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

ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

BabbleOnto (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/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation

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

1. 11 January 2025 Sealioning
2. 11 January 2025 Refusal to get the message
3. 11 January 2025 Personalizing an argument.
4. 11 January 2025 Railroading the discussion.

This is all after I warned them about WP:AE sanctions, and they dismissed my warning out of hand. Very nearly a WP:SPA on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate tendetiousness. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.

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)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 9 Dec 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a WP:SPA with respect to the topic and their disruption surrounding it has been subject to at least one WP:FTN thread that remains active: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gain_of_function_research. The hope was that they would WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. jps (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint is involved in the content disputes at issue. They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on my talk page and others' talk pages for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the first person who would they would get banned from this topic for disagreeing with them.

To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.

I think in general the user is alleging I've been uncivil, unhelpful, and, in their words, obstinate and tendentious. I know when someone disagrees with you it may feel like they're getting in your way and acting in bad-faith, but that's not always true. I've never tried to be disruptive or uncivil. I've admitted when I was wrong, I've dropped arguments that were clarified to be wrong, I've tried to find compromise, at times begging people to provide their sources and work together. And when those editors refused to, I didn't provoke any further.

I now address the specific edits in the complaint:

1. I don't see how this is sea-lioning. The user misquoted the article. I pointed out the misquotation, then addressed a accusation against me that I was second-guessing the sources (A claim which was never substantiated). I then said any source would have to support that actual claim which was in the article. I don't know what this violates.

2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?"

3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of having a basic reading comprehension problem, perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too.

4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here.

All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that I'm not working with others. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Edited. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, the sub-header for this section says that only admins can edit this section, I didn't realize I was allowed to reply here.

  Yes, I will. I intend on taking an extended break from wikipedia, as well. BabbleOnto (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Moved from uninvolved admin section; you can answer questions, make comments, discuss, but all your input needs to be in your own section. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.

    What I meant was that I'm willing to respect the consensus and not make any further edits or argue any more contrary to what the consensus decided. It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, then there's nothing I can do. I still do disagree with the consensus's result. Nonetheless, I'm not going to edit or argue further, I'll respect it as a legitimate.

• • • Re:no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on.

      Then I accept the consensus. I'm not going to argue in those discussions any further, though I still personally disagree, I understand a consensus has been reached which is other than my opinion. Nor will I edit disruptively or against the consensus. I appreciate the admin who noted I largely kept my disagreement in the talk pages, not editing the articles themselves. I plan on staying away from the topic in general for quite a while.

• • • • Re:BabbleOnto, do you understand what we're talking about when we describe your participation at talk pages as WP:sealioning, and why we think it's such a problem, particularly in contentious topics? Do you think you can avoid participating in that way at article talk pages?

        Yes, and yes.

I've interacted with BabbleOnto in several threads. There's a few problems, but ultimately, I think they have a certain opinion on what the article should say, and will debate endlessly to get the article changed to their position. I mean, sure, reasonable people disagree on how to interpret sources and apply policy, but I don't think BabbleOnto is actually interested in faithful application of policies to write high quality articles based on good sources.

That's not terribly problematic by itself, but most discussions with BabbleOnto are exhausting. Rather than actually trying to understand someone's argument in good faith, I think BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, and making a superficially reasonable response ad nauseam. They reply endlessly in this manner. As well as misrepresentation of opponents' arguments, on multiple occassions BabbleOnto has either misrepresented sources or hasn't read their own sources. I can't think of a single thread where BabbleOnto didn't have the last word, or a single thread where it seemed like BabbleOnto was actually trying to understand the arguments of other editors in a charitable way. As such, I think it's very difficult to work collaborately with BabbleOnto on the lab leak theory and related articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor to whom BabbleOnto was responding in the diffs of the filing, I feel compelled to comment now that they have defended (to varying degrees) their first three diffs. I will reply as briefly as I know how to their defense of the diffs, as revised.

1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I misquoted the article. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends here. Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of WP:CPUSH with pure WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.

2. On this they say, now, that The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and WP:IDHT.

3. BabbleOnto is now justifying an edit where they said to me, You have a habit of inserting small lies into everything you say and You're not adding anything constructive. You're just refusing to explain anything and saying conclusory statements, or lying about what you said - all this based on a misreading of what I had actually written - because I was going to refer to a basic failure in reading comprehension two hours later. This seems like a time travel paradox.

4. They don't bother defending themselves on this one, but just to point out the actual issue with the diff, they doubled down on their accusations that I said a material lie, and that I lied when [I] said that [they] quoted the article out of context. Pointing out [me] being caught lying and then proceeded to STRAWMAN the rest of my comment to which they were replying. If they had read my prior comment with a reasonable level of attention, they would have understood that there were no "lies", just a misunderstanding or two in each direction. But WP:IDHT again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do.

It is exhausting to deal with this kind of quasi-CPUSH (not quite civil, but certainly push) behaviour. The Talk page in question has seen a recent influx of single-purpose or nearly single-purpose POV accounts, and in terms of editor energy, this one certainly seems not to be a net positive for Wikipedia as a project. Perhaps if they edited away from Covid and US politics, their track record might improve. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn.... Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IntrepidContributor was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI[1] are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, can we get more admin involvement on the lab leak page so trolling like this doesn't disrupt things even more? JoelleJay (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been observing BabbleOnto and while there are valid concerns about bludgeoning, I think the proposed sanctions are too much. His engagement in the Covid lab leak topic is driven by commitment to WP:NPOV, which our articles fail to adhere to, and he made the mistake of arguing with editors who were never going to listen (resulting in what looks like sealioning on his part). He's not only editor to raise issues in the topic and engage in good faith discussion, only to find themselves pulled to AN or AE disputes after staying out of the seasoning traps and refusing to capitulate to threats. In a parallel AN case concerning another editor in same topic, I suggest there may be possible off-wiki coordination [2], but it can also be on-wiki ([3]).

One need only cross-reference names from Feb 2021 RfC, checking those that voted for labeling COVID-19 lab leak as conspiracy, with the names of complainants here. Contrast all these old timers with the steady stream of tens if not hundreds of regular editors complaining that our article fails NPOV, and see that their gentle approach doesn't work [4]. Our chief complainant is already preparing his next case [5], and this might not be his first.

I suggest that administrators consider a 1 to 2 month topic ban for BabbleOnto to provide opportunity for him to correct his approach, while staying alert to the tactics of POV editors trying to draw them into content debates to influence outcomes.

IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this edit where BabbleOnto edited Gain of function research restoring previously reverted content and WP:POVPUSH using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions here and here that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "Read discussion page. Manual revert. No serious challenge has been made to these changes. Methinks an admin needs to get involved..." despite them being in a WP:1AM situation. If a clue is not gotten by the editor fast I'd suggest TBANs from both COVID and AP2 is warranted in order to cease their disruption. TarnishedPath^talk 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the editor's continued behaviour at Talk:Gain-of-function research. Refer to Special:Diff/1270316266. TarnishedPath^talk 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and again at Special:Diff/1270346091 TarnishedPath^talk 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior rather than refocusing on the content as requested. At a minimum a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am heavily involved in this overall dispute as someone who has gone back and forth with BabbleOnto. I wanted to add that, in general, my feeling from interacting with this user is that they could be a good contributor to this site, and absolutely could follow the PAGs. They have shown an ability to be courteous [6]. I think the issue is that in FRINGE and other contentious areas like COVID-19 origins, they have shown a tendancy to become "hot-headed" when tensions rise, and to reference an us vs them mentality [7] (and numerous examples from others above). It seems they have also been egged-on, and made more combative from other PROFRINGE users (and probably some anti-FRINGE users as well who do admittedly WP:BITE) in that topic space (e.g. [8][9][10])

We are told often to use narrowest possible restriction to protect the project. In this case, I think that would be a COVID-19 origins TBAN, where most of the disruption has been. The user states they have learned what to do when consensus is against them. If they fail to show that lesson in AP2 articles more than just the 10 or so edits they've made in those articles, an AP2 TBAN would be appropriate at that time (WP:ROPE). Just my 2 cents.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• BabbleOnto, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Valereee in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. BabbleOnto, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.

Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.

As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• BabbleOnto, are you planning to answer my questions above? Do you think you're able/willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you? Are you able/willing to stop insisting everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers? Valereee (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  BabbleOnto's response understanding this as a suggestion to take a break from Wikipedia as a whole isn't quite what I was hoping to see. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @BabbleOnto, an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.

  @Rosguill, I'd support a tban, but is AP2 enough? It seems like COVID and fringe science need to be included? Valereee (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  AP2 + COVID? I see the same behavior at the Brian Thompson article and Havana Syndrome, so COVID alone doesn't seem adequate. Oddly, the intersection of "medicine and politics" would appear to cover all affected topics but maybe that's too bespoke? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @BabbleOnto, re:It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on. Valereee (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think BabbleOnto is actually getting the right idea. You do not have to agree with consensus. There are some consensus positions here I don't agree with, and some I think are rather silly. But, until and unless they change, I respect and abide by them all the same. If I try to challenge them, and it becomes clear that such a challenge was unsuccessful, there comes a time to just shrug, realize you can't win 'em all, and move on. Since they seem to have gotten that point, I think maybe see how things go, and if they return to disruption, I think they're quite clear on what the results of that will be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In my experience sealioning is a habit editors have an extremely difficult time breaking. I was going to agree with Rosguill re: a tban from AP2 + COVID, maybe appealable after 3 months and 500 productive and unproblematic edits. This editor is basically ONLY editing in CTOPs, they're doing it disruptively -- we're talking about an editor with only 177 whom other editors are describing as exhausting to interact with! -- and the specific kind of disruption is both frustrating and tedious to prove and frustrating to try to get attention to because who you need so many diffs to prove it. That plus the apparent difficulty in breaking that habit, which btw they were continuing during this case...I dunno. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I certainly understand your point. I am a little hesitant to sanction for "sealioning", as often it is difficult to tell where enthusiasm ends and disruptive tendentiousness begins, and I certainly do not want to have a project where people are afraid to advocate viewpoints contrary to a current consensus. That said, if everyone else feels sanctions are warranted, I won't object terribly strongly; I just generally prefer someone to get a chance to show if they've gotten the point (or in some cases, to conclusively demonstrate that they have not). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Generally I'm with you. Let people show they've dealt with the issue. Reblocking is pretty easy in most cases. But sealioning...well, it's such a difficult issue to prove/assess, and there are so many people doing it who don't even have the self-awareness to fix the problem that I kind of feel like it needs a tougher approach than I'd normally argue for. Not a hill I'm going to die on, but if the editor is back here or at ANI for the same issue, I am going to be extremely unhappy with them.

  @BabbleOnto, do you understand what we're talking about when we describe your participation at talk pages as WP:sealioning, and why we think it's such a problem, particularly in contentious topics? Do you think you can avoid participating in that way at article talk pages? Valereee (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, ultimately we're going to have to come to some kind of decision. Valereee, Rosguill, anyone else, thoughts on resolution now that it seems we've heard everything? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is such a difficult behavior to deal with, and in multiple CTOPs. Would anyone support a logged warning something along the lines that further instances of sealioning are grounds for a topic ban from contentious topics, placeable by any uninvolved admin? Valereee (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be fine with that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 29 January 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

Ratnahastin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:11, 3 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. 21:47, 3 February 2025 - First revert on an article under 1RR remedy.
2. 22:08, 3 February 2025 - Second revert on an article under 1RR remedy.

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 on 19:48, 4 February 2023 and is aware of them as per the DS/aware template on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Given the explanation from AkshayPatil, I am withdrawing this report. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[11]

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 am one of the principle author of the page. The part which is removed by these editors is a long standing piece in the article and has been part of the article as long as I remember and it could be easily more than 4-5 years. It is also sourced to a reputed and reliable scholar of the subject.

And to get this long standing version down, the so called discussion on the talk page involves one editor @Mahusha sourcing some unknown unreliable author and a unverified YouTube video without any review and other editor @Ratnahastin kind of saying "Okay, delete it" without questioning the reliability and authenticity of the sources. This is not what we call a discussion, especially when the piece in question is long standing and is well sourced. This isn't the kind of consensus which is expected here. This isn't voting. The onus is on the editors who want remove it. Sarkar is very reputable historian and scholar. We need reputable and reliable sources by actual historians to argue his findings.

Though, I agree that I made a mistake. I was absent here for a long time and forgot that the page is 1RR protected. I posted my argument on talk page though. I am sorry for the mistake. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• In light of Akshaypatil's response here, this seems like a relatively minor infraction. Is even a logged warning necessary? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Taha Danesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – voorts (talk/contributions) 22:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

One week site block, imposed by voorts per Special:Diff/1273538257, logged at WP:AELOG/2025#IRP

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

I am aware. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Special:Diff/1273551095:

Hello, I have been blocked for one week, apparently for engaging in edit warring. I would like to understand how this block is justified when I have not received any edit warring warnings—not a single one—in at least a month. I repeat, I have not received any warnings during this time. Moreover, on which page did this alleged edit warring occur? This situation feels particularly unfair. NO WARNING AT ALL. NOT EVEN ONE BEFORE THIS BLOCK IN THE PAST MONTH. I believe this block is unfair, given the circumstances. Thank you for your time and understanding.

Everything I have added is based on highly reliable academic references, including works from many top-ranking universities worldwide. in reality, I have provided more than 20 references combined across these pages, all of which are highly reliable and among the best sources available. The number of references is so extensive that listing them here would be frustrating; instead, you can see them in the links our friend here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Relentless_POV-pushing_and_ignoring_Administrators's_instructions,_reverting_their_edits
has mentioned, which are very clear.

thank you very much. Taha Danesh (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Response to Special:Diff/1273556202:

The links mentioned for my warnings, some of which are more than two years old from when I first started editing, are unrelated to the current reason for my block. None of these warnings are relevant to my current status. I have not received any warnings for the pages you mentioned, except for Ebrahim Raisi, where the discussion was resolved by the page being restricted for a day. That was weeks ago, or possibly more than a month ago. For all the other pages, I have not been warned. Therefore, I believe this block is unfair. I have never been recognized as an edit warrior in any official statements, and I deny that claim, especially considering that I haven’t received any warnings. I have not received any warning about these cases, either from an admin or any user. I checked the Raisi page, and there were no edit warring warnings on my talk page. You can check the history of my talk page here: [User_talk:Taha_Danesh History]. In the past month, I have not received any warnings—neither for edit warring nor any other matter. I believe this block is unjustifiable. Taha Danesh (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was really, really glad that Voorts acted as quickly as they did and thereby prevented yet another round of endless discussions about ethnicity. Schools in Iraq teach that the great chemist Jabir ibn Hayyan was an Arab, while schools in Iran teach that he was Iranian, and so we have a protected WP page. I was somewhat surprised that this should fall under WP:CT/IRP, but it's a welcome precedence.

I think a 0RR restriction might set them up for failure. I like the enthusiasm of this editor (compiling the list of sources they did here is no easy feat), and a topic ban may do them more good in terms of getting another chance to learn the ropes. I do however think that their behavior is very likely to reoccur after the block expires, so an extra sanction might be a good idea. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Taha has received several warnings about the edit warring policy (June 2023; December 2024; January 2025) and disruptive editing (January 2025). Over the past two months, Taha has edit warred at Ali al-Sistani, Mohammed Ridha al-Sistani, Ebrahim Raisi, Al-Farabi, and Jabir ibn Hayyan, including in the minutes before he was blocked. Given that there's still an WP:IDHT issue, a 0RR restriction might be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline - This should have been left for a patrolling admin to decline, as now that it's here it is evidence of further battleground behavior and a rather shocking sense of entitlement on Taha Danesh's part. Not only is it clear-cut edit warring in a contentious topic, it's primarily about infobox/lead nationality details, so irrespective of whoever is "right" in the underlying dispute, it's sloppy article writing. I don't like imposing extra sanctions in response to appeals, so if Taha Danesh is able to avoid doubling down I think this can be closed as declined. But the behavior displayed thus far is consistent with what gets people topic-banned indefinitely. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear Taha Danesh, warnings are not issued on a per-article or per-dispute basis: once you are warned about a behavior (especially something as fundamental as edit warring), you are expected to observe these rules across all articles, and especially those that fall within contentious topics (as these do). The level of edit warring you've engaged in across multiple articles is the kind of thing people can get blocked for with zero warnings. Your attitude from here on out needs to be about staying on your best behavior, not acting like you are entitled to receive a warning on every distinct question. I would recommend that while blocked you go back through the warnings you have received and carefully read through the policies they are linked to _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline I believe that I am uninvolved, although I did make a comment at WP:BLPN recently suggesting a reliable source about Sistani's citizenship and birthplace. I have never edited that article or the others, or interacted with this editor to my recollection. This editor has the mistaken notion that repeated, regular warnings about edit warring are required regarding each individual article. That's completely false. I am in full agreement with Rosguill on this matter. Roughly 15 years ago when I was a newbie, an administrator gave me a single gentle caution about edit warring and I have avoided edit warring scrupulously ever since. This editor should take the same approach when their block expires. Cullen328 (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline - like Rosguill, I would be uncomfortable expanding or increasing a sanction in response to an arbitration enforcement appeal. However, a topic ban or longer block would have been justified in the first place (the edit warring and poor communication skills are unlikely to improve after a 1 week block). The appeal itself also raises no issues of merit and demonstrates a continuing lack of awareness of the problem. arcticocean ■ 08:43, 4 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) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

שלומית ליר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:

• 2014 to 2016: no edits.
• 2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
• 2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
• 2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of Palestinian genocide accusation complaining about its content and calling it “blatant pro-Hamas propaganda”.
• 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
  • Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
  • In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
  • Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the Battle of Sderot article where they changed the infobox picture with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and removed a template without providing a reason why.
  • They also edited the Use of human shields by Hamas article, adding another image with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet another image with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content in the lead.
  • they also voted in the second AfD for Calls for the destruction of Israel despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.

More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across this article authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Wikipedia. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full here. I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.

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 2023-04-05 and re-iterated on 2024-11-25 (see the system log linked to above).
• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 2024-12-18 by Femke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Adding some additional comments on 2025-01-16: On top of POV issues, the user has a number of tweets that appear to be a clear admission of gaming, implicit canvassing, creating and sharing lists of potential "most biased articles", and clearly calling for specific edits. They've also been cited as coordinating an off-wiki coordination hub for editing Wikipedia. If this - combined with the tweets, the forms, the op-ed and the report to the WJC, all under this user's name (that they also use to edit Wikipedia - this is not outing) isn't a clear cut case of canvassing, I don't know what is. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some more comments on 2025-01-22: The user in question says that they have been on wikipedia for years – and so surely aware of what does and does not count as canvassing. As recently as last month they were advising users on Hebrew Wikipedia as to how best to get their edit counts up, as well as promoting the "most biased articles" survey I've already mentioned. I understand that we are always meant to WP:AGF, but we are looking at a situation in which a user (1) has extensive experience with Wikipedia and (2) is encouraging people, subtly and not so subtly to do things that are against our policies. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more comments 2025-01-29: @Arcticocean: Can you explain to me how it was determined that the canvassing in question has not become serious enough to be a policy violation? Does the evidence above not suffice? We've seen editors topic banned or even site banned in this CTOP recently for dramatically less. Why are sysops prepared to look past it in this case? What is a warning going to do except give them more time to be disruptive? We're not talking about a new editor who made some unwise tweets or whatever - this is an experienced editor in he wiki that has openly engaged in canvassing. A warning would just reward that behaviour and send the message that you can openly canvass as long as you feign ignorance for a bit. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification 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 believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.שלומית ליר (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was given clarification from an admin regarding my concerns and will now be drafting a response. Thank you for your patience. שלומית ליר (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, I value accuracy and transparency and am fully prepared to address any verified errors or missteps. My contributions are made in good faith, with only the intention of supporting Wikipedia’s mission. I am a veteran editor on Hebrew wiki, yet am learning to appreciate the sometimes stark differences in rules in this section, so am doing my very best to keep up to speed and abide fully as I edit further here.

As a longtime editor on another wiki who finally decided this year to match pace on English wiki, I strenuously reject any accusations of EC gaming when a passing glance on my global log will confirm I have not radically altered my editing pace nor article focus. In regards to NPOV concerns, I will defer to the numerous comments below affirming that there is no policy violation by having an opinion, onsite or off, and must register mild complaint that NPOV accusations are being leveled here without any policy violation having been affirmed on any of these individual contributions.

While contributions observed superficially (and without clear context of edit conversation and interaction with other editors) may appear to be agenda oriented, if I were granted more word counts, I would happily highlight the context of most edits made to make clear I was pushing back against previous bias efforts (past and present) by editors (including a number on the precipice of sanction in PIA5). Perhaps it would have been wiser to report what I felt was POV editing behavior instead of pushing back, but I only believed my efforts were to restore and preserve article balance, not disrupt it.

I am grateful for the admin guidance received so far and appreciate being better informed about certain grey areas. I meant no intention to remotely approach anything resembling canvassing and believed the commentary was allowable (most especially since it was on a proceeding I was neither participating in, nor linking out to). I understand now that this may be perceived as “call to action” which was not remotely the intent, most especially to an audience that is mostly academic and, to the best of my knowledge, does not edit Wikipedia. (I also humbly must point out that no report was made indicating any increase in activity to suggest editors had been canvassed). I have now been well appraised and will take great care and caution to ensure no further off-site commentary remotely approaches such this territory of concern. If there are any questions or doubts in the future, I will seek future guidance from admins before venturing into potentially questionable territory. שלומית ליר (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision was posted at ARBPIA5 and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "AE topic bans" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report[reply]

To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-29/Special report. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would to like to raise this 9 December 2024 edit at Battle of Sderot, where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph (On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...) that שלומית ליר added a reference to (archive 1 / archive 2) from the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation. The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same YouTube video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcticocean: I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a pattern of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.

In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the UCoC policy, but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. this attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January [12] permanent archive

If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on @Wikipedia includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian suicide attacks. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Wikipedia off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See [13] (archived). If you reveal your real identity on Wikipedia, your tweets about Wikipedia on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet [14]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As we seem to be ok to pull evidence from the statements of the editor in question, they have also commented more recently about running interference on Wikipedia (archive) in response to a question of if Wikipedia can be "saved". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been several days. Perhaps שלומית ליר could clarify whether their belief about the way Wikipedia works turned out to be a true belief or a false belief so that this report can progress. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in the Google form cited above, specifically how this differs from the widely reported situation that resulted in the 'Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area' case that employed Discord (and/or X, I forget) rather than a Google form. Is a consistent decision procedure being used to distinguish between encouraging participation and canvassing/meatpuppetry? I think a lot of people don't know where the line is, assuming there is a line, or at least some kind of fuzzy decision boundary. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FortunateSons, I agree with you broadly, but for me there is too much fuzziness around this issue. Clarity probably has much more utility than sanctions. The AfD case is an example that I find a bit confusing. Setting aside the fact that that article is still 3/4 the product of multiple ban evading actors, and ignoring the fact that an article on that topic should exist, what is the nature of the post? Is it an example of "discussing bias" or is it an example of "soliciting" using a 'Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?' approach or something with the potential to be both? If an editor saw that and then !voted, have they been canvassed and does the post instantaneously collapse into an example of canvassing? Maybe with your legal mind you can come up with some sensible tests, or ways of thinking about these kinds of things. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied by שלומית ליר's above explanation regarding canvassing. People with bad canvassing intentions don't reveal their identity. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Making no statement on warnings vs. no action for on-wiki conduct, I do think that it's important to note that externally discussing bias in general or about specific articles, whether actual or perceived and even if that discussion is influenced by the political opinions and/or social views of the editors, isn't and ought not to be sanctionable (or even indicative of other misconduct). This obviously doesn't apply to doxxing editors or soliticing specific edits, but this doesn't seem to be the intent or impact here. The actions discussed here are different enough from the conduct of T4P to be incomparable IMO. FortunateSons (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcticocean, it's possible that I missed something, but wasn't the last sanction a reminder, discussed as specifically distinctive from a (logged) warning? FortunateSons (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland not to disappoint you, but trusting my legal mind is about as wise as taking health advice from a med student. But thank you, I'm flattered. The cop-out would probably be In dubio pro reo, but I think this is probably a case were both can be argued to be plausible IMO, with the question of ascribing or not ascribing intent based on how much good faith one wants to assume (with my agreeing with the VR assessment, but who knows). If I could make a wish for the future, I think it would be wise not to comment on small time-limited community discussions until they have concluded, and applying the same to ongoing content disputes if they are likely to quiet down within a reasonable timeframe (but not otherwise, it's not reasonable to expect someone not to discuss Zionism for the next year). This is probably irrelevant in cases with 100 participants and media attention, but doing the same with a 3-person-discussion creates a canvassing risk and/or an Andre's basilisk sort of scenario. If I could make policy by decree, I would sanction direct links to ongoing small discussions, specific recruitment (T4P/Camera) and specific calls to action. On the other hand, if I write an "how to edit wikipedia" guide and post it on r/palestine, an opinion piece complaining about antizionist bias for a 'jewish' newspaper, or neutrally/academically cover an ongoing discussion no matter the size, it clearly isn't canvassing (even if the quailty of such content is mixed as best, if the past is indicative for the future). I think the optimal line would be "indicative but not actionable" for anything in between those two, but that would effectivly only punish editors who are honest enough to disclose their identities, which really shouldn't be the point. In short, I'm honestly not sure where to draw that line in the sand, but (as I stated in the PIA5 discussion) we really need one. FortunateSons (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the logged warning for […] canvassing, it would be quite helpful if the Sysops clarified which behaviour (for example, which tweets) constitute canvassing in their view, both for this editor and for the future. Would that be possible? FortunateSons (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like this is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The off-wiki canvassing is a problem. It merits a warning at least, I don't know if the formality thereof matters. If there was evidence that שלומית ליר was aware of WP:CANVAS I would consider something more stringent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• While I understand Vanamonde93's concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Guidance for editors places an obligation to Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia. The linked page provides that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. If an editor is only adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making only one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the whole article is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. arcticocean ■ 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed at 17:33, 8 December 2024, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:

• Adding a citation for a claim that Hamas terrorists shot dead a group of Israeli tourists.
• Replacing map with a photograph of victims of violence.
• Removing an outdated maintenance tag which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, Massacre of pensioners, and again.
• Adding specification to claims of the use of human shield (specifying who has made the claims), therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; adding another reference to that claim; and adding another.
• Adding an image contentiously captioned 'Weapons Found in a Mosque', then again Rockets hidden at a house, both to the first line of the article.
• Adding, without sufficient context, an assertion that a philosopher has determined that one side of the conflict is culpable and expanding other coverage of culpability of that side.
• On the talk pages, there has been a tinge of failure to AGF although I would be prepared to look past that (it was like meeting like). I am skipping a few further and insignificant talk page comments.
• There are then edits to LGBTQ rights in the State of Palestine: inserting a reference to execution into the first sentence of the lead; adding more references to news coverage of executions of LGBT+ people by the other side of the conflict. At Houthi movement, there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, to add references to terrorist attacks (with follow-up).

Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. arcticocean ■ 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XDanielx: Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to WP:NPOV. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken as a whole the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the percentage of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about Wikipedia:Advocacy. arcticocean ■ 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the conduct here overall, rather than in silos (this is canvassing, that is a failure to edit neutrally, etc), we have to conclude that this user is editing disruptively in a contentious topic. Under ordinary circumstances, I would now be looking to impose a sanction. Inconsistent views are emerging among the administrators, however – some of us agree there is canvassing but not NPOV violations; others see NPOV violations but are prepared to look past the canvassing; and so on. This user also received a final warning previously for failing to check their edits before saving (which led to a citation software tool bug producing a mistake). This is a user who has had ample opportunity to get into step with our policies and expectations. Under the circumstances, I propose to log a final warning for various failures to comply with expectations, with strong encouragement that further policy violation will be dealt with by a long topic ban. arcticocean ■ 07:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For fairness, I should note (which I had missed before) that two sysops have concluded that there is no actionable misconduct – only canvassing that has not become serious enough to be a policy violation. I still propose to impose a warning, and I think that would reflect the majority view among the sysops who have participated here. arcticocean ■ 07:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The offwiki canvassing is a problem...שלומית ליר, you're fairly inexperienced here. Were you aware WP:canvassing is not allowed? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For transparency, שלומית ליר reached out to me, and I explained multiple policy and advised her to go ahead and respond here without waiting for individual feedback from her email to arbcom, which may or may not happen. Valereee (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I take it that per Barkeep49's brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (Special:Diff/1269845558), and then restoration of the same (Special:Diff/1269848988), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's correct. I got a request, I didn't really feel it was OUTING, but as I indicated in my edit summary OS is a tool of first resort. I consulted with the OS listserv and received some responses quickly agreeing with me and so I unsuppressed and restored the material. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not for AE to decide content disputes, and that's mostly what this looks like. We can handle things like flagrant misrepresentation of sources, but how best to represent them is a matter for consensus discussion, not us to decide here. The canvassing was a cause for concern, but it looks like it was rather unintended and had little if any actual effect, and they've agreed to stop that going forward. (Note that doesn't mean anyone must stop criticizing Wikipedia or what happens on it; do all of that you like. Just don't encourage people to take particular actions based on that.) I don't see any further action as necessary at this point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 Valereee (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not satisfied with שלומית ליר's please of good faith. I think that the call for "interference" on Twitter (not even a week ago!) is a real concern in light of the standards being established by PIA5. I'm also concerned about the timeline of their knowledge of relevant CTOP sanctions. They were warned about PIA in April 2023 (by me, apparently). They should have been familiar with canvassing rules from the moment they got that warning to be on their best behavior. Not only that, but perusing their edit history, I see that there are several edits that are PIA violations prior to reaching XC on December 8 (e.g. Special:Diff/1256599528, although there's clearly many others in their edit history). In sum, I see no reason to believe the narrative of good faith presented here by them in light of the available evidence and do believe that we should consider at the minimum a logged warning. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be okay with a logged warning for canvassing, which remains the most concerning behavior to me. I find it difficult to see my way to penalizing violations of the XC restriction after the editor has already reached XC status without a clear finding of gaming XC status, and I don't see that here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't call it gaming, I think it's a pattern of intentional defiance of community rules, which in turn makes the otherwise rather exemplary defense written here by them less than convincing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No comment on the canvassing, but I'm of the same mind as arcticocean – editors that have problems complying with DUE aren't net positives, full stop. It doesn't matter that Dr. Lir isn't unambiguously a bad faith editor or incivil; perfecly good-faith editors still need to be good enough at editing to not make a string of unambiguous NPOV violations. Dr. Lir, if you want to challenge an article's perceived bias, you need to make an argument based on the balance of reliable sources to demonstrate why content is or isn't DUE. I'm in favor of a logged warning for non-NPOV editing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• We need to put this report to bed. @Theleekycauldron, Asilvering, Rosguill, Valereee, Seraphimblade, and Arcticocean: If nobody objects I will close this with a logged warning for non-neutral editing and canvassing. I see that as splitting the difference between our positions here. If you object please say so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  works for me :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection and thanks for moving it forwards. arcticocean ■ 23:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the nudge, and I'm fine with your proposal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  works for me Valereee (talk) 18:01, 3 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

Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jimmyp84 (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:PIA extended-confirmed restriction

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

1. 13 January 2025 Edit to West Beirut adding a section titled "Israeli Invasion of 1982"
2. 4 February 2025 Created Assassination of Samer Hanna

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

• Alerted on October 24: User_talk:Jimmyp84#Introduction_to_contentious_topics

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It looks like a substantial fraction of their edits are ECR violations. This only includes the most recent, and most blatant, examples.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimmyp84&diff=prev&oldid=1273938942

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.

• I gave an informal warning. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:00, 5 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

NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ekdalian (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. 12:51, 11 January 2025 - Restoring recently added disputed content, contrary to WP:ONUS
2. 21:55, 11 January 2025 - Casting unsubstantiated aspersions and poisoning the well against another editor.
3. 12:01, 13 January 2025 - Poisoning the well against another user without any evidence of misconduct.
4. 19:11, 15 January 2025 - Restoring recently added disputed content again and essentially asking to get consensus for it, contrary to WP:ONUS.
5. 15:05, 16 January 2025 - Performs a blanket revert in order to make a WP:POINT, just because their previous edit was reverted, despite it being the version that was arrived upon by a month long discussion on the talkpage, also saying "LE also wants to discuss and revisit the content proposed by the sock" , LukeEmily later elaborated that they are okay with the version that Ekdalian was actually reverting [15]
6. 17:42, 16 January 2025 - Same as above but edit warring
7. 19:42, 16 January 2025 - Edit warring and casting aspersions saying that reverting editor is acting like the blocked sock Nobita456 "stop behaving like Nobita please"
8. 14:31, 18 January 2025 - Attacks and tries to poison the well against another editor also says that "WP:ONUS doesn't mean you need to achieve consensus with editors condemned by admins for persistent POV pushing! "
9. 18:47, 18 January 2025 - Restores the aforementioned attack saying "Related to the content only, related to WP:CONSENSUS to be precise; accept the truth, I don't want to report minor incidents" when told to focus on content
10. 18:29, 19 January 2025 - calling a WP:NOTVANDAL edit as vandalism and issues final warning for vandalism [16]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Has a {{Ds/aware|ipa}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.[17] and notified of WP:ARBIPA by Dennis Brown in 2022 [18]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I also note that Ekdalian has a history of aggressive edit warring in the contentious topic as a part of slow running edit war[19].On Bengali Kayastha, many of their most recent edits have been reverts to prevent content addition as well. It has gotten to the point where experienced users like Sitush have called them out for it[20][21][22] because they usually misrepresent the consensus or comments by editors such as Sitush to claim that consensus already exists when there is none, they do not provide diffs when asked to substantiate their claims either. They have been reprimanded in past [23] over similar conduct about misrepresentation and exaggeration by @Dennis Brown: on this venue as well. They have a history of attacking other users and trying to poison the well against them instead of focusing on the content as diffs above prove.

I am not seeking any topic bans but Ekdalian should be at least told not to misuse the talk page for adding more fuel into heated disputes, and use the revert button only when it is necessary. Nxcrypto Message 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unimpressed by your defence of #10, it was an unsourced change, sure disruptive but not vandalism (which has a very specific meaning). Please refer to WP:NOTVANDAL. Nxcrypto Message 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. So, do you still stand by your aspersions in the edit summary and restoration of disputed content contrary to WP:ONUS?
2. Were you wishing to ensure WP:NPOV by poisoning the well against an editor? How does that even help the discussion? Read WP:FOC.
3. So, do you believe you have the right to cast aspersions without accompanying it with required diffs? "Admins are aware how you had kept the term 'Kshatriya' in the article on Mahishya in spite of knowing that it is an agrarian caste! " - Which admins are aware of this "edit" that you accuse CharlesWain of pushing? In fact you made a similar accusation before too but it was a different good faith editor that made that edit not, CharlesWain. [24][25]
4. So you think the onus to achieve consensus depends not on the people who want to include the content but on those who dispute it?
5. It's only you who considered it a WIP version [26] contrary to these comments that indicates that there was a consensus at the talkpage [27][28], secondly why did you perform a blanket revert only because your previous edit was reverted, isn't that a very WP:POINTY behaviour?
6. Why did you have to start a heated edit war? You could instead asked them for clarification to know what exactly they meant when they said that content needs to be "revisited". You state that the editor has been warned for "teaming up with Nobita", when did that happen?
7. Knowing someone on wiki doesn't mean you get to attack them also what do you mean by "behaving like Nobita"?
8. Do you really think the attack you made at the editor and saying that you don't need to achieve consensus with them just because they were blocked for edit warring was the "truth"?
9. Same as above, that restoration combined with your assertion here proves that you think it's appropriate to poison the well.
10. Read WP:VANDTYPES and WP:NOTVANDAL, vandalism and disruptive editing are not the same, the only thing being discussed here is that diff which you still assert as vandalism, not the account. Nxcrypto Message 13:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[29]

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 have nothing to say as such! I have been serving Wikipedia since 2013, particularly related to contentious caste articles, fighting against caste promotion, POV pushing and vandalism. Heated debates are common in the contentious topics. I have neither violated 3RR, nor abused any editor! Yes, in case someone has been topic banned and condemned by admins, I do mention the same so that NPOV is not violated. Many admins are aware of my activities including SPI, anti-disruption and anti-vandalism. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Action (warning) may be taken against NXcrypto for being unable to identify vandalism (refer to point number 10), and wasting the time of our admins! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nxcrypto, it is a clear case of vandalism. The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as Kulin Kayastha (higher status among Bengali Kayasthas) by intentionally changing Eastern (Bengal) to Western! Moreover, the user has done similar vandalism in multiple articles only in order to promote Western Bengali Guhas. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to Bishonen's comments, I would like to inform here that Sitush is referring to my response at a time when Nobita456's sock was driving a discussion and I had filed an SPI! Therefore, I was delaying the discussion in order to eliminate the sock from the same. Sitush has been quoted out of context! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Orientls, the user has already been blocked for vandalism; I have years of experience in this area and quite sure of what I have mentioned! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bishonen: I have clearly mentioned that I am not sure! But, Orientls seems to be so sure that they have stated that I am 'falsely' accusing him of meatpuppetry! How can you be so sure that there has been no mail exchanges? Orientls, do you think you are God? Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks LukeEmily for commenting here! I don't think I have to explain every diff provided here since Bishonen has already mentioned that I don't think NXcrypto's diffs are anything much; it's surely a stretch to call them "casting apersions" and "poisoning the well" and the like, especially in the IPA area where the tone is often sharp. But as LukeEmily suggested, let me answer each point briefly:

  1. My edit summary explains why I reverted.

  2. I wanted to ensure that NPOV is maintained.

  3. I am not filing anything anywhere against the user; why shall I provide evidence? The concerned user understands what I mean!

  4. Again, my edit summary explains why I reverted.

  5. No, this is not the last consensus version, it represents a WIP version; explained today on Talk: Bengali Kayastha!

  6. LukeEmily has already accepted the lapse in communication for point numbers 5 and 6.

  7. It was a request since I know the user (interacted in Wikipedia for years) and I expect rational behavior from him! I have used the word 'please'.

  8. Saying the truth in order to ensure NPOV; repetition (refer to point number 2)!

  9. Same as above! The editor should not have reverted my edits on the article talk page!

  10. If the filer cannot understand what is vandalism/disruptive editing, I have nothing to say. The user has already been blocked for vandalism! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  NXcrypto, first things first! Admin Dennis Brown never said what you have tried to project! Admins here may read their statement! I shall answer your questions, but since you have done good research on my edits, can you answer my questions? Needless to mention, these are relevant to your questions!!

  1. Are you aware of the socks of Nobita456 and their activities?

  2. Are you aware of the POV pushing on Baidya and negative POV pushing on Bengali Kayastha by the sockfarm and the related discussions on the talk pages of experienced admins here?

  3. Are you aware of the fact that the user CharlesWain and Nobita along with some blocked users in English Wikipedia had created poorly sourced articles in Bengali Wikipedia, which is relevant here since we had a detailed discussion on an admin's talk page here?

  4. Are you aware that even an admin from Bengali Wikipedia participated in the discussions here in English Wikipedia and Nobita was blocked from Bengali Wikipedia as well?

  5. Are you aware of the discussion here regarding CharlesWain related to negative POV pushing in Bengali Wikipedia on an admin's talk page here and another involved admin posted a notice on their talk page?

  I shall not provide diffs, etc since I am not filing a report against CharlesWain!

  Coming to your questions, please find my replies below:

  1. No, such edit summaries are rarest among rare ones and such reverts are done in exceptional cases in order to ensure NPOV!

  2. Let admins decide.

  3. I never said, CharlesWain inserted the word, but said 'kept' since CW had reviewed, added content and cleaned up the article!

  4. No, in general; again, let admins decide if they want to!

  5. Just look at my edit summary; I was thanking CW only for verification, not for consensus. Honestly speaking, it is WIP, that's the reason LukeEmily has proposed an NPOV summary (in article talk) instead of that paragraph!

  6-9: Either already answered indirectly or else choosing not to answer!

  10. Please note that the user has been blocked for vandalism only, not disruptive editing! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @LukeEmily: admin Doug Weller has mentioned that he wants to hear from you! I pinged you to keep you informed. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bishonen, Rosguill, Doug Weller, Vanamonde93, Valereee, and Seraphimblade: I appreciate your comments and I am really ashamed of the edits involving personal attacks. I sincerely apologize for the same and would avoid any such edits in future. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find this comment by Ekdalian unpalatable: "The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as Kulin Kayastha." How are you so sure of their caste? I don’t see where they have self-identified as such, and you also accuse them of attempting to project "their caste'" with another one by "vandalising" Wikipedia, which is a serious accusation against a new editor. I think an editor of your tenure should be able to recognize what constitutes vandalism because those edits are not vandalism, you should also refrain from speculating about the caste of editors.

This reasoning seems odd, especially when Sitush himself states: "CharlesWain began this discussion. They are not a sock, are they?" [30], implying that you were opposing changes proposed by an editor who was not a sock by misrepresenting Sitush's comments. I also think canvassing was inappropriate, particularly with its problematic heading, "Kind attention: Bishonen and admins active here." It sounds as if you are trying to recruit people to back you up here.

Honestly, I’m not surprised by the diffs cited in the report, especially if your conduct at ARE is like this where your edits are under scrutiny.

@Bishonen: While the filer himself made it clear that he is not "seeking any topic bans", Ekdalian deserves a topic ban following this new message. By calling an editor with almost 4k edits a "comparatively new user" and falsely accusing him of "meatpuppetry", Ekdalian has proven he is not capable of editing here without poisoning the well and making personal attacks. Orientls (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this by accident(don't have any email address associated with my account for private communication). I was not pinged here although my name was mentioned. In general, I agree with @Bishonen:. Bishonen and other Admins, please may I request a couple of days to review/comment on each point in more detail? @Ekdalian:, please could you change your response to be very specific for each of the 10 points made? Also, please be less emotional("are you God?" is an emotional response):-). Please could you respond in terms of diffs(facts) for each point instead of subjective statements that are difficult to confirm without diffs? (5) and (6) were not Ekdalian's fault. Yes, it is true that I disagreed with Ekdalian about the content/consensus. But Ekdalian's good faith misunderstanding about my position was due to my faulty communication, I did in fact say "revisit" and apologized later and took responsibility for my unclear statements hereLukeEmily (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian:, thanks for pinging me. Doug_Weller, I will post my comments today before tonight PST. Please accept my apologies for the delay.LukeEmily (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian has been a hard-working editor fighting against POV on caste pages for years. That being said, I do not agree with Ekdalian's aggressive choice of words in edit summaries, personal attacks and canvassing. The comments by Sitush to Ekdalian on Bengali Kayastha talk page are also a little disturbing. Also, I wish Ekdalian had provided some diffs for some allegations he made. Here is a more complete story. Ekdalian filed a complaint late last year here against the same editor who had returned after TBAN was lifted and but the complaint got sidetracked. There was a discussion about filing another one later here but we were told to not try something silly as it would boomerang.

Below is the POV pushing as pointed out by Fowler and Fowler, Sitush and admin Abecedare earlier. Comments by these senior editors would all be irrelevant now in 2025 since action was already taken against the editors at the time(and later the TBAN was removed). However, the problem now is that the same POV pushing is going on - that resulted in the earlier ban in the first place. The first section(discussing rajputra, thakur etc) currently gives a very different impression than "a community of armed peasants before the 16th century" as mentioned by F&F below. Please see admin's comments below about the "subtle" POV effort to move puffery at the top of the page. Later sections on the page are giving correct details(mostly) - also the age of the caste has been back pushed to 7th century in the lead although scholars have explained that the usage of Rajput for earlier clans is anachronistic.

Rajput/Rajputra POV pushing comment by admin Abecedare to falsely indicate Royal origin here

Comment by Sitush about POV pushing Rajputra : here

Fowler and Fowler (2021) cites several sources and says Rajputs were basically a community of armed peasants before 16th century here more here and here

Here, despite all the above and warning, the Rajput page is going back to square one before the TBANs. I suspect this is what triggered Ekdalian's (unacceptable) reaction.

I do not know why he suspected meatpuppetry but I can only assume that might be because multiple editors involved (at times) in Rajput related caste articles seem to support each other. I am not accusing anyone of meatpuppetry. But this is one example that I found strange here, Timovinga(a suspected SP), is told "I will not let (you) get away with this comment". Then Timovinga(probably scared) backtracks but he again finally disagrees with the editor who warned him two days later. here and calls it his final response(at 14:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)). Within 12 minutes of Timovinga giving his final answer, two editors add a lot of behavioral evidence for his sock puppetry on other pages and get him banned here amd here. Again, I am assuming good faith but the 12 minute timing is a little coincidental given that the sockpuppetry investigation against him was open for more than a month. Please also see these edits here here and the identities of the editors involved in october 2024. The original page was this. Please check the page now. The separate important section heading on Mughal(Muslim)-Rajput(Hindu) alliances is gone. I don't know if Ekdalian was watching this page, but if yes, it would also explain the meatpuppetry suspicion.

There is a undoubtedly a history of WP:PUFFERY in the Rajput related pages in the previous years, an attempt to rewrite or whitewash history, a facebook group being formed etc -@Adamantine123:, do you have the diff for the FB page?.

In summary, I can understand why Ekdalian was upset. But I disagree with his reaction. Editors should be polite, stop aggressive/rude communication, canvassing admins and focus on content only and provide evidence(diffs) for any accusations. Doubling down on this page itself was also unacceptable. Ekdalian, I say this as a well wisher as it will help you in the long term. Hence, I agree with the concerns raised by all admins in this section - not because they are by admins - but because I feel their concerns are accurate, based on facts and impartial. I am not an admin(and not experienced like Sitush, F&F etc) but I request that a TBAN not be imposed at this time since Ekdalian had the right intention to stop POV but took the wrong approach. BTW, I got a recent threat here from a "superior rajput". Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that the reported user Ekdalian is canvassing other admins, asking them to comment on this ARE report. [31][32][33] Capitals00 (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I will point out that I was canvassed to this discussion by Ekdalian. That said, I'll state that I don't think NXcrypto's diffs are anything much; it's surely a stretch to call them "casting apersions" and "poisoning the well" and the like, especially in the IPA area where the tone is often sharp. The comments by Sitush are a little more concerning, though. Bishonen | tålk 10:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• My investigation:
  • Rajput's history shows a lot of subpar engagement by multiple editors, in which Ekdalian's participation is non-constructive (if not the worst offender)
  • The aspersion against Dympies is unnecessary, even though it is factual with respect to a 2023 TBAN that was eventually appealed a bit over a year later
  • The reply to Charles Wain in the 3rd diff, while not quite a personal attack, is less than civil
  • I'm not sure the edit is POINT-y, but both Ekdalian and CharlesWain are engaging in too much edit warring
  • Diffs 8 and 9 are completely unacceptable and I can only assume thatt Bishonen didn't get that far into reviewing the report. An editor who has had their topic ban appealed is an editor in good standing until proven otherwise. If there are issues with Dympies behavior so severe that they preclude collaboration, you need to bring that to AE with appropriate evidence. You do not get to assume bad faith of people simply for having been previously sanctioned.
  • Diff 10 is a non-issue

I think at minimum a warning is needed, and honestly the combination of edit-warring, aspersion-casting, and doubling down makes me seriously consider a topic-ban from caste topics. If so, we should probably also examine the edits of others participating in the edit warring more closely, as really, some of those edit histories are veritable war zones. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:48, 24 Ja anuary 2025 (UTC)

• Also canvassed by Ekdalian. I'm not convinced about a TBA but warning is certainly needed here. I'd like to see what Luke Emily has to add and would be happy to wait a couple of days. It still might be worthwhile to examine others participating, but we can only bring one person here at a time now. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My thinking regarding "we need to examine others" is that if we were to reach a consensus to tban here, I would go about and look through the pages that saw edit warring identified in this report and either file new AE cases or take action in my capacity as an uninvolved admin. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I was also asked to comment here by Ekdalian. My reading is similar to that of Rosguill's, and I endorse a logged warning. Talk:Rajput is full of ad hominem that has absolutely no place in a collaborative environment. That other users have also engaged in personal commentary does not excuse Ekdalian's behavior. Ekdalian, your language in the diffs above is not appropriate: it is far too aggressive and far too personal. If you are unable to make your point without ad hominem, you will find yourself prevented from editing contentious material. I am not endorsing a TBAN at this time only because I have a strong feeling we are not being presented a full picture here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not thrilled with all the canvassing going on here. Ekdalian, stop doing that, and if you end up here again, don't do it again. Valereee (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• A logged warning at the very least. Between the canvassing and the personal attacks in #8/#9, I am doubtful that Ekdalian should be editing in this area at all. If that doesn't happen here, I would assure you that any more behavior like this would be very likely indeed to lead to that result. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like at least a rough consensus here for a logged warning regarding behavior. Unless any uninvolved admin disagrees within the next day or so, I will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade, reminder ping. -- asilvering (talk) 08:06, 8 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

Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

TommyKirchhoff (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:ARBCAM and WP:ARBPS.

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

• February 4, 2025 On the talk page of the page from which he was just page-blocked: "Clearly, your reading and comprehension level is below 9th grade... If your reading and comprehension is actually above the 9th-grade level, you are the gaslighting king ! You ignore any truth that is not spoon-fed to you."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[34] Just yesterday, here.

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

See previous AE, closed yesterday, linked just above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Yeah, I know, again. But seriously, this is beyond the pale, and this user should not be here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that an admin, any admin, will implement this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[35]

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.

• I see a user who's only here to edit about one thing, and rather than editing productively, they're edit warring, they're POV-pushing, and now they're insulting others after catching a p-block. I'm in favor of an indef. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per Guerillero's post below, still in favor of an indef, and I think the second p-block is insufficient. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with leek. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite block. An editor who sees everyone who disagrees as "the bad guys" and engages in personal attacks on them, is by definition incompatible with a collaborative project. Cullen328 (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• P-blocked from talk at TCM as well as the article. TommyKirchhoff, would you like to comment on what exactly you think you're doing that is productive? tgeorgescu, I'll mention that your own "It's actually quite boring" is less than helpful. Valereee (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While it is unhelpful, please remember that AE threads are now only focused on the named individual and the filer. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the fact it's focussed on a single individual means admins addressing it can't discuss other concerns? Filers can only bring up one person, but I certainly ought to be able to at minimum make a remark and if I believe necessary an admin action. Valereee (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The motion says AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so which means I think we have options but also am sympathetic to us being cautious about doing so (especially as a tossed off remark). Barkeep49 (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like if I see bad behavior, I should deal with bad behavior. What caution other than normal caution I would need to use? Valereee (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like if I see bad behavior, I should deal with bad behavior. sure but that doesn't mean dealing with it by making a comment here. We could, for instance, make a note on a user's talk page instead. I had asked for explicit permission to split reports, but I think we could probably take that action as part of our general powers to manage AE requests. I'm not really sure what What caution other than normal caution I would need to use? means because I just used the word cautious? By which I meant that we should be trying really hard to avoid being the people to break the two party rule even though I think we can as written. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't disagree that we can go to a user's talk instead, but I will absolutely disagree that we shouldn't call something out here. A worker here doing that is completely different in my mind from a complainant bringing a case against eight different editors. If a complainant here is also doing not good things, I should be free to -- encouraged to! -- mention it. We absolutely do not want complaining about someone at AE meaning you've protected yourself here. Valereee (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would indef and close, but due to Valereee's P-block I am going to give more time for admins to discuss if it is sufficient --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with indef (1st year AE block). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like this is probably ready to be closed? Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 8 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

Dympies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

PerspicazHistorian (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/India-Pakistan

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

1. 9 January - requesting a page to be moved to an uncommon term mainly used by Hindutva supporters
2. 9 January - believes that the "Lead should always be respectful and non-contentious."
3. 9 January - attacks Ravish Kumar by calling him "leftist journalist (who is not even famous in common people)."
4. 10 January - Calls academic publisher Taylor & Francis an unreliable source
5. 10 January - using talk page for venting
6. 7 February - Engages in blatant whataboutism by disputing title of Alexander the Great, just to justify the unwarranted demands to change "Shivaji" to "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj"
7. 9 February - requesting a page to be retitled after a blatant uncommon name with honorific title even after many discussions against this move

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 9 January - AE sanction which blocked him from editing mainspace

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

Already under a recent AE restriction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There is no doubt in saying that PerspicazHistorian has only engaged in further disruption since his last sanction.

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.

PPH was blocked from article space, presumably in the hope that they would show themselves to be a constructive contributor outside mainspace. In my view they have entirely failed to do so: their recent talk page participation is NOTHERE behavior, given that they show themselves to be aware of PAGs - NPOV, COMMONNAME - but choose to ignore them altogether. This comment is illustrative. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:43, 10 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 between a TBAN and an indef here. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I indefed as a nothere block -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:18, 10 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

Srijanx22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Callmehelper (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/India-Pakistan

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

1. 4 January - Violates copyrights
2. 19 January - Files a frivolous report against other editors, mislabels their edits as "vandalism" and then rudely responds to onlookers as also noted by Liz by saying "That's a very rude reply, Callmehelper."
3. 19 January - Mislabels an edit as "vandalism".
4. 21 January - Trying to get article on a non-notable subject created and not dropping the WP:STICK.
5. 21 January - Casts WP:ASPERSIONS against the new page patrollers, and demeans them as "people those rejected are so much had biased opinions that I can't discuss."

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)

[37]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[38]

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 is my side ;

1. 1 Allegation : Yes, it was indeed a copyright violation. This was my first encounter to something like copyright violation. Which i just copy-paste of a paragraph from govt website. Then one senior editor tell me in my talk page about what copyright violation is and how that works, and it was my very healthy and learning session for me tbh. Please see the whole discussion, then it will exhibit a full picture. First conversion happened in my talk page seethen little more conversations happened in his talk page pls see And ultimately matter solved and i learnt by this conversations and after that i never did anything like copyright violation. I don't know why this issue is used here against me.

1. 2nd Allegation : This is little complex and long problem. Although i explain it very deeply during AN/I. But i will cut it short. It was started very much before. Firstly someone tag me about this vandalism by saying that one editor try to manipulate some paragraph in that page then i got involved in this. I restored that paragraph but it was reverted by again that guy and it keep going for sometime, then i told them in his talk page but he just delete that talk without replying, then i go for article talk page and write all that issue but no one replied, then i go to two administrator personal talk page, one was busy and one told me that i should go for AN/I but here also i got no reply for 2 days. after all that someone replied that i should go for main article talk page, which i was already did. this was disappointing for me as i feel in a loop as in talk page no one replied. so i replied very rudely but it was more of a frustration for 4 days. But nevertheless, I apologise to that editor and that senior editor named Lez who told me about my rudeness, in next reply. Moreover i also apologise to that editor in his talk page on same day.

1. 3 Allegations : It was related to 2nd allegation. It was indeed a Vandalism, because after discussion done in that talk page[39] that editor was again removing all this , so i had to go to his talk page and said about this is Vandalism pls stop doing it but again that guy deleted my vandalism warning without replying to me see , But ultimately that editor stopped doing vandalism in that page and it then remains restored after so my efforts for continuous 5 days.
   But i don't know how that respected complainer think that this is not vandalism? IT WAS VANDALISM.
   

1. 4th & 5th Allegations  : I am not aware about WP:Stick. Simply I make a draft and leave a (template submit) in my draft and then it goes for discussion. After so much long long conversations, it was finalized that the draft is still not acceptable as it lack Notability and i ultimately accept that and this conversation end in very light way. pls see
   

My Conclusion: I whenever make any statement in uncivil manner i never ever leave as it is without my apology. i apologise to those whenever i feel that i replied them in uncivil way.
As i am not so english fluent, so i don't have much dictionaries of words, so ultimately some my words reflect a little rudeness, but it was never be my intention. so apologise to him immediately.
Although i am new , but i am sure i will be adapt myself very soon about all the policies. I also work on myself perticularly about my choice of words.
Those seniors who seen my choice of bad words should advice/warm me in my talk page instead of going direct complaining, as i seen such policy as [WP:don't bit the newcomers], as i never ignored any type of warning/advice or suggestions.
This was my side.
I will accept any kind of warning or ban after all.
Thanks.
Much Regards.

• @Valereee sorry Sir. this one edit seems not vandl , but it was his consecutive 3 to 4 times continuous reversion, even after discussion happened in talk page where that editor don't participate but other unrelated senior editor did whom i tag for help.
  So i thought, he did revert again by neglecting talk page discussion , hence i restored that by calling stop Vandalism.
  Now when i see WP:Vandalism policy very closely, it really didn't say that continuous incorrect edits a vandalism, it was more of a Continuous disruptive editing.
  Apologise for my mistakes.
  I should give more time to understand WP policy.
  Thank you for letting know me Sir.
  Regards Sir. Callmehelper (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)moved to correct section, please comment only in your own section Valereee (talk)[reply]

@Rosguill . Pls give your valuable time to understand whole matter, since you asked.

Issue : Today revert by me on Ambedkar Jayanti Page :-

This is a month ago matter, when I edit many changes in that page from Here to current With citations.
But @Ratnahastin changed all by saying i am pushing my POV here , but it was according to me not POV, but a well known fact that Ambedkar regards as the chief architect of constitution of India with citations. so i revert and tell him that its not POV , citations are there which claim that that discription about ambedkar you can see , He again revert by claiming same thing that i am POV pushing see without explanation of the the sources that i provided. so i again revert by saying pls read citations also, see.
After that He came to my talk page about this issue, pls see this short conversation.
Then after some 1 or 2 day, other editor (who take action here about me ) revert it by saying no improvement needed needed. So i revert by saying this but he again revert by saying solve your problem in main article.
I will talk about later in detail about whole main article issue which is totally different from here but here they don't question citations that i provided here, they just revert by saying POV pushing or not necessary.
So i go to there talk page for talk about the issue. but again stick with the line solve your issue first on main article .
After that i take article Page talk page for discussion. and revert his earlier reversion and tell him to discuss the issue in talk page
But instead for talk , he preferred for block action action against me - here and where i told about whole issue then administrator decline my block and preferred to involve in talk page see

Here matter remain quite silent for 1 month , but today again , @Ratnahastin revert it by saying discuss in talk page. but in talk page, no one talk about credibility of sources that i provided which is secondary, govt etc. so i revert today and reply to stick with the sources.
That's the all matter of Bhim Jayanti page.
Now let's talk about little Main article B R Ambedkar page issue.
Where the way lead was written, I thought need to be revised. so being that time a new not extended user, i take talk page discussion, but there @Ratnahastin came and give his opinion which is misleading, when I reply to him to correct your fact , he don't reply back.
In that discussion both give wrong information, and once i corrected them they won't reply and just changed lead by claiming, we had discussion on talk page but in talk page matter won't solve
After this whole discussion, they always try to impose me that we had discussion in main article about your claim and that was debunk , which is entirely different.
They give wrong info , and when i informed about their error, they won't reply further and changed on their WP:OR. see 1 then i again for talk page then they revised.
This is whole issue.
Whenever I edit anything on Ambedkar related based on what i read on the books or journals or articles, i try to write in that page for articles enrichement , but these editors just came click revert and call that by single line like POV pushing or puffery or anything. they don't talk about the WP:RS that i provided. they should talk about how or which paragraph is unsourced or puffery or unacademic etc , but they never do. they just give their prejudice mind opinions.
This is all about my side.
i think i all that i want to say. Rest is on administrators.
Thanks.
Much Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, Dear Adminstrator. pls Listen to me. don't apply TL:DR
Ratnahastin manipulate things, He say A and present link to you B, thinking that Administrator can't catch it. But i will show you how they manipulate things.
Pls listen my side , it's month issue they try to mixing and present to you that i am edit warring but i am not. It's all timing confusion
In very first encounter of you with me you ask me :

Can you please address your edits there particularly this edit today?

I didn't edit. It was there for month, First he revert whole text that day then i simply revert it by saying sources are there.
But here is a catch, his last reply in talk page was there for a month, and that last reply by him was discussed by me when Srijanx reported me for violating 3R one month ago. and Adminstrator told that it's not violation and discussion open for talk page, but Srijanx and Ratnahastin didn't reply in talk page, so his reply remain as last reply. But you should ask him why he revert whole text that was there for month ? only because his reply was last?
After my revert that day , i reply to his one old reply (since I don't know that his fallacy reply, he will used against me after one month)
After discussion with him , look what i realised. what they do ,

first they disagree with the title 'chief architect' , he try very hard to disregard it , but i will show to him the best known contemporary scholars writing, then he suddenly taking about like just it is reliable didn't necessarily to add it , then i understand his motive. he didn't want to add this title although he know that.

After this realisation, I go for third opinion as suggested by you. And finally 3:0 suggested that i should go for main page about adding of Chief architect word as this title should also be in main article.

after 3:0 suggestion, i myself removed that title 'chief architect' and add his official post.

NOW Question come here is that How and what, i didn't address after whole talk with Ratnahastin and Third opinion? Also
Pls, ask Ratnahastin and Srijanx that what actually these people have probelms,even i removed whole main argument part??
As you see today Srijanx revert all my edits, even though i removed that argument part. Ask him why they revert whole part since my last edit. I guarantee, he didn't have answers. he just try to no one should add single postive things or even a reference in that page , as they are hijacked by both. he just turned whole table against me.
Also when i talk with their pages about his revert one month before, they don't reply. they just archive those talk.
Now Srijanx last revert is very wrong, he should self-revert or ask him that whats the problem with my last edit.
Thanks. Callmehelper (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill , okay okay. i understand my talk page heading is not academic.
but listen, i already backoff after 3:0 involvement.
i allready removed my desirable edit in my last edit. but the more recent edit of srijanx is not required. also as per whole talk page discussion , i removed the arguments line already. whole discussion about not add Chief architect line , and i already removed that Callmehelper (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: The above acknowledgements by Callmehelper seem nothing more than lip-service. He has resumed his page ownership and edit warring with multiple editors at Ambedkar Jayanti, even after being told months ago that he should avoid rehashing same debunked argument which was already addressed on the main article.[40] However, he is continuing that in violation of WP:ONUS, and is still ignoring WP:BRD.[41] - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Callmehelper kept replying endlessly without addressing the main argument. He failed to make the self-revert[42] even after he was told by an uninvolved editor that he should avoid adding the controversial information on the article whose main page certainly lacks it.[43] I don't find his approach collaborative. - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Callmehelper, I don't see how this edit is vandalism? Simply being incorrect is not vandalism. Please read about what Wikipedia considers to be WP:VANDALISM. If after reading it you still don't understand the difference, you're going to need to stop using the term. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not a man. I know you may have been taught it's polite to use honorifics, but that isn't necessary on the English Wikipedia. No one will think you're rude if you don't call them sir/ma'am, and doing so risks calling women "sir". Valereee (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this report can be closed without further action. While the diffs highlighted in this report are subpar, Callmehelper has admitted their errors and resolved to do better. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC) Partially struck. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ratnahastin, thank you for bringing these more recent diffs to my attention. I agree that the slow-motion edit warring is not appropriate. Callmehelper, can you please explain the reasoning behind your edits at Ambedkar Jayanti. From what I can see at that page, you appear to be slow-motion edit warring against the objections of Srijanx22 and Ratnahastin. Can you please address your edits there particularly this edit today? The discussion on the talk page does not demonstrate a firm consensus one way or another, and Ratnahastin's comments indicate that this dispute is related to other discussions (which I have not investigated in detail but which, ceteris paribus, would indicate that there's even less support for your edit than what is indicated at Talk:Ambedkar Jayanti). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Callmehelper, the correct answer I was looking for would have been something along the lines of "I am sorry for edit warring, being right isn't enough". Further edits to that article should have been avoided until the matter was resolved on the talk page; if discussion with Ratnahastin was not heading towards consensus, you should have appealed to any number of dispute resolution options. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Callmehelper, I had already reviewed the entire relevant page history dating through November 2024 and the attendant discussion on the talk page. Ratnahastin responded to you on the talk page less than 6 hours after you posted there (Special:Diff/1265267690). It was not a particularly deep response, but frankly given that you titled the section Why some editors don't Understand the basic things?, I don't blame them for feeling less than eager to discuss with you at length. Regardless of the quality of the response, it is enough of an objection to require you to stop reinstating your desired edit pending resolution to the dispute. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd appreciate other admin(s) to weigh in here, but to summarize my thoughts I am currently thinking that a logged warning about edit warring for Callmehelper would be appropriate, with a stricter sanction only necessary if edit warring resumes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems appropriate to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Logged warning works. Valereee (talk) 23:19, 5 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

Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

This user edit-wars without discussing, sometimes contrary to consensus.

1. 16:44, January 27, 2025 . Restoring material, without any discussion despite the fact I had pinged them on the talk page more than a week ago.
2. 16:40, January 27, 2025 . No attempt to engage in ongoing discussion.
3. 18:33, January 15, 2025 Restored article. At the time of their revert, there was consensus that the article should be merged. Their edit summary "consensus takes time to achieve" indicated they were aware of this discussion but chose not to participate.
4. 18:36, January 15, 2025 Mass deletion without adequate explanation
5. Feel free to look through their contributions. Its giving me a WP:NOTTHERE vibe. They show up to revert, don't discuss, and then fall quiet.

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

[44]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[45]

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.

Also of note:

1. Another unjustified removal of significant sourced content

1. Another relevant talk page "discussion"

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, they've already responded. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that Boksi didn't answer my question here. I would like to understand whether their application of WP:G5 is selective or neutral. Editors were recently topic banned on the basis of 'non-neutral' editing. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "I think this might be a compromised account" comment. The rather abrupt change in edit summary style coinciding with the move to PIA editing is consistent with this possibility. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just saw that I was tagged. As you can see, I'm not very here in recent weeks, a bit busy I can admit. Anyway, I don't think this case is too complicated. We're talking about an editor (Iskandar323) who, ever since getting his topic ban on the Israeli-Arab conflict, keeps spending a huge amount of time with disruptions in articles on Israel history, deleting a lot of content about the Jewish Temples in Jerusalem (even edit warring!!! against consensus on Solomon's Temple (look on [46] [47] [48] [49] and stopping only after the fifth time) and Jewish figures ([50]) or museums dealing with the Holocaust ([51]). I think that's the real violation here, and that's what should be in discussion. Boksi (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a compromised account.

Boksi created their account back in 2008. They were moderately active for a couple of years, following periods of limited or no activity (an average of ±30 edits between 2012-2017). Boksi made no edits in 2018, 2019 and 2022, less than 50 in 2020-2021, and 24 in 2023. Up until that point, all of their edits were related to Serbia, usually the Serbian military. Then suddenly in November 2024 they started editing in the PIA topic. First they moved to request deletion of articles created by a sock, and it is unclear how they were aware this person was a sock since they never participated in any discussion involving them or in the case that uncovered said sock as a sock.

Once they started being moderately active again, nearly all of their edits have been in PIA or involving editors active in PIA. All of their edits in PIA include descriptions...which are also not common in their previous edits (in fact, they usually didn't add any summaries), and most are either reversions, removing content, or alluding to WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV issues. They also participated in the ARBPIA5 case highlighting perceived pro Palestinian bias, singling out specific editors they considered biased, and voted in the second AfD for the article Calls for the destruction of Israel, despite never having interacted with it or its previous AfD. As highlighted by other editors they also usually engage in edit warring. This sudden focus on PIA seems to me to be entirely out of character, considering their past activity. I think this might be a compromised account. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:07, 5 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 am unimpressed by the repeated reverts with no talk page engagement, and also by the claim of reverting a TBAN violation that in fact had occurred before the TBAN was enacted. I would like to hear from Boksi before deciding what to do. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Iskandar has already been TBANned - they also had nothing at all to do with most of the examples above, and in the one case where Boksi reverted them, it occurred before the TBAN was levied and therefore was not in fact a TBAN violation. The response is textbook WP:NOTTHEM, and I would propose a TBAN from ARBPIA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree the activity pattern is odd, but we're outside the window for technical evidence to be able to detect a compromise, and I don't believe the behavior is sufficient by itself. We have to treat the account on its merits regardless, and my views as to that are above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also unimpressed. I would be open to an indef or a topic ban if we hear nothing from them in 48 hours. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Guerillero, we did hear from them in the end. As you can see, not terribly encouraging. -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The editor hasn't edited since 1/27. I think don't know if it's reasonable to expect them back on the project in the next 2 days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Then they probably shouldn't be editing about the most contentious conflict in the world -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to support a topic ban. However, Liz's point that no further harm is caused by an editor who hasn't edited since days before this was filed is a good one. I'd let them have a full week to respond before closing without their response. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks IOHANNVSVERVS I somehow skipped over that section entirely when reading this report. After reading and looking at the diffs I do support a topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I was about to close this with consensus to TBAN, and then I read Smallangryplanet's comment above, and took a closer look. Yeah, all of this account's edits since November are textbook returning-topic-warrior behavior, most reminiscent of Icewhiz, in an area they never showed interest in before, with only a few edits made in their old area of interest (which anyone could do as a façade upon taking over an account). I can't say definitively that the account was compromised/sold (and CU would be of no use, so I didn't request it), but I am confident on the behavioral evidence that the person currently operating the account is doing so with undisclosed past participation in the topic area on some other account, because there is no other way to explain this. So this is WP:PROJSOCK at a minimum and Icewhiz socking at a maximum, and thus I have blocked indefinitely as a regular-admin action. Neutral on whether to TBAN as well or just close this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:32, 16 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

Est. 2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Alex 19041 (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:IBAN

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

1. 21 January 2025

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

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#IBAN Request
• User talk:Alex 19041#January 2025

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• User talk:Alex 19041#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

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 have been made aware of the rules and will follow them in the future - I hope this suffices as a statement as I don't think there is anything worth adding that hasn't been said already.

Update 25/01 And yes, i will leave this alone in the future and I have since this occured.

I won't comment on this further and I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to say and allegations of trying to wepaonise Wikipedia are laughable when this literally started wirh someone introducing factually wrong information to an important article. I will not edit in that space anymore but I'm very unhappy with the standards in that field.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 19041 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rosguill, Deepfriedokra, Beeblebrox, and Valereee: They even tracked my name from that edit and posted it on social media for Zionist extremists to threaten me.[52] Aren't we supposed to feel safe when contributing to Wikipedia? This is not acceptable at all. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC) moved from below; please comment in own sectionValereee (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Valereee: No, I did not; you must browse through my subpages to find it. But even if it was on my main page, that would not imply they could post it online in response to extremists' pages for them to harass and threaten me, as they did. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Valereee: Again: private or not, that does not imply they could post it online in response to extremists' pages for them to harass and threaten me, as they did. IBAN is the least I could request. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user has made another edit to the PIA topic area.
1. 26 January 2025
Rainsage (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When arbcom was asked to clarify the userspace exemption, they didn't clarify it at all. Since they didn't make any changes either, the definition in WP:PIA4 still holds:

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

1. the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
2. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

Now, category 1 doesn't apply to a user page (because it isn't an article), and category 2 explicitly excludes user pages. So user pages are not in the "area of conflict". That means that references to the "area of conflict" don't include userspace.

Looking back at the workshop page shows that this was my idea that arbcom accepted. So blame me ;). The idea was that people can play in their sandbox, break 1RR on their own user page, and stuff like that, without penalty.

There is some possibility for confusion due to "area of conflict" sometimes referring to a topic and sometimes referring to a set of pages, but in the definition here it is clearly indicating a set of pages. It is highly dubious that someone can violate a arbitration restriction from "the area of conflict" by an edit on their own user page. Of course there can be offenses that are not arbitration offenses. Zero^talk 02:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• To recap what's already been said at the initial hearing this got at ARBCOM, it has been identified that Alex19041 is not extended-confirmed, has now been made aware of the 30/500 editing restriction for PIA, has acknowledged that they should not make any edits to the topic, but has not quite acknowledged that they also should not make comments relating to the topic outside of article space. If they can acknowledge that, an IBAN would be unnecessary as they will not be engaging further with the discussion at-issue for some time. If they can't acknowledge that, we'd likely need to escalate to blocks, as there's no reason to expect the IBAN to be observed. Some concern was also raised that Est. 2021's replies to Alex 19041 included personal attacks, although it should be noted that Est. 2021 has made an effort to remove potentially-problematic statements from their prior comments at ARBCOM (sections on their talk page containing similar language have been removed entirely, which is within their purview on a user talk page). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• (came here from the ill-fated ArbCom case request). I agree with Rosguill. Some assurance from Alex 19041 and from Est. 2021 that they will leave the problematic edits behind would be good.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Est. 2021:. I'm sorry to hear that you have experienced off Wiki harassment. It would be best to email off-Wiki evidence to the Arbitration Committee --arbcom-en wikimedia.org and to Trust and Safety-- cawikimedia.org -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alex 19041: Looks like you've again edited in this area after saying you would not. There are about 6,000,000 articles not in this contentious topic area. I'm beginning to doubt you are here to build the encyclopedia. I'm beginning to think you are here to weaponize Wikipedia in this conflict. Please respond in your own section. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Alex, I agree with DFO. What are you doing adding content to that page? Valereee (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the reported user needs to show some understanding that as a non-EC user, they need to leave this CTOP alone across all namespaces. However, sanctions are for serious, ongoing problems, three unwelcome talk page posts made over the course of an hour does not strike me as sufficient cause for a formal iban. If there's more to it than that, it needs to be made clear, with diffs. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It doesn't look like Alex 19041 has edited since the case started. Alex, if you are seeing this, you do need to come in here and respond. Ignoring this will not make it go away. Valereee (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alex 19041, so you now understand that you must leave this topic alone, everywhere on Wikipedia?

  @Est. 2021, ugh on the twitter post. Alex, that's not cool, people actually get threats IRL. But Est. 2021, you have so thoroughly outed yourself that this isn't considered outing under our policies. Valereee (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Est. 2021, it doesn't really matter that it's on a subpage. Nothing you post on Wikipedia is private. Valereee (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm forced to agree. If you post your real identity anywhere on WP, that's your decision and it is public. Of course I also agree with what Deepfriedokra has said about letting the office know about it. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 18:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that no policy is violating by attributing an edit to a publicly disclosed off-wiki identity. Also, as to the underlying dispute, @Est. 2021: Based on your talkpage comment I'm willing to believe that you were trying to avoid the exact error you wound up introducing, but, to be clear, you did introduce a serious factual error to the lead of a heavily-viewed and deeply controversial article. AirshipJungleman29 is entirely correct that the plain reading of On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, taking 251 captive, against which Israelis responded applying the controversial Hannibal Directive, resulting in the death of 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals, among which 815 civilians is that Israel killed all 1,195. If, as you indicate on the talkpage, that misunderstanding is because English is not your first language, that's fine, but you need to be more careful, especially in restoring something that was already removed once. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm concerned that Alex 19041 is refusing to continue discussing here and is continuing to edit in the topic. A topic ban seems silly since they're refusing to comply with an ECR restriction; both require voluntary compliance. I hate to suggest a p-block from article space, as they do seem to want to contribute productively in other areas, but I'm not sure what else to do if they're refusing to comply/discuss. Valereee (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This is beginning to look like a competence issue more than an intentional flouting of the rules. Based on the most recent statement [53] I would leave a final warning that making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict would be grounds for an immediate block. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought I'd leave a comment. It looks like Alex 19041 hasn't participated here in a few weeks but they have come by a couple times to rewrite their only comment in this discussion. I left a note for them asking for them to post additional comments with recent signatures so we could see they are aware of the discussion here instead of making small changes to their existing remark. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Alex may have left the project. I think we are getting close to needing a close here. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They edited two days ago. Valereee (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to add another wrinkle to an already over-long case, but... Was there clearly a violation here? Okay, well, easy answer is yes, this edit was a violation, and it came immediately after a preceding edit saying they'd follow the rules, which is very troubling, but how we handle that depends a lot on whether that's the first or second violation. And there's an ambiguity in the rules there. Historically, I've warned a couple of users for violations of ARBPIA GS on user talk pages; I think I even blocked one, although it wasn't only for that and wasn't an AE action. Recently, someone pointed out to me that WP:CTOP/A-I § Definition of the "area of conflict" exempts userspace from "related content", and WP:USERSPACE includes usertalkpages. Now, my reply to that person was that I didn't read that clause as affecting how the ECR works, as it applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed. So even if a user talk page can't be "related content", it can still "relate[ ] to the topic area". But now that it's been pointed out to me, I hesitate to enforce an ambiguous provision without clarification from ArbCom.
  All that said, even if an edit on a user talk page is actionable (which again, I do think it is), I think we can exercise some administrative discretion, especially looking to the spirit of the edit-requests exemption, and say that a user using usertalkspace to point out objective factual errors introduced into a PIA article is not really what the ECR is meant to be preventing. So on the question of what to actually do here, I would suggest we formally warn for the one clear-cut violation, note my informal warning to Est. 2021 for the AGF-but-still-serious factual errors, and close this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm the "someone" who mentioned the userspace exception to Tamzin. See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 128#Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b): Arbitrator views and discussion discussing that exception. Regardless of that point, I think a warning would suffice per Vanamonde. SilverLocust 💬 09:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I completely disagree with a user using usertalkspace to point out objective factual errors introduced into a PIA article is not really what the ECR is meant to be preventing. I think ECR was meant to stop disruption caused by people who haven't had time to gain sufficient experience. And in many instances in this topic we see what one person considers objective factual errors to be anything but. I have no issue if you want to lessen a sanction because you agree that they were errors, but I wanted to note my concerns with the reasoning presented here. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]