Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

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
Clarification request: Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area	none	none	22 March 2025
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 (balanced editing restriction)	none	(orig. case)	6 April 2025
Amendment request: Topic banned	none	(orig. case)	18 April 2025

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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!)

1. 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.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. 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.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

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:

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

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

Case or decision affected

Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Tashmetu

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

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

I'm sorry but this doesn't make much sense. There is such thing as a topic ban, so what is the difference between a topic ban and not having permission to edit EC protected articles specifically? Tashmetu (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)  Clerk note: moved to own section. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Thryduulf

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

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

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

Statement by Chess

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

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

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

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

• I've changed the "Case or decision affected" link from Palestine–Israel articles 5 to Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area, given that that is the actual decision being questioned (and for easier access). If a clerk or member objects, please revert me. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

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

• Thryduulf is correct: non-ECP editors may not edit PIA topics, so it is a de facto topic ban, but one which may be lifted more easily than a true topic ban. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Also agree that Thryduulf is correct. I also agree with Chess that making this information more explicit would be helpful: I would advise AE admin revoking EC to post on the user's talk page that the user should not add any information to Wikipedia in topics with a EC restriction. (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase this that can be workshopped.) Now that Tashmetu knows this, I think they would benefit from staying far away from any article that might remotely be connected to Palestine-Israel. Z1720 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, PIA is under ARBECR which applies to the topic area, not just articles that are currently under WP:ECP, per WP:PIA. That said, the CTOP notice that Tashmetu received a few days after ECP was revoked, while it does link to Extended confirmed restriction, only says Additionally, you must ... have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days ... which may be confusing for someone who has 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, but is not currently extended confirmed because that user right was revoked. I think perhaps clarifying the wording of that template to specify that it is having the extended confirmed user right specifically that is required, not just having reached the 500/30 threshold, in addition to any verbiage an administrator gives when revoking ECP. - Aoidh (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  Aoidh, I think that's a good idea, but we should clarify that distinction when it's important (i.e. when EC is revoked) instead of putting newbies through more term-of-art bureaucratic headache. That template works fine for most people, but admins should be clear about what EC revocation means when they do it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

  • I agree with leeky, even though it makes more work for the admin team in the short-term: it is unreasonable to expect new editors to understand all the implecations of an EC revocation, so making it clear to the editors will make it less likely that they will make the mistake, and thus less work in the long-run for admin. Adding a sentence in the message when EC is revoked will hopefully solve this. Z1720 (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

    I've normally mentioned that when revoking EC, e.g. [1][2]. Clarifying the template is still a good idea, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• I've been thinking that we should just be topic banning rather than pulling EC in these instances. It's cleaner, has clearer edges, and a well-defined appeals process. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Topic banning someone for an action (gaming the system to become extended-confirmed) that is inherently not part of the topic area would seem weird to me personally. Revoking an illegitimately obtained permission is fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Coordinating off-wiki to figure out how best to game the system to get access to edit in the topic area with their 502nd edit being to the topic area in a discussion Ïvana was involved in seems pretty related to the topic area to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sympathetic to this argument (and the convenience one too), but if we topic-ban someone for Palestine–Israel EC gaming and not revoke their extended-confirmed, they would still be able to use their illegitimately-obtained EC in ECR areas like Russia–Ukraine or normal protected articles. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  whynotboth.gif ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• (Noting that I abstained on this vote, given that I felt that the evidence was weak). I agree with the others on the answers to Tashmetu's questions, but for Also am I supposed to do anything regarding my past edits in the area or is it just something for me to pay attention to in future edits?, I would say that this is something for the future. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• If we're sticking with EC revocation, maybe we could update {{uw-ecgaming}} to include some explanation of the ECR restrictions that entails? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  That template is for gaming of the system in general, so I am not sure that an ECR statement would necessarily make sense. That is probably a discussion for the template talk though. Primefac (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 (balanced editing restriction)

Initiated by Tamzin at 20:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [3]

Statement by Tamzin (BER)

I was asked by clerk SilverLocust and arb theleekycauldron to post this clarification request based on inconclusive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive 11 § BER edge case and, I'm told, on the mailing list. There are two questions here:

1. How should the BER handle a case where a page is moved from a qualifying namespace (article/talk/draft/draft talk) into another, or vice versa, after a user edits it?
2. Depending on the answer to #1, how should this be tracked?

My view is that the current wording of the BER, at least, means we should only consider the time-of-edit namespace. Yes, this does leave some room for gaming by drafting in userspace and then mainspacing something, but 1) the BER is already a fairly gameable restriction and that is arguably by design, given that it's not that strict a sanction, and 2) there's still the edit made to mainspace when the page is moved, so really all this does is consolidates a bunch of edits by the same user to one edit, which isn't unreasonable.

If this is the Committee's interpretation as well, however, this creates an implementation problem, as it is prohibitively complicated to manually check for cross-namespace moves (XNMs) for every page, extant or deleted, a user has edited in the past 30 days, and—as much as I intend to keep toolforge:n-ninety-five working—the BER's implementation shouldn't be dependent on an external tool. The current instructions at WP:UBER § Tracking for manually tracking without regard to XNMs are a bit tedious, but still something that any person could do in a few minutes. Fully tracking XNMs would increase that by at least an order of magnitude.

The current advice I've given at UBER, as an addendum to the manual checking instructions, is

It is very rare for a draft or article to be moved to a namespace other than draft, article, or user, so checking a user's contributions and deleted contributions to userspace and usertalkspace (looking only at subpages) should suffice to avoid the too-high[-percentage] scenario. To avoid the too-low scenario, look through the user's edit filter hit log on-wiki ... while using a CSS rule that highlights redirects, then check where those redirects go.

This approach, in other words, is almost complete, but much faster than an actual page-by-page check. I just tried it on an arbitrarily-selected ARBPIA regular, and it took about a minute for the too-high check and a few seconds for the too-low check—not much to an ask of an admin doing the last step of quality control before imposing a sanction. If ArbCom can endorse this approach (i.e., say that an admin who does this almost-complete check has done their due diligence), with extremely rare exceptions to be handled ad hoc, then I think we can resolve this. If not, then I return to my previous argument in favor of an edit filter that tracks every edit to qualifying namespaces by users under BERs. (If discussion goes in that direction, we should ping participants in this EFN thread, but I'll hold off for now since this may be resolvable without reöpening that can of worms.)

N95, meanwhile, could either do the same quick-and-dirty check as the humans (easier to code), or do an exhaustive search for XNMs (harder to code, so may have to wait a bit due to my current limited availability). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Eek: I agree that most cases of a false negative would be gaming and sanctionable as such; even if not, false negatives aren't nearly as much a concern as false positives. But I can easily see how an FP could occur: Suppose a BER'd user makes 20 ARBPIA edits in a month, while making 80 edits about some band or something, and not editing anything else in qualifying namespaces. The band's article goes to AfD, and the user requests userfication in lieu of deletion, which is granted. Their actual BER percentage is 20%, but N95 and the current manual checking instructions will say 100%. So I think at least some instruction to admins to check for this edge case is merited. I don't have a strong opinion on how comprehensive that instruction should be; I'd be fine with something as minimal as "take a quick glance at their userspace contribs". (And I mean technically I can just do that, since UBER is an essay and N95 is an unofficial tool, but I'd like for whatever they say to reflect ArbCom's opinion.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

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

• This had previously come up on the clerks list, where I said "Moving a page across spaces seems like an edge case that it isn't worth solving for. If it becomes an issue, we can use IAR and some common sense. Creating an entire edit filter just for an edge case is ineffecient overkill. Frankly, if someone is going over 30% because of moving one page, then they probably shouldn't be editing as much in that area anyway." If someone is moving things across namespaces to get around the restriction, that's WP:GAMING and they should get slapped down for it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  My hope with this restriction was that it would use minimal bandwidth. In these edge cases, I would prefer the burden be on the person with the restriction to say "actually, my number is high because of XYZ." Like, if an admin has prima facie evidence that an editor has violated the BER because N95 shows their number is off, then the burden shifts to the editor to prove that the number is wrong. I'd prefer not to have to legislate that, lest we further instruction creep. Nothing prevents an admin from being like "hmmm wonder what's up with the N95 number, 100% seems wrong," and doing further research, but I don't want to order them to investigate and waste a bunch of time, when the editor themselves can just offer an explanation. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• While I agree with CaptainEek, I'm also fine with endorsing the proposed approach. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• I wasn't involved in the drafting of this remedy, but I think if it's going to have any chance of being effective it has to be as lightweight as possible. If that means overlooking things drafted in userspace for filter purposes, that's fine. I'm sure it'll be brought to an admin's or AE's attention that there is gaming if all the only edits outside of their userspace are to ARBPIA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• An article may have been userfied without their knowledge (e.g. an article deleted via AfD restored for another editor), so admins considering a sanction for violating the balanced editing restriction (especially while this is a new practice) should ideally keep this and other edge cases in mind and give the editor a reasonable chance to explain why it may be a different percentage than they may have thought. - Aoidh (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with SFR. Katie^talk 17:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• I was of the opinion that we should be counting copy-pasted drafts as multiple edits, but in the interest of keeping it lightweight, i've come around to the at-time-of-edit interpretation. However we implement that – bot, edit filter, honor system – works for me, although my preference would be something automated. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• I'm on the lightweight automation side (per SFR) - I want automation to take out the heavy lifting for admins, but admins still need to think - and if the edge cases come up, they should be capable of making those decisions. Let's not try to solve every plausible but unlikely scenario. Worm^TT(talk) 10:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Agree fully with SFR and Worm - lightweight is key here. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Amendment request: Topic banned

Initiated by Noleander at 14:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Noleander arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Noleander_topic-banned

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

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

Information about amendment request

• WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Noleander_topic-banned

• Terminate the topic ban

Statement by Noleander

Over the years, I've encountered several articles that needed some improvement, and I was ready & willing, but was not able to proceed due to the topic ban. It would be nice to be able to improve the encyclopedia in those situations.

@CaptainEek That was a long time ago ... but I think the biggest change following the topic ban was that I began to get consensus in the Talk page of articles before making any edits. I do that as a matter of habit for all articles on contentious subjects, or articles that are monitored by passionate editors. A recent example is the mathematics article pi where I wanted to make some innocuous improvements, but I knew the article was heavily watched, so I announced my intentions in the talk page and asked for input before I began making the edits. On the other hand, if I'm contemplating a benign edit on an obscure article, I'll generally make the edit directly without first posting on the Talk page. To answer another question you all may have: No, there are no specific edits I'm intending to make within the topic ban subject area. The reason I am now asking for the topic ban to be terminated is because I recently rewrote the Margaret Sanger article and got it promoted to FA status. Shortly thereafter, I discovered that her first husband was Jewish. I panicked for a moment, but figured that it did not run afoul of the topic ban since he is barely mentioned in the article. But it would nice to not have to worry about that in the future. [PS: If my reply is supposed to be up in the "Statements" area, feel free to move it up there] Noleander (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

The topic ban being appealed is Noleander is topic-banned from making any edit relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed, in any namespace. which overlaps with the BLP, Arab-Israeli conflict and race and intelligence CTOP designations, and potentially overlaps with the Eastern Europe and American politics designations but is not fully covered by any of them. That said a scan of his user talk archives suggests that apart from one accidental breach of the topic ban 2012 he has fully complied with it, and I see no reason not to grant the appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Topic banned: Clerk notes

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

Topic banned: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Fourteen years and the topic they were disruptive in allows CTOP enforcement? I'm willing to overlook the subpar appeal based on the time passed without, in my brief check, any other issues. If there's any concerns we could explicitly allow for any uninvolved admin to restore the topic ban for a one year probationary period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear a little more from Noleander about what they've learned from their topic ban and how they've improved their editing since. It may be a rather old sanction, but Noleanders brief statement still doesn't give me much to work with. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• I am reasonably satisfied with their response to Eek. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Couldn't find any issues on a cursory scroll either, which is impressive for 14 years on a fairly wide topic ban; I'd be in favor of lifting the topic ban, neutral on the probationary period given how much of it overlaps with CTOPs. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• I took a look through Noleander's recent contributions to see if there were any concerns. Noleander seems to have been recently editing articles related to the American civil rights movements of the 1950s, which contains a lot of delicate subjects of race. They have also edited in some mathematics articles, as they pointed out above with the Pi article. I did not see any major concerns in their article edits or talk page conversations, and am, at this time, leaning towards lifting the ban for a probationary period so that it can be reapplied more quickly should the need arise. I would like to give arbs and the community more time to comment before making my formal declaration. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Dympies

Intentionally closing unactioned per discussion. Valereee (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
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 Dympies User who is submitting this request for enforcement Malik-Al-Hind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Dympies (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 12:26, 26 March 2025: Dympies falsely accuses the editor for bludgeoning: [4] who's currently appealing for topic ban [5], When I cross-checked their given evidence: [6][7], I found no grounds in their accusation but gives a clue for dympies unnecessarily troubling the OP and WP:GRAVEDANCING at best. 11:35, 28 March 2025 / 14:09, 28 March 2025: Wikilawyering over their poor evidence: [8][9] and then runs from the discussion after failing to prove how these evidence [10] (a clear miss) [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-TianHao1225-20250129044800-Allahabad_should_be_a_synonym_not_a_former_name] (helpful for discussion) contains "bludgeoning". 28 Match 2025: Claiming "Provides an intriguing reference" is editorializing, while the content is backed by reliable sources (see Prayagraj#Gupta Empire). 10:12, 30 March 2025: Removed a WP:RS with misleading edit summary (original research) Removal of sourced 31.6% figure without once verifying: [11] But between 1679 and 1707 Aurangzeb increased Hindu participation at the elite levels of the Mughal state by nearly 50 percent. Hindus rose to "31.6" percent of the Mughal nobility. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 19 June 2023: Indefinitely topic-banned from Rajput 20 December 2023: Topic-banned from IPA 2 December 2024: AN3 block. 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 think a separate report on AE would be appropriate to deal with this issue. A broader topic ban from IPA should be in consideration, given their continuous battleground and IDHT behaviour. The user clearly doesn't improve his way of dealing with CTOPs discussion and continues to poison the well: [13]. Note that the editor has a history of getting sanctioned for pov pushing [14] and later the sanction was expanded [15] throughout IPA. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC) So Dympies has cleverly ommited the RM evidence which he has presented on AN, and refrains from acknowledging that he was wrong with this. The "23 comment" RfC was proved to be helpful for editors: @ExclusiveEditor: [16], @Mithilanchalputra7: [17], @Nemov: [18]. CX Zoom [19] realised that Abo Yemen was acting all the way in the battleground mentality [20][21][22]. In fact it's clear that a user was needed to counter them in order to make them familiar with WP:P&G & WP:FORUM. Dympies claim - I'm not familiar with WP:BLUD, while refusing to talk about this, and if "Provides an intriguing reference" is a content issue then what purpose it had to be used against the OP? Moreover it's an "opinion" of a scholar. This is not dishonest to bring an issue which was corrected shortly before this report. In case they don't know - Attacking a topic-banned editor by falsely accusing them for bludgeoning is indeed WP:GRAVEDANCING. (Note: Dympies has chosen to distance themselves with the issues regarding "RM bludgeoning" and the "RS removal"). @Voorts I'm sorry, the edit summary may not be misleading but removing a source which references Gurbilases was not a good idea either, the chronicles of Ferishta & Rajtarangini are also considered as fakery and exaggeration of facts but we shouldn't be removing sources referencing it. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [23] Discussion concerning Dympies 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 Dympies There is in fact bludgeoning, Garudam has made 23 comments in the RfC[24][25], most of them replying to @Abo Yemen:, if one reviews the RfC, one can easily see how problematic the sheer badgering by Garudam is, I also see that Abo Yemen felt harassed by Garudam's conduct there. [26]. The filer's accusations of grave dancing are not backed by the diffs and appear to be aspersions. I have clarified what i meant when i said Garudam was bludgeoning, with a link to the RfC and wrote about 23 comments made there, it would be inappropriate to expect me to cite all 23 diffs of Garudam's replies, I can if that is what is needed. I think the filer does not understand what bludgeoning means and is asking for evidence of something that is so obvious to the naked eye. "Provides an intriguing reference" is indeed editorializing, it is kind of irrelevant to say that it is backed by the sources because even if it is, we are supposed to mention facts in a bland language, "intriguing" is an opinion, and anyway this is a content issue, not behavioural. It is dishonest to cite this diff here, I restored the content[27] when I realised that the page number was not 50 as cited but 56. In short, this report is frivolous and misleading. I think we need to take the filer's own conduct into account as well such as their problematic defence of Garudam's appeal at AN. Dympies (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC) @Voorts: That's not right because the filer has been blocked as a sock. Half of it is about content issues that are already resolved, suffice to say that report is misleading and an WP:LTA filing. As for Ekdalian, his remarks mostly pertain to past period before getting Tban which was successfully appealed long ago. All recent diffs show content disputes and nothing else. Ekdalian has a history of filing reports against me, and was still seeking sanctions against me elsewhere very recently[28] even after getting formally warned against such battleground behavior by AE admins.[29] I don't think he should be allowed to use this LTA's filing for WP:FORUMSHOPPING with the same claims that were already dealt with by admin Abecedare very recently.[30] Dympies (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Sitush had begun to allege me of pov editing ever since I declined to accept their opinion at Talk:Rajput two days back. Then, they expressed their disagreements with me in other thread and hinted twice that I am affiliated to Rajput caste.[31][32] Despite making strong allegations, they didn't care to discuss sources which support my "alleged pov". Such behaviour violates WP:AGF, WP:COI and WP:OR. Their allegations here should be seen in context of our ongoing content dispute only. Dympies (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC) @LeónGonsalvesofGoa, firstly this forum is for behavioural issues rather than content disputes, your diffs are of little help. About diffs a,b,c, d, e, it was purely your opinion that the content is not NPOV. In an RfC, editors are supposed to express their opinions like "support" or "oppose" and its completely their discretion whether to respond to each comment or not. Talking too much in RfC apart from main comment is likely to be considered WP:BLUDGEONING. Btw, its dishonest on your part to say that I didn't respond to your questions.[33][34][35] About f, again, is there any compulsion on me to respond to every comment from you or LukeEmily? I expressed my opinion in a poll ie "Support Tban and overturn all closures" and LukeEmily expressed his by commenting on my vote. I repeat, I am not fond of bludgeoning. Responding to him didn't make any sense as it wasn't the right forum for that. About g, Abecedare had imposed the "consensus required" restriction" on Rajput page which was to replace the existing WP:BRD. I expressed my concern about it and, as visible in diff, Abecedare understood my concern and gave a partial exemption to me and LukeEmily (two long time editors of page). In all, I found your concerns unsubstantial, inaccurate and irrelevant. Dympies (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC) @Sitush, your observation that I don't edit aspects other than varna in the Rajput page is totally incorrect. See my edits which are unrelated to varna.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] Dympies (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC) @LeónGonsalvesofGoa, about b,c,d,e, bludeoning means to repeat the same thing again and again. If you sincerely see this RfC, the one who was actually bludeoning was LukeEmily who continued to ask the same questions despite getting convincing responses from my side. Same questions often get the same responses. It is to be noted that they had "strongly opposed" the proposal. They commented on almost every user who had supported the proposl (against their opinion) and their comments in the RfC number 39! About edit warring sanction f, I had received a small two week block from editing a single page ie 2019 Balakot airstrike. In that incident, I was already engaging on talk page and admin must have taken this into account when they released me from sanction well before its expiry. About g, me and other users had been following WP:BRD which sometimes resulted in minor incidents of edit warring. Abecedare had imposed a "consensus required" restriction and I was expressing my disagreement with that. It should be seen in that context only. One can't single out me and question by editing behavior on Rajput page as edit wars cannot be seen as one-sided. I had been using talk page whenever need arose. Dympies (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC) @IAmAtHome, making baseless accusations of being "caste warrior" can drive you into trouble. My edits in the area are based on WP:RS rather than WP:OR. Your observation that most of my edits are in Rajput or Kshatriya pages is wrong as my contribs are vastly diversified. Your remarks on diff A is completely misleading. In case of B, Adamantine123 was proposing a new page which had already been deleted by community. In case of C, Ekdalian had reported me at ANI on grounds of past sanction and their WP:OR. These events heated me a bit. While former user was later permanently blocked on grounds of promoting caste hatred and personal attacks, logged warning was issued later to latter for making personal attacks. This shows the kind of behaviour I was subjected to. Dympies (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC) @Valereee, in Dec 2023, my existing Rajput ban was replaced with IPA ban. As far as Rajput editing is concerned, after successfully appealing by Tban, I found that there were some aspects of Rajputs which hadn't been covered. I added some content citing high quality sources. But my editing often contradicted WP:OR of some users. I got used to listen from them a rant that I was promoting Rajput caste and I had previously been sanctioned in same area[44][45][46][47], but they failed to prove how my present editing was disruptive. A sock filed this malicious report and they found this as an opportunity to knock me out. Had there been any real issues with my edits at Rajput page, some diff must have been presented by now. Another thing which is being sensationalised is initiation of an Rfc by me. How can proposing some sourced content in RfC amount to disruption? Users should put their opinions in RfCs rather than casting doubts on an editor's integrity. Thanks. Dympies (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC) @admins, if you permit I would like to respond to diff I (regarding WP:MULTIPLE) and H (regarding my edit counts) raised by IamAtHome. Dympies (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Statement by NXcrypto I took a look at the evidence presented and didn't see any case to take action. Anyone who is dominating an RfC does meet the definition of WP:BLUD and besides this, this ARE report feels very meta. The only diffs from the article space appear to be either (1) resolved well before the complaint was filed (2) purely a content issue. NXcrypto Message 07:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC) I just received a ping from Malik Al Hind stating: Upon reconsideration, I believe this report is not appropriate and will not be productive. As per @NXcrypto:, I think it would be best to withdraw it. I sincerely apologize to the Wikipedia community for any inconvenience caused by this filing. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[48]. Since Malik has now been a sock, the best course of action is to close this report. NXcrypto Message 05:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC) Statement by Ekdalian Dympies has a history of agressive POV pushing on the contentious caste article, Rajput. In fact, Dympies has been persistently pushing their POV (caste promotion) in the article on Rajput even after they were topic banned for the same (after the TBAN was lifted)! While enforcing the topic ban on Rajput and related articles, admin Abecedare had provided a detailed explanation of how Dympies has engaged in slow edit warring and successfully achieved their goal of POV pushing! I shall not provide older diffs which resulted in the block by Abecedare. Coming to the current scenario, they have shown extraordinary efforts in order to prove that Rajput is the most successful claimant of Kshatriya; please refer Talk:Kshatriya and the RfC related to the same. Let me provide some diffs which prove my point: 1. Recent statement by admin Abecedare replying to Dympies, please see 1; 2. Enforcement of Consensus Required on the same article, please see Talk:Rajput#"Consensus required" page restriction; 3. Recent statement by possibly the most experienced editor on caste articles, Sitush, please see 3; 4. Another statement by Sitush, please see 4; 5. Again, another statement by Sitush, please see 5. I believe these diffs are enough to re-impose the TBAN for persistent and agressive POV pushing. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by Sitush Dympies, you say All recent diffs show content disputes and nothing else regarding those supplied by Ekdalian. It is also POV-pushing, in my opinion. I know nothing of your history but I have plenty of experience of how slow-burn caste warriors do their stuff and my various comments on Talk:Rajput in the last 3 or so days reflect my concern that you are engaged in the practice. You will see it also in my comments which Ekdalian hasn't diff'd and to which you mostly responded. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC) asilvering - just pinging because I think our edits crossed/conflicted. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Dympies, I didn't get a ping for your response to me. The response is basically to repeat your dodgy assertion that these are mere content disputes, which is precisely what I addressed in my opening statement. Thus, as at Talk:Rajput, you are just repeating an assertion while ignoring the concern (eg: your repeated claim there that a few caste articles have dedicated sections for varna, whilst ignoring the arguments that hundreds of others do not have such sections). You seem tonhave a fixation with promoting the Rajput claim to Kshatriya status there and at the Kshatriya article but don't seem to have much interest in other aspects of that caste or of varna itself - that is historically a red flag for caste warrior-ship. I'd provide diffs but it's really hard work when using the app. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC) Dympies Please retract your statement regarding me that your observation that I don't edit aspects other than varna in the Rajput page is totally incorrect. That is not what I said, which makes your subsequent remarks somewhat moot. I said that you appear to have a fixation with varna there. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC) Statement by LeónGonsalvesofGoa Since January 2025, I would be remiss not to mention the user's consistent WP:NOTHERE behaviour on caste-related articles. In the Kshatriya RfC referenced above, the user repeatedly fails to address the question raised by myself and others about why reliably sourced content merits inclusion if it violates NPOV: a b c d e When the RfC was appropriately closed as "no consensus," the user sought to overturn it without good reason and never answered LukeEmily's question. f When the "consensus required" sanction was enacted, the user reflected on how edit warring with edit summaries suffice for addressing contentious discussions and described the RfC as having "slowed down everything." g Taken together, I believe this behaviour risks further harm to the encyclopaedia if left unchecked. 04:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) Dympies Your reply confirms the problem here. Where you see content, I see a behavioural issue. Back in August 2024, you appealed on two conditions z. "Before adding any content, I will give more care to WP:DUE." WP:BLUDGEONING reads, "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions." The Kshatriya RfC is a prime example. Even after the RfC was overturned on 12 March, you continue to assert the reliability of sources without acknowledging undue weight b c d and disregarding contradictory evidence e provided by others. "I will try my level best to avoid edit warring." You already got sanctioned for edit warring in December 2024 f. Four months later, you state, "Though we do engage in edit wars, but very often, we are able to convey ourselves better through edit summaries. At some point, we stop edit wars showing mutual respect and turn to talk page." g Eight months later, your actions speak louder than words. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC) Statement by HerakliosJulianus I just reverted Dympies attempt to strike the OP. I don't understand why he is striking him when Izno had already familiarised us with Malik being a sock. It's not that we do the same in the above report of ImperialAficionado. Heraklios 16:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Reverted again [49] after this Dympies, we aren't on any !voting discussion like AfD or RM so WP:SOCKSTRIKE doesn't apply here to begin with, if you think you were not wrong in bludgeoning or other raised issues then it's unreasonable to bother striking the OP. Heraklios 17:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Statement by IAmAtHome Being uninvolved and as I do patrol W:AE and W:AN when I'm not editing, that's the reason I landed here. I took a look at Dympies's contributions; he seems like a 'caste warrior'. His main contributions are limited to Rajput,Talk:Rajput or Kshatriya where, on Rajput he was T.Banned in 2023; unfortunately he hasn't learned from his T.Banned or from the 2-weeks block for edit warring. His POV pushing (caste promotion) and idea of adding Rajputs as "most successful claimants of Kshatriya status (varna)?" To a caste-neutral article were clearly not per WP:DUE when scholars differ on claims of various castes or Rajput being Kshatriya . Dympies was engaged in slow edit wars on Rajput and Kshatriya that he admitted on Abecedare's talk page.(A) His nature of making personal attacks rather than discussing content disputes is also concerning.(B) Earlier he was warned for this behavior but still not changed.(C) Comments in unblock appeal show his aggressive behavior of clearly not here. Like when he said in an unblock appeal after a block. "...I don't want to be bullied like this in future" (He considered the 2-weeks block as bullying).(D) And considering his 4.5 years-old account as privileged. His aggressive behavior was also shown when he assumed filer's behavior was bullying. When he was asked to complain at Administrator noticeboard he said "I am well aware how seriously reports against admins are taken at ANI" which also indicates he has trust issues regarding all admins conduct at ANI or maybe on all admins noticeboards.(E) I believe that enforcing strict sanctions is necessary by reinstating a ban, block, or ban in ARBIPA. IAmAtHome (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Your answer is misleading. It hasn't addressed my questions. You were advised by Assilvering ("focus on content, not contributors"). This comment, "Baseless accusations of being "caste warrior" can drive you into trouble." It reflects you paid no attention to advise ignoring that this report is only about your conduct. You took AE in your hands & still showed your behavior of edit war.(F)(G) (read WP:HOLES) You are incorrect. Your contributions are limited to Rajput (303 edits), Talk:Rajput (102), Chitpavan Brahmins(58), talk:Kshatriya(50) then others.(H) Your contributions not concerned but POV (caste promotion on Rajput, Kshatriya). Once you accused an admin & said "But I remember you engaged in an argument over the same content with my alternate account previously. So, I can understand your involvement here." You were asked to disclose alternative accounts but, you didn't yet.(I) You should disclose per WP:MULTIPLE. ANI report heated you a bit? You were warned (October 2024). Later again you personally attacked an editor.(J) Your history of personal attacks are concerning. Again In your answer you accused Ekdalian-Adamantine123 (read WP:FOC). Dympies has not answered my questions uncovering or accepting his mistakes. Valereee, Tamzin, enforcing strict sanctions is necessary by reinstating a T.Ban, block, or Ban in WP:CASTE. For not addressing raised concerns, POV (caste promotion), history of edit wars still showed at AE, history of personal attacks, aggressive nature of focusing on users not the content & behavior of not learning from his past T.Ban, or 2-weeks block. IAmAtHome (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Statement by LukeEmily @Valereee:, I am in complete agreement with Sitush. There is behavior evidence too. I can provide some diffs in a day or two. The comment by F&F about WP:SEALION also is relevant related to some editors and this is causing a burnout to other editors.LukeEmily (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC) Statement by Capitals00 @Valereee, Voorts, and Tamzin: This report filed by a sock is tainting the credibility of some of the comments that were correctly raised about the edits of Dympies. I have some evidence to offer but this sock report is making it impossible to file an easy-to-understand report about Dympies. Can you consider closing this report? I promise I will file a new report with proper diffs in 24 hours. Capitals00 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Dympies This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. For convenience, the link to the August 2024 lifting of that IPA TBAN: Special:Diff/1241568664. -- asilvering (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC) @Dympies: bludgeoning is not equivalent to contributing X number of comments to a discussion. In that discussion, many of Garudam's responses were to a couple of different threads, and Garudam successfully deescalated things. Additionally, asking other editors to explain their reasoning, stop making irrelevant arguments, or provide evidence is not bludgeoning. RE #3, this edit summary is not misleading. The quotation in the ref attributes the referenced fact to the Gurbilases. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC) I have blocked the filer as a sock, separate to this filing. Izno (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Looks like that block is for suspected. Not sure whether that means we should still consider this? Valereee (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC) I don't think a sock filing a report deprives us of jurisdiction in our role as an adjunct of ArbCom, particularly since an editor in good standing has made additional complaints. We could close this and ask Ekdalian to refile, but that seems needlessly bureaucratic. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC) @Dympies: I'm not speaking to the merits of Ekdalian's complaint, just about whether we can review it here. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Having reviewed the diffs in Ekdalian's complaint, I think we should close this. Dympies is correct that the diffs show content disputes, not overt conduct disputes. This may well be pov-pushing, but the talk page diffs (and related conversations) provided don't show it clearly enough that I think this is at all likely to result in sanctions. If there's to be an investigation into whether Dympies is persistently caste-pushing after their tban was lifted, or has otherwise returned to the behaviour that prompted that ban in the first place, I think that's better being handled as its own separate complaint. -- asilvering (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Fair enough. I am still concerned about the improper accusations of bludgeoning, but I don't think a formal sanction is warranted for that. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Well, at this point we're getting a pretty good demonstration of bludgeoning in the other direction... Dympies, you're north of 900 words already. -- asilvering (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Dympies, while we're here, reminder to focus on content, not contributors. Things like "you didn't read what I said" can be rephrased as "that's not what I meant". Avoid giving anyone space to start the personal argument and you'll be safer from being drawn into one. -- asilvering (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC) @Dympies and HerakliosJulianus: I don't really care about whether the comment has a strikethrough going through it, but anyone who continues edit-warring over it is going to get blocked from this noticeboard at a minimum. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC) +1. Edit-warring at AE is not a good look, for either of you. And over who gets to decide how an AE case should be clerked, just plain silliness. And please, all of you, stop replying to each other, every exchange with someone besides an admin makes the admins' jobs harder. Dympies, if an admin working here needs you explain a diff someone besides the other party has posted, they'll ask for that explanation. The most you need to offer before that is "I can explain every diff posted by Editor X, if I can have a few more words". Valereee (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Dympies, Back in August when you appealed your IPA tban -- which had been imposed because you'd violated your tban on Rajput -- you said For last seven months, I edited pages which are unrelated to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I made 325+ edits including creation of 6 articles. My editing in the duration was quite peaceful and I didn't receive further sanctions. I'm going to suggest that Rajput does appear to be a place where you have a hard time keeping out of trouble. And in fact I'm not sure that lifting the TBAN on IPA should have meant also lifting the original TBAN on Rajput. You can have 200 words to respond. Valereee (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC) IAmAtHome, Dympies doesn't actually have to answer your questions, and while it's generally encouraged to fully disclose alternate accounts, that's also not mandatory either. Dympies, I'm not actually even clear on what point is being made with (H). (I) shows only that you seemed to have a chip on your shoulder and at least at the time didn't understand that you have no right to make three reverts. Neither of these seem (to me at least, maybe others working here have a different take) very relevant to this discussion. Valereee (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC) Prevent archiving unactioned. Valereee (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC) I'm open to closing unactioned in anticipation of a better filing by Capitals00. Valereee (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC) Happy to second that, since it seems better for all involved than having this one continue to stick around. -- asilvering (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC) References

Boutboul

Boutboul is warned to accept consensus, to use caution with sources, and to avoid POVpushing, especially at CTOPs. Valereee (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
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 Boutboul User who is submitting this request for enforcement IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Boutboul (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:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 10:27, 28 March 2025 Changed text from "over 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled" to "over 700,000 Arabs fled or were expelled", even though this text is wikilinked to 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Edit summary of: "Anachronism: Palestinians were called Arabs at that time." - This is nonsense, as we obviously use the terminology that the best reliable sources use and not the terminology that may have been used at the time. Though this was explained to Boutboul on the talk page and their edit was reverted, they nonetheless restored their change [50] (no edit summary). They've argued repeatedly on the talk page that "most historians [...] refer to these individuals as Arab refugees." and "Most historians refer to the people involved in this event as 'Arabs' rather than 'Palestinians'." This is simply a misrepresentation of the sources. 10:41 22 March 2025 In an RFC about the reliability of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, Boutboul alleged that EMHRM "has repeatedly published false and misleading statements as fact", with no sources provided to support this. In response to a user stating "No one has as of yet pointed out a pattern of falsehoods from Euro-Med HRM as determined by RS", Boutboul responded saying "Here Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians. This is just one example." Yet they only cite the EMHRM article itself and do not cite any source suggesting this article contains any false information. When challenged on this, Boutboul stated that "None of the other media outlets (BBC, The Guardian, etc.) reported that the IDF used police dogs to rape Palestinian civilians. EMHRM has never retracted this accusation, which raises serious concerns about its reliability as a source." Of course, the idea that a source should retract its reporting when it has not been refuted is irrational. (No diff found since comment not signed properly) In the same RfC as above, alleging a "link between the founder Ramy Abdu and a terrorist organization", citing NGO Monitor, a source categorized as generally unreliable per WP:RSP: "There is a consensus that NGO Monitor is not reliable for facts. Editors agree that, despite attempts to portray itself otherwise, it is an advocacy organization whose primary goal is to attack organizations that disagree with it or with the Israeli government regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." When further challenged as to "What is the evidence of any connection [between EMHRM] to Hamas", they stated "The picture where you can see the founder of EMHRM with Ismael Hanyeh, former Hamas leader. This is not sufficient?"[51] When another user responded saying "How does this picture link EMHRM with Hamas? [...] It seems like WP:SYNTH to suggest that this picture alone is evidence of a COI between the EMHRM and Hamas." Boutboul replied "Such public proximity to a political leader of Hamas [...] can be perceived as political alignment or, at the very least, a serious breach of the fundamental principles of neutrality and reliability to be used on Wikipedia."[52] Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any No previous sanctions that I'm aware of. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) [53] Additional comments by editor filing complaint I'd like to request a 150 word extension to present another example and to clarify which policies I'm alleging this user has violated. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC) Edited 11:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC) @IOHANNVSVERVS: Extension granted. Please put that here in "Additional comments". JensonSL (SilverLocust) 18:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC) Principles I allege Boutboul violated: WP:BRD, by "restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account" WP:CIR, by lacking "the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles." WP:TE, per "there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources", & "judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint." WP:IDHT, added "1948 Arab-Israeli War" as alternate name of 1948 Palestine war.[54] Despite being repeatedly corrected [55][56][57][58] they continue to insist on this.[59][60][61][62] Source misrepresentation ("Arabs" vs "Palestinians") [63][64] & [65][66] + WP:IDHT [67] -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC) @Tamzin, nothing in this report has been addressed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC) This report is still not being addressed. I did not report this user for pointiness. No comment on the source misrepresentation for instance @Tamzin @Valereee? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC) @Valereee, the second example is more clear and I believe clarifies what Boutboul meant. ([68] & [69]) IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC) @Valereee, regarding "If someone said, "Khalidi uses Arabs more often than Palestinians", that would be misrepresenting the source." This is exactly what Boutboul is saying: "When describing the events of 1947–1948—specifically the departure or expulsion of the Arab population—many leading historians, including Khalidi and Morris, carefully use the term “Arabs” or “Palestinian Arabs," reflecting the language and framing used during that time. Later in their narratives, especially when discussing developments after 1948, they often shift to “Palestinians,” which mirrors the evolution of identity and terminology."[70] This is a blatant misrepresentation of the sources, especially of Khalidi. Boutboul cites Khalidi's Iron Cage and yet in that work they use Palestinians more commonly by far throughout, including "When describing the events of 1947–1948—specifically the departure or expulsion of the Arab population" - Ex. "the expulsion or flight of between a quarter million and 350,000 Palestinians" & "set hundreds of thousands of Palestinians on the road to exile." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry but I have to push back on this, @Valereee, @Tamzin. Boutboul's words have not been ambigious, and this is not a matter of minutiae. My comment above very clearly shows source misrepresentation and I'm not understanding how it can be seen otherwise. Even in Boutboul's initial statement here they've said "several academic sources use the term "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians" when referring to the events of 1948", citing Khalidi's Iron Cage as an example. In that work Khalidi uses the word Palestinians much, much more often than Arabs or Palestinian Arabs, including when talking about 1948. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC) @Valereee, I'm saying that Khalidi's Iron Cage is not an example of an academic source which "use[s] the term "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians" when referring to the events of 1948." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC) Thank you, @Valereee. The point is Khalidi does not use "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians" when referring to 1948. Perhaps reread my above comment from 19:18, 18 April. Also note that a significant number of Khalidi's uses of the word "Arabs" does not refer to Palestinians. (Examples: "unhappiness with American policy among Arabs and Muslims", "various British and allied pledges to Arabs, supported the Palestinian claims.") Of course Palestinians are Arabs so Khalidi does say things like "More than half of the country’s [Palestine's] Arab majority, probably over 750,000 people, were expelled [...]" but he by far most commonly refers to Palestinians as Palestinians, even when referring to 1948, and it is false Boutboul's statement that "after 1948, they often shift to “Palestinians,” which mirrors the evolution of identity and terminology." Perhaps this instance is more clear, where Boutboul says "What stands out is Khalidi’s careful precision: he uses the term “Arabs” when referring to the moment of departure, and then shifts to “Palestinians” when describing those who remained or were displaced in the longer term. [...] I believe we should apply the same level of precision and nuance when writing on Wikipedia."[71] I repeat myself but this is blatantly wrong and I gave two quotes of Khalidi above that contradict this ("the expulsion or flight of between a quarter million and 350,000 Palestinians" & "set hundreds of thousands of Palestinians on the road to exile.") IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [72] Discussion concerning Boutboul 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 boutboul First, I try to contribute to Wikipedia in a respectful and collegial manner. If any of my edits were perceived otherwise, I sincerely apologize. Regarding the topics raised in the RfC about EMHRM, I only did what is expected in such a process: I stated my opinion and supported it with sources and arguments. I believe my position is fair and have nothing to add beyond what FortunateSons already expressed below. As for the issue of using "Palestinians" versus "Arabs", that discussion had only just begun on the article's talk page, and I would have preferred it to continue there. However, since it's been brought up here, I’ll simply note that several academic sources use the term "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians" when referring to the events of 1948: Enemies and Neighbours: Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel - Ian Black: "The refugees who were driven out, fled, and dispersed in the Nakba (catastrophe) were widely referred to as ‘Arabs’ in the 1950s and 1960s. [...] Usage began to change gradually after the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964, and the Arab recognition of the PLO as the ‘sole legitimate representative’ of the Palestinian people in 1974 further reinforced that shift." The Iron Cage - Rashid Khalidi: "More than half of the country’s Arab majority, probably over 750,000 people, were expelled from or forced to flee the areas that became part of the state of Israel. Encyclopedia Britannica: Estimates of the number of Arabs displaced from their original homes, villages, and neighborhoods during the period from December 1947 to January 1949 range from about 520,000 to about 1,000,000; there is general consensus, however, that the actual number was more than 600,000 and likely exceeded 700,000. International Law and the Arab–Israeli Conflict: "The Arab population of Palestine regard the war as a catastrophe, al Nakba, that caused the exodus of some 750, 000 Arabs. A History of the First Arab-Israeli War - Benny Moris: "About 700,000 Arabs [...] fled or were ejected from the areas that became the Jewish state". Of course, one can also find scholarly sources that use the term "Palestinians" to describe those displaced in 1948. However, it is important to acknowledge that a very significant portion of the academic literature refers to them as "Arabs", and that this was the accepted terminology at the time (as explain by Ian Black) — used by all parties involved in 1948. @Valereee if you can't convince them after a reasonable attempt, you have to walk away. Thank you for the recommendation. Sorry if I pushed too hard, but in the end, I let it go.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC) Additional comments by editor boutboul Following the additional comments from IOHANNVSVERVS, I would like to request a 150-word extension in order to provide an adequate response--Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC) @Boutboul: Extension granted. Please put that here in "Additional comments". JensonSL (SilverLocust) 06:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Point 1 to 3 of additonal comments: these are vague allegations without any specific examples. Furthermore, the pages cited (WP:BRD, WP:CIR, WP:TE) are very interesting explanatory essays, not policies or guidelines. Point 4: Yes, I maintain that "1948 Arab-Israeli War" and "1948 Palestine war" refer to the same historical event. Therefore, I proposed that the former be listed as an alternative name for the latter. It is clearly supported by reliable secondary scholarship, notably Benny Morris: "The 1948 War—called by the Arab world the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-Nakba (the disaster), ..." I believe this constitutes a good-faith and well-sourced contribution. To date, no contradictory reliable source has been presented—only references to Wikipedia pages. I note that the edit in question was reverted without an inline counter-source: [73]. My intent has been to improve accuracy and reflect scholarship—not to promote a particular narrative. Point 5 - already addressed--Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC) @Valereee I don't think @Boutboul has acknowledged the concern I expressed about avoiding pointiness when editing at CTOPs. I’m truly sorry, but I didn’t see your concern about me using a sharp tone (pointiness). I may have missed something — could you point out where my tone came across that way? Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC) @Valereee, further to @FortunateSons clarification (sorry for the misunderstanding). From what I’ve seen, the term Arab (or Palestinian Arabs) is used predominantly in the body of the article, and there doesn’t appear to be a clear consensus on whether Arab or Palestinian should be preferred. Usually, the lead reflects the terminology used in the body. When I began researching the 1948 flight or expulsion specifically, Arab was by far the more common term in the sources I encountered, and it seemed the more logical choice to me. Both terms appear in recent scholarship without being tied to a particular narrative. For example, Anita Shapira, often described as a neo-Zionist historian, uses Palestinians: “the loss of Palestine as a state and the exile of some 700,000 Palestinians” (Shapira, Israel: A History, p. 157). Meanwhile, the Palestinian-American historian Rashid Khalidi uses both terms, but in this particular sentence opts for Arabs: “More than half of the country’s Arab majority, probably over 750,000 people.” I chose Arab because it seemed more appropriate for the period, less anachronistic, and not because it was intended to support any particular narrative. I hope it clarifies why I changed the word Palestinian to Arab in one particular sentence of the lead. Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC) @Valereee, On second thought, I think you meant to write “pointless” rather than “pointiness” (a word I couldn’t find a clear definition for). In that case, I can confirm that when I changed “Palestinian” to “Arab”, I did so thinking the term was more appropriate — I should have checked more sources and not relied on the number of occurrences in the article body to avoid a change that, in hindsight, seems pointless. Does this better address your concerns? Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC) @Valereee Thanks for the clarification — in that case, does my previous response address your concern? I did not try to make a point. Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC) @Valereee Thank you for your very thoughtful message — I’ll certainly reflect on it, though at first glance I tend to disagree. When discussing historical events, it’s generally standard practice to use the terminology that was in use at the time, rather than applying modern names retroactively. For example, we don’t refer to “Turkey” for events that occurred in the 16th century, or to “France” instead of “Gaul” for events from antiquity, or to “Israel” when describing events from the Middle Ages, and so on. By the way, I don’t have strong feelings about it, but I do value accuracy. In my opinion, the problem comes from people who don’t accept those standard practices. It seems to me that we should avoid using anachronistic terms for historical contexts — unless, of course, secondary sources themselves consistently do so. Would you consider the matter resolved, or have the new points raised by SmallAngryPlanet brought up further concerns on your end? Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC) @Valereee, thanks for the advice, I agree it is a minefield. I’ll be more cautious. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC) @Valereee and @Tamzin, I was clearly wrong to use the word “consistently” — I should have been more precise, and I realize it led to a misunderstanding. I’d really appreciate any guidance or advice to help me avoid this kind of issue in the future. Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC) @IOHANNVSVERVS You’re right — several of the words I used were ambiguous, particularly “consistently” and “1948 events.” Regarding the latter, I was specifically referring to this particular sentence, which I’ve quoted several times from multiple sources, and that I modified in the lead. Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC) @Valereeeso willing to not address concerns expressed by workers here? It’s not that we don’t want to address workers’ concerns — I just assumed, as Tamzin mentioned, that this was more of an ‘informal warning’ or a kind of final statement that didn’t call for a response. I’m sorry for coming across as impolite by not replying. If clarification is needed, might I suggest adding a question mark next time to make that clearer? Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC) References Statement by FortunateSons It is significant to note that historically (as in: pre-1948), Palestinians referred to both Jews and Arabs living in the region, and many of the official Israeli documents still refer to Arab Israelis. I don’t think that the average reader would really be confused by this, but also don’t think that referring to Arab Palestinians - as is done in the target article - would have been particularly unreasonable. The rest is, at least in my opinion, a content dispute, though I think that IOHANNVSVERVS is right on the merits, with the reference to Arabs being in the clear minority. This is a content dispute. As WP:OR does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards., the rest seems to be a content question and not sanctionable. I think that Boutboul is right on this one, as this is an outrageous claim that has not been corroborated, largely in line with the Organ harvesting discussion. But again, being right isn’t relevant here. Our own article about him refers describes him as Abdu was the assistant director and Palestine Office Manager for Council for European Palestinian Relations, an organisation described by The Independent as "a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government." The Independent goes even further, referring to him as Israel’s Shin Bet security services said that the CEPR was recently declared an illegal organisation “in light of the fact that it is Hamas’ leading organisation in Europe, which carries out its activity under cover of being a pro-Palestinian organisation”, adding that “the organisation is headed by senior Hamas activists, including Arafat Shoukri and Rami Abdo,” Haaretz reported. No matter what one thinks of the allegation, questioning ties between an organization now considered terrorists by most of the so-called ‘Western world’ and someone posing for a picture with their political leadership is at least not sufficiently unreasonable to be worthy of sanction. FortunateSons (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC) Also, while optional, a discussion on the user talk is generally preferable to jumping straight into AE. FortunateSons (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC) @Boutboul, I believe this is a misunderstanding. @Valereee is asking you to address concerns of you violating WP:POINT, right? FortunateSons (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC) @Smallangryplanet, can you elaborate on the specific issue with the diff1? It looks fine to me, and the question would be WP:DUE, which seems like a content dispute; at first glance, he's right on the first and you being clearly right on the second, but both below the line of policy violation. The Euro-Med discussion is still a content dispute: even if WP:HEADLINES excludes their citation, I don't think that using the (original) headline as a method of article interpretation is per se unreasonable, particularly if the substantial change isn't noted in the article. FortunateSons (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC) @Smallangryplanet, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. is not the right policy for deciding the weight between different undisputed events, but for example, might be used to establish whether or not a certain event qualifies as a crime under international law. With mutual violence, it is generally best practice to cover the most significant acts of violence from both sides, even if one of those acts are worse than the other (though it should obviously start in the body first), and the appropriate weight coverage is established through analysis of sources, where a wide range of interpretations is generally permissible if supported by RS, which is the case here afaik. Euro-Med is about which specific factors lead to a source being considered unreliable, which is how a source for content should be evaluated; even if it’s not a content dispute in the strictest interpretation, it also nevertheless doesn’t meet the requirements for a conduct violation. FortunateSons (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC) Statement by Smallangryplanet Regarding the 1948 Palestine war article, there are other instances where Boutboul did not adhere to a couple of policies, namely WP:FALSEBALANCE (diff1) and WP:POVPUSH (diff2). For the Euro Med discussion, he has also been misrepresenting sources, insisting that Euro Med asserted the IDF was systematically using dogs to rape Palestinians. The article he cited makes no such claim - it says Israel uses dogs to attack Palestinians, shares one witness testimony detailing one rape, and calls for a proper investigation. This has also been covered by other RS. When confronted with this, Boutbol continued insisting that the title of the article makes his assertion valid, ignoring WP:HEADLINES, and to support this claim, shared an archived version of the article that was subsequently updated. I don't know if this was done with the intention to mislead, but it seems weird to look for a specific archive when the article is still live with the updated headline, and most of the available archives show the updated headline. As a side comment, Boutbol got his EC removed last year for EC gaming, and applied 3 times to get it back. He finally got it at the end of February, and was explicitly advised to be cautious. For someone so eager to participate in this CTOP, engaging in edit wars barely a month after having EC restored suggests that this may not be the best place for him to contribute. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC) @FortunateSons: The main issue with diff1 is that it is trying to give WP:FALSEBALANCE between two different "campaigns of massacres." If you want to talk about if it's WP:DUE or not, then it fails that test too, since we already cover that massacres happened by and against both sides, and the Nakba (by our own definition!) is not a series of one-off tragic events. (It also violates how we're supposed to handle an article's lead, because it introduces some content to the led that isn't in the article itself.) The Euro-Med thing is not a content dispute simply because there's no content being disputed; we're trying to determine if the resource is reliable or not. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Boutboul This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Boutboul, changing Palestinians to Arabs because they were generally called that back then seems like it might be in service of making a point, in which case that's a behavioral issue. If there is a consensus at an article that a particular modern term be used, you can try to form new consensus, but if you can't, you just have to walk away. If you can't do that, that's also a behavioral issue. We don't get into content here, but fwiw, if sources are using both and one is more precise for a particular usage, then consensus often does develop to use the more precise term, especially if the trend is toward that term. And if the argument you're making is just However, it is important to acknowledge that a very significant portion of the academic literature refers to them as "Arabs", you have to be able to convince people of why that's important at that article. And again, if you can't convince them after a reasonable attempt, you have to walk away. Valereee (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC) Anyone object to closing this as "Has acknowledged an informal warning that sometimes one must accept a consensus one disagrees with"? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC) @IOHANNVSVERVS: The Arab/Palestinian issue appears to be resolved per above. The two other diffs you presented don't seem to be to be so unreasonable as to cross over the content/conduct barrier. (Another way to put that is, even if Boutboul is wrong, merely being wrong isn't sanctionable.) I don't feel strongly about this, and if another admin thinks that they do cross that line, I wouldn't stand in the way of sanctions or a logged warning. But this has been open for two weeks and no admin has taken that stance yet, so at a certain point one has to assume no one is moved in that direction. I'll leave this open another 48 hours, though, and I'll toss in a ping to @Valereee in case she has any thoughts in addition to what she's said already. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC) I don't think @Boutboul has acknowledged the concern I expressed about avoiding pointiness when editing at CTOPs. As an aside on that, and this isn't just Boutboul, but why are so many people so focussed on responding at length to other commenters when workers here haven't even expressed concerns about those commenters' contributions, and so willing to not address concerns expressed by workers here? Valereee (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC) @Boutboul, no, not a sharp tone or pointless. I mean pointiness, as in making an edit in order to make a WP:POINT. What I said was changing Palestinians to Arabs because they were generally called that back then seems like it might be in service of making a point. Valereee (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC) @Boutboul Yes, that addresses it. I'd advise caution with this kind of thing. This exact kind of change is often made for pointy reasons, and if those reasons align with your own apparent point of view about a situation, you are likely to be perceived as pushing a point of view. When an edit you make could be seen as an edit made to make the article closer to your own point of view, and someone objects, it's best to consider the possibility you may not be able to edit 100% neutrally because you have strong feelings on a subject, and that you may be subconsciously grasping at rationales. "Anachronistic" is used a lot this way. We've got an IP at Borscht trying to change Kyiv to Kiev in a sentence about a journalist writing about the dish because at the time he was writing, Kiev was the accepted International spelling, making the use of Kyiv anachronistic. Maybe you can see how pointy that sounds when it's a subject you aren't passionate about? Valereee (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC) I'm satisfied that you've acknowledged the warning, even if you don't agree. That's what's really important to me. I like to make sure people know they're walking through a minefield so that next time I'm not thinking, "Well, it's plausible that they didn't understand this." Your thinking is outside of consensus, and if you keep arguing "We have to call them Arabs because: anachronism", you are quite likely to end up here again, and I'll be pretty sympathetic to someone who is calling that POVpushing. Valereee (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC) @IOHANNVSVERVS, I looked at one of your "misrepresentation of sources" diffs at random, and it was you saying: They do not "consistently" use the term "Arabs". Of course they do use that term, but they also use the term "Palestinians". You cite Khalidi's Iron Cage, but a search of that text shows 307 results for "Palestinians" and only 96 results for "Arabs". You need to stop misrepresenting the sources. That didn't look like a misrepresentation of sources to me, just like two different interpretations of what "consistently" means. According to you, that source does use Arab a lot, but uses Palestinian ~three times as often. Unless you're arguing that Boutboul by "consistently" was intending to argue that the source "uses Arabs more often that it uses Palestinians", I'm not sure this is more than two people misunderstanding one another. Did you ask Boutboul whether that's what they intended to argue? Valereee (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC) Sorry, @IOHANNVSVERVS, but that doesn't make it clearer. That again looks like differences in interpretation and expression. If someone said, "Khalidi uses Arabs more often than Palestinians", that would be misrepresenting the source. @Boutboul, I will advise that you be more careful in how you phrase your arguments. You can see how IO has interpreted you saying a source "consistently" uses the term Arabs: to mean they use it all/almost all the time, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, and that editor will likely never trust you to represent sources in a way that is clear to them again, which is not the reputation you want to get. You need to be a lot more careful in how you phrase your arguments, or you're going to end up back here again. By the time an editor has 1500 edits, we expect them to be getting a clue, and I'm not sure you are. Valereee (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC) @Tamzin (or any other worker here) , could you take a look at my last few exchanges with IO and see if you agree with them about misrepresentation of sources? We've gone back and forth several times, and the complaint about misrepresentation of sources seems to be their primary concern. Valereee (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC) I agree with your analysis. Boutboul's word choice was ambiguous, but not per se inaccurate, and I don't see evidence that the ambiguity was intentional. If anything, I see this as just more reason for the warning about yielding to consensus: The longer a dispute goes, the more minute things get, and sooner or later editors are arguing not over what the sources say but over the minutiae of each other's words, which is rarely helpful. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC) @IOHANNVSVERVS, are you saying several academic sources use the term "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians" when referring to the events of 1948 is a misrepresentation because fewer than (several = ~three) academic sources use the term Arabs rather than Palestinians in this context? Valereee (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC) IOHANNVSVERVS, you're saying Khalidi's Iron Cage is not an example of an academic source which "use[s] the term "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians" when referring to the events of 1948. but previously you said You cite Khalidi's Iron Cage, but a search of that text shows 307 results for "Palestinians" and only 96 results for "Arabs" I am still having a hard time seeing this as intentional misrepresentation by Bb. You're arguing this as possible intentional obtuseness, possible reading of sources to find what they're looking for -- some support for calling the use of Arab w/re: Palestinians "anachronistic" when referring to the events of 1948? I've already warned Bb about arguing "anachronistic" in these types of cases often being POVpushing, and warned them a second time that whether or not they disagree with me on that, I'll be pretty sympathetic to anyone complaining if they continue to do it. If you see them clearly doing that again, ping me to it the talk page. This is an area where a single admin can place a tban. Realize that if you ping me and the complaint is frivolous, I'm unlikely to spend a ton of time investigating the next such complaint. But I do understand that we're getting into possible sealioning territory, which is something I'm very sympathetic to, especially at PIA. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC) @IOHANNVSVERVS, look how many exchanges it's requiring for you and me to recast our language to provide emphasis for clarity, even here. I just think at this point, we've given Bb fair warning that playing fast and loose with sources is something they're going to need to scrupulously avoid. I can see you want something more than a warning, but I don't feel comfortable not giving them a chance to correct their approach moving forward. Valereee (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC) @Tamzin, I'm satisfied, any objection to closing with informal warnings for accepting consensus and being cautious with POVpushing arguments in CTOPs? Valereee (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Mikewem

Mikewem is topic banned from PIA until they are extended confirmed; gaming to get to EC will be considered a violation of the topic ban. Valereee (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
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 Mikewem User who is submitting this request for enforcement Dan Murphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Mikewem (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:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [74] The Mikewem account (at the time of this writing all of 192 edits to its name) removed a comment I made at Talk:Zionism. I was responding to a non-ecr IP account that claimed association with a pro-Israel advocacy group. I wrote the group shouldn't have input to the page, citing the group in question's efforts to have lapel pins with Palestinian flags on them serve as evidence of support for "antisemitism" and "rape and murder." Mikewem claimed my comments were a "personal attack." [75] After I restored my comment the Mikewem account again removed it. [76] The Mikewem account also wrote, in response to my expression of disagreement with two other non-ecr accounts about a proposed change to the Zionism article, requesting I be ignored because of my alleged earlier "personal attack." Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any [77] 24 hour block from the Zionism talk page. [78] Indefinite block from Wikipedia following Mikewem's escalation around the Zionism block. The account was unblocked a few weeks later. [79] First CTOP warning for Israel-Palestine, last October. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I don't care whose sock it is. But it is all very blech.Dan Murphy (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [80] Discussion concerning Mikewem 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 Mikewem In my view, the things at question here are 1. Whether or not Dan Murphy’s statement to a user that they should be denied access to WP due to personal association was a personal attack 2. Whether or not the policy that “any editor may remove a personal attack against another editor” extends to non-ecr editors. 3. Whether or not my edit had anything whatsoever to do with any I/P content, broadly construed. My view is that my edit did not concern any I/P content whatsoever, and therefore neither ecr nor arbpia necessarily apply here, per my understanding. I am not asking that any sanction be applied against Dan Murphy at this time, but I’m kindly requesting that he considers making fewer personal attacks in the future. I asked an administrator User:Chetsford that Dan’s input be “de-weighted”, not ignored. Again, my comment did not address or discuss any content related to the I/P dispute. My edit and note to an admin was solely focused on WP regulations on civility, completely divorced from any topic area. Accusing me of being a sock puppet is another personal attack, respectfully Mikewem (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Mikewem This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Mikewem, you are not allowed to edit at PIA until you have 500 edits. Valereee (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Since this is the third time Mikewem has wound up in trouble over the scope of the ECR's limited exception for edit requests, I propose simplifying things by imposing a TBAN that will expire when they reach EC. I also support an informal warning to Dan Murphy to focus on content rather than contributor (cf. [81]) and not to accuse editors of sockpuppetry without evidence (as in this thread). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC) +1. Valereee (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Srijanx22

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 Srijanx22

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

HerakliosJulianus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Srijanx22 (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

1. 05:38, 2 April 2025: Frivolously revenge-nominating articles [82][83][84] for taking them on SPI, and then claims reliable publishers like JSTOR and Sage Publishing as "non-academic", that simply shows the user is a practitioner of battleground mentality.
2. 07:46, 18 March 2025: Before advocating against reliable sources, he cites a deprecated source [85].
3. 06:38, 17 March 2025: Pov Pushing on Bangladesh Liberation War [86] by disregarding the previous discussions Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 10#Statusquo.
4. 05:34, 13 March 2025: Outrightly reverting productive edit (Afaik...the sources cited were reliable) without giving any summary or following WP:BRD rule.
5. 05:20, 25 August 2024: Performing disruptive edits [87].

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

[88]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor is not only engaged in battleground issues, but they obviously lack competence as evident in the above diffs, where they cannot distinguish between reliable and non-reliable sources. Heraklios 20:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The response by Srijanx22 is evasive and WP:IDHT at best, all of the articles getting nominated in the last two days? couldn't be coincidence. By "publishers" I mainly meant Sage publications and JSTOR doesn't index a source/journal/paper in their collection "regardless of their reliability". Exactly what do you find odd with Islamic Research Institute and the works of Muin-ud-din Ahmad Khan & Hari Ram Gupta, that you label them as "non-academic" voice? These are simply WP:STONEWALLING and WP:IDONTLIKEIT problems. Moreover you're still defying that Moneylife is an unreliable source and smartly overlooked the RSN discussion.

"I made this edit per WP:BOLD since all the cited sources term it as an Indian victory": While you say this, you are defying the previous discussion in which you were actively involved [89] so WP:BOLD does not apply in anyway. You didn't follow WP:CONDD either. If we rule out sockfarms [90][91] and canvassed editors then look into the comments of veteran and non-partisan editors [92][93][94], the consensus still stands out.

Srijan still haven't given any justification for the reverts of sourced additions [95]. The edits [96][97] remain unchallenged because you casually reverted your disruptive edits.

The report is about to review your incompetence, IDHT and battleground issues so bringing some previous SPI and ANI diffs will get you nowhere, instead of derailing this thread, you need to focus on the raised issues. Heraklios 16:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[98]

Discussion concerning Srijanx22

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 Srijanx22

1. None of those nominations are frivolous but are moving towards successful deletion. HerakliosJulianus is falsely claiming just any nomination of his articles as a "revenge nomination",[99] when when the nomination does not involve me, instead of addressing the issues with his articles. It is ironic that he is talking about competence when he does not even understand that JSTOR is not a publisher but a collection of various sources regardless of their reliability. Even right now, HerakliosJulianus has failed to confirm how any of his sources verify the subject in question. This shows HerakliosJulianus lacks understanding of even WP:V.

2. Anyone can see none of the sources used here are "deprecated", contrary to the false claim by HerakliosJulianus.

3. I made this edit per WP:BOLD since all the cited sources term it as an Indian victory. I don't recall a years old discussion which will have to be ignored and new discussion will have to be initiated since the former was infested with this sockfarm.

4. It is embarrassing that you are treating this edit as "constructive" and cited WP:BRD while completely omitting the whole talk page discussion against edits like that.[100]

5. This edit remains unchallenged to this day. Calling it disruptive can be treated as nothing more than a personal attacks.

After filing a frivolous SPI,[101] this user has started to misuse ARE. It seems to be his modus operandi to exhaust all noticeboards to harass the users. The same thing he did against Noorullah21, against whom he first filed a frivolous SPI,[102] followed by a frivolous ANI report that almost resulted in a boomerang.[103] I wonder why he is not willing to focus on his content issues instead of filing frivolous SPIs and frivolous reports against his perceived opponents by exhausting multiple noticeboards. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I was not interested in entertaining this report any further, however, now that another user (I don't even know about) has jumped to falsify my edits,[104] the same way HerakliosJulianus did on his original report, has made me address their false claims.

HerakliosJulianus on his comment from on 3 April falsely claims that I haven't provided any justification for this correct revert when I already have. The fact that he cannot see the difference that my edits made on the article, and instead disparages those edits as "you casually reverted your disruptive edits", and then speaks about "incompetence, IDHT and battleground issues" is beyond ironic.

Addressing the false claims from Maniacal ! Paradoxical, first of all, nobody would ever agree that any these edits[105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113] cited by him to claim that I was "gaming to increase edit counts" is true. If anything, it looks nothing more than a laughable personal attack.

DNA India, and India.com are owned by Zee Media, which is pro-BJP thus Godi media. See Zee_Media Corporation#Controversies and criticism. My edit summary was nothing wrong, and the revert was correct because these are unreliable sources, especially for a contentious history article. Don't even let me talk about WP:TIMESOFINDIA. The editor who made the edit is a blocked sock. The source I cited here is published by Macmillan Publishers, a well-known scholarly publisher. It has been cited for information that is not even controversial.

Calling this edit as "Removing sourced contents" can be treated as nothing more than outright falsification. No, that part wasn't sourced at all. If it was, then tell me where it is supported by the source?

This edit was also correct. The source from 1987 does not mention "Akash" anywhere, as such the wording on the article that "At the time of Akash's birth, Reliance Industries—a conglomerate founded by his grandfather Dhirubhai" was simply WP:OR. The fact that you are putting efforts to find something wrong here is itself problematic. You didn't stop there though, you are defining my correct edit as "a classic subtle vandalism" which again, speaks that you are entirely problematic for this area.

You are describing this another correct edit as "another unnecessary sourced removal". Why don't you read WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL?

Why these two editors are bringing up years-old edits of mine and falsifying them? I totally wonder. HerakliosJulianus has already exhibited his battleground mentality on multiple occasions, as he did the same thing against Noorullah21, against whom he first filed a frivolous SPI,[114] followed by a frivolous ANI report that almost resulted in a boomerang.[115] I wonder why he files frivolous reports against his perceived opponents by exhausting multiple noticeboards.

Maniacal ! Paradoxical has not even spent a proper 4 months after coming from an indef block on 7 January 2025,[116] yet he is already exhibiting his problematic battleground behavior. Just a few days ago, he was going through an ANI report that noted his basic editing problems since his unblock.[117] Without ever having interacted me, he is falsifying my years-old edits, and disparaging them as "gaming", "subtle vandalism", and so on.

Undoubtedly, the battleground mentality and overall problematic conduct of Maniacal ! Paradoxical and HerakliosJulianus is beyond apparent. @RegentsPark, Bishonen, and Abecedare: Your intervention is seriously needed to deal with these users. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Maniacal ! Paradoxical

Apart from what the above problematic diffs have been presented, this user has a long shot history of:

• gaming to increase edit counts (of his only last 500 edits):

1. [118][119]
2. [120][121]
3. [122][123][124]
4. [125][126]

• Citing unreliable sources and categorising reliable sources as poor:

1. 15:48, 18 April 2024: Labeling reliable sources as Godi media.
2. 19:59, 5 December 2023: Cites a politician authored source by H. V. Hande in B. R. Ambedkar.

• Sourced content removals:

1. 19:05, 9 November 2022: Removing sourced contents.
2. 08:53, 25 September 2022: Gives misleading edit summary and then removes sources. Upon going through the previous revision it was found that the "1987" source was used for: "At the time of Akash's birth, Reliance Industries—a conglomerate founded by his grandfather Dhirubhai Ambani—was one of the largest companies in India."--of which only strikethrew part was unfounded in the cited source, which obviously lies around WP:OR, but giving such misleading summaries can often discourage editors to cross verify. I'd call this a classic subtle vandalism.
3. 08:49, 25 September 2022: Yet another unnecessary sourced removal. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Srijanx22

Srijanx22, you are now at 855 words, which is 355 longer than you are allowed. I strongly suggest you cut that wall of text by at least 500 words, as you may need a few words to respond to workers here who have questions. The shorter the better. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

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

GeoColdWater

Content dispute. While source misrepresentation is something that crosses the line from content to conduct, this concerns two different reasonable interpretations of a source. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
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 GeoColdWater User who is submitting this request for enforcement Chess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested GeoColdWater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:ARBPIA5 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 2025-04-02 Source misrepresentation: The context of this is that GeoColdWater started a requested move to move 2025 Gaza Strip anti-Hamas protests to 2025 Gaza protests citing Many sources indicate that these protests against Hamas are part of wider protests against the Gaza war and Gaza genocide:, and are therefore not "anti-Hamas". GeoColdWater misrepresents sources in pursuit of this: GeoColdWater quotes this New York Times article as (emphasis theirs): "Videos verified by The New York Times showed groups of Gazans in the half-ruined streets in the northern town of Beit Lahiya. Some carried more neutral signs that opposed the continuation of the war, while others chanted slogans calling for Hamas to get out. Gazans, at least publicly, tend to blame Israel for much of the death, destruction and hunger the war has brought. But at least some hold Hamas responsible, as well, for starting the conflict by leading the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, abducting 251 people to Gaza and continuing to fight rather than giving up its power in exchange for a cease-fire." However, the headline of the article is In Rare Protest, Gazans Voice Frustration With Hamas and the first paragraph (immediately prior to the one GeoColdWater quoted) says Palestinians protested in Gaza on Tuesday in a rare show of dissent against Hamas, with some chanting slogans critical of the armed group’s grip on the territory after more than a year of devastating war with Israel. GeoColdWater quotes this New Arab article as saying (emphasis theirs): "Videos circulated on social media this week of frustrated Palestinians protesting for an end to the war in Gaza, while others chanted anti-Hamas slogans." However, the article has a headline saying Gaza: Hundreds of Palestinians protest against deadly war, Hamas governance and the first paragraph of the article says Hundreds of Palestinians have protested in northern Gaza to demand an end to war and chanting "Hamas out," social media posts showed, in a rare public show of opposition to the group which has governed the enclave since 2007. Both of those articles clearly describe the protests as being protests against Hamas in their headlines and summary paragraphs. However, GeoColdWater selectively quotes from the sources to argue that these articles imply the opposite. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC) User was formerly known as "GeometryCrown". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC) @TarnishedPath: I notified MaskedSinger because they said that GeoColdWater misrepresented the Associated Press story. I don't think that's as clear-cut, which is why I didn't mention it here, but they might disagree with me. Since you raise the point that I should nominate all participants, I've added a link to this WP:AE thread at that talk page.[127] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC) @GeoColdWater: OK, but that's not what you said at that requested move. You say here that As I say myself, there were anti-Hamas protestors in Gaza, I am just claiming that these were not the only protestors involved. In other words, that the protestors were not exclusively anti-Hamas. But at that discussion, you said Many sources also refer to these protests as being anti-war with some protestors also being against Hamas, rather than being exclusively anti-Hamas protests Or, in other words, the anti-Hamas protestors were a minority element and not a focus of the protests. The New York Times piece explicitly says that the protests were a "show of dissent against Hamas" and the New Arab article says they're "a rare public show of opposition". The quotes you're presenting right now conflate the general opinion of Gazans with those of the protestors. You are saying it states that Gazans publicly tend to blame Israel with elements among them blaming Hamas. That does not imply that the majority of the protestors blame Israel, it is a broader statement about Gazan opinions. You also could've made your arguments without resorting to distorting those two pieces as well. The Deutsche Welle article does support your viewpoint and I can see a WP:POVNAME argument that the protests being anti-Hamas is disputed. I dislike misrepresentation of sourcing, since those two articles do not say what you want them to say. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC) @Sean.hoyland: I think it's a fair argument to make and I just !voted a weak support at the move. I don't think we should endorse a specific view if there is a dispute in the sourcing, and GeoColdWater does provide a few sources that demonstrates there's a dispute about how to describe the protests. The problem I have is that GeoColdWater is claiming that the New York Times piece and the New Arab sources treat the "anti-Hamas" angle as disputed. This isn't true, both of those pieces clearly describe the protests, as a whole, as anti-Hamas. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC) For future reference, what are the factors to weigh in distinguishing source distortion from differing interpretations? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any N/A 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 2024-03-08 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Only recently hit WP:500/30. It's concerning to see source distortion immediately after getting the WP:extended confirmed right. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [128] Discussion concerning GeoColdWater 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 GeoColdWater I was originally going to respond to the claims of deliberate source misrepresentation on Talk:2025 Gaza Strip anti-Hamas protests later as I am currently busy irl at the moment, but considering how I've been reported here, I'll make a quick response considering the urgency. Both claims of "misrepresentation" here are not misrepresentation at all. As I say myself, there were anti-Hamas protestors in Gaza, I am just claiming that these were not the only protestors involved. The articles show something similar, the New Arab article says the protests were against "deadly war" as well as Hamas in the headline. I do not see how I am misrepresenting this source, it indicates, as I stated, that there were protestors against Hamas, but that these were part of wider protests against the war. The New York Times article, while it does only talk about the anti-Hamas elements in the protests, this seems to simply because it would be surprising to the NYT's target audience that there would be any protestors against Hamas in Gaza. However, the article itself indicates that these are part of wider protests against the Gaza war, stating "Gazans, at least publicly, tend to blame Israel for much of the death, destruction and hunger the war has brought. But at least some hold Hamas responsible, as well, for starting the conflict by leading the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, abducting 251 people to Gaza and continuing to fight rather than giving up its power in exchange for a cease-fire." Here, it states that Gazans publicly tend to blame Israel with elements among them blaming Hamas. I do not see how I have misrepresented any of the sources given. Geo (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Statement by TarnishedPath Noting that Chess notified another editor involved in the discussion at Talk:2025 Gaza Strip anti-Hamas protests#Requested move 29 March 2025 of this discussion at Special:Diff/1283680224. Chess does not appear to have notified any other editors involved in that discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 01:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC) @Chess, since you provided a notification directly to that editor's talk page, if you were not to appear to be selective in your notifications I would expect notifications to the talk pages of all editors involved in the discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 02:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Statement by Sean.hoyland Not that it matters, but I agree with Tamzin. The 'to...imply the opposite' in the statement 'GeoColdWater selectively quotes from the sources to argue that these articles imply the opposite' doesn't seem like a valid conclusion to me. Wouldn't the opposite be to argue that they were pro-Hamas protests? It seems more like a normal dispute about how to compress the information sampled from the sources, how much complexity to preserve. Deciding that A (anti-Hamas) is the signal and B (anti-war) is the noise, or vice versa, on a binary basis could both be considered forms of 'misrepresentation' using selective sampling to POV push to different observers. Disputes about due weight and how to summarize sources are healthy in PIA aren't they, compared to edit warring anyway. Maybe I missed something. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Statement by ZKang123 I'm surprised to be pinged over this. To elaborate further, I just think the shorter title makes more sense. It's like if 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre were to be named "1989 Tiananmen Square anti-communist protests" when the movement wasn't wholly against the ruling CCP but also the participants airing various other grievances with the reforms. I also don't think it's a misinterpretation given sources also stated there are those also protesting against Israel. I'm saying this even as someone who sympathise with both Israel and the Palestinian people.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Statement by MaskedSinger The article itself is about the protests against Hamas so why shouldn't the headline reflect this? As I commented on the discussion, to change the name would be misleading. Gaza war protests is a separate article that already exists. That there were elements of the protests that were against other things doesn't diminish the notability of their being protests against Hamas especially in the light of what happened to Oday Nasser Al Rabay MaskedSinger (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning GeoColdWater This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This reads like a content dispute. If a source says "A, but also B", both "This is about A because it's the focus of the piece" and "This is about A+B because that's the broader topic" are reasonable interpretations. Which one to use is something for the talk page to decide -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC) I agree this seems like a content dispute. I don't see evidence of intentional misrepresentation, just of different interpretations. Valereee (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC) @Chess, re: For future reference, what are the factors to weigh in distinguishing source distortion from differing interpretations? If a reasonable person could argue either interpretation from a particular source, it's IMO a content dispute. If only someone with a strong specific/particular point of view could interpret it in a certain way, arguing that interpretation, especially at length when others aren't agreeing, might be a behavior issue. JMO. Valereee (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The Shadow-Fighter

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 Shadow-Fighter

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Lf8u2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Shadow-Fighter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

ARBPIA

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

1. The Shadow-Fighter (SF) violated 1RR in Mohammed Deif in December 2024 ([129] [130] [131]), and as a result was first warned ([132]) and then blocked for a week ([133]).
2. After that block SF refrained from editing in the area until February, with editing in Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Gaza war. After making a single comment on an edit request in that page ([134]) SF proceeded to engage in WP:CANVASSING, more specifically WP:VOTESTACKING, by selectively notifying @Alaexis: to back their position on said discussion. A section titled “Meet me at the "Sexual violence on 10/7" talk page” was made asking Would you be interested in showing your support for this guy and his argument over on the talk page?. SF then proceeded to make another comment there asking for support: I’m not sure I like this current version and Do you have anything to add to his retort to your statement? ([135])

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 17 December 2024 Blocked for a period of 1 week per item 1 above.

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.
  • YYes, on 17 December 2024 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict
  • YYes, on 17 December 2024 (per the system log linked to above).
• Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 8 March 2024
  • YYes

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Someone who cannot engage in constructive editing without immediately resorting to edit warring or canvassing is not qualified to participate in the most contentious topic in Wikipedia. I believe a topic-ban is in order.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[136]

Discussion concerning The Shadow-Fighter

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 Shadow-Fighter

I was not aware that I’d engaged in any kind of “canvassing”. I reached out one time to a fellow editor who had made very similar changes to myself on the article in question, because this was a topic we shared a passion on. The subject was regarding the question “did any sexual violence definitively take place on 10/7”, which we were adamant that the sources pointed to a clear “yes”, and ultimately it appears that our argument was successful, because the current state of the article reflects the position we took.

I wasn’t aware that reaching out to a fellow editor regarding a topic we both deeply cared about qualified as “canvassing”. I will be mindful of this in the future and not reach out to anyone directly like that for help on a talk page again. In regards to the “edit warring” accusation, the conflict on Mohammed Deif is the only time I’ve been accused of such a thing, and I took my ban and haven’t engaged in anything of the sort since then. Going forward, I’ll make an effort to be more delicate with contentious topics such as this. I’ll leave it at that. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Because I was angry and I acted out of hand. The folks I was contending with gave no explanation whatsoever for why they were continuing to revert my edit while I was giving a clear and concise reason for doing so. If one person had just attempted to explain in an edit summary why they felt my edit was erroneous I would have relented, but all I got was “undo” “undo” “undo” and that got deep under my skin. And so I overreacted and didn’t stop. From my point of view at the time, I wasn’t the one warring, but the one combatting the edit war being waged on myself with seemingly no explanation. I’m not saying this was right, and of course the only proper solution would have been to make a discussion on the talk page; I’m just explaining what my mindset was at the time. In regards to your comment about my lack of knowledge on canvassing, this has been my first time engaging in lengthy talk page debates in my entire 17 years on Wikipedia. It was never an area of interest to me previously and I’ve only recently dipped my toes into it. Wikipedia’s never really been a “passion” for me until fairly recently, now that I have more time on my hands, and I’ve taken a deeper interest in politics. Frankly, I still think it’s a bit odd that it’s against policy to seek out somebody who had made very similar edits to myself and invite them to participate in a talk page discussion about something we’ve both made extensive edits on. It’s not like I was pulling support out of thin air; this was a guy who was already heavily engaged in editing this article and I felt it was a conversation he would want to take part in. But in hindsight I can understand how this could’ve appeared like I’m manipulating a vote count, though I didn’t explicitly seek out a “support” or “oppose” vote from him. So even though I don’t necessarily agree, I understand the policy. Either way, I’m not here to debate what is and what isn’t the Wikipedia policy. I’ve acknowledged my wrongdoing here and I’ve taken my consequences on the chin. I’ll make sure to observe the guidelines more closely in the future as I continue to defend Wikipedia’s objectivity and fairness on these very delicate subjects. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Moving to correct section; please respond to others in your own section. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee: Yes, this all sounds reasonable, and I appreciate your understanding. I'm not sure what PIA or CTOP stand for, though. If you could point me to these policies you speak of, I'd be happy to read through them and use this knowledge to help me going forward. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning The Shadow-Fighter

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

• The Shadow-Fighter, the problem isn't reaching out to a fellow editor regarding a topic both deeply cared about as much as it is selecting that person based on having made made very similar changes to myself on the article in question – it heavily comes across as though you chose that person based on their viewpoint, which is inappropriate in a consensus-building discussion. You might want to reread the canvassing guideline if you haven't already. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• The Shadow-Fighter, it is a bit dismaying that an editor with nearly 10K edits going back 17 years isn't aware of our policies on canvassing. And this is a major problem: in response to an edit summary of Reverting edit(s) by The Shadow-Fighter (talk) to rev. 1263470422 by Skitash: Remedy 1RR violation. This is an arbitration enforcement action -- an edit summary you were pinged to -- you reverted again with the edit summary you guys just don’t know when to quit do you? I’m not stopping. You have not provided any reason whatsoever for why this redundant statement is necessary. Can you please explain what in the world you were thinking when you continued edit warring in a contentious topic after having been notified you'd been reverted as an arb enforcement, and then threatened to continue edit warring? Valereee (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Aight. I'm going to tell you that you get ONE of these temper tantrums, at most. And we don't care if people weren't responding the way you wanted them to. I do understand what you're explaining about your thinking at the time, but edit summaries are not where we discuss contentious edits. We discuss contentious edits at talk pages. If you can't edit at a CTOP without letting it get under your skin, you shouldn't edit at a CTOP. Period.

  In the recent past, there have been many editors who have come into PIA after years of unproblematic editing at unrelated subjects, and they're like newbies who don't understand basic policy: they don't understand CTOPs policy. You should consider reading at this CTOP for a while. It is, as you can imagine, the most contentious topic on the site right now. There is a lot to understand. There are a lot of well-intentioned editors with whom you may vehemently disagree; that doesn't mean you can edit war or otherwise edit disruptively. Do you think you can and are willing to understand this? Valereee (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, @TSF, meant to ping. Valereee (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Well, it is certainly true that The Shadow-Fighter has rarely engaged in talk page conversations before - nearly 92% of their edits through their whole career are to mainspace. But I note that they also barely ever use edit summaries. And when edit summaries are used, it's mostly to further an argument. The Shadow-Fighter, when you feel the urge to write an edit summary, it looks like that's a very good sign you ought to be on the article talk page instead. Not to mention that you should be using them rather more often in general. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@The Shadow-Fighter, WP:PIA5 (PIA) and Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict explain the restrictions/allowable sanctions on the contentious topic (CTOP). Before editing at contentious topics, these are policies you need to understand to keep out of trouble. Valereee (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

preventing archiving unactioned. Valereee (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

79.77.194.92

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 79.77.194.92

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Swatjester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

79.77.194.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

ARBPIA

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

1. April 5, 2025 In response to being told that we need to follow reliable source, What a weak response! this is called gaslighting by the way, the first of several such aspersions.
2. April 10, 2025 A second accusation, followed by battleground editing behavior. First "ping" of my account. Swatjester outright gaslighted and ignored all evidence. This is irrefutable, it is just a factually incorrect translation. Claims that any disagreement is "unreasonable" and that nobody may conclude otherwise, again classic battleground editing behavior. If you are a reasonable person and have read and went through all the sources provided, there is no other conclusion than the logical, true one which I have laid out. Note: IP has blown well past the 1,000 word count limitation for a formal discussion (the topic they are discuss is fundamentally a malformed edit-request).
3. April 10, 2025 My reply, pointing to the arbitration remedies disclaimer on the article, reminding the editor to behave themselves appropriately and to stop casting aspersions.
4. April 10, 2025 A few minutes later, IP repeats almost the exact same massive wall of text, "pinging" me again.
5. April 10, 2025 IP immediately reverts their prior edit. They will later pretend they never made it.
6. April 10, 2025 IP attempts to conceal that they were using ChatGPT, note that the "source" is a livejournal blog -- IP is making no attempt to comply with our WP:RS policy nor to read it as they've been requested.
7. April 10, 2025 My warning to IP, instructing them to stop pinging me, stop spamming edits, and leave me alone. Reminder that my sole interaction prior to the IP's misbehavior was pointing out our reliable source policy. They could easily continue their edit request without ever talking to or referencing me further, but they will subsequently choose not to do so.
8. April 10, 2025 Simultaneously, a user talk page warning to the IP, warning them that I will take them to AE if this behavior continues, and instructing them to cease pinging me.
9. April 11, 2025 IP responds by accusing me of "victimizing" myself (WP:NPA), demands I exit the talk page discussion (WP:OWN/WP:TE).
10. April 11, 2025 on user talk page, IP again accuses me of "victimizing" myself, tells me to "get over" myself, and denies pinging me (ironically, the same gaslighting behavior they were accusing me of.)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None that I'm aware of.

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

• Alerted.
• warned about active arbitration remedies

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have only ever made three (unrelated) edits to the Mossad article and none since June of last year; my only edits to Talk:Mossad prior to this issue were cleanup from an unrelated LTA vandal, or archiving old conversations. Because this involves behavior that would be unacceptable regardless of the subject matter area, I'm requesting two separate sanctions here: A TBAN for this user from the A-I topic under the auspices of the CTOP; as well as blocking the user as a standard administrative sanction for repeated personal attacks and harassment. At a minimum, they need a 1-way IBAN, but I have no confidence that they even understand what they did wrong, so I have little confidence that any sanctions short of a block will be sufficient to prevent future harm, as this IP appears to edit in the same topic areas that I do (military and defense). I'd also note that they seem to be having difficulty with understanding WP:RS in a completely unrelated (and outside the A-I CTOP) discussion on Talk:Sukhoi Su-57#No trusted source of Algeria buying Su-57, where they're insisting that sources cannot be used if they're not on the "perennial" list at WP:RSP, and already throwing around accusations at other editors like You did not read anything did you?, so this clearly isn't just a "me" problem and it's going to quickly spill outside of the confines of the CTOP if unchecked.

@Tamzin: -- Can you clarify what exactly you're proposing to give me an informal warning for? If it's to "chill out and focus on content, not contributors", I don't see how such a warning is congruous with your statement that me saying "we go by what reliable sources say the translation is," is "not cool", nor how it fits with my subsequent response to the IP that they shouldn't be getting their sources from ChatGPT and that livejournal isn't an acceptable source. Are these not focusing on content? Because that's two of my three edits, and as for the third edit, I'd love to know why I'm getting a warning for telling an IP not to make the personal attacks that you have also agreed here are "not cool"? Can you clarify where my warning to them to abide by the committee's sanctions was incorrect, or a violation of policies and guidelines? What this is saying is that an IP misbehaving and me reporting it should be treated as equally bad offenses, but if that's the case I'm going to need y'all to be a little bit more specific than "not cool" when specifying what I've done that's on the same level as telling someone to "stop victimizing yourself." Like, am I living in a bizarro-world where we didn't just have an ARBPIA5 case that reiterated that this topic space is not a battleground, that being right on a substantive point isn't enough and doesn't excuse violating our behavioral expectations, and that AE is the appropriate place for bringing up these disputes? And so here I go, trying to follow the letter of how the committee says I'm supposed to handle such a dispute and the result is that it gets ignored for days and the only response is "let's just warn both of them"? That seems like bad practice, and I really don't appreciate being placed on the same level as someone who's openly saying "I don't care." I do care. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I was quite clear in my initial statement as to why I was seeking the particular sanctions I am -- because the IP has made it explicit that they're not familiar with nor interested in following our reliable sourcing guidelines, on this article and (as I've shown above) on others in areas that I'm likely to run into them again. No, AE is not a moot court; it is however an appropriate venue for preventing future harm. It seems like you disagree with the fact that I brought this to AE vs. some other form of dispute resolution, but I don't see how that merits a warning of any sort, unless I've violated some bright-line rule by doing so. I especially don't see how it merits a warning if I don't go out and find an appropriate source for the IP -- as Zero noted in his comment, it's more nuanced than just providing an out of context translation (the source would need to directly address the Mossad motto, which the IP had not done at that point), the IP already noted that "all the sources are in hebrew" and the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the person seeking to make the change. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning 79.77.194.92

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 79.77.194.92

I'm just a hebrew speaker that pointed out a false translation and i gave many sources. Anyways, i dont care.

• I do understand this policy, and I only created an edit request on the Mossad talk page. So I think you misunderstood something 79.77.194.92 (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning 79.77.194.92

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

• This is technically within ARBPIA jurisdiction but that appears largely incidental to this dispute, which is over the correct translation of a Bible verse. If we are to sit in judgment, I'm honestly not super impressed with Swatjester's response to a somewhat over-the-top but nonetheless constructive request to correct an error: "we go by what reliable sources say the translation is" doesn't really make sense as a response when the current translation is unsourced. The IP's "gaslighting" comment is not cool, but responding with an accusation of battleground editing (while still not engaging on the underlying complaint, even after another editor had found it meritorious) is also not cool. Calling a few pings harassment is not cool. Accusing a colleague of "victimizing" themself is not cool. Taking this to AE is not cool. Replying at AE that "I dont care" is not cool. I would suggest closing this with an informal warning to both editors to chill out and focus on content, not contributors. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Swatjester, what I'm saying is this reads like a petty slapfight over how to translate a Bible verse, in which the IP unduly personalized things and you're now responding in kind. There is a simple factual question before y'all. The article currently cites no sources either way. Why are you here, trying to get this user topic-banned, interaction-banned, and blocked, for conduct only tangentially within ARBPIA at that, instead of working on resolving the seemingly straightforward content issue? The existence of AE does not change the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a moot court. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• This IP editor shouldn't even be editing in PIA except to create edit requests on talk pages. IP, do you understand this policy? Valereee (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  IP 79, this isn't an edit request. Valereee (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  This reads to me as being within the spirit of the edit-request exemption. Their initial post, while not in "change X to Y" format, boils down to a request to remove or improve an unsourced sentence. The diff you cite is a follow-up to that. Plus this is only tangentially an ARBPIA matter. As far as the IP is concerned, I'm much more concerned with the incivility than with whether there was a by-the-letter ECR violation, personally. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

PadFoot2008

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 PadFoot2008

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Srimant ROSHAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

PadFoot2008 (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

1. 13 April 2025: Moving pages without any building understanding on the talk page, for which they were previously warned [137][138][139][140]. They have made many reckless moves [141][142][143] in the past (their move log is full of disruptive moves) which led their page mover right being ultimately revoked. It's not like they aren't aware of "reverting undiscussed moves" [144][145].
2. 02:27, 26 February 2025: Refused to follow WP:COMMONNAME, reverted by involved user [146] but yet again PadFoot were quick to follow suit the edit war and restore their poor additions [147] and again disregarding the common name of entity [148][149][150], this continues ignorance and WP:IDHT pattern led the editors to conclude that PF is POV pushing [151], but instead they want another "consensus" to use the common name [152]. PF actually landed in the OR area yet again [153] by replacing "dynasty" with "Empire" of an entity, after which they were told to start RM for that particular entity [154]. One might need to see this discussion.
3. 15:07, 12 March 2025: Removed sources with a fallacious edit summary, despite both sources seem differentiable. Edit warred over their wrong doings [155]. Partial reverted after getting recalled on talk [156] but refused to restore other source without citing any guidelines.
4. 11:34, 15 October 2024: Adding their uploaded unsourced "seals" and "coins" in infobox to label the entity's flags which is OR and is not required per MOS:MILFLAGS [157]
5. 12:55, 12 October 2024: Again, adding a poor map by removing the solid sourced and stable map, the source cited has failed to verify their addition. After getting challenged, PadFoot claims, in contrast to the cited sources that their map is "accurate" [158]. Then again removed by another user [159] as presumed, PadFoot simply reverted the removal without citing a source for their addition [160]. After this much contention, they finally started adding sources [161][162][163] which is nothing but synthesizing, as no visual presentation is provided. Even after that, the users proceed to add their poor map [164][165].
6. 11 April 2025: Removing content along with the source by giving a confusing "Not required" edit summary.
7. 21 October 2024: With the summary of 'Improve' they actually ended up in doing WP:OR, there's not a single reference in the page to support their Aryavart link.
8. 29 August 2024: This is just absurd, quoting half heartedly, Brittanica no where concludes that Pratiharas were victor. For what they added: The war ultimately resulted in the Pratiharas winning the crown of Kannauj in 816 - certainly doesn't align with the source. On the same cited article of Britannica we find that the conflict resumed over 900s: After the death of Mahendrapala, the succession is obscure. The power of the Pratiharas was apparently weakened by dynastic strife. It was further diminished as a result of a great raid from the Deccan, led by the Rastrakuta king Indra III, who about 916 sacked Kannauj. Same case with the other two sources (of which one is unreliable) we won't find them mentioning this conflict as Pratihara victory. Clearly an obvious attempt to sabotage Wikipedia by only presenting their partisan view.
9. 30 August 2024: This is not ce as they say, just another poor unsourced addition [166][167][168].
10. [169][170]: The inevitable edit war was started, ironically Padfoot labeling the edits by Maglorbd as "Unconstructive" is just vague, it can be seen from above diffs, Padfoot has been making poor edits influenced by their Pov.

References

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

[171]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are many instances where this user has been repeatedly making pov ridden edits, I'll not be surprised if one would find more diffs by digging into PF's contributions. The careless moves are still being disruptive, causing burnout of others precious time and their poor reverts of poor additions should not be overlooked. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies Valereee, likewise removed unwarranted replies. Their move on Firuz Shah Tughlaq was roughly executed which was ought to be reverted, please see this. The thing is, PF was warned for such rash moves and despite that they don't consider requested move as an initial procedure and remains continuous being bold with their moves. PF should be under scrutiny, I'd again like to bring your attention to the instances where PF has been ignorant of WP:P&G:

• First look should be given at #8. In which he cites three sources. [172]: It doesn't further affirm their addition of "Pratihara victory", In fact it's just a misinterpretations that conflict ended in 816 CE while the source mention that it lasted till the mid of 10th century, with no ultimate result. This is consonant by Britannica as well. Same case with other [173].
• Another look should be given at #3 where they seem to be outrightly removing sources and at #2 they were casting aspersions [174] on editors because they didn't get to oppose common name and were ultimately challanged.
• PF shouldn't be allowed to put unsourced and synthesized files and maps. See #4 and #5, it's clear that he can't avoid adding poor unsourced map by removing the stable and well sourced map [175] [176].
• Also found them recently canvassing [177] to gain votes in a move discussion. Not surprisingly they gained attention of some more editors who are complaint the same behaviour on ANI.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[178]

Discussion concerning PadFoot2008

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 PadFoot2008

Ridiculous filing, it is quite clear from the entire request that the nominator's POV differs significantly from the scholarly consensus on the outcome of the Tripartite Struggle and thus, the nom wants to conflate a sack that occurred a century after the tripartite struggle. Nominator should attempt to discuss this issue in the talk page instead.

• A move discussion is necessary if a move might be perceived as contentious. All the moves mentioned by nom are non-contentious, and none were contested.
• The nominator also appears to be unaware that WP:COMMONNAME is an article titling policy; it doesn't mandate that every single link to an article must mirror the title exactly.
• The so-called 'source-removing edit', as I explained in the talk page of the concerned article, was because an editor had included the same author twice within the same reference listing multiple sources, and presenting them as though they were two different sources instead of listing them together.
• The coinage is obviously not original research.
• The dynasty-to-empire conversion allegation is absolutely ridiculous, seeing that I initially attempted to do the opposite. I had change the empires to mention the three dynasties instead, and when my edit was reverted and the editor made the decision that two parties should be referred to as empires and the third as a dynasty, I attempted introduce consistency into the empire-dynasty clutter, only for the editor to revert that as well.
• Following this, I engaged in the discussion regarding both the issues in the Tripartite Struggle in the talk page of the article. The map issue was resolved in the talk page and a new map was added.
• The total figure I had removed because two figures from two different decades were added together, and pages on some other Indic languages like Marathi language did not include such a totalling of L1 and L2 figures. I have since observed that pages like English language and Spanish language do include such totals, and I have not removed the figures again, though the primary concern still remains somewhat valid. PadFoot (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• I had initially changed Northern India to the contemporary name of the northern subcontinent, i.e., Aryavarta in the location parameter, but that was only temporary, as I later changed it to a more precise location which is the current version.
• The "unsourced additions" were, in fact, perfectly sourced to scholarly sources, and I provided all references and quotations in subsequent edits.
• (For #10) The additions did not align with the sources added, and we discussed the issue on the talk page as well. PadFoot (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Kowal2701

There is currently an ANI thread about Padfoot's conduct at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 17 April 2025. There has also been Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#PadFoot2008 - LTA RGW editing where four experienced editors raised concerns about anti-Indian POV pushing and persistent OR. It was archived without admin input. If those concerns are substantiated, this guy should be nowhere near Indian history articles. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't edit in the topic area so can't provide comprehensive evidence other than the OR and WP:SEALIONING in the current RM and previous one (and the one before that where Padfoot was the nominator). The previous ANI thread was a couple years ago, but pinging editors to see if they maintain their concerns. @DaxServer, Salvio giuliano, Fowler&fowler, and HistoryofIran: Kowal2701 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning PadFoot2008

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

• Srimant ROSHAN, please don't fall into the trap of arguing with the person you've reported here. There's a reason AE doesn't have threaded comments. -- asilvering (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Srimant ROSHAN, you're already over 500 words in your original post, and you've got about 40 diffs up there, and another couple hundred words in your response to PF (which is not necessary here; talk to us, not them). You're allowed 500 words total, including responses to questions asked by workers here, and you're asked to keep the number of diffs to 20, and most admins here consider 20 an absurd number (for me personally I make an exception in cases of sealioning).

Frankly, if your first five diffs aren't compelling, no admin is going to read dozens more looking for something. It's better to give us one or two or if absolutely necessary 5 very compelling diffs and say, "I have another dozen similar diffs of this editor doing the same thing if workers would like me to add them here."

In this case, your first complaint is about the page move here, which seems to have been unremarkable. No one has reverted it or even opened a section on the talk page questioning it. Why should I spend my time investigating more? Is there one thing (rather than ten) this editor is doing that truly is a major concern, and is shown clearly by number of diffs truly necessary to show it? You can have another 200 words to respond in your own section. Valereee (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Manyareasexpert

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 Manyareasexpert

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Manyareasexpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Manyareasexpert (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/Eastern Europe

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

1. 12 March 2025 allegedly "atrocity denial and whitewashing of Nazi crimes"
2. 3 April 2025 allegedly "Holocaust denial".

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

Related ANI discussions: 1, 2

First, we should attend an overwhelming support (except maybe @Tristario), expressed at ANI for "whitewashing of Nazi crimes" and "Holocaust denial" aspersions.

Let’s face it: we were discussing subjects engaged in, or connected to, atrocities. The thing is, people (including me) are naturally against atrocities. The reason being, among others, simple survival. The atrocities are bad for people. The atrocities are terrible so much that when people read about something related to, or connected with, atrocities, and they encounter somebody supposedly insisting on not including something "bad" into the article, making the subject a bit "not-that-evil", people feel that their natural rejection of atrocities is endangered. They perceive this editor endangers their rejection of atrocities, is trying to hide atrocities, and is essentially wrong. Regardless of if editor’s arguments are simple denial, or they are based on reliable sources and Wikipedia rules.

With that, Russia-relater articles are a contentious topic, with personal attacks not allowed. In related recent arbitration cases, even the editors with serious proof of violation of Wikipedia rules were not treated to similar accusations by the Arbcom. Instead, the editor who made "Holocaust denial" aspersions was investigated and sanctioned. As the arbitrator has said, "it is fine to argue that you think someone is POV-pushing, but implications of Holocaust denialism are very serious and hurtful and should not be made without extremely compelling evidence".

I call the admins to apply the same or higher standards of investigation to this case as well. No, a talkpage response with the quote from a book by a historian is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to sources is not "Holocaust denial". To argue that "collaboration" and "alliance" are not the same thing, pointing to WP:OR (contested by @Rosguill), is a legitimate discussion and is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". The OUN wasn't "nazi"! (although, had some links to).

With that, I’m not sure if the community can overcome (or even agree with) the issue described in the first paragraphs. There are and there will be editors willing to walk an extra mile and equate "collaboration" to "alliance", "nazi links" to "nazi", and so on, and many, as evident, are against MAE expressing arguments opposing that. As was apparent from ANI requests above, this approach is to prevail, and MAE will remain outcasted. Who would enjoy being called atrocities supporter for their volunteer work, after all. Still, the correct investigation of all the parties should be carried, evidence collected, and correct measures applied.

MAE's contributions to the topic area should be considered. Most of my edits ( [179] [180] [181] [182] , lead fix, issue raised and fixed by others ) have been accepted within the contesting community of topic area editors. Some, however, are seeing UN reports and academic books getting replaced with WP:RIANOVOSTI banned in Ruwiki, WP:TASS and the like.

@TurboSuperA+'s usage of accusations to leverage the discussion should be considered. [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] editors reminding the editor to stop accusing other editors. Did you just accuse another editor of protecting pedophiles?

@Carlp941's previous accusations of "wikihounding" and more which they had to withdraw should be considered. -ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth, thank you for your response. Well, my conduct was supposedly so much in the wrong, that it deserves the designations used above. With that, it is my conduct which needs to be investigated and sanctioned. The defence regarding designations (and some conduct examples and considerations) was presented above. Thank you! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, the subject area in question is related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe, a contentious topic, so the idea was that it's the right place: Please use this page only to: ..., 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 ... . Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Manyareasexpert

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.

Result concerning Manyareasexpert

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

• I have no idea what the heck this is supposed to be - are you appealing a sanction on yourself? Or are you requesting sanctions against another editor? Ealdgyth (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
  • This board does not do that sort of investigation. It appears that you were partial-blocked from article space as a result of [discussion]. You need to follow the directions on the notice on your talk page. This page is for asking for sanctions on editors under arbitration remedies - you were blocked from an WP:ANI discussion by one admin under their admin discretion. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Editor advised to return conversation to WP:ANI#Breakdown of BRD and potential Holocaust Revisionism at Roman Shukhevych; they're trying to stop the clock on further sanctions given by @The Bushranger: and did so a half day late, so this should be closed as forum shopping. Nathannah • 📮 20:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bad request. This isn't anything to do with AE restrictions being imposed or requested, this has to do with user conduct as discussed in an ANI thread (the second linked above). The above is honestly hard to parse and the repeated referring-to-themselves-in-the-third-person even more so, but either they need to appeal the pblock on their user page or unarchive the ANI thread and reply there. Which y'know it's really interesting that the user, who had been regularly editing virtually every day for several months, utterly vanished just after this conduct was questioned on ANI - and returns within the day after the thread questioning that conduct on ANI was finally archived. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
  • If you want, @Manyareasexpert:, I can unarchive the ANI thread for you and you can reply there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

    They already did so, but I assume that moving it out to the current ANI page and deleting it from the archive isn't advised usually. Nathannah • 📮 21:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)