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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Novem Linguae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Edax Mendacium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• AMPOL
• BLP

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

1. 2025-02-12 A revert (edit warring) after receiving AMPOL user talk alert. This is after receiving an edit summary from me of partial revert of the two paragraphs objected to on the talk page. please see WP:BRD. leaving the third paragraph about DEI for now. Edax Mendacium's wording changes are objected to by Alenoach on the talk page, in the section Talk:Sundar Pichai#Political positions. Edax Mendacium is ignoring the objections on the talk page and making the changes anyway.
2. 2025-02-12 A revert (edit warring) after receiving BLP user talk alert. This is after receiving an edit summary from me of please get consensus for your controversial edit on the talk page

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• AMPOL user talk notification
• BLP user talk notification

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• I've had bad luck at the edit warring noticeboard before, and this is a CTOP area which requires more careful editing than normal, so starting here.
• Edax Mendacium, the root problem is that you made your edit a couple weeks ago, were reverted, started a talk page discussion, the talk page discussion didn't go your way (received an objection). Then today you tried to reinstate your edit, I reverted it, you tried again, I reverted it, you tried again. From my point of view, you are well beyond WP:BRD here. You are at BRDBRBRB. In an area as sensitive as a CTOP, you need to be more careful about getting consensus for controversial edits. It feels to me like you are the one doing the bullying by trying to push through your edits over other's objections.
  Also please stop calling other people's edits WP:VANDALISM, as you did here. Disagreements about editorial content are not vandalism.
  Finally, your edits don't really add much new content. The "old edits" still talk about Project Nimbus and the inauguration. Your edits change the wording/tone, and that is what I believe is being objected to on the talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Since I do not want to edit war, the objected-to revision is still the top revision. I think self-reverting and apologizing would be enough to close this report with no sanction. And of course the objected-to revision can be put back if a consensus is gained on the talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The proposed pblock below sounds good to me. Sends a message but isn't too harsh. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This user restored their controversial edit today [1], in my opinion continuing the edit war. Instead they should have waited for a consensus on the talk page, in my opinion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• User talk diff

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Edax Mendacium is a very new editor who clearly does not yet understand that the Neutral point of view is a core content policy and that complying with it is mandatory for all editors. They do not yet understand that pushing a political point of view in article space is not permitted, especially in a biography of a living person. I happen to share aspects of their point of view which I am happy to discuss in detail off-Wikipedia but not on Wikipedia. This editor must learn that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy of any kind, no matter how righteous they may feel. So, the question arises: how to deal with this new editor? In a sense, this is up to Edax Mendacium. The editor can acknowledge the policies and guidelines that are being explained to them and promise to comply. On the other hand, they might choose to dig in their heels and continue argue their own righteousness. In that case, we should consider a topic ban on biographies of living people and a topic ban on post-1992 politics of the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If, instead, Edax Mendacium absents themselves from further discussion as they are currently doing, perhaps a p-block from the article in question is an adequate solution. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Rosguill, are you proposing a block from the article only, or talk as well? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant just the article, as the evidence here primarily concerns edit war edits to the mainspace article. I have not inspected the quality of discussion on the talk page in detail. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems quite reasonable to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As Edax Mendacium has continued edit warring even while this request is open, I have implemented the partial block from Sundar Pichai as an interim measure to put a stop to that. I do see that Cullen328 also proposed a topic ban, so I'll leave this thread open at this time in case anyone wants to discuss the need for that, or whether the partial block is sufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given Special:Diff/1277052415, I am now leaning toward a topic ban, although I'm uncertain about the appropriate scope. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  When I first commented here about ten days ago, I was hoping that Edax Mendacium would take on board the feedback they have received, familiarize themself with the applicable policies and guidelines, and moderate their approach. Instead, they have doubled down, declined to moderate their approach, and engaged in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior on their talk page, claiming that it is all unfair. I think that it is time for an indefinite topic ban on post-1992 politics of the United States, and on biographies of living people. Cullen328 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is the BLP ban necessary? It seems like the BLP disruption is only occurring on articles relating to the AP2 area, so an AP2 ban would already take care of that. Or perhaps a ban on AP2 and a logged warning concerning BLPs, so that this aspect is clearly part of the record? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am categorically opposed to bans from all of BLPspace, mostly on the basis that if someone needs that, they just need to be indeffed. I think an AP TBAN + BLP warning makes sense here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aganon77 is topic-banned from paranormal phenomena, broadly construed, and page-blocked from Ganzfeld experiment and its talkpage. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Aganon77 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thank you, I did not know how to create this request. Aganon77 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Aganon77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 14:35, 13 February 2025 Edit warring against consensus 14:17, 13 February 2025 Ditto above 19:07, 12 February 2025 Ditto above If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Notice of Pseudoscience DS given at 20:42, 10 February 2025 Additional comments by editor filing complaint It's clear that Aganon77 thinks that because he perceives himself to be right, he can edit war against other editors in violation of the apparent consensus at the talk page against him, and that he is unable to drop the stick and walk away from the issue. I therefore think some kind of sanction is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] This is possible block evading sockpuppetry [2], I've opened up a SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aganon77. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] It was a raxy joe job. My apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Aganon has now resumed editing the Ganzfeld experiment page continuing to push a fringe POV after the block expired [3]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Given 14:45, 13 February 2025 Discussion concerning Aganon77 Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Aganon77 The editors are bulk reverting contributions that expand on existing citations of the article. For example, a critique that found statistically significant results but concluded against their results only included the conclusion. A false statement regarding people who conduct these experiments and metaanalysis as parapsychologists when several experiments and meta analysis had been conducted by skeptics. An omission of the history of development of the method by skeptics. All the edits references above used existing references in the article, yet they were reverted. Finally I added the results of a recent registered report, a scientific publication that is conducted in two phases and is peer-reviewed and it is also deleted. I also added a note for disputed citation regarding a lack of replication of an experiment that has been conducted 78 times, mostly with similar results. See edits here Statement by MrOllie Noting here that I was opening a Edit warring report at the same time this was being opened, more edit warring diffs can be found here. I support Hemiauchenia's comments. To be clear, the issue here are edits at Ganzfeld experiment which seek to suggest that such experiments are replicable and have demonstrated the existence of ESP. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganzfeld_experiment&diff=1277603675&oldid=1277182787's response to talk page discussion has been to dismiss anyone who will not conduct WP:OR/WP:NOTFORUMish debates about 'methodological rigor', calling opposition 'gatekeeping' ([4]). They seem to reject the idea that we would consider the publisher, as expected by WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Noting here that Aganon77's first edit after their 1 week block for edit warring was to reinsert the editorializing (diff) that they had previously been edit warring about. - MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by LuckyLouie User edit warring at Ganzfeld experiment with massive citation bombing [5] seeking to have Wikipedia state that experiments have demonstrated the existence of ESP. Talk page discussions include multiple experienced editors advising the user that WP:FRINGE parapsychology journals are not considered independent sources that can be used to overturn the scientific consensus regarding the existence of ESP, Psi, the paranormal, etc. however edit warring continues, hence the need for an administrative solution to mitigate the disruption. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by jps I note that the user after having been blocked for a week has gone right back to the criticized behavior. [6], [7] After being reverted, the user complained to the reverting editor on their user talkpage rather than engaging on the article talkpage. There has been some coaching attempted by Rosguill, but it seems to be unappreciated. [8] A topic ban may be necessary. jps (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result concerning Aganon77 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Just acknowledging here that Aganon77 was blocked today for 1 week for edit-warring. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] The talk page comments make me think the week block isn't sufficient to limit disruption --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but Aganon77 is attempting to make an extraordinary claim using poor quality fringe sources, and engaging in edit warring and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Although only an essay, I think that Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans sheds some light on this situation. I think that either an indefinite sitewide block or a topic ban on paranormal phenomenon broadly construed ought to be the outcome. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] The combination of IDHT, verbosity, and edit warring is unequivocally disruptive, and Aganon77's response doubles down rather than make any sort of commitment to working towards a consensus. I agree with Cullen328's remedies. signed, Rosguill talk 22:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Given their response to further coaching, I think a tban combined with a block from Ganzfeld experiment and its talk page is the appropriate course of action and recommend that we close as such. signed, Rosguill talk 23:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] I agree (assuming you mean Cullen's proposed TBAN scope of paranormal phenomena) and will close as such within the next few hours if no one objects. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Aganon77, I've probably told many people the same thing: You don't have to agree with a consensus or believe it's right, but you do have to follow it until or unless it changes, and there does come a time to shrug, realize you can't win 'em all, and walk away. There are some I've disagreed with, and still do, but I still follow them, because that is how editing here works if you want to continue doing it. So, your decision is: Would you be willing to abide by a topic ban from topics like this while you learn to edit more collaboratively on less contentious articles, or is this the end of the line? Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randomstaplers blocked indefinitely from Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic and its talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Randomstaplers User who is submitting this request for enforcement Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Randomstaplers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Also editing as Randomsalt - the use of two accounts is properly disclosed and not a factor here, although both accounts have participated in the dispute. Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious topic designation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Edit warring at Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic 1 February 2025 Adds a maintenance tag 7 February 2025 First revert 11 February 2025 Second revert 17 February 2025 Threatens to make a third revert If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. Additional comments by editor filing complaint This is a long-term pattern of WP:BLUDGEONing of Talk:Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic#NIOSH's 1992 method for determining the effectiveness of resporators as a "public health exposure control method", edit warring against three or four other editors, and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK dating back to at least September. I've only included the most recent flare up in the diffs above, but you can see the history for more. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randomstaplers&diff=prev&oldid=1276249790 Discussion concerning Randomstaplers 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 Randomstaplers I don't know why I've ended up here right away. I wasn't even taken to ANI first, and I've tried participating in which closed with @Robert McClenon, who asked for through discussion before returning. Recent readings, namely this NIOSH document made me feel the need to start a discussion. I've also read [9]. I don't know why this content dispute is being brought forth here this quickly. On my talk page, my confusion wasn't thoroughly explained, so I thought there would be no objections to my comments. Additional comments on Bon Courage's talk page - "I don't think it was inflammatory" (sic) Also, you objected. I get it. I've followed Roberts DRN guidelines while it was up.——Randomstapler's alt 20:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Liz - I've logged into my main account. 22:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC) ⸺(Random)staplers 22:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] I hesitate to bring this up... but two uninvolved editors added themselves to the DRN, without being involved on the article talk page. I don't know if it impacted the outcome of this dispute, but I feel it's worth mentioning. ⸺(Random)staplers 06:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] @User:Seraphimblade - I'm still wondering why no one warned me properly to stop. I knew about the annoying "dead pixel" phenomenon that was plaguing my mind, and was trying to present new information I'd found while I'd been editing other articles. Maybe a mentorship and a logged warning would be more helpful. I... may have gotten a bit drunk looking at sources all day. And... this is my first offense. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Finally, if it needs to be said... I promise to refrain from editing the article. I've already made enough of a fuss, I know others can take over from here. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Rosguill - Yeah, I was prepared to give up and talk to another admin to get clarification, but I managed to communicate well with the last editor, which I thought was progress, but was clearly mistaken in my judgement. Most of my edits to CTOP were from 2024, and I clearly need more experience editing in noncontroversial areas. I apologize for my behavior, and won't be this nonchalant again. ⸺(Random)staplers 02:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] I think I've said all I needed to say here. In the meantime, I've been trying to think of ways of trying to tame my behavior, and will also be drastically slowing down my editing too, to be extra safe. ⸺(Random)staplers 02:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Robert McClenon I am not entirely sure why I was pinged by User:Randomstaplers concerning the dispute that I tried to mediate three months ago. I did not take part in any discussion or dispute about face masks after I closed the dispute at DRN three months ago, and so do not have an opinion at this time about the edits in question. If they are asking me to say that they cooperated at DRN, I won't exactly do that for two reasons. First, their conduct three and four months ago is not the same as their conduct in the more recent past. Second, more seriously, I found them to be a difficult editor to try to work with. I spent most of the exchanges asking them to specify exactly what they wanted to change in the article that another editor wanted to leave the same, or what they wanted to leave the same that another editor wanted to change, and then asking them whether they were questioning the reliability of a source. I found them to be a long-winded editor who was not concise. I wish the uninvolved administrators here well in analyzing the issues here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] The other editors at DRN did not cause the DRN to be, in the words of Bon Courage, "lengthy and ultimately abortive", which was primarily due to Randomstaplers giving long answers that didn't answer the questions of the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Bon courage This editor has been editing Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic for several months, lately using two similarly named accounts to do so and edit warring over tags. There was a lengthy and ultimately abortive DRN process at the end of last year. Insofar as it's possible to divine this editor's intent, it seems they want to insert their own private thoughts and/or WP:SYNTH to undercut the published science on this topic, which they believe is wrong, and will not be deterred by consensus against them. A topic ban or page block would bring some relief from the timesink this has evidently become. Statement by (username) Result concerning Randomstaplers This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Thanks for logging into your primary account, Randomstaplers. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] I am seeing a long period of tendentious editing from Randomstaplers on this article, of which edit warring over the maintenance tag over the objection of multiple other editors is only the latest instance. At minimum, I think Randomstaplers needs to be restricted from further participation on this article, via either partial block (including from discussion) or topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Seraphimblade's observations. Regarding Randomstaplers' comment that no one warned me properly to stop.: Pppery's comments on the article talk page on Feb 15 explain quite clearly that the continued reverts were a problem and why. As an editor with more than 5 years and 6,000 edits of experience, I don't think it's reasonable to consider Randomstaplers insufficiently aware of Wikipedia's policies and norms such that they would require a talk page edit-warring notice in addition to having been plainly told to stop by other editors. In a CTOP, you should be erring on the side of caution and stopping well short of what you even think would earn you a warning. signed, Rosguill talk 20:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Given Randomstaplers' replies, which appear to lay out a sincere acknowledgement of the issue and plans to deescalate, I think that a p-block from the Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic and its talk page would be sufficient. I thought about even recommending that this be reduced to a warning, but I think the length of time over which the prior issues were identified, and the unobtrusiveness of a p-block to the editor in light of their general stated plan of action, makes the software-enforced break a more appropriate outcome. Seraphimblade, thoughts? signed, Rosguill talk 14:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] I'm good with that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

BePrepared1907 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA / WP:EC / WP:GAMING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2025-01-12 Not a sanction as such but they've been accused several times in that SPI of being a sock and investigations are as far as I can tell ongoing.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff of notification

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• AE is to investigate possible violations of arbitration case guidelines. If you have suspicions about possible sockpuppetry, please file a case at WP:SPI. All editors and most admins who would respond here do not have the privileges enabled to investigate sockpuppetry claims. Plus, it just belongs at SPI especially if it relates to an existing case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smallangryplanet, my concerns with sockpuppetry claims on any noticeboard is that at times they can be brought up to disparage an editor in a way that regular admins on the project can't verify to indicate that they are accurate. That's why filers are directed to go to SPI if they have these concerns. This is just my point of view, but I think it's best to only bring up claims and charges that can be supported by diffs so editors and admins can see the argument that is being made. Raising issues that can't be verified, here, can just serve to prejudice other editors against the accused editor. I'm not accusing you of doing this, you just posed the question to me about SPIs and this is my general response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally, I don't have a problem with sockpuppetry allegations being made outside of SPI, as long as it's in the pursuit of an administrative remedy and not a mere aspersion. Bringing this up at AE has the disadvantage of potentially fewer sockpuppetry-oriented admins, but the advantage that we can also consider whether edits are sanctionable under CTOP. (I mean, we can do that at SPI, and occasionally do, but it's not our mandate.) On the socking front, I hope to be able to post thoughts in this space within the next 24 hours, but I need to talk a bit more with a few other admins who are familiar with relevant SPIs. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on some information I can't post on-wiki, I'm pretty confident that the same person is in control of the account as when it made its first edit to hewiki 19 years ago, which rules out being an Icewhiz/Galamore sock. What's harder to say is whether any meatpuppetry or tag-team editing is going on. The evidence above paints a concerning picture in that regard. It occurs to me that this, a case of an editor whose edits until a few months ago were almost exclusively about global scouting, and whose edits since are almost exclusively about the Arab–Israeli conflict, is the exact sort of person who the new BER would make sense on. Note that that remedy explicitly says it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive. I think this is such a case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objections to a BER but would suggest that it be narrowed it to the current conflict rather than all of PIA (as a rough consensus administrators are not bound to the standard set of restrictions there is nothing stopping us from modifying BER in this way) given this user's past editing. On the socking front, with additional behavioral evidence I see now I agree 100% with Tamzin's assertion that I think this is the same person behind the keyboard as it was in the past and if I'd had been aware of that behavioral evidence when I was doing the CU I'd have probably labeled it  Unlikely. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49: A BER for anything other than the full topic area would be significantly harder to track, since the rate of in-area edits is meant to be tracked by 1339, meaning that BePrepared would have to manually calculate his percentage rather than relying on n-ninety-five, and so would any admin checking compliance. Plus if we're talking about, like, a page on a Zionist youth movement like Young Judaea, I don't think most of those are ECP'd to begin with (and thus don't count toward the BER dividend); and even if they were, the BER wouldn't stop him from editing them, just limit his rate. Now, since a BER includes a namespace-specific TBAN, I'd be fine with something like "is subject to a balanced editing restriction, except that the topic ban in WP:BER's second bullet point shall not apply to content that a) relates to youth movements and b) does not relate to the Gaza war (2023–present)". I'd be fine with the same exception if there's consensus to TBAN rather than impose BER. But I'll reserve judgment until BP (who often goes weeks between edits) responds. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Taken individually many of those edits may be justifiable or excusable. Taken together I am seeing a pattern of reflexive reverting and insufficient engagement with contentious edits in both edit-summaries and talk-page engagement. I also find the tag-team evidence concerning: there are far too many instances of a first edit being to revert in support of a blocked editor, or to revert a perceived opponent. I support a BER at the bare minimum, and would strongly prefer we include a logged warning. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBCOVID-19

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

1. 00:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC) In response to a question from them asking if a suggested change was implemented and then me responding that why would it be when there is no consensus, they wrote "If you have a peanut gallery of people who think the lab leak is a conspiracy theory and they monitor every single change and comment in this talk page then yes you get that appearance. A few users throwing a tantrum does not mean the material does not belong in the article".
2. 01:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC) I left a suggestion on their user talk that they strike the comment in the diff above as it was "not following the behavioural best practice which is expected in a contentious topic area".
3. 09:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC) WP:GASLIGHT another editor when they respond to them with "Thankfully, editor consensus does not agree with you. Unfortunately for our readers, the page does not reflect consensus".

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 01:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

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.

Hello!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Adamantine123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPAK

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

1. 22 February - Came back after 3 days of inactivity to jump on a thread about his distressed opponent (Ratnahastin), and is trying to turn the entire issue (involving some legal difficulties) into a discussion about unrelated caste feuds. Adamantine123 is designating his opponent to have been motivated to make edits because "Marathas are considered as formidable enemy of Rajputs". Adamantine123 is doing this, despite having been almost topic banned and warned against similar violations of WP:ASPERSIONS in the earlier ANI thread. Not to mention the unexplained claims of "selective disruption", and WP:CANVASSING to demand "at least a topic ban" without any basis.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

[10]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I filed the report here because that ANI thread is all set to close without any action as already demanded by one admin.[11]

Rosguill has also commented on this message from Admantine123.[12]

Adamantine123 was already warned for this battleground attitude,[13] and he himself acknowledged it[14], however, he still recklessly jumped to abide by the same disruptive attitude that got him into trouble last time. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[15]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPAK

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

1. 22 February - Reduced prominence of a soldier by depicting him as a mere assassin.
2. 21 February - Removes "cn" tag by citing his understanding in edit summary (see WP:OR). The information is not mentioned anywhere on the article, let alone having it sourced.
3. 18 - 19 February: Edit warring on Balochistan to change infobox image without gaining consensus.[16][17][18]
4. 20 February - Using self-published source "Symist".[19]
5. 18 February - Replaced portrait of Humayun with a misleading image.

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

[20]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Initially, I thought of warning him but found that even after having been blocked 2 times in the last year,[21] including a month-long block from mainspace articles, he hasn't learned.

His edits outside this area are also problematic as we can see here where he is imposing the use of "Islamic laws" to suppress the image on Eve. He was told to rectify this mistake on his talk page,[22] however, he made no response. Capitals00 (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[23]

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.

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

• These all look like content issues to me. If there is evidence that RP has been ignoring concerns about content issues, that is something we may be able to action, but so far no such evidence has been presented (except with the Eve edit, but that's beyond AE's scope—it is, I will note, restoration of an edit by LTA PakistanHistorian, on a range I've just reblocked, but I did a deep dive into edit summaries and I don't think RP is a PH sock). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've left a comment on RP's talk encouraging them to participate here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a comment, User:Capitals00, that edit on Eve was made by an IP editor, User:2407:D000:F:8B29:B1CB:117F:E830:CEA3, but they did restore it after the edit was reverted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

إيان (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Iamnotanorange~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles 1RR and personal attacks

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

1RR

1. 26 February 2025 Repeated revert, violation of 1RR restriction after the user was notified of WP:ARBPIA
2. 7 February 2025 violation of 1RR restriction, which led me to notify the user of the contentious topic and invite them to self-revert (they did not self-revert)

Casting aspersions, considered a personal attack

1. 8 February 2025 The user cast baseless aspersions of COI and, despite having been asked repeatedly to apologize (here, here, here, and here), the user has refused to do so.
2. 26 February 2025 @إيان - Looks like you've waited for the biased, promotional content to be added back into the article, before removing the bias and promotional tags. Can you expand on that decision?

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

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.

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

1. When I first encountered the page, it seemed to focus primarily on a persecutory narrative, rather than the subject of the article. For example focusing on the vaguely worded enemies (including "Zionist organizations"^[who?] and "Hollywood celebrities"^[who?]), of Kiswani, rather than Kiswani. As a newcomer to the subject of the article (as I was, earlier this month) I struggled to understand what she believed or what her organization did, besides protests. After checking the sources and discovering most of them to be from the low quality Palestine Legal and medium-low quality Mondoweiss, I decided to treat this narrative as a form of WP:PROMO content that also violated WP:NPOV, often relying on WP:UNDUE.
2. I began making edits and discovered إيان was closely monitoring the page, which was surprising to me, given the state of the article. If someone was caring for the article, why wasn't it in better shape? As such, I invited Ian to declare any WP:COI that might be relevant. I did so once on my talk page, but he didn't seem to see it, so I did so again on the article talk page, specifically here[24].
3. Ian did not clearly say "no", but was indignant, calling it an aspersion, and repeatedly demanded an apology on several occasions. The lack of a clear "I have no COI" statement made it hard for me to apologize. I thought we could move past that, but it continued to be brought up and eventually just seemed like an attempt to distract from the article. At that point, it seemed clear that an apology would not de-escalate, so in an effort to do so, I explained my original reasoning, concluding that I was happy to assume good intentions, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. I don't see this as a personal attack, but an invitation to declare COI, made several weeks ago.
4. Over the last few weeks, this page has a habit of losing criticism [25]of the article's subject. Meanwhile, political statements made by this politically active figure, in the sphere of her political influence[26], [27], also have a habit of disappearing. This has reinforced my suspicion of WP:PROMO via a persecutory narrative.
5. Above, Ian has quoted from my attempt to use hyperbole as a way of highlighting the subtext embedded in part of that narrative. I stand by the fact that we don't need to name Sheldon Adelson in an article about Nerdeen Kiswani. The connective tissue between those two individuals is - at best - tenuous, while furthering a narrative that distracts from the subject of the article. The relevant portion for the subject of the article was an email campaign, not the venture capital involved behind the app that allowed an NGO to coordinate the email campaign. (PS I just re-read that sentence and I can barely do it - that's how convoluted this section was). Imagine if I told the story of my trip to the airport by highlighting Uber's connection to the Saudi Sovereign wealth fund. WP:UNDUE
6. Regarding the second "aspersion" - Ian and I had a lengthy discussion about WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO on the talk page, but Ian stopped responding. Meanwhile, much of the contentious material found its way back to the original article. Ian then removed the label, here: [28], which was confusing to me, so I asked him about it. I'm not sure how this qualifies as a personal attack?
7. If I reverted more than once within a 24 hour period, I'm truly sorry about that. For context, I have a newborn at home and so I haven't been great about keeping track of time. If that happened, then please accept my apology, I thought I was in the clear (ie: it had been 24 hours) when I made those. Also, I am not normally embroiled in contentious topics and thought I would be prevented (directly, via wikipedia) from making reverts that were not properly spaced. I took the acceptance of my reverts as confirmation that it had been at least 24 hours.
8. Regarding my username, my account was weirdly renamed a few years ago and I don't love the aesthetics of the ~~enwiki. If this is truly an issue, please let me know and I'll happily change it, as I offered to do here Talk:Nerdeen_Kiswani#NPOV_and_Promotional_Content.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 26 February - Reverted a long-standing lead. This happened when there was no consensus to accept his edits per discussion last year.
2. 26 February - Removed sourced content by misrepresenting the sources
3. 26 February - Removed sourced content even after knowing the lead has been discussed a big time
4. 26 February - Edit warring. Believes that the information can be discarded if the cited sources are "couple decades old".
5. 26 February - "these are blatant lies", see WP:NPA.
7. 27 February - Edit warring to retain his version without consensus.
8. 27 February - Making false claims such as "version you restored includes irrelevant points like 'the revival by Phule', that are hardly mentioned in the body of the article", when the version does include enough details about how Phule revived the legacy of Shivaji.
9. 27 February - Repeating himself and not understanding that he is using unreliable source. See WP:IDHT.
10. 27 February - "no excuse why you lied over there", see WP:NPA.
11. 27 February - Falsely claiming that the lead violates "MOS:INTRO", and is eager to "correct it according to WP:WEIGHT", instead of gaining consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

[29]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

While there are a number of behavioral, and competence issues with Akshaypatill, what I find bothersome is, that Akshaypatill came back after not editing for 23 days to wage edit war on multiple articles.[30]

He never edited the article on Sambhaji before.[31] The edits which he disputed here were added by several editors, but also by Ratnahastin.[32] On Shivaji, the lead was overhauled by Ratnahastin,[33] but Akshaypatill never made any objections to it when he was reverting there weeks ago.[34] Akshaypatill stopped editing after he responded to a report made by Ratnahastin at the beginning of this month.[35]

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[36]

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.

This user was warned with a topic ban about 3 years ago for failing to abide by the consensus process.[37] In 2023, I had thought of reporting him over his edit warring to whitewash the page of fake news OpIndia.[38][39] Even after making reverts, he made no presence on talk page.[40] What is happening today is simply a continuation of the long-term Hindutva POV pushing from this user. Capitals00 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  Assessment of evidence in initial complaint:

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

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

• Akshaypatill, saying another editor is lying is not okay. It is okay to say "That is not correct" or "That is not true" or "That is not what the sources say". You cannot say, "That is a lie." Do you understand the difference? I'm happy to explain further if this just sounds like semantics, but there is a very real difference and you do need to understand it. Valereee (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, @Rosguill, I find it not unreasonable that GA, who has only 2400 edits over ten years and in 2024 didn't edit at all, could possibly completely forget something they did five years ago which wasn't even called the same thing back then. It's such a silly thing to intentionally lie about -- so easy to disprove -- that I'm inclined to accept that explanation. (Which, btw, Akshaypatill, is one of the reasons we don't call people liars for saying something that isn't true: it's possible they're simply mistaken.) Valereee (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that that part is plausible, but the way that they have tried to wikilawyer over it (as well as other aspects of the issue) and their continued inability to admit fault or drop the stick of attacking their perceived opponents put them deep into “AGF is not a suicide pact” territory. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't disagree. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]