in their heels and continue argue their own righteousness. In that case, we should consider a topic ban on biographies of living people and a topic ban on post-1992 politics of the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If, instead, Edax Mendacium absents themselves from further discussion as they are currently doing, perhaps a p-block from the article in question is an adequate solution. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, are you proposing a block from the article only, or talk as well? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant just the article, as the evidence here primarily concerns edit war edits to the mainspace article. I have not inspected the quality of discussion on the talk page in detail. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems quite reasonable to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Edax Mendacium has continued edit warring even while this request is open, I have implemented the partial block from Sundar Pichai as an interim measure to put a stop to that. I do see that Cullen328 also proposed a topic ban, so I'll leave this thread open at this time in case anyone wants to discuss the need for that, or whether the partial block is sufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given Special:Diff/1277052415, I am now leaning toward a topic ban, although I'm uncertain about the appropriate scope. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I first commented here about ten days ago, I was hoping that Edax Mendacium would take on board the feedback they have received, familiarize themself with the applicable policies and guidelines, and moderate their approach. Instead, they have doubled down, declined to moderate their approach, and engaged in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior on their talk page, claiming that it is all unfair. I think that it is time for an indefinite topic ban on post-1992 politics of the United States, and on biographies of living people. Cullen328 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the BLP ban necessary? It seems like the BLP disruption is only occurring on articles relating to the AP2 area, so an AP2 ban would already take care of that. Or perhaps a ban on AP2 and a logged warning concerning BLPs, so that this aspect is clearly part of the record? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am categorically opposed to bans from all of BLPspace, mostly on the basis that if someone needs that, they just need to be indeffed. I think an AP TBAN + BLP warning makes sense here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aganon77

Aganon77 is topic-banned from paranormal phenomena, broadly construed, and page-blocked from Ganzfeld experiment and its talkpage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:39, 26 February 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 Aganon77

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I did not know how to create this request. Aganon77 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Aganon77 (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:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

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

14:35, 13 February 2025 Edit warring against consensus
14:17, 13 February 2025 Ditto above
19:07, 12 February 2025 Ditto above

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

Notice of Pseudoscience DS given at 20:42, 10 February 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It's clear that Aganon77 thinks that because he perceives himself to be right, he can edit war against other editors in violation of the apparent consensus at the talk page against him, and that he is unable to drop the stick and walk away from the issue. I therefore think some kind of sanction is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~This is possible block evading sockpuppetry [5], I've opened up a SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aganon77.~~ Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a raxy joe job. My apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aganon has now resumed editing the Ganzfeld experiment page continuing to push a fringe POV after the block expired [6]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Given 14:45, 13 February 2025

Discussion concerning Aganon77

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 Aganon77

The editors are bulk reverting contributions that expand on existing citations of the article. For example, a critique that found statistically significant results but concluded against their results only included the conclusion.

A false statement regarding people who conduct these experiments and metaanalysis as parapsychologists when several experiments and meta analysis had been conducted by skeptics.

An omission of the history of development of the method by skeptics.

All the edits references above used existing references in the article, yet they were reverted.

Finally I added the results of a recent registered report, a scientific publication that is conducted in two phases and is peer-reviewed and it is also deleted.

I also added a note for disputed citation regarding a lack of replication of an experiment that has been conducted 78 times, mostly with similar results.

See edits here

Statement by MrOllie

Noting here that I was opening a Edit warring report at the same time this was being opened, more edit warring diffs can be found here.

I support Hemiauchenia's comments.

To be clear, the issue here are edits at Ganzfeld experiment which seek to suggest that such experiments are replicable and have demonstrated the existence of ESP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganzfeld_experiment&diff=1277603675&oldid=1277182787's response to talk page discussion has been to dismiss anyone who will not conduct WP:OR/WP:NOTFORUMish debates about 'methodological rigor', calling opposition 'gatekeeping' ([7]). They seem to reject the idea that we would consider the publisher, as expected by WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that Aganon77's first edit after their 1 week block for edit warring was to reinsert the editorializing (diff) that they had previously been edit warring about. - MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LuckyLouie

User edit warring at Ganzfeld experiment with massive citation bombing [8] seeking to have Wikipedia state that experiments have demonstrated the existence of ESP. Talk page discussions include multiple experienced editors advising the user that WP:FRINGE parapsychology journals are not considered independent sources that can be used to overturn the scientific consensus regarding the existence of ESP, Psi, the paranormal, etc. however edit warring continues, hence the need for an administrative solution to mitigate the disruption. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jps

I note that the user after having been blocked for a week has gone right back to the criticized behavior. [9], [10]

After being reverted, the user complained to the reverting editor on their user talkpage rather than engaging on the article talkpage.

There has been some coaching attempted by Rosguill, but it seems to be unappreciated. [11]

A topic ban may be necessary.

jps (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Aganon77

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

Just acknowledging here that Aganon77 was blocked today for 1 week for edit-warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page comments make me think the week block isn't sufficient to limit disruption --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but Aganon77 is attempting to make an extraordinary claim using poor quality fringe sources, and engaging in edit warring and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Although only an essay, I think that Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans sheds some light on this situation. I think that either an indefinite sitewide block or a topic ban on paranormal phenomenon broadly construed ought to be the outcome. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The combination of IDHT, verbosity, and edit warring is unequivocally disruptive, and Aganon77's response doubles down rather than make any sort of commitment to working towards a consensus. I agree with Cullen328's remedies. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given their response to further coaching, I think a tban combined with a block from Ganzfeld experiment and its talk page is the appropriate course of action and recommend that we close as such. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (assuming you mean Cullen's proposed TBAN scope of paranormal phenomena) and will close as such within the next few hours if no one objects. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aganon77, I've probably told many people the same thing: You don't have to agree with a consensus or believe it's right, but you do have to follow it until or unless it changes, and there does come a time to shrug, realize you can't win 'em all, and walk away. There are some I've disagreed with, and still do, but I still follow them, because that is how editing here works if you want to continue doing it. So, your decision is: Would you be willing to abide by a topic ban from topics like this while you learn to edit more collaboratively on less contentious articles, or is this the end of the line? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:34, 17 February 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

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]

Ymerazu

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 Ymerazu

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ymerazu (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

00:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC) In response to a question from them asking if a suggested change was implemented and then me responding that why would it be when there is no consensus, they wrote "If you have a peanut gallery of people who think the lab leak is a conspiracy theory and they monitor every single change and comment in this talk page then yes you get that appearance. A few users throwing a tantrum does not mean the material does not belong in the article".
01:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC) I left a suggestion on their user talk that they strike the comment in the diff above as it was "not following the behavioural best practice which is expected in a contentious topic area".
09:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC) WP:GASLIGHT another editor when they respond to them with "Thankfully, editor consensus does not agree with you. Unfortunately for our readers, the page does not reflect consensus".

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 01:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editors statistics indicate that at the time of this filling they had 39 edits, 38 of their edits were at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory and one of their edits were in their sandbox. After their comment to me on 14 February I quickly messaged them to give them the opportunity to follow the behavioural best practice which is expected in CTOPS and strike their comment. At present they have not done so and have taken to arguing that consensus is something other than what it clearly is. The editor is clearly a WP:SPA and this should be nipped in the bud before further disruption occurs.

Notably, as at the time of my writing this, the comment at Special:PermanentLink/1276539360#Request to restore text on public hearings and Congressional positions which calls other editors part of a "peanut gallery" and stating that they are "throwing a tantrum" has still not been striked despite Ymerazu's "mea culpa".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Ymerazu

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 Ymerazu

Hello!

Mea culpa for the snarkiness and characterizing people who disagreed as throwing a tantrum in that comment, I'll be mindful in the future. When I started editing I was doing a better job at keeping civility and I slipped up somewhere along the way.

In my reply to Bon Courage I could have built up my point better. They are expressing a view that is (as I argued in the comment) not the consensus of other editors when this went to RFC (see the first item in the consensus box at the top of the page). That is, they are saying the lab leak is purely a conspiracy theory when they say "Legitimate views about SCV2 origin are at Origin of SARS-CoV-2, not here". This implies that other views are illegitimate. My reply was that "editor consensus does not agree" which if you read the RFC is the case (the RFC concluded that there is no consensus that the broad lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory vs a minority scientific view). It's not useful to engage further so I think honestly my best path to peace here is to focus on positive changes. I will not be arguing with users or doing back-and-forths and I know these don't tend to lead to positive changes to the article.

As far as being a single purpose account, I don't think I'm in a great position to defend against this and it was a concern of mine when I started participating in the talk page. To my credit, I did read the WP:SPA policy shortly after joining and have tried to comply with it by not being overly partisan. I am not editing with the purpose of supporting the lab leak theory. My legitimate hope is that the article follows the spirit of Wikipedia and best practices. While this topic did get me interested in editing, I am not intending to only participate on this topic, but it is the one I am motivated to participate in at present. Ymerazu (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

Wikipedia is really not aided by this kind of WP:SPA lab leak trutherism (or maybe, WP:SOCK?). A page block or topic ban would provide some relief. Bon courage (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ymerazu

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

This isn't really the right area for a new editor with a pov to learn how to edit according to our consensus driven and npov approach. @Ymerazu: you really need to practise before you will have the skills to work collegiately on this article. Without those skills your contributions will be disruptive and won't grip on the article. Do you have the disciple to do that yourself or would you be assisted by a pageban? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantine123

I've blocked Adamantine indefinitely as a regular admin action. There was no interest in any AE action in addition to that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:57, 1 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 Adamantine123

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Adamantine123 (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:ARBPAK

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

22 February - Came back after 3 days of inactivity to jump on a thread about his distressed opponent (Ratnahastin), and is trying to turn the entire issue (involving some legal difficulties) into a discussion about unrelated caste feuds. Adamantine123 is designating his opponent to have been motivated to make edits because "Marathas are considered as formidable enemy of Rajputs". Adamantine123 is doing this, despite having been almost topic banned and warned against similar violations of WP:ASPERSIONS in the earlier ANI thread. Not to mention the unexplained claims of "selective disruption", and WP:CANVASSING to demand "at least a topic ban" without any basis.

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): [12]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I filed the report here because that ANI thread is all set to close without any action as already demanded by one admin.[13]

Rosguill has also commented on this message from Admantine123.[14]

Adamantine123 was already warned for this battleground attitude,[15] and he himself acknowledged it[16], however, he still recklessly jumped to abide by the same disruptive attitude that got him into trouble last time. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [17]

Discussion concerning Adamantine123

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 Adamantine123

Statement by Vanamonde

I was pinged in the diff above but was too busy to respond. In isolation it may not warrant sanctions, but it shows an battleground attitude of astonishing proportions. The thread had nothing to do with caste-related POV-pushing, and even the proposed block was on the grounds that Ratnahastin was under duress, not for misconduct as such. Noting for the record that I have previously had sharp disagreements with both Adamantine and Ratnahastin. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

Not 100% sure whether I should comment here or in the result section...I stand by my comment in response to Adamantine123's initial pinging of me and other admins (which Capitals00 notes in their report). Anecdotally Adamantine123's comment at ANI is a contender for most brazen, opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND statement I've yet seen from an editor with more than 1,000 edits. The only mitigating factor that I can see is that at least this happened at ANI, and not at an article talk page where it would interfere with consensus formation. Now that this has been brought to AE, I think a logged warning for battleground attitude is appropriate at minimum. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the prior warning, indef is an appropriate call. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Adamantine123

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

I'm seriously considering a NOTHERE block. This is unacceptable. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that makes three of us. I was tempted to block when I saw the comment, but Rosguill had already left their informal warning, and I didn't want to override that. That said, at the time I was unaware of this comment in October, essentially the exact same conduct about the same user (among others), which Valereee had warned them for. Knowing that, I have blocked indefinitely for targeting other users on the basis of (actual or perceived) caste, which is a form of hateful editing and thus disruptive. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an action you're taking as an individual admin, not as an AE action, correct? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to take AE action in light of your block. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RevolutionaryPatriot

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 RevolutionaryPatriot

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: RevolutionaryPatriot (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:ARBPAK

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

22 February - Reduced prominence of a soldier by depicting him as a mere assassin.
21 February - Removes "cn" tag by citing his understanding in edit summary (see WP:OR). The information is not mentioned anywhere on the article, let alone having it sourced.
18 - 19 February: Edit warring on Balochistan to change infobox image without gaining consensus.[18][19][20]
20 February - Using self-published source "Symist".[21]
18 February - Replaced portrait of Humayun with a misleading image.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [22]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Initially, I thought of warning him but found that even after having been blocked 2 times in the last year,[23] including a month-long block from mainspace articles, he hasn't learned.

His edits outside this area are also problematic as we can see here where he is imposing the use of "Islamic laws" to suppress the image on Eve. He was told to rectify this mistake on his talk page,[24] however, he made no response. Capitals00 (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: The lack of response from RevoutionaryPatriot to this report does show that he "has been ignoring concerns about content issues". He is actively editing but ignoring these reports. The edits I cited do speak of long-term issues, and these are the same types of edits for which he was blocked in recent times from Bishonen and Doug Weller.

@Liz: Yes I know that, and that is why I said "he is imposing the use", I did not say he was the first. Capitals00 (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [25]

Discussion concerning RevolutionaryPatriot

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 RevolutionaryPatriot

Statement by (username)

Result concerning RevolutionaryPatriot

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

These all look like content issues to me. If there is evidence that RP has been ignoring concerns about content issues, that is something we may be able to action, but so far no such evidence has been presented (except with the Eve edit, but that's beyond AE's scope—it is, I will note, restoration of an edit by LTA PakistanHistorian, on a range I've just reblocked, but I did a deep dive into edit summaries and I don't think RP is a PH sock). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a comment on RP's talk encouraging them to participate here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what to do here. On the one hand, RP is continuing to edit without posting here. On the other hand, this complaint still feels much more like content than conduct. Sometimes we p-block people to get them to post, but I'm hesitant to do so on a relatively weak evidentiary showing. And neither previous block seems really relevant to this conduct. So what do we do, hear this in absentia? But based on the evidence, given, I'm not even sure what we would warn them for / restrict them from, because we have five diffs covering five different alleged policy violations. "Warned not to violate V, NOR, EW, RS, or IUP" doesn't seem like a very effective warning, even assuming all those allegations are true. So my inclination at this point is to procedurally close this for lack of a showing that AE action is "necessary to prevent damage or disruption". But maybe someone else has a better idea. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a p-block from article space as an individual admin action for refusal to communicate with a notation it's liftable by any admin convinced the editor is now communicating? Valereee (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to, I don't object. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted to their talk to give them one last chance to choose to communicate. Valereee (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, User:Capitals00, that edit on Eve was made by an IP editor, User:2407:D000:F:8B29:B1CB:117F:E830:CEA3, but they did restore it after the edit was reverted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iamnotanorange~enwiki

A productive conversation was had. Iamnotanorange~enwiki was informally warned not to edit-war and to be mindful of the sensitivity of this highly contentious topic area. They accepted the advice they were given, and I hope they will heed it going forward. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:46, 1 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 Iamnotanorange~enwiki

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: إيان (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Iamnotanorange~enwiki (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:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles 1RR and personal attacks

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

1RR

26 February 2025 Repeated revert, violation of 1RR restriction after the user was notified of WP:ARBPIA
7 February 2025 violation of 1RR restriction, which led me to notify the user of the contentious topic and invite them to self-revert (they did not self-revert)

Casting aspersions, considered a personal attack

8 February 2025 The user cast baseless aspersions of COI and, despite having been asked repeatedly to apologize (here, here, here, and here), the user has refused to do so.
26 February 2025 @إيان - Looks like you've waited for the biased, promotional content to be added back into the article, before removing the bias and promotional tags. Can you expand on that decision?

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In attempting to justify their POV, Iamnotanorange~enwiki has made bizarre statements, such as:

Quote: No shadowy jewish network required.
Quote: If there's an app that sends persecutory emails, we don't need to name every jewish person who contributed money to the creation of the app.

(Note: Iamnotanorange~enwiki's signatures appear as "DuckOfOrange"—it is not another editor. I indicated to Iamnotanorange~enwiki that this could be confusing to other editors and suggested changing the signature as a courtesy to them, but Iamnotanorange~enwiki has not done so.)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Iamnotanorange~enwiki

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 Iamnotanorange~enwiki

I'm actually glad this has been brought up. I've been trying to balance some serious concerns with this page, while navigating some pretty strong reactions from إيان that seemed to focus on the idea that I was attacking him personally, rather than the content of the article. Because my primary goal was to de-escalate this situation, I originally decided to be polite (but persistent), rather than escalate the dispute to arbitration. I'm happy to have the chance to explain my side of the story; it would be great to get another POV here.

When I first encountered the page, it seemed to focus primarily on a persecutory narrative, rather than the subject of the article. For example focusing on the vaguely worded enemies (including "Zionist organizations"^[who?] and "Hollywood celebrities"^[who?]), of Kiswani, rather than Kiswani. As a newcomer to the subject of the article (as I was, earlier this month) I struggled to understand what she believed or what her organization did, besides protests. After checking the sources and discovering most of them to be from the low quality Palestine Legal and medium-low quality Mondoweiss, I decided to treat this narrative as a form of WP:PROMO content that also violated WP:NPOV, often relying on WP:UNDUE.
I began making edits and discovered إيان was closely monitoring the page, which was surprising to me, given the state of the article. If someone was caring for the article, why wasn't it in better shape? As such, I invited Ian to declare any WP:COI that might be relevant. I did so once on my talk page, but he didn't seem to see it, so I did so again on the article talk page, specifically here[26].
Ian did not clearly say "no", but was indignant, calling it an aspersion, and repeatedly demanded an apology on several occasions. The lack of a clear "I have no COI" statement made it hard for me to apologize. I thought we could move past that, but it continued to be brought up and eventually just seemed like an attempt to distract from the article. At that point, it seemed clear that an apology would not de-escalate, so in an effort to do so, I explained my original reasoning, concluding that I was happy to assume good intentions, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. I don't see this as a personal attack, but an invitation to declare COI, made several weeks ago.
Over the last few weeks, this page has a habit of losing criticism [27]of the article's subject. Meanwhile, political statements made by this politically active figure, in the sphere of her political influence[28], [29], also have a habit of disappearing. This has reinforced my suspicion of WP:PROMO via a persecutory narrative.
Above, Ian has quoted from my attempt to use hyperbole as a way of highlighting the subtext embedded in part of that narrative. I stand by the fact that we don't need to name Sheldon Adelson in an article about Nerdeen Kiswani. The connective tissue between those two individuals is - at best - tenuous, while furthering a narrative that distracts from the subject of the article. The relevant portion for the subject of the article was an email campaign, not the venture capital involved behind the app that allowed an NGO to coordinate the email campaign. (PS I just re-read that sentence and I can barely do it - that's how convoluted this section was). Imagine if I told the story of my trip to the airport by highlighting Uber's connection to the Saudi Sovereign wealth fund. WP:UNDUE
Regarding the second "aspersion" - Ian and I had a lengthy discussion about WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO on the talk page, but Ian stopped responding. Meanwhile, much of the contentious material found its way back to the original article. Ian then removed the label, here: [30], which was confusing to me, so I asked him about it. I'm not sure how this qualifies as a personal attack?
If I reverted more than once within a 24 hour period, I'm truly sorry about that. For context, I have a newborn at home and so I haven't been great about keeping track of time. If that happened, then please accept my apology, I thought I was in the clear (ie: it had been 24 hours) when I made those. Also, I am not normally embroiled in contentious topics and thought I would be prevented (directly, via wikipedia) from making reverts that were not properly spaced. I took the acceptance of my reverts as confirmation that it had been at least 24 hours.
Regarding my username, my account was weirdly renamed a few years ago and I don't love the aesthetics of the ~~enwiki. If this is truly an issue, please let me know and I'll happily change it, as I offered to do here Talk:Nerdeen_Kiswani#NPOV_and_Promotional_Content.

Below comments moved from admin section _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the opportunity to continue editing this page. I assure you, the 1RR violations will not be repeated.

I'm not sure if it's appropriate for this discussion, but I was actually hoping to get some more oversight into this page. It's a little frustrating to have a weeks long discussion with an editor who then stops responding and ignores the content of what we discussed (that might be where the snark came from - my bad).

I feel like I'm doing a good job of keeping my side of the discussion calm, but it's hard to do when my editing partner wants to escalate everything and turn a conversation about 2 sentences into a DARVO attack. Should I open up a separate dispute for that? I'm not sure what the best solution is here.

side note: After this discussion, I am planning to change my signature. Just don't want to do it in the middle of a dispute.

DuckOfOrange (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee - thanks I appreciate the advice. I've had an account for 20 years, but I've mostly participated in neuroscience articles, with a handful of light editing over the years. Not sure why I'm spending my parental leave in this CTOP rabbit hole. I've been trying to stay respectful and NPOV, the latter of which is easier than the former because I'm not naturally embedded in this fight. IMO I'm bringing fresh eyes to an article that's only appealing to people who are deeply embroiled in these politics, which hope is useful to the wiki community as a whole.

Maybe some arbitration could be helpful, even if it's a judgment against me. If I'm not being helpful to the community, then I'd love to know how I can be better.

DuckOfOrange (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade - thank you for the additional warning, I'll keep that in mind as I continue. I think I have a perspective as a fresh set of eyes, and I hope I can continue to contribute. DuckOfOrange (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Iamnotanorange~enwiki

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

Having been a new parent myself, I find believable the explanation that the user lost track of what day it was between editing sessions and didn't intend to violate 1RR. But Iamnotanorange~enwiki, that is an excuse that can be used exactly once, after which you must find a foolproof solution. What I'd suggest is coming up with some simple rule for yourself at CTOPs that will ensure this can't happen.

Iamnotanorange seems to be attempting to engage calmly, even mentioning discussion in edit summaries. I don't see notifying someone that if they've got a COI they need to disclose as casting aspersions. إيان, you may have found that insulting, but it's not casting aspersions or assuming bad faith or making a personal attack. By the same token I'm not seeing Looks like you've waited for the biased, promotional content to be added back into the article, before removing the bias and promotional tags. Can you expand on that decision? as particularly problematic, though it's a bit snarky, which is not ideal in a CTOP. I don't see a problem with the username, though I can see why someone might find it confusing, especially combined with the different displayed username. I don't want to get into content here w/re the objection to inserting Jewishness into the article, but if Iamanorange is arguing these insertions are inappropriate at that article then their comments about that don't seem bizarre to me.

I'm inclined to think that if we accept that the 1RR violation was accidental, and Iamnotanorange can convince us it won't be repeated, there's nothing actionable here. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamnotanorange~enwiki, if the main issue is a content dispute, you can find pointers on where to get help with such disputes at WP:SEEKHELP. If the main issue is, in your opinion, behavioral, which it sounds like is what you're saying, IMO your best bet is to open a new section here or to take it to ANI. Since it's a CTOP, I'd recommend here. Be very aware that if you do bring it to either noticeboard, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. It would be a good idea to read over several past discussions at either noticeboard before you post. Also be aware that you're editing in one of the most contentious topics on Wikipedia, and you are fairly inexperienced, which can be a tricky combo. Valereee (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Valereee has given some excellent advice. Of the CTOP areas, you've probably chosen one of the most contentious, so it's very important to be mindful of your editing and discussion behavior there. I would also note that 1RR is not an entitlement; editors can be sanctioned for edit warring even if they technically adhere to 1RR. I'd be okay with a warning for it this time, but as above, you only get one of those. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any objection to closing this as informally warned for 1RR violations? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. Valereee (talk) 23:18, 28 February 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): [31]
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.[32]

He never edited the article on Sambhaji before.[33] The edits which he disputed here were added by several editors, but also by Ratnahastin.[34] On Shivaji, the lead was overhauled by Ratnahastin,[35] but Akshaypatill never made any objections to it when he was reverting there weeks ago.[36] Akshaypatill stopped editing after he responded to a report made by Ratnahastin at the beginning of this month.[37]

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. [38] 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]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [39]

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 [[40]] 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[[41]], 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.[[42]]. 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[[43]], 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.[44] In 2023, I had thought of reporting him over his edit warring to whitewash the page of fake news OpIndia.[45][46] Even after making reverts, he made no presence on talk page.[47] 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.[48] 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,[49][50] 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".[51] 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.[52][53] His explanation that "as the admin clarifies here [[54]], We don't include lengthy quotes in Wikipedia articles."[55] 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".[56] 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,[57][58], 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 [59] This follows their earlier removal of content from the lead that showed Shivaji's service to the Mughals [60]. 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 [61] 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]

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]

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]

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.

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 [62], an instance of blatant POV-pushing.
23 January 2025 - Reverting another user who rightly removed their unsourced part from the conviction parameter [63] but as usually, Imperial reverted [64] 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)

[65]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Passing this report (which was Initially made by HerakliosJulianus) from ANI [66] 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 [67] 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 [68] an editor of WP:HOUNDING just for taking their articles to AfD and then calling them a "troll" [69]. 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: [70] 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]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[71]

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

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]

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]

The Mountain of Eden

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 (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]

Big fan of the Mughals

User indeffed as NOTHERE by Abecedare as an individual admin action. Valereee (talk) 15:13, 3 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 Big fan of the Mughals

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AlvaKedak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Big fan of the Mughals (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

02:08, 2 March 2025: Jumping into the discussion without even once reviewing it, and then aggressively pushing blatant original research – had they taken the time to go through the discussion, they wouldn’t be making such battleground-inducing comments.
02:16, 2 March 2025: Same case here – trying to barge into the discussion with the main objective of asserting that, The Marathas were fickle and would align with the Mughals off and on. Without this knowledge, one may think the Maratha warlords were trying to do something other than maintain power. This is clearly a non-constructive approach, viewed through a Mughal fanpov lens.
02:39, 2 March 2025: Changing ‘religion’ to ‘cult’ despite the sources outright supporting the former.
03:01, 2 March 2025: They cited a source for this claim, that is "A History of the Maratha People" by G.Sardesai but not the exact page, so I looked up the source, and turns out not only did they got the name of the book wrong, (it is actually "New History Of The Marathas Vol.2" by Govind Sakharam Sardesai), the statement is completely absent from the book, meaning this citation (and possibly the claim itself) was AI generated as this seems to be a case of the AI hallucinating a citation.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [72]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Clearly WP:NOTHERE with their battleground and POV creep pattern, which is obviously influencing their editing behaviour. I also doubt if this editor is a newbie, given their track record, they might come from the background from a blocked WP:SOCK user trying to evade their previous block. The editor should be restricted by getting involved in this TA, they are barely here to involve themselves with any meaningful discussion. AlvaKedak (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [73]

Discussion concerning Big fan of the Mughals

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 Big fan of the Mughals

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Big fan of the Mughals

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

User:Big fan of the Mughals is clearly trolling. I have NOTHERE blocked as a regular admin action. If any other admin disagrees, feel free to unblock and we can discuss it further. Else this AE report can be closed without any more expenditure of editor/admin time. Abecedare (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[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]