Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352

Dympies

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)[reply]

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: [1] who's currently appealing for topic ban [2], When I cross-checked their given evidence: [3][4], 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: [5][6] and then runs from the discussion after failing to prove how these evidence [7] (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: [8]

~~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.^[1]~~

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)

[9]

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: [10]. Note that the editor has a history of getting sanctioned for pov pushing [11] and later the sanction was expanded [12] throughout IPA. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]

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: [13], @Mithilanchalputra7: [14], @Nemov: [15]. CX Zoom [16] realised that Abo Yemen was acting all the way in the battleground mentality [17][18][19]. 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[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[20]

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[21][22], 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. [23]. 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[24] 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)[reply]

@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[25] even after getting formally warned against such battleground behavior by AE admins.[26] 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.[27] Dympies (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.[28][29] 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)[reply]

@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.[30][31][32] 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)[reply]

@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.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] Dympies (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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[41][42][43][44], 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[45]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

asilvering - just pinging because I think our edits crossed/conflicted. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reverted again [46] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I have blocked the filer as a sock, separate to this filing. Izno (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
+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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

^ Truschke, Audrey (2017). Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India's Most Controversial King. Stanford University Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-1-5036-0259-5.

Boutboul

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)[reply]

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 [47] (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?"[48] 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."[49]

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)

[50]

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)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS: Extension granted. Please put that here in "Additional comments". JensonSL (SilverLocust) 18:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.[51] Despite being repeatedly corrected [52][53][54][55] they continue to insist on this.[56][57][58][59]
Source misrepresentation ("Arabs" vs "Palestinians") [60][61] & [62][63] + WP:IDHT [64]

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin, nothing in this report has been addressed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[65]

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."^[1]

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.^[2]

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.^[3]

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.^[4]

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".^[5]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Boutboul: Extension granted. Please put that here in "Additional comments". JensonSL (SilverLocust) 06:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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), ..." ^[6]

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: [66]. 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

References

^ Black, Ian (2017). Enemies and Neighbours: Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1917–2017. Penguin Books Ltd. p. ix.
^ Khalidi, Rashid (2006). The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood (Kindle ed.). Oneworld Publications. p. 1.
^ "1948 Arab-Israeli War". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 30 March 2025.
^ Shehadeh, Raja; Quigley, John, eds. (2010). "1948 Arab-Israeli War". International Law and the Arab–Israeli Conflict. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 30 March 2025.
^ Morris, Benny (2008). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press. p. 277. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. Retrieved 30 March 2025.
^ Morris, Benny (2008). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mikewem

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)[reply]

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

[67] 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."
[68] After I restored my comment the Mikewem account again removed it.
[69] 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

[70] 24 hour block from the Zionism talk page.
[71] Indefinite block from Wikipedia following Mikewem's escalation around the Zionism block. The account was unblocked a few weeks later.
[72] 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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[73]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. [74]) and not to accuse editors of sockpuppetry without evidence (as in this thread). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Valereee (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

05:38, 2 April 2025: Frivolously revenge-nominating articles [75][76][77] 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.
07:46, 18 March 2025: Before advocating against reliable sources, he cites a deprecated source [78].
06:38, 17 March 2025: Pov Pushing on Bangladesh Liberation War [79] by disregarding the previous discussions Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 10#Statusquo.
05:34, 13 March 2025: Outrightly reverting productive edit (Afaik...the sources cited were reliable) without giving any summary or following WP:BRD rule.
05:20, 25 August 2024: Performing disruptive edits [80].

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

[81]

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)[reply]

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 [82] so WP:BOLD does not apply in anyway. You didn't follow WP:CONDD either. If we rule out sockfarms [83][84] and canvassed editors then look into the comments of veteran and non-partisan editors [85][86][87], the consensus still stands out.

Srijan still haven't given any justification for the reverts of sourced additions [88]. The edits [89][90] 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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[91]

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",[92] 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.[93]

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,[94] 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,[95] followed by a frivolous ANI report that almost resulted in a boomerang.[96] 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)[reply]

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,[97] 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[98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106] 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,[107] followed by a frivolous ANI report that almost resulted in a boomerang.[108] 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,[109] 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.[110] 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)[reply]

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):

Citing unreliable sources and categorising reliable sources as poor:

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

Sourced content removals:

19:05, 9 November 2022: Removing sourced contents.
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.
08:49, 25 September 2022: Yet another unnecessary sourced removal. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Srijanx22

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)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User was formerly known as "GeometryCrown". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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.[120] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[121]

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)[reply]

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. TarnishedPath^talk 01:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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. TarnishedPath^talk 02:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

The Shadow-Fighter (SF) violated 1RR in Mohammed Deif in December 2024 ([122] [123] [124]), and as a result was first warned ([125]) and then blocked for a week ([126]).
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 ([127]) 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? ([128])

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

[129]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by (username)

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

@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)[reply]

Dev0745

Indefed by myself. The first year is an AE action, the rest is a standard block for disruptive editing --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Dev0745

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dev0745 (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

Below diffs show his recent violations of his topic ban from politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan.

26 March - Talking about the hypothesis involving Indian languages while significantly expanding Harappan language article. This is a clear-cut topic ban violation.

27 March - Peopling of India is a heated subject when it comes to culture, religion and politics of Pakistan and India
5 April 2025 - Same as above.
6 April 2025. Violating his topic ban by editing about the hypothesis of Indian languages.

The last one came even after he warned for his topic ban violations just yesterday.[130] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2023 by Tamzin.[131]
Blocked for violating topic ban by Bishonen in the same year.[132]
Topic ban changed to politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan in January 2025.[133]

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

Redundant

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[134]

Discussion concerning Dev0745

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 Dev0745

I thought article Peopling of India, Harappan language is related to History and not related to religion, politics and culture, I edit that. As for languages, I thought language is not related to culture. Dev0745 (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dev0745

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

Going to quote my comment at Dev's unsuccessful AN appeal in February: To be clear, Dev, 'politics, religion, and culture' covers most human activity. The only reason I didn't word your ban as 'human activity in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan,' was I didn't want to prevent you from discussing human impact or conservation efforts in the zoology articles you edit. But yeah, most things humans do are politics, religion, or culture. The "I didn't know my topic-ban covered X" thing is something you can only get away with once. And Vanamonde93's warning to Dev shows that this isn't just a one-off either. In January, I asked Bishonen and RegentsPark whether the appropriate response to Dev's violations of the original TBAN was to indef or to relax the TBAN, accepting the existing violations as a fait accompli. I don't regret that we concluded to take the latter approach, but at this point I think it's clear that's failed, and the only thing I see left on the table is an indef. Topic bans as a system rely on editors being able to self-police, and if an editor will not or cannot, a block is necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tamzin, it is now clear that the user either will not or cannot self-police. "I thought language is not related to culture" is just ridiculous, plus they have edited stuff related to politics, plus they were amply warned about it. Only an indef is left. Bishonen | tålk 09:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
I have to agree, though I always find that sad. The editor seems overall well-intentioned, but misrepresentation of sources in IPA plus inability to follow a tban from IPA is just pretty much a disqualifier for editing. Dev, you might try editing at Simple English wikipedia as if you were subject to this narrowed topic ban from IPA there. Just focus on zoology, limit discussion of anything to do with humans in India/Pakistan/Afghanistan to human impact on a species or conservation efforts; no other mention of human beings/human activity in IPA. Come back in a year with an active, productive, unproblematic history of editing there but not in IPA and appeal. I'm going to stress this once again: not in IPA. This is intended to give you the opportunity to show us you have learned how to adhere to a topic ban. There will absolutely be people looking for evidence that you made problematic edits in IPA at Simple English to decide whether they're going to support or oppose your appeal. Do not take the risk of them being able to find something problematic with regard to IPA.

I'd like to specify this can be appealed only to ARCA where mob mentality is less likely. Are we allowed to do that if we can get consensus? Valereee (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments, we can ban AE/AN appeals for up to one year, which in effect is the same as saying "appeal only to ARCA" for one year (although I'm not sure that was what the enacting arbs envisioned this clause would be used for). After that, an indef would become a regular-admin block regardless, appealable through {{unblock}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Memory says that we did consider it. Izno (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.
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).
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.
April 10, 2025 A few minutes later, IP repeats almost the exact same massive wall of text, "pinging" me again.
April 10, 2025 IP immediately reverts their prior edit. They will later pretend they never made it.
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.
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.
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.
April 11, 2025 IP responds by accusing me of "victimizing" myself (WP:NPA), demands I exit the talk page discussion (WP:OWN/WP:TE).
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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Statement by (username)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

13 April 2025: Moving pages without any building understanding on the talk page, for which they were previously warned [135][136][137][138]. They have made many reckless moves [139][140][141] 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" [142][143].
02:27, 26 February 2025: Refused to follow WP:COMMONNAME, reverted by involved user [144] but yet again PadFoot were quick to follow suit the edit war and restore their poor additions [145] and again disregarding the common name of entity [146][147][148], this continues ignorance and WP:IDHT pattern led the editors to conclude that PF is POV pushing [149], but instead they want another "consensus" to use the common name [150]. PF actually landed in the OR area yet again [151] by replacing "dynasty" with "Empire" of an entity, after which they were told to start RM for that particular entity [152]. One might need to see this discussion.
15:07, 12 March 2025: Removed sources with a fallacious edit summary, despite both sources seem differentiable. Edit warred over their wrong doings [153]. Partial reverted after getting recalled on talk [154] but refused to restore other source without citing any guidelines.
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 [155]
12:55, 12 October 2024: Again, adding a poor map by removing the solid sourced and stable map, the source cited^[1] has failed to verify their addition. After getting challenged, PadFoot claims, in contrast to the cited sources that their map is "accurate" [156]. Then again removed by another user [157] as presumed, PadFoot simply reverted the removal without citing a source for their addition [158]. After this much contention, they finally started adding sources [159][160][161] which is nothing but synthesizing, as no visual presentation is provided. Even after that, the users proceed to add their poor map [162][163].
11 April 2025: Removing content along with the source by giving a confusing "Not required" edit summary.
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.
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.
30 August 2024: This is not ce as they say, just another poor unsourced addition [164][165][166].
[167][168]: 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.

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

[169]

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)[reply]

Please don't presume anything, I have nothing bitter-personal against you. It's just your editing pattern that should be addressed. Can you quote from Britannica stating that Pratiharas won the struggle? There's no "Tripartite struggle" mentioned in the article, let alone finding about the victor. Let's forget it for a moment. Can you quote-verify from the other source to back your edits?
"All the moves mentioned by nom are non-contentious, and none were contested." Well in contrast: your "non-contentious" moves were challenged [170], more already given above.
You say this by repeatedly changing the names is quite contradicting [171][172][173].
Your explanation of this diff is not at all understandable, exactly what do you want to say?
If you think adding unsourced coinage to depict entities' banners is not OR then you fail to understand WP:P&G. Not that there's a source in this file which exhibits your additions.
The rest of your defence statements are simply dodging the issues and you haven't addressed #7, #9 and #10. Care to do that? Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asilvering, got it. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [174]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Statement by (username)

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)[reply]

^ Keay, John (2000). India: A History. Grove Publication. p. 198. ISBN 0802137970.

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

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

[3] Truschke, Audrey (2017). Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India's Most Controversial King. Stanford University Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-1-5036-0259-5.

[4] Black, Ian (2017). Enemies and Neighbours: Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1917–2017. Penguin Books Ltd. p. ix.

[5] Khalidi, Rashid (2006). The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood (Kindle ed.). Oneworld Publications. p. 1.

[6] "1948 Arab-Israeli War". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 30 March 2025.

[Cambridge-7] Shehadeh, Raja; Quigley, John, eds. (2010). "1948 Arab-Israeli War". International Law and the Arab–Israeli Conflict. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 30 March 2025.

[8] Morris, Benny (2008). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press. p. 277. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. Retrieved 30 March 2025.

[9] Morris, Benny (2008). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9.

[10] Keay, John (2000). India: A History. Grove Publication. p. 198. ISBN 0802137970.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards