Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive359

Fullquarter

Indefinitely blocked by voorts as a non-AE action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Fullquarter

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fortuna imperatrix mundi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Fullquarter (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:CT/SA

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

08:22, 23 August 2025 Removed non-contentious sourced material.
08:21, 23 August 2025 Attempted to tag CSD.
08:24, 23 August 2025 Tagged for CSD A7 (declined).
08:28, 23 August 2025 Moved a long-standing page to draft.
07:25, 25 August 2025 PRODed (contested).
06:15, 29 August 2025 Removed non-contentious sourced material.
06:17, 29 August 2025 Removed non-contentious sourced material.
06:18, 29 August 2025 Tagged CSD G7 (declined).
08:08, 1 September 2025 Removed non-contentious sourced material.
08:08, 1 September 2025 Removed sourced material.
08:09, 1 September 2025 Removed sourced material.
08:11, 1 September 2025 Removed non-contentious sourced material.

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, at 11:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Appears to be an attempt at whitewashing Abhishek Verma (arms dealer) (with similar tendentious editing, including mass deletion of material and an attempt to CSD on the Parvesh Verma article), all of which has been reverted (although that on Parvesh Verma has yet to be) by repeatedly removing material (some negative, some vanilla and all sourced per WP:BLPSOURCES) and/or the page itself. Myself, users @Sumanuil, Explicit, Zuck28, and Mz7: and doubtless others have cleaned up after them, Zuck28 asked them about their page moves, no reply; Sumanuil warned them for their deletions, and got a 100% AI-generated response). CTOP/BLP also applies (noticed). (Noting for the record, although not as evidence, that Fullquarter is the primary editor of the E& PPF Telecom Group article with its attendant hint of both UPE and AI generation, per GPTZero.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

12:15, 1 September 2025

Discussion concerning Fullquarter

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Fullquarter

Result concerning Fullquarter

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

I've indef'd this editor as NOTHERE as an individual admin action without prejudice to AE action. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

The appeal is unsuccessful per WP:CTOPAPPEALS which requires "a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE". Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Initiated by IdanST at 10:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

User_talk:IdanST#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban

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

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

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
I followed step #1 (contacting the administrator), which was rejected, and I'm now following steps #2 and #3.

Statement by IdanST

Hey,

Since I was topic banned nine months ago, I’ve made over 500 substantial edits on English Wikipedia, as well as more than 18,000 edits across Wikimedia projects.

I apologize for my past behavior and acknowledge that I wasn’t ready to contribute constructively to contentious topics at the time. However, I now believe I’m better prepared and could contribute more effectively if the topic ban were lifted.

asilvering, sure. Prior to the topic ban, I was blocked twice for WP:ECR violations. Then, I translated Rapid Response Unit (Israel) from its Origin[he] in he.wiki, which resulted in a fast deletion and topic ban for WP:ECR, reviewing RS of Air Force articles and using the word "terrorist" in that translated article . I specifically disagree with the latter part, since there are dozens of articles that use that word, and in this case it was simply a cross-wiki translation.

After I was topic banned, I began editing in he.wiki, where I have made over 20,000 edits and translated more than 300 cross-wiki articles. A lot of my work has focused on aviation-related articles, but I have also translated a few politically sensitive articles, such as Basel Adra, We Will Dance Again, and others. All of my articles have been received in good faith. While some of the political ones were later edited by other users who felt they were not fully NPOV, not a single article I translated there has been deleted — whereas all of the cross-wiki articles I translated here were deleted.

As for what I have learned: almost all of my blocks and sanctions were due to WP:ECR, but I have long since moved past that, so it cannot be repeated. In addition, when I first started editing, I did not always behave well because I was new, unfamiliar with procedures, and unsure how to remain polite in difficult situations (as SFR once wrote, I "must assume good faith"). Since then, I have learned these lessons while editing in he.wiki. Furthermore, due to my past experiences with translating articles here, I will no longer translate articles into en.wiki. IdanST (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, although all the articles I translated were deleted, Bybit was later recreated by another editor, but none of my earlier edits were restored. The rest of the deleted translated articles remain deleted. IdanST (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, I never said I had "run into POV issues" in he.wiki, nor was I ever involved in such. Also, please elaborate on your conclusion that I am "still having content faulted on hewiki for not being neutral by their standards," because I was never accused of not being neutral in he.wiki. All I said is that some editors made edits to a few articles I translated. To elaborate, some of them believe en.wiki articles themselves are not neutral. So, do you mean by your words that en.wiki is not neutral?

Tamzin, Anybody on he.wiki can edit articles; that doesn’t necessarily mean they are in bad condition or have NPOV issues. IdanST (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paprikaiser

While looking for the appropriate venue to address another editor, I came across this discussion. Since their he-wiki edits were mentioned in connection with potential WP:NPOV violations, I reviewed them out of curiosity and found some concerning material that would almost certainly be considered POV violations here. A few examples:

[40] Describing Anas al-Sharif as "a junior terrorist" as a matter of fact (before he was assassinated).
[41]-[42] Stating in wiki voice that he enlisted in Hamas, based solely on an IDF source, without attribution.
[43] Once again, repeatedly referring to him as a terrorist as a matter of fact.
[44] Adding a photo of al-Sharif with Yahya Sinwar, seemingly to prove his Hamas membership, even after it was reverted multiple times.
[45] Referencing the fringe claim that the Gaza famine is the result of food looting by Hamas, an unverified position.
[46] Failing WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH.

There may be more, but I stopped reading at that point, and searching in a foreign-language wiki is not easy. Even so, this seems like sufficient evidence to consider the editor a negative presence in the topic area. While I don't participate there often, in the few times I have, I've come across clear POV issues and faced hostility when I tried to point them out. In my humble opinion, the area is already contentious enough without bringing in more editors whose approach risks making it more difficult and disruptive. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Arbitrator response from when this was originally filed at ARCA

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

IdanST appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

@IdanST: the Arbitration Committee generally isn't the right body to appeal a CTOP restriction to, if it's on the basis of changed behavior. We only overturn CTOP actions under very narrow circumstances, usually having to do with the CTOP action being problematic when it was placed. Like the sanctioning administrator said, a better place to plead this case would be at WP:AN or WP:AE, if that's the path you're looking to take. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with leeky above; Wikipedia:Contentious topics#On community review (ie. AN or AE) allows for an appeal on the grounds that "the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption" which seems to best align with the purpose of this appeal, while the three criteria ARCA can consider does not include this. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recused, as I placed this sanction. I do agree with what was said by my esteemed colleagues though, which is why I said to appeal at AE or AN in my response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning IdanST

It seems nobody wants to comment on this, so I guess I'll tackle it. The appeal is a bit lighter on details than I would like, but at the same time IdanST seems to have gotten into no trouble at all in the hundreds of edits and many months since their most recent block expired in February, so we may as well give them a chance, and if there is recidivism a re-ban is always a possibility. (Other admins may well see differently; my positions on user conduct matters are idiosyncratic at best) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Would you like to comment (as the sanctioning administrator, not as an arb) on this appeal? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts are roughly what I expressed at WP:ARCA recently, the topic is still to "hot", for lack of a better term, to unban editors in this topic right now. In this case, the behavior was less severe and there's recent editing that looks constructive, so I wouldn't be strongly opposed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IdanST, can you give us a bit more to go on? For example, can you explain in your own words why you were banned, what you've learned since, and how you'll avoid the same problems? Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Idan's candor in acknowledging having run into POV issues on hewiki, but to me that sounds like a pretty big deal. Idan's POV is closer to what hewiki defines as neutral than to what enwiki defines as neutral; if Idan is still having content faulted on hewiki for not being neutral by their standards, that bodes poorly for letting them back into the topic area here on enwiki. And the fact that there's no engagement with this issue—no introspection into why their edits were seen as non-neutral there—bodes even more poorly. I don't see grounds to unban. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IdanST: I'm just going off of your own statement that some of the political ones were later edited by other users who felt they were not fully NPOV. If what you mean by that is that you were copying enwiki content blindly without regard for whether it complied with local policies, than that would seem to just be the mirror-image situation of what you describe happening here leading up to your TBAN. The English and Hebrew Wikipedias have different policies, guidelines, and norms, and an editor translating from one wiki to another is expected to ensure that their article is in compliance. You take responsibility for every edit you make to a wiki, even if it's derived from something elsewhere. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After almost a month we are at one moderately in favor of unbanning (Pppery) and one moderately opposed (me), with the sanctioning admin also moderately opposed. That's well short of the "clear consensus" standard at WP:CTOPAPPEALS. I will close this as unsuccessful if no further support emerges in the next day or two; courtesy pings @Newyorkbrad & asilvering if they'd like to comment further. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no additional input coming from me soonish, ran out of spoons on Friday, have not received new shipment asilvering (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regioncalifornia

Regioncalifornia is warned not to violate WP:PIA's 1RR again. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 11:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Regioncalifornia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Regioncalifornia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

15:27, 24 August 2025 Regioncalifornia (RC) adds Hebrew name to Beit Hanina
23:09, 24 August 2025 I remove it
00:22, 25 August 2025 RC readds it, breaking the 1RR
08:24, 25 August 2025 Editor 1 pings RC, "You just violated 1RR and I invite you to self-revert"
20:25, 25 August 2025 Editor 2 (me) ask them on their user-page to please revert
22:55, 27 August 2025 Editor 3 gives RC "Last chance to self revert"

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

Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 22:17, 8 October 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

3 different editors have asked RC to revert, we have all been ignored. AE is last resort, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As to RC "more than 24 hours had already passed since the edit, so I didn't consider a self-revert necessary.": you were notified, again, for the third time, on the 27th and given "Last chance to self revert". You totally ignored it. Why?

And, as I noted on Talk:Hader, Quneitra Governorate, "Nowhere in the Mariupol infobox does it say that Russia occupy/control it", why should it be different for Israeli occupation? Huldra (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified, Huldra (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Regioncalifornia

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Regioncalifornia

First of all, I acknowledge that I violated the 1RR. At the time, I didn't realize it. I logged out after reverting, and when I returned, more than 24 hours had already passed since the edit, so I didn't consider a self-revert necessary. My sincere apologies for the 1RR violation.

My motivation was to apply the same standard that User:Huldra previously required of me in the article Hader, Quneitra Governorate, where she demanded an RfC before allowing one of my edits. Huldra claims that I "added the Hebrew name" in Beit Hanina. That is not accurate. The name had been part of the article for a long time, practically since its creation. Huldra removed it (21:06, 17 August 2025) without prior discussion or clear justification. I reverted her removal and asked that she seek consensus before making such a change.

Rather than engage in discussion, she insisted that I initiate an RfC to restore longstanding content that she had unilaterally removed. While I understand and again apologize for the 1RR violation on my part, I believe this situation reflects an inconsistent standard: why is it acceptable to remove content that has existed for years without prior discussion, while requiring an RfC to reintroduce it?

I hope this can be addressed in a fair and balanced way, with equal expectations for all users.

Again, more than 24 hours already passed. Now it's been almost a week.

Read the talk on the RfC you made me do. Regioncalifornia (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thepharoah17

Just because a Hebrew name was on the page for a long time doesn’t give you the right to break the 1RR. I removed the Hebrew name on Gaza City even though it was there for seven years except there the user self-reverted. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Regioncalifornia

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

If there are no outstanding issues I think this can be closed with a logged warning for the 1RR violation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tweedle (and coordinating editors)

@Abed Kative: This is Arbitration Enforcement, a venue to request enforcement of previous rulings by the Arbitration Committee. You haven't identified any previous ruling to enforce here. There is one that does apply, the one creating a contentious topic area regarding biographies of living persons, but I don't see any evidence that Tweedle is aware of those special rules, which means that even if we suppose there is some kind of violation here, this noticeboard would not be able to impose any sanction. I'm aware that sounds very bureaucratic; Wikipedia is generally not bureaucratic, but arbitration-related matters are something of an exception to that rule. (And speaking of bureaucratic, your filing here is double our maximum word count.)

The noticeboard you were probably looking for is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ("AN/I"). If you believe that editors have violated a policy here, that is where you should raise your concerns. However, I'll tell you in advance, if you file this same complaint there, no one will read it. It is far too long, and we are all volunteers. Furthermore, you're dredging up edits from 3 years ago on unrelated articles. If you choose to file at AN/I, keep your filing short (five paragraphs at the absolute most) and narrowly focused on your ongoing dispute and why administrative intervention is needed to resolve it.

Please don't take this as an endorsement of going to AN/I. I haven't fully reviewed the facts of your case, so I don't know if you're right or wrong, but I can tell you that new editors who start big noticeboard threads against multiple other editors are much more likely to wind up blocked themselves. Seeking a deescalatory approach works much better. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: This complaint was already summarily rejected at WP:AN/I (thread). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Tweedle (and coordinating editors)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Abed Kative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tweedle (and coordinating editors) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Dear Arbitration Committee,

I am reporting an egregious case of harassment and ideologically motivated editing on Wikipedia, affecting a biography of a living Jewish Holocaust educator. An editor with disingenuously tagged the page as COI and harassed me when I questioned the designation, accusing me of being the subject of the article.

Summary:

An editor has repeatedly accused me of being the article subject (which I am not), despite my clear denials on the talk page.

The same editor has repeatedly added a Conflict of Interest (COI) tag without evidence.

In close timing, another account removed large, well-sourced portions of the article without consensus. I am concerned these actions are coordinated.

Based on my review of their editing history, I believe the primary editor may be acting with white nationalist/white supremacist bias, particularly in articles about demographic change and "white decline." I am concerned this bias is affecting their editing on Holocaust- and Judaism-related topics (the topic of this biography is a Holocaust educator) and may be a factor in targeting both the article subject and me.

Concern

At ANI, I was sanctioned with a topic ban, but the underlying BLP and sourcing issues were not addressed. This creates a chilling effect on editors attempting to uphold core content policies in Holocaust-related biographies.

Evidence:

Harassment and targeting of me:

[47] — Accusation by Tweedle that I am the article subject. ("@Abed Kative are you Dov Forman as well?") (WP:BLP, WP:NPA specifically WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:HARASS, and WP:AGF)

[48] — Tweedle doubling down on accusations (of arbitrary removals and spamming) after my polite denial and references to the talk page and threats/bullying to cement his way ("I am not sure why you would bother about lying about this…you just removed it arbitrarily…Spamming secondary sources is not an argument…If it goes further than this, I will start a dispute resolution") (WP:BLP, WP:NPA specifically WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:AGF)

[49] – Another editor (IP user 2A0A:EF40:224:FA01:E96C:344C:8B32:6736) accuses me of being the subject of the article, and accuses the subject of the article of using the page as his LinkedIn. (WP:NPA specifically WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:AGF, WP:BLP, and WP:HARASS)

I was also harassed on the talk page of the article [50] and on my own talk page subsequently, in suspiciously similar messages that suggest coordination [51]

Targeting of Holocaust-related article:

[52] — Original COI tag addition to Holocaust educator’s biography, by Tweedle. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dov_Forman&diff=prev&oldid=1303998294 Repeat COI tag after my edit, by Tweedle.

[53] — Repeat COI tag despite prior explanation and denial by coordinating account, by IP user 2a0a:ef40:224:fa01:e96c:344c:8b32:6736.

[54] — Large, unexplained removals of well-sourced content, incorrectly alleging sourcing issues, by Smartse, who engaged on the talk page without acknowledging the policy violations by the other editors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dov_Forman&diff=prev&oldid=1305679656 – Again large removals of well-sourced content, including the death of a Holocaust survivor and context that was reported in multiple cited secondary sources, by Smartse.

Ideological bias evidence of editor Tweedle:

Adding "displacement" to white demographic decline definition, disguising this change under the editor summary "added additional fertility table in for the UK section, i might make a image for this section as well" (WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1065727897 - January 15, 2022 - Added "and displacement" to the definition of white demographic decline - The term "displacement" is commonly used in white nationalist rhetoric - Added fertility tables broken down by ethnicity to emphasize differences

Focus on "indigenous ethnic White British" (WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1064452001 - January 8, 2022 - Emphasized decline in births to "indigenous ethnic White British parents" - Retained "indigenous" to frame white British as the legitimate inhabitants, implying that "indigenous white" people are being replaced by other races

Framing immigration as "mass migration of non-whites" (WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1065595419 - January 14, 2022 - Used the loaded phrasing "mass migration of non-whites to the Western world" in a negative sense and blamed "liberalised immigration policies" - Focused on racial categorization of immigrants

Denmark edit on limiting non-Western residents and use of highly problematic sources (WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1062956956 - December 31, 2021 - Cited friatider.se, a known right-wing populist editorial stance, frequently criticized for spreading disinformation and promoting propaganda narratives aligned with the Russian government - Emphasized Danish policies limiting non-Western residents

Systematic removal of Cuba demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1066044514 - January 16, 2022 - Removed section about Cuba's white population decline - Selectively removing data that doesn't fit the supremacist narrative of Western white decline

"Old society in its own homeland" quote https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1063329294 - January 2, 2022 - Added David Coleman quote about "marginalization" of "old society" in its "own homeland" - Classic white nationalist framing of demographic change as invasion/replacement

Amsterdam demographics overhaul https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1276079622 - February 16, 2025 - Replaced integration information with detailed immigration statistics, creating a narrative about decline of “indigenous” Dutch - Removed content about Dutch language courses for immigrants - Focused exclusively on tracking foreign-origin populations, including framing Islamic populations as a problem

Using outdated "coloured" terminology Multiple edits in June 2024: - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1229262920 (Coventry) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1229263472 (Sheffield) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1229263643 (Glasgow) - Added 1950s data using the offensive term "coloured people" without proper historical contextualization

Historical data cherry-picking https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1225127429 - May 22, 2024 - Added 1981 demographic estimates specifically to show higher historical white percentages - Created 40-year timeline emphasizing white population decline

Islamic population focus https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1228549591 - June 11, 2024 - Selectively added Muslim population estimates while removing other religious data - Pattern of emphasizing Islamic demographic growth

These edits demonstrate a clear pattern of using Wikipedia to promote white nationalist narratives about demographic replacement, while maintaining a veneer of factual accuracy by citing sources. The user systematically emphasizes white population decline, frames immigration negatively, and uses loaded terminology aligned with far-right ideologies.

Request:

I am asking ArbCom to investigate whether this conduct violates Wikipedia’s harassment, neutrality, and BLP policies, and whether there is coordination between accounts. I am especially concerned about the impact of possible extremist ideological bias on articles about Jewish history and the Holocaust.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,

Abed Kative

The filer has previously emailed this report to the Arbitration Committee via email. As it had no private evidence or other material that required a private hearing, we declined to take action. They received the below response:

Your report falls outside the scope of what the Arbitration Committee handles, especially via email. Wikipedia decision-making is done by consensus, and uses on-wiki processes (rather than email) for the vast majority of matters. You may wish to direct your issue to one of the below venues:

For issues with biographies of living persons, please use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard
For issues with general editor conduct, please use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
For issues with editor conduct specifically in relation to previous Arbitration decisions, please use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

While they have addressed this "Dear Arbitration Committee", it's fair to say that this is probably not appropriate for arbitration. Happy to leave up to AE administrators if you wish to handle this malformed request, or revert it as procedurally deficient and provide further instruction to the editor about how to correctly report things. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lt.gen.zephyr

No action. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Lt.gen.zephyr

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ZDRX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Lt.gen.zephyr (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

23 August - Created problematic Battle of Rajasthan (1965) by copy pasting an article created on Simple Wiki by an LTA (banned on English Wiki) just 2 days earlier. [55][56]
24 August - Wrongly claims that "Mentioned pages doesn't cite the casualties number", when the source supports it.[57]
24 August - Unnecessarily asking another editor to "Show where it is mentioned" despite getting exact URL to the page number.
24 August - Restores his misrepresentation of sources and accuses me of not reading the source.
24 August - Doubles down with his misrepresentation of sources by citing page numbers that don't support his claims.
24 August - Continues to double down with his claims
25 August - Still misrepresenting the source. He is still wrongly claiming that "victory claim is mentioned" on this page, when it is not.

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): [58]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Lt.gen.zephyr is not addressing the concerns about his edits here and he is not admitting any of his faults. He cites "victories in the deserts of Sindh" (see Thar Desert of Sindh) to be descriptive of "Battle of Rajasthan" when Sindh and Rajasthan are both separate from each other. He is still doubling down with his misrepresentation of sources. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 02:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Lt.gen.zephyr is misrepresenting the source there. See my message right above where I noted that Lt.gen.zephyr "cites "victories in the deserts of Sindh" (see Thar Desert of Sindh) to be descriptive of "Battle of Rajasthan" when Sindh and Rajasthan are both separate from each other." Rajasthan was the main topic, given the title was "Battle of Rajasthan" with Rajasthan mentioned as location in infobox. Lt.gen.zephyr is simply not getting over his misrepresentation of sources. Lt.gen.zephyr below claims that the article he created cobbled up conflicts between in both Rajasthan and Sindh, and that's why he is justified with stating victories in Sindh as victories in "Battle of Rajasthan". This only shows that the problem is not just with his poor reading of sources but also with problematic creation of battle pages that have no recognition in WP:RS. While Battle of Rajasthan has been deleted due to these problems, you can also see his past creation such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Jassar which was deleted due to the same problems. You should also take a look at his behavior on recent AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hussainiwala where he was endlessly defending nationalist narratives, and his nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Rajiv which was entirely unwarranted. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 03:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[59]

Discussion concerning Lt.gen.zephyr

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Lt.gen.zephyr

About Indo-Pakistan war of 1965

2- Source number 9 (Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492–2015, 4th ed) says Indian killed in action was 3,712 and Pakistani killed in action was 1,500. That's why I had used an range to determine the losses. Later when I was given additional reference, I didn't revert it and let it stay there. Sadly I couldn't access the other source, source number 11 (The Roots and Consequences of 20th-Century Warfare: Conflicts That Shaped the Modern World).
3- Unfortunately the user who had shared me a link didn't take me to the page number. I could only see the book's name, topic and the information about the writer. Later I was provided additional sources by another user, I proposed to add both of the casualties figure. The meesage where I was provided with additional sources to cross verify - [60].

I didn't make a change later as it was proven to me that the numbers for India and Pakistani losses were 3,00 and 3,800 respectively. The sole reason for me to change was the source in the infobox which was accessible said 3,712 and 1,500 whereas the inaccessible source said the other thing. The 9th source is accessible and is mentioned here -> [61]. Another major thing is source 10, (Encyclopedia of Wars) which is used as neutral claim also says APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: India, 900,000; Pakistan, 233,000 CASUALTIES: India, 3,712 killed, 7,638 wounded; Pakistan, 1,500 killed, 4,300 wounded TREATIES: Conference at Tashkent, 1966. Since there are two different numbers, I used a range to clearify it. Another speech I'd like to share regarding source 11 (The Roots and Consequences of 20th-Century Warfare: Conflicts That Shaped the Modern World) is the page cited 267 talks about Byzantine–Ottoman Turk War (1453–1461),(1422) and (1359–1399), not about the 1965 war. So the claim of the 3,000 and 3,800 goes null and void.

Edit 1 : Attaching Encyclopedia of Wars's link here for users to verify my statement - (redacted)
Edit 2 : Replaced Encyclopedia of Wars's link as that version was partially available. The page number is 602.

Battle of Rajasthan (1965),

I already mentioned the territorial change's source in the talk page when the user asked. [62]. Anyone may crosscheck by seeing page 256 - (Origins of Political Extremism: Mass Violence in the Twentieth Century and Beyond)

About Pakistan victory, it is mentioned in (A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections, 5th Edition) in page 108 (as per slide 125) saying Their victories in the deserts of Sindh were welcomed, which I told earlier in the talk. [63]

I never claimed Bharat Rakhshak to be official publication, I stated they publish official Indian documents in public domain. I have changed each and every sources written by Pakistani officers who took part in the war, only one or two are there and that only exists in the article for the information of the commanders in the battle. I hope you'd check the sources before commenting. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is clearly stated in the opening paragraph of the article that The Battle of Rajasthan refers to several clashes and skirmishes fought between Pakistan and India in India's Rajasthan state and Pakistan's Sindh state during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965.

If one examines the reference book, under the title Sulemanki and Munabao (A town in Rajasthan) (page number 124-125 in slider), it notes that Pakistan's 51 brigade repulsed the Indian attack on Sindh and subsequently captured Indian town Munabao alongwith the railway station. Just a few lines later it says Their victories in the Sindh were welcomed. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Cloughley stated this in his book a history of the Pakistan army (5th edition) 2016, silde page number 124-125, book page 108 :

Further south, about one hundred twenty miles due east of Hyderabad, an Indian force moved across the border but was repulsed by 51 Infantry Brigade, which then struck back and advanced to Munabao railway station Both brigades did well and their commanders, Brigadiers Mohammad Akbar of 151 and Azhar Khan of 51, became lieutenant generals in later years, but although their victories in the deserts of Sindh were welcomed 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBlaze Lightning

I share the same observation that Lt.gen.zephyr's conduct in these contentious war articles of late has been troublesome. While this very report remained open at this board, they edit warred on Battle of Hussainiwala, making three reverts in a matter of hours,[64][65][66], to anyhow retain an unreliable source Bharat Rakshak, falsely claiming them to be Indian military official publication and thus an WP:RS, while the website stated in its very self-description that it was run by everyday "military enthusiasts".[67]. They have also posted long blocks of texts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hussainiwala, and continue to clutter the discussion and bludgeon others with same arguments, all the while refusing to get that blogs written by military officials who fought the battle did not constitute WP:SIGCOV according to our policies. Given their present conduct despite this open report, I don't think they plan to comply with the Wikipedia guidelines in this highly contentious topic going forward either. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Lt.gen.zephyr

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

There's a lot of mess here. Because Google Books gives different people different previews, there's no reason to disbelieve that Zephyr had trouble accessing Google Books preview links. The bharat-rakshak.com source under discussion is a republishing of an official Indian army publication, or at least it purports to be. This continues an ongoing issue with Zephyr where they post links to sites that are obviously violating copyright. If this continues, I'll block. But it doesn't support the contention that Zephyr is misrepresenting sources; if anything, MBlaze appears to be misrepresenting one.
I'd love more detail about the Cloughey book claims. Zephyr, you said at a now-deleted talk page that "victory claim is mentioned" is mentioned in Cloughey's A History of the Pakistan Army, perhaps on or above pg. 108. Can you please quote the text in the source that supports your claim? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough for me, and I'm able to see the page (but not the page number) via Google Books preview. It is, as stated at the talk by Zephyr, indeed above a section on Dera Baba Nanak. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ZDRX is not mentioning that the deserts of Sindh and Rajasthan are contiguous. The source describes the brigades advancing into Rajasthan and capturing territory within it. If Zephyr is pushing nationalist narratives, the evidence given so far is too poor for me to see it. My guess is that this sat stale for weeks because others weren't seeing clear evidence either. I'm expecting to close this without action soon, assuming there's no additional ironclad evidence or admin input. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NW Cracker

Blocked as a normal admin action. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning NW Cracker

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Rjjiii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: NW Cracker (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:AMPOL

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

9 September 2025 On the talk page of a recent killing, they lament regarding the killer, "Liberals are spinning in circles trying to protect this madman. It’s pathetic."
4 August 2025 On the talk page of Sydney Sweeney, they are reverted after commenting, "We should add that it’s 100% far left liberals who are complaining. They are jealous of her looks."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

22 July 2025 After being warned for leaving off-topic, inflammatory comments at Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and commenting "Trans is a mental illness." at Talk:Mass shooting, they confront the editor warning them, "Do you feel like a tough guy threatening me?" and are blocked after laughing at a trans prostitute on the article's talk page.

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 28 April 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notice was added after filing.

Discussion concerning NW Cracker

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by NW Cracker

Statement by (username)

Statement by TurboSuperA+

Good block. Editor is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. 12:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning NW Cracker

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

Noting I've blocked the editor indef as a non-AE action. I'll leave this open for now so that other admins and users can weight in if they feel the need to, but most of this user's edits are either trolling or hateful. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 11:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you hadn't blocked, I would have. Definitely NOTHERE. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

27 is the best number

Page blocked for a week, no further input in 6 days so closing. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning 27 is the best number

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: As above (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 27 is the best number (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/American_politics_2#Final_decision

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

23:41, 4 September 2025 Initial addition of content for reference. I think that there are some definite issues which could be examined with this (WP:BLP and WP:NPOV specifically), ~~but those aren't CTOP violations~~ I don't think those are CTOP violations.
05:01, 5 September 2025 Reverts another editor's subsequent reversion of their initial edit just five hours later, in violation of the BRD rule placed on the article which states follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 01:12, 7 November 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Initially, I was under the impression that this was a fairly mundane, once-off mistake, having done a cursory look at the user's other edits, which mainly pertain to roads in recent times. However, a deeper look revealed another two edits to the page which have problems, and are linked to the above edits given the similarity of the statements. Though they are now stale, at 00:25, 7 November 2024, telling someone to Cry about it. while re-adding His election has been linked to a rise of fascism. and then a week later at 19:22, 15 November 2024 adding Because of his victory, many people began thinking that American democracy was at stake. suggest a lack of the tact required to edit in such an unbelievably contentious area, and a complete lack of awareness of the restrictions in place, despite the CTOP notification and the edit notices on the page. As above _{so below} 10:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

10:37, 5 September 2025

Discussion concerning 27 is the best number

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by 27 is the best number

This section is incredibly difficult to read. Can someone please explain, in human terms, what is going on here? 27 is my favorite number. You can ask me why here. 17:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 27 is the best number

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

I've page-blocked them from Donald Trump for a week for the quite obvious violation of the Consensus-required restriction in place on the article. I'm open to other admins increasing the length or imposing other sanctions, but given the revert's blantant nature, I figured it was best to get them page-blocked for a bit while discussion goes further here. (Now to log the dang thing...) Ealdgyth (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stickhandler

Withdrawn and moved to WP:ANI. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Stickhandler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Stickhandler (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: GENSEX

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

[68] I normally wouldn't make an AE report over one diff, but he edited the Jeffrey Epstein article to call a transgender Epstein victim a "crossdressing man" and change her pronouns to he/him.

Looking at his edit history, he has also been edit warring and POV-pushing about gender affirming care and other such topics in Gordon Guyatt.[69][70][71]

Along with other edits on Gordon Guyatt.[72]

All of these edits are from today.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

EDIT 1: @Voorts Notified properly. Can I throw this to ANI? This seems pretty egregious for just a logged warning.

EDIT 2: Withdrawn, moved to ANI

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[73]

Discussion concerning Stickhandler

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Stickhandler

There seems to be some controversy re my edits linking Michael W. Higgins. I accept now that I've read Michael Higgins bio page on the NP website that MWH is not him. It would have been much more productive of the OP to link to [Michael Higgins bio page in OP's edit log instead of logging an unsubstantiated affirmation and thus we might have avoided this unfortunate situation.

Answer to Snokalok

My talk page was graced by this AE Notice in which User:Snokalok uses imperative tone: "I'm taking you to AE over your behavior on GENSEX. Enjoy." For a person that doesn't know what is "AE" and doesn't know what is "GENSEX" and feels that imperative tone indicates hostile behaviour you will understand I feel perplexed and uncomfortable and violated. This absence of collegiality is not the way to attract new editors into the field.

Answer to YFNS

Re my edits on Gordon Guyatt: no edit war was had. OP conceded on the Gordon_Guyatt#Gender-affirming_care_review Gender-affirming care review wholesale deletion. I agree with that new position and since then wiki has had many productive edits. Because of the concession, employment here of the WP:3RR policy is inappropriate.

The removal of the SPLC clause was done so as to maintain focus on the subject, which is Gordon Guyatt and his Gordon_Guyatt#Gender-affirming_care_review Gender-affirming care review. Information about the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine's problem with the Southern Poverty Law Center is available at their Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine#Conversion_therapy.

Answer to Cdjp1

The edit log text "strange that ppl keep on deleting useful info - why is that exactly?" is self-evident - I failed to understand that Michael W. Higgins was not Michael Higgins because the OP had not indicated any convincing rationale, like for instance linking to the author's bio page. It is more appropriate to substantiate on wiki than to affirm on wiki.

Statement by YFNS

I was thinking about reporting Stickhandler for edit warring, but that first diff is pretty self-evidently bigoted and NOTHERE kind of stuff.

Further, it seems to be a general issue with Stickhandlers editing that they use no edit summaries, roughly 1-2% of their edits seem to have more than a 2 word description.[74]

This seems to me intentionally misleading. Take this edit from last night with the sole edit summary ce[75]

It removes the fact SEGM has been described as an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the SPLC
It relinks Michael W. Higgins as the author of a piece. This is immediately following an edit delinking them noting they're completely different people[76]

ANI is probably a better venue for this. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cdjp1

[77] - In this reversion made hours after this case was opened, the edit summary provided by Stickhandler was strange that ppl keep on deleting useful info - why is that exactly?, when in the edit summaries reverting Stickhandler's bold addition and the discussion that was started on the talk page on 10 September, detail that the issue people have with including the opinion of Higgins is that the article is an opinion piece by a ~~theologian~~ journalist with no relevant qualifications with regards to the provision of medical treatment. I would say that the answer to why is that exactly? is rather evident. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2025 UTC

Adjusting my comment after checking the article again based on YFNS' comment. I had assumed the individual linked to as the author of the piece by Stickhandler would be the right Michael Higgins, so while Stickhandler seems adamant to link to the wrong person as the author, the criticisms others have brought up regarding the qualifications of the article author to argue that a physician is wrong in their expert opinion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2025 UTC

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Stickhandler

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

You did not properly notify Stickhandler of this request. Please use the template. Additionally, since Stickhandler hasn't received a CTOP alert, the only thing we can do here is issue a logged warning. That said, the first edit is very unacceptable and similar future edits will result in a block. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with Voorts that, since the editor was not aware of this CTOP, no sanction can be issued. On the other hand, it seems like the disruptive edits are continuing after their acknowledgment of this AE thread. I'd hope Stickhandler chooses to stop those edits and participate here instead. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Snokalok: If you want to move this to ANI, feel free to open a thread there and ask for this one to be withdrawn. Feel free to ping the other two participants so they are aware. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rambling Rambler

The article Dragon Age: The Veilguard is now under a "one revert over one week per editor" restriction, appealable to this board no sooner than six months. The page block imposed on Rambling Rambler is rescinded as no longer necessary to prevent disruption. The editor Bladeandroid was blocked for one day for violating their TBAN as an individual admin action by Firefangledfeathers. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Rambling Rambler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Koriodan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rambling Rambler (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
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

18:54, 6 August 2025 Unilaterally replaces the RFC consensus wording with "the game failed to"
19:10, 6 August 2025 Rambling Rambler revert #1
12:56, 10 August 2025 Rambling Rambler revert #2
19:35, 18 August 2025 Rambling Rambler revert #3
19:43, 18 August 2025 Rambling Rambler revert #4
07:51, 2 September 2025 Rambling Rambler revert #5
09:29, 2 September 2025 Rambling Rambler revert #6
22:16, 2 September 2025 Rambling Rambler revert #7

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

[78]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Rambling Rambler has repeatedly edit warred against RFC consensus to replace "Reaching 1.5 million players by year-end 2024, Veilguard outperformed Electronic Arts' previous single-player games but did not meet the publisher's expectations" with "the game failed to". Many editors have already warned him on the talk page.[79][80][81][82][83] He has indicated he will keep disregarding consensus.[84] I want to help but he's pushy in discussions and has left 30 comments on the talk page arguing with various people. Koriodan (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus for Rambling Rambler's change to the RFC outcome. The way he keeps stating that even though 5 editors told him otherwise[85][86][87][88][89] I think illustrates the problem. Koriodan (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Butter Beluga, the closer of the RFC directly told Rambler "See Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions. This is not an exempted situation. If you believe your position is the correct one, start an RfC".[90] He has left a large amount of pushy comments arguing with everyone who tells him he needs consensus. He knows about consensus but thinks it doesn't apply to him because he doesn't seem to care.[91] Koriodan (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Rambling Rambler just reverted the same material again. This is after this thread, after your comment, and after multiple editors warned him on the talk page. Koriodan (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[92]

Discussion concerning Rambling Rambler

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Rambling Rambler

The reporting user hasn't shown how any of the reverts has breached any Contentious policy issue applied to the page (of which there appears to be none) nor demonstrated any of the apparent "rudeness" they claim has occurred.

This is (or rather was) entirely a content dispute where wording chosen by an RfC closer unintentionally introduced an unsourced statement into the lead of an article. A slight alteration was made to remove this, and when opposed I opened discussion on the talk page, where there remains broad consensus that the existing wording wasn't supported by sources (a total of 6 editors including myself), though currently there isn't strong consensus on what if any detail to add in its place.[93]

The main point of contention by a minority of users (approximately 3) previously, and occurred some time later after the discussion went dead, was whether changing the wording breached the RfC, but the closer of said RfC has since confirmed this isn't the case so was no longer relevant and the discussion went dead again.[94]

The filing user, a new-ish account with relatively few contributions whose editing shows only to be on video games that are "culture war issues", revived the discussion day ago re-inserting unsourced content against WP:BURDEN, yet has now already proceeded to filing this incorrect report which appears to be little more than a vexatious bad faith attempt by them to try and get a punitive admin response landed on myself, something they have done previously where they incorrectly reported the closer of very same RfC they now raise as their defence for being closed "against consensus" when it didn't go their way.[95] Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Tamzin's statement: "Between this dispute and past issues involving Yasuke, I'm open to some kind of "at wit's end" sanctions here about these video game culture-war disputes... No one seems to be involved in otherwise improving the article, so I don't think it would be a great loss"

I have had no involvement in any of the wider disputes raised that others seem to have been party to[96]. My only involvement is I happened to notice that this article's lead was making a claim not only unsupported but in fact actively disproven by sources already cited. As part of this initial editing I also made this still present edit for the same reason in the sales subsection.[97] When challenged, I opened discussion explaining with quotes from the sources why the lead contained WP:OR in which 5 people took part and all agreed that it was currently inappropriate on WP:OR/WP:V grounds.[98] Given this policy-grounds consensus, I subsequently removed only the unsourced material and specifically chose not to introduce any new claims.

In the stop-start dispute since at no point have those policy-grounds been disputed, and no reliable sources to support the wording have been provided. Instead some editors have simply insisted the RfC wording can't be changed even after the RfC closer themselves saying otherwise.[99]

I will happily hold my hands up and say I could've handled it better, but in mitigation I wasn't expecting a typically innocuous edit to rapidly be caught up in an existing long-running dispute that quickly saw me and my speculated intentions being the target of discourse[100] and not the material itself. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fim

This article (and a couple of others) was not that long ago relevant to a sprawling ANI thread which resulted in three editors being topic-banned from videogames (although to be fair they don't seem to have edited since, except one with four edits). The issue was specifically over the addition of sales to the lead, and doesn't seem too remote from the issue raised here. Another similarity might be that those three accounts were also only a few months' old with low edit counts.

I know nothing of the topic, but considering its volatile recent history, perhaps CU might be appropriate. Just an FYI on some background. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin I agree that OWC is a more likely possibility, if not the most likely. I also agree—or support your suggestion—that a cadite eos resolution might be for the best. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

I'm not involved in the topic & honestly don't know anything about the game itself, so I'm only commenting on given links & page history.

From my reading however, Rambling Rambler never actually went against consensus as the closing statement was "to include publisher expectations (option E, although the consensus does not extend so far as to entrench the specific wording)" with the closer further explaining that "specific wording was never discussed, and if there is a problem with it, it should be changed. Presumably some suitable alternative exists, but if one doesn't, or if there's a consensus in this discussion to just remove that whole part, it should be removed."

I will also say though that the framing - they've "left 30 comments on the talk page arguing with various people" - reads as rather disingenuous when most of their comments are non-argumentative discussion regarding potential WP:SYNTH/WP:OR issues. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vestigia Leonis

I have been involved in this previously, and I have to say that discussions around the article often tend to derail into arguments that don't really go anywhere. Most of the important points have already been covered above, but the main issue is the mistake or oversight in the RfC result. As far as I understand it, WP:OR is one of the core content policies, and if the RfC outcome includes original research it overrides the result. A comment from an uninvolved admin, either here or on the article talk page, would probably be helpful to get things back on track and focused on resolving the issue.

Tamzin's suggestion below (imposing 1RR) seems like a good idea. It should reduce the number of reverts, and I would also recommend increasing the page protection again to help shift the ongoing conversation back fully to the talk page. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added a citation needed tag to the article. There is nothing in the article's body that supports the disputed part of the lead sentence (which is what caused all of this). Vestigia Leonis (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OceanHok

I agree with @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: that CU maybe needed. This discussion is essentially the continuation of the aforementioned AN thread concerning how we handle sales information in the lead section. BMWF (talk · contribs), NutmegCoffeeTea (talk · contribs) and Wyll Ravengard (talk · contribs) were banned for WP:TAGTEAM editing (essentially taking turn to edit war against other editors). The same is apparently happening again with Koriodan (talk · contribs), BlackVulcanX (talk · contribs) and Bladeandroid (talk · contribs), taking turns to revert. Looking at their edit history, it is just hard to believe that it is merely a coincidence. These six newbies crossed paths with each other so many times (at talk page discussions of various CT, the AN thread etc). They pop up at this exact moment after being dormant for months, and all they really do is reinforcing each other's positions every single time while making no meaningful contributions to other areas. @TomStar81: previously suggested that they may be engaged in paid PR work, though I think sockpuppetry/off-wiki canvassing is likely possible as well. OceanHok (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The line of thought provided by Bladeandroid below is exactly the same as the topic-banned editor BMWF, where they accused editors who do not share their opinions as bigots/racists/gamergators, even when the nature of the discussion itself is not political. The fact that they use ideologically-motivated arguments instead of Wikipedia policies/guidelines as their justification for edit warring is just a massive red flag. OceanHok (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: - I don't know about Symphony Regalia (talk · contribs), who seems to focus on the article about Killing of Austin Metcalf. It may be trivial, but I want to point out another content dispute at Talk:Forspoken over similar issues (sales information). Koriodan supported and reinfroced the position of an IP editor (37.153.152.31 (talk · contribs)), whose second edit was to vote on the Metcalf article. BlackVulcanX was also there reinforcing their content positions. Given that the nature of these articles are quite different and their active contributors are unlikely to cross path, these newbies editors are highly coordinated if they are not socks of each other. OceanHok (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bladeandroid

I think Vestigia Leonis (talk · contribs) and Rambling Rambler (talk · contribs) are sock accounts of OceanHok (talk · contribs). Particularly it seems like Vestigia Leonis and OceanHok tagteam edit to push gamergate views on any video game that has non-white or LGBT characters in it. OceanHok and Vestigia Leonis were called out for repeat edit warring and aggressive, uncivil, right-wing POV push on these articles.

By the way Assassin's Creed Shadow, a few others, and Veilguard have a lot of overlap. They both did well and they both made bigots mad. Shadows and Veilguard together were probably 90% of Gamergate discourse in 2025. Bladeandroid (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestigia Leonis (talk · contribs) always supports and refines the position of OceanHok (talk · contribs). They always tag team revert together. On any game of interest to Gamergate, Vestigia Leonis and OceanHok have tag team edited on it to insert views. In this discussion despite neither getting a ping Vestigia Leonis comments and then OceanHok comments directly after him. Both their first time commenting here and neither got a ping. Vestigia Leonis (talk · contribs) is probably the same person as OceanHok (talk · contribs). Bladeandroid (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tewdar

1-year pagebans for everyone who's made a revert over this thing sounds ridiculously harsh, in my opinion. Perhaps a different metric might be more appropriate, hmm? Tewdar 08:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rambling Rambler

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

I think imposing a 1RR on the article, to be enforced strictly with blocks if necessary, might be the path of least resistance here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've p-blocked RR from the article for a month as an individual-admin CTOP sanction, for continued edit-warring while this discussion is ongoing. This is not meant to be a final resolution to this thread. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna imperatrix mundi @OceanHok: A number of people have suggested sock- or meatpuppetry here. I endorsed a check against NCT at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Symphony Regalia, which came back unrelated according to @AmandaNP. In addition to telling us that that NCT is very unlikely to be Symphony Regalia (who's not involved here but has been involved in related disputes), it tells us with a moderate degree of confidence that NCT isn't any of these other people either. (TL;DR: CUs primarily look for the pair they've been asked to investigate, but also look into other connections that arise if there's reason to be suspicious.) Whether any of the others have been checked, I wouldn't know.
But overall I doubt there's much or any outright socking here. What seems more likely is some level of off-wiki nexus. The problem there is that that's a spectrum ranging from the entirely-policy-compliant (e.g. multiple people seeing the same dispute discussed by a third party on Twitter) and the entirely-forbidden (e.g. an explicit conspiracy in some private chat to come skew consensus). Between this dispute and past issues involving Yasuke, I'm open to some kind of "at wit's end" sanctions here about these video game culture-war disputes. These are, frankly, pretty silly and inconsequential disputes, and they're a drain on the resources of AN(I) and AE, which are already inundated with much more consequential kinds of tendentious editing. I'd honestly be open to just handing out 1-year pagebans to everyone who's made a revert over this thing. No one seems to be involved in otherwise improving the article, so I don't think it would be a great loss. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I partially dealt with an issue related to this article in the past, I believe during the aforementioned RFC, when editors were edit-warring and I had to full protect it. Because of this, the article has been on my watchlist since then, and I was meaning to step in after someone requested for page protection, but real life happened. I see no pattern of sockpuppetry here, from either sides. What I see is an overzealous editor trying to fix what appears to be a valid problem (the sentence agreed upon during a previous RfC suffers from WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and has to be altered), and other editors disagreeing that problem actually exists and the RfC should stand fully. Since no WP:BLP was involved, Rambler should've stopped reverting and used other forms of dispute resolution, so the pblock is not uncalled for, though I think it could be reduced if they promise to stop the slow edit-warring. I think a "1RR over one week" on this article would be helpful. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 10:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The closer of this thread has my permission to lift or shorten the p-block on RR if they judge it no longer necessary to prevent disruption to the article. I went with something narrow in scope but long-ish in time because I didn't want to prejudge the outcome of this discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tamzin's pblock, which I endorse, has dealt with the issue at the heart of this case. I'm weakly in support of IB's 1RR/week proposal, mostly out of a sense that we ought to do something about the broader issues. I'm warning Bladeandroid not to revert repeatedly without engaging in talk page discussion and not to make serious misconduct claims without supporting evidence. As a non-expert, there appears to me to be some substance to RR's complaints, and I hope that other users will continue to discuss how best to resolve them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've blocked Bladeandroid 24h for violating their Yasuke TBAN in the comment above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin and Isabelle Belato, would you be amenable to closing this with no further user sanctions and a 1RR/week restriction on the article? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. And in that case I'm fine with lifting RR's p-block, since it's not serving much preventative purpose that wouldn't already be covered by the 1RR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist

Journalist blocked for 72 hours by Tamzin as a regular admin action. User is also warned that any further violations of our WP:BLP policies will result in an indefinite block. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Journalist

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: IdanST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IdanST (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Journalist (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

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

13:22, 11 September 2025 - broke WP:UNCIVIL, WP:FORUM and WP:NPOV in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Kirk, a contentious topic.
13:44, 11 September 2025 - again broke WP:CIVIL.
23:27, 11 September 2025 - again broke WP:CIVIL after being notified on their talk page.

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

The user was notified on their talk page on 22:26, 11 September 2025, to which they responded with diff 3.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Journalist

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Journalist

Statement by Cdjp1

Now, I may be misunderstanding the policies and guidelines here, but I'm pretty sure WP:CIVIL is in regards to interactions between editors, and does not cover discussing the subject of an article. And similarly for NPOV, expressing one's opinions in a discussion about a subject, I'm pretty sure, aren't covered as NPOV relates to actual articles. So Journalist would have broken these if they had said another editor was awful or if they inserted text into the Charlie Kirk article calling him awful, neither of which Journalist did. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QuicoleJR

They responded to the AE discussion notification with a personal attack (clearly a lot of sympathizers here) and a reference to an unspecified genocide. They have also said that they will not stop violating NOTFORUM. I think that this shows they cannot calmly and neutrally engage with this topic, and a topic ban from American politics is unfortunately warranted. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Tamzin. I will support that narrower scope if the wider one isn't an option. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Journalist

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

The question here should not be if the editor broke our policies on civility, but whether they broke our WP:BLP policies, which applies to all pages of the project. At the moment, I'm not convinced this should result in sanctions, but a formal warning that this behavior may lead to a topic ban from the subject might be warranted. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering their response to the AE message, I'd be fine with an indefinite TBAN from BLPs, as proposed below by Tamzin. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 18:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone's response to a CTOP alert is that they will continue violating our policies (in this case, WP:NOTFORUM) "every chance I get", my inclination is to take them at face value and TBAN. That said, emotions are high right now, and there's no history of similar issues that I know of. Perhaps a 1-month TBAN from living and recently deceased American political figures. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: Just as a procedural note, Journalist does not appear to be WP:AWARE of WP:CT/AP, only WP:CT/BLP, which is why I suggested the TBAN scope I did. If this closes with a logged warning, however, we could log that as AP, which would also serve as awareness going forward. (P.S. @Significa liberdade, when sending {{alert/first}} to someone for one CTOP, you can also tack a regular {{alert}} afterward for another.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Journalist: Comments like this are a misuse of Wikipedia and will lead to a block if repeated. As Tamzin said, emotions are high and I don't think action is needed now. I wouldn't even bother with a formal warning—I would issue an indefinite non-AE block if comments like that repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would just give a logged warning (i.e., not to use Wikipedia as a forum to voice opinions about the subject of an article or other topics irrelevant to improving the encyclopedia — particularly contentious political remarks sidetracking a discussion) with the understanding that flagrantly ignoring a logged contentious topic warning will result in a block. I'm fine with some topic ban to the extent another admin considers that necessary. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked for 72 hours, as a regular admin action, over this and this. I also left an AP2 CTOP alert. If they're not willing to listen to warnings to stop doing this, I wouldn't expect them to obey a topic ban either, so I actually think this can be closed: Either this ends here, or, per Johnuniq, continued behavior like this leads to a regular indef for WP:NOTFORUM/WP:DE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:38, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maran125606

Maran125606 blocked for 72 hours for ECR violations. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Maran125606

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Maran125606 (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: IMH 500/30 and CASTE 500/30

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

2025/Sep/07 04:36 - Prot request for Konar (caste) in an attempt to preserve this pre-alert edit, characterising opponents as vandals
2025/Sep/07 04:50 - Demand for administrators to revert to his preferred revision on Gingee Fort
2025/Sep/12 11:04 - Arguing balls-and-strikes to a reasonable request to take it to WP:RFPP/I, characterising other good-faith edits as vandalism
2025/Sep/12 11:07 - Changing the caste affiliation of a historical figure
2025/Sep/13 05:18 - Copypasta of Diff 2 above on talk page of article
2025/Sep/13 05:19 - Copypasta of Diff 2 above, albeit with properly formatted links

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

-nil-

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): Alerted on 2025/Sep/06 14:15

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Here

Discussion concerning Maran125606

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Maran125606

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Maran125606

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

I've blocked the editor for 72 hours as a clear breach of our WP:ECR active in the topic area. Will log next. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 11:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Viceskeeni2

Viceskeeni2's AA topic ban is revoked. This is a last chance, so "conduct that would otherwise raise an eyebrow will probably cause the topic ban to return". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: Viceskeeni2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from Armenia and Azerbaijan topics, broadly construed
(imposed at AN § Disruptive editing of Viceskeeni2, logged at AEL § User sanctions (AA))

Administrator imposing the sanction: Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Notification diff

Statement by Viceskeeni2

Extension granted to 900 words. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby ask the Arbitration committee to please lift the sanctions put on me in March of 2025, which restrict me from editing on topics associated with Azerbaijan and Armenia. Since the sanctions, I have made approximately 385 edits to Wikipedia in various topics, contributed to various topic areas, made 4 articles (Sawt Safir al-Bulbul, Jabal e-Malaika, Altes Rathaus, Deggendorf, Ya Ali (phrase)), greatly contributed to 3 articles (2025 Iranian strikes on Al Udeid Air Base, Abu Fanous, Ya Ali), gotten into 0 problems or conflicts (atleast I cannot remember getting into any, if I have done so please correct me), become more mature over the last 5 months and gained more knowledge in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict and other topic areas. I genuinely regret past mistakes and promise to try not to repeat those mistakes, e.g. when I mistakenly edited on GS/AA article and then didn't contest the sanctions, knowing I did a mistake and will have to pay for it. I ask you to please lift the sanctions on topics associated with Azerbaijan and Armenia, including the conflict, because I have been on sanctions in connection to these 2 countries for almost a year now and have learnt from my mistakes, promising to become a better editor now and in the future. I would be very happy if the committee accepts this request, have a nice day. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Rosguill's section: I thought editing on userpages and sandboxes doesn't have anything to do with topic bans as they're not public articles or areas. If it actually violates the ban, I will immediately remove it and apologize for my mistake. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first time I was banned due to being new to Wikipedia and not understanding what I supposed to do and what not, and due to that breaking GS/AA multiple times and doing mistakes the admins could not keep up with properly (and we're fed up with me - I understand why), so I got banned, but then successfully got unbanned and was on a clean streak up to March where I stupidly edited on a page about the conflict (more specifically where I updated information about an Armenian church) and then got TBANed, not resisting though because I knew and admitted my mistake. Now 5 months have gone by, I'm on a clean streak and so on (everything I have referenced above). To answer your second question: My plan for if I get unbanned from that topic is NOT to go on an "offensive" again like I did earlier by 24/7 editing on pages about the conflict but rather update information on specific articles, expand information, correct grammar or other mistakes, update photos (look at my Wikimedia Commons page, I have tons of photos I prepare to upload) with new high quality ones and so on. I, again, apologize for past mistakes I have made and admit to them, and promise to continue trying to be on a clean streak, avoid conflict and not violate anything. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts The last time I was in a conflict was around Nowruz when I got into conflict with an Armenian editor on the page for Gata (food), when I wanted to insert the fact that it is apart of Azerbaijani cuisine but he/she resisted it and then it escalated quick but that's another topic (my ban was not because of the conflict with the editor, no violation there, but because of the afformentioned violation with the church). I'll try to avoid conflicts like these by not getting into contentious areas at first and rather focusing more on the things I mentioned than editing the conflict (I'll of course, if I'm unbanned, edit on the conflict too but not as offensively as I've done before but try to calm things down and back up from editing high-conflict pages). Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts because I'm very familiar with the topic, have become better over the past 5 months, believe I can edit again without causing problems like I did in the past, when I was new to Wikipedia, and because WP:5P, WP:OWN and WP:HOW state anyone can freely edit on Wikipedia and contribute to it and WP:BOLD states that if you see something wrong or bad you SHOULD correct if, which I already stated before is my first aim if I get unblocked from the topic, e.g. with newer and high quality pictures. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts What should I do from this point on? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts sorry if I'm bothering but it's almost been a week, I'm curious if there is any progress on the topic. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts And is there any way to maybe change the opinions of admins declining or do anything else to have my request accepted? Rosguill, the person who unbanned me himself, said my request says the truth. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts So, by my understanding, you're the only admin that has responded to this request and has rejected it? If so, may I ask why. Also, I'm pretty Rosguill meant "the truth" in his commentary, specifically when he verified that I, indeed, like I had claimed, haven't gotten into any fights and/or conflicts since the sanctions. Excuse me if I am wrong and/or misunderstood it though. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts also, could you please extend my words? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts Would it violate Wikipedia guidelines if I would talk with adminstrators on their talk pages about this request? I'm confused on whether it falls under WP:CANVASSING or not. If yes, would there be any other way to bring attention to this request or do I just have to wait until someone notices it? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts @Firefangledfeathers @Johnuniq It sounds like a lot, but could you please grant me a word extension to 6500. I wanted to say something. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

I'm generally well-inclined to the written content of the request (demotion of Altes Rathaus, Deggendorf to draftspace notwithstanding as notability/translations were not related to the issues for the original block/ban), but asked Viceskeeni2 that they bring it here given that there's a longer history of related blocks and bans that I think is worth considering before moving forward. My understanding is that the full chronology of prior sanctions is:

28 August 2024 -- Blocked by me for 31 hours for GS/AA violations
6 September 2024 -- Blocked by me, indefinitely, for further GS/AA violations, battleground attitude, and noting quality issues with edits outside GS/AA
19 November 2024 -- Unblocked by HouseBlaster with a conditional topic ban from Armenia and Azerbaijan, both individually and the conflict.
18 February 2025 -- Tban partially lifted by HouseBlaster, now applies only to the conflict, not the two countries individually.
20 March 2025 -- Tban from Armenia and Azerbaijan individually reimposed by me, following report of violations of the conflict-only tban at AN (Special:Diff/1281448939#Disruptive_editing_of_Viceskeeni2).

My overall impression is that the latest appeal says the right things, and there don't appear to have been signs of disruption since the last ban. I am a bit concerned, however, by the repeated problems with prior iterations of the tbans, which, in line with my assessment at the time of the 6 September 2024 block, would seem to indicate a persistent battleground attitude towards this conflict. Reviewing all of this now, I do also note that on 1 March 2025, while still facing a tban from the conflict, Viceskeeni2 added a custom userbox to their userpage expressing This user opposes ethnic separatism in Nagorno-Karabakh... and most of the rest of the post-Soviet separatist conflicts, which seems like another straightforward topic ban violation that went unnoticed and which is still on their userpage at the moment (the contraposition of opposing these "separatist conflicts" while supporting Chechen and Turkestan independence is left as an exercise to the reader I guess). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanezi Astghik

I really don’t see many positives in Viceskeeni2’s return to A-A contentious topics given their history. Viceskeeni2 has conveniently left out the fact that they were disruptively socking with an IP to avoid GS/AA violations on their main account (the IP ended up being blocked). I don’t think they had struggle understanding restrictions because a quick look shows that Viceskeeni2 was well aware of how the restrictions worked and even asked if they could edit certain pages unrelated to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict [101]. Yet, just half an hour later they were socking with an IP while fully aware they were violating GS/AA [102]. These are old edits, but I just want to highlight the obvious and deliberate WP:GAMING that was going on and the battleground mindset of the user.

One of their early articles in A-A was extremely fringe [103], [104], and it had various WP:NPOV problems; I can't link the article as it was deleted, but I figured it was noteworthy to be shown in this appeal.

I personally wasn't into the idea of a conditional unblock [105], and later it became apparent that they were given too much WP:ROPE as stated by the admin who unblocked them [106]. Vanezi (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Viceskeeni2

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Viceskeeni2

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

@Viceskeeni2: what did you do to get TBAN-ed? How will you avoid getting blocked/banned again going forward? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viceskeeni2: please make comments in your own section. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viceskeeni2: I've granted you an extension of another 300 words. When was the last time you were in a conflict? If the TBAN were lifted, how would you avoid conflict in this contentious topic area going forward? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel the need to edit in this topic area again? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on an unban at this point and could be persuaded either way by other admins. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viceskeeni2: wait for other admins to weigh in here. If they have questions, they will ask. Please note that you're almost at 800 words. If you're asked another question and need more words, please ask for an extension. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viceskeeni2: unless several other admins support unbanning you, your appeal will be declined. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What other admins? Nobody has responded other than me. And, if nobody else responds in another couple of days, I will close your appeal as unsuccessful. Rosguill said your appeal says the right things superficially, not that it says the truth. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not persuaded that the topic ban is no longer necessary per your past history of noncompliance with sanctions and battleground editing. As I said, I am open to comments from other admins. I have no further questions for you at this time nor do I need additional information. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, to clarify, I'm not rejecting your appeal. According to the Arbitration procedures, an appeal cannot be successful unless there is a "clear and substantial consensus of ... uninvolved administrators at AE". If several other administrators do not support your appeal, it will be declined. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not ask other administrators to weigh in on this request. There are several administrators who watch this page. The fact that none of them have weighed in on your appeal after a week and a half indicates that they probably do not think your ban should be lifted, but I'm nonetheless going to keep this open for another couple of days. I will not grant further word extensions at this time. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viceskeeni2: technically AE appeals don't have any word limits on the appellant. I would still highly recommend you not use that many words, and I know I would (a) probably not be willing to read that much and (b) be less likely to support an appeal, knowing that it contains so much material I'm not reading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to grant the appeal. I'm not seeing any major red flags, and I'd like to keep the bar low for appeals of this type. The ECR restriction > TBAN > TBAN violation > stricter TBAN pipeline is rough on newer users. My hope is generally that our use of blocks/bans interrupts the downward spiral, and that we'll then see the sort of productive editing elsewhere that Viceskeeni2 has engaged in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My sympathy lies with the regulars in a contentious topic who should be protected from yet another enthusiast. However, I would be prepared to support this appeal bearing in mind that any future problems would lead to immediate reinstatement of the current sanction (if needed, anyone is welcome to remind me about this comment). Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sympathies in the same place as well. I do envision the rope being given out here (potentially) to be quite short. I think Vanezi Astghik's account of the history is accurate, so I'm particularly likely to support swift sanctions if we see POV issues, anything with sock or meatpuppetry, edit warring, or talk page comments that focus on users over content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might be included to grant under the understanding that conduct that would otherwise raise an eyebrow will probably cause the topic ban to return --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we close with that. It matches Johnuniq's conditional support and mine. I think voorts is still at neither accept nor reject, but checking to see if anything has changed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alalch E.

Alalch E. is warned for not following proper dispute resolution etiquette on a CTOP when their bold edits are challenged. M.Bitton is reminded to be more civil and assume good faith when discussing improvements to an article. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Alalch E.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Alalch E. (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

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

11 September 2025 they attempted to "summarise" the reactions (while reverting multiple recent edits and obliterating many of the reactions without a valid explanation).
11 September 2025 they restored their edit.

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)

Red-tailed hawk placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Extension granted to 600 words. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted their edits and left an explanation on the talk page. I honestly wasn't expecting an experienced editor to revert again, but when they did, I reminded them that their revert constitutes a 1R violation and asked them to self-revert. Their reaction was even more surprising: they described what I said as utter nonsense (see diff) and suggested that I should put in the work (as if they are and I'm not, or maybe they are expecting me to violate 1R, just like they did). When I asked again to self-revert, they doubled down on it and accused me of fighting (see diff). They then described my request to "abide by the rules" as comical (see diff). M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their initial edit is indeed a revert of multiple recent (as in the 24 hours that preceded it) additions (edits) by different editors. There is absolutely no doubt that they second edit (the revert) is a violation of 1R.

He wanted.. the only thing that I wanted and expected was to discuss the edit (hence, why I started the discussion). Them violating 1R to impose their edit and then spending time adjusting it (however they wish) is the polar opposite of that.

instead of reverting .. assumption of bad faith and projection to boot (unlike them, I only edited the article once).

Their claim about AE is baseless, as AE wasn't mentioned until later on (after the utter nonsense and put in the work comments).

motivates him sigh. M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle Belato: I wouldn't have reported them if I wasn't 100% certain that 1R was breached. Here's an example (one of many): Ivebeenhacked added this content. Alalch E. reverted it (as in deleted it). I restored the deleted content. They reverted my edit. This whole thing happened in less than 24 hours. M.Bitton (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my edit was not a revert I have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they violated WP:1RR (a very simple rule that even a newbie can understand). I'm not going to waste time entertaining the reasons why they did it, because they are irrelevant (short of vandalism, everyone can provide what they think is a valid reason for their edit)

My intention was to discuss.. intentions in this context are irrelevant, and besides, they had every opportunity to discuss it, but they didn't, and instead, they chose to dismiss my concerns with deriding comments.

it is very inconvenient.. this statement comes across as rather strange considering their put in the work comment. M.Bitton (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't assume anything ("good faith edits" are not exempt from the edit-warring policy). M.Bitton (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Alalch E.

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Alalch E.

Extension granted to 550 words. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not breach 1RR because my subtractive yet substantive edit of Special:Diff/1310756556 is not a revert. M.Bitton should put in the work and edit collaboratively instead of reverting until a version he agrees with created by someone else appears. He wanted explicit mentions of specific major powers and regional powers, and I have added those mentions in Special:Diff/1310796582, as a further incremental step from my first-pass more abstracted summarization. He complains about original research, but as he was focused on threatening AE on the talk page, it would not have been productive for me to discuss his perceived issue (which I do not agree with: I do not agree that there is original research). His disciplinary initiative and the wrong energy that currently motivates him should fade out, so that we can discuss his perceived orignal research problem on the talk page, which I am very glad to do, and I am also very glad to see M.Bitton incremental edits.—Alalch E. 17:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle Belato: Ivebeenhacked added a raw reactions list entry consisting of a flag template, boilerplate text in the form of "X condemned" followed by a government quote. I summarized that alongside other such entries by writing the sentence Various other governments around the world condemned what they described as a breach of sovereignty, warned of escalation, and urged restraint and renewed diplomacy, while keeping the reference used by Ivebeenhacked (and other references for individual countries and groups of countries with the goal of sorting them out in the process, and figuring out how best to use them; some were then kept with quotes, some were bundled, etc.). The content of Brazil's statement is represented in the summarized description of the reactions and still existed (and exists) at a more summarized level. I created a new sentence reorganizing existing content by applying summarization. M.Bitton thinks that this was 100% certainly a revert and with this belief he states 100% certain that 1R was breached interpreting my subsequent revert as a second revert. M.Bitton, however, is wrong, as my edit was not a revert.

When I reverted his revert, which was my first revert, I only saw the edit summary This is not an accurate summary of the reactions and no talk page section; however, several minutes after M.Bitton reverted and approx. 2 minutes before I reverted the revert, M.Bitton had in fact started a talk page discussion. My intention was to discuss improvements without the content being reverted, because I could not conceive that any perceived "inaccuracies" would require the content not being live while it's improved, and it is very inconvenient to incrementally improve content after an organizational change by wholesale reverting and then agreeing in writing on every detail. However, M.Bitton then shifted to 1RR enforcement. —Alalch E. 09:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton is repeating himself and hasn't proven anything. Contrarily to I had every opportunity to discuss, I had no such opportunity; there's no content discussion under active threat of sanction, which began with the first 1RR mention. Drive-by wholesale revert and conduct track is the "enforcer" path that M.Bitton chose. Now M.Bitton wants validation for his acting irresponsibly in this capacity. Don't validate that. —Alalch E. 13:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noting that I've gone a bit over the word limit; I'm requesting a retroactive 50-word extension for my last comment; apologies. —Alalch E. 13:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Alalch E. 13:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Alalch E.

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

I'm somewhat on the fence here when it comes to whether 1RR was breached or not. While it's undeniable that content was removed with that first edit (10kb, about), it was also a rewrite and reorganization of content. Someone (M.Bitton) disagreed with that edit and reverted it. I think it was a very unwise move by Alalch E. to then revert again to their preferred version, and they should've followed WP:BRD, as we are dealing with a very contentious topic. Their further comments at the talk page are also unnecessarily bite-y, which served only to heat things up. I'd like to hear from other admins, but maybe a formal warning here will suffice. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm granting Alalch E. an extension to 550 words, as requested. M.Bitton, you are over your limit. I'm willing to grant a extension to 600 words, as I believe you've already made your point. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The word extension would allow you to write upwards to 660 words, counting the 10% margin. As I've noted before, you've made your point regarding 1RR already. Unless you have further diffs to provide, my recommendation is to allow other editors and admins to chime in. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no further inputs in the next 24 hours, I'll be closing with a logged warning to Alalch E. for battleground behavior on a CTOP. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the first diff is in a grey area with respect to the definition of a revert. It did negate multiple previous edits, but alongside an effort to summarize them and preserve their essence. Regardless of whether the summary was a good one, I cannot but read this as a good-faith attempt at summary, and so I'm not inclined to sanction this as a 1RR violation. However, the followup commentary on the talk was remarkably abrupt and uncollaborative from both parties. As the one making a bold change Alalch E. was obligated to discuss it substantively, which they did not do. I would support a logged warning. M. Bitton's approach on the talk page was not wonderful either: it involved some assumption of bad faith and a jump to enforcement over discussion. But I don't see it as serious enough to merit formal action. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EvansHallBear

EvanHallsBear is reminded of the word limit and instructed not to post further in the RfC. I will leave a general reminder to RfC participants as well. In the future, an attempt at informal resolution of a word-limit issue would be preferable than immediately reporting to AE, as with 1RR violations. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning EvansHallBear

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: EvansHallBear (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:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words)

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

In no particular order (and excluding quotes/references per the ruling): ~2,275 words of comments. ^[1]

Comment-references

References

^ [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]

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

[107]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am uninvolved in the dispute itself and generally uninvolved with the CTOP. Just wanted to ensure the temperature (and wordcount) is kept low in future discussions. Many other editors came close to the limit; User:Markbasset came to ~1,300 without having been ARBPIA warned. EvansHallBear on the other hand more than doubled the limit. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[108]

Discussion concerning EvansHallBear

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by EvansHallBear

This is a pretty clear cut violation of the 1000 word limit. I don't feel like this violation has negatively impacted the discussion as I have tried to engage civily and constructively and have kept my individual comments concise. But over the course of the RfC, I have weighed in way more than I realized. I'll accept whatever sanction is deemed appropriate. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning EvansHallBear

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

I'd rather see a friendly warning in a case like this than straight to AE, same as with 1RRvios. Now that we're here, given EHB's reasonable response, I think an informal warning should suffice, as long as EHB makes no further comments in the RfC. Along with maybe a general reminder from an admin on the talk page, under a new level-3 heading to really get people's attention. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an excellent summation/outcome. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can go with that -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accuratelibrarian

Accuratelibrarian is reminded to comply with WP:NOTFORUM and that it is rarely if ever appropriate to comment on the character of living or recently deceased persons on-wiki. They have been alerted to WP:CT/BLP; @Accuratelibrarian: this closure also serves as conferring awareness of WP:CT/AP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:15, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Accuratelibrarian

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: IdanST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IdanST (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Accuratelibrarian (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:BLUDGEON, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BLP

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

In a relatively short time, the user made over 30 edits on the talk page of the deceased Charlie Kirk in many multiple topics, including disruptive edits such as "He was a despicable person spreading hate, racism, and disinformation".

IdanST (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification.

Discussion concerning Accuratelibrarian

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Accuratelibrarian

Hello Tamzin, I acknowledge the notification and will expose my views in the section above. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC) Moved from Result section SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the arbitration requested by user IdanST, I apologize if they or other users were hurt by the language I used to describe Kirk as a person. I failed at letting my personal views get into the discussion. Nevertheless, I want to highlight that it was a response to a comment made by them and by other users criticizing the tone of the article. Calling the article a "left-wing hit job/smear" is inflammatory language and unacceptable as well. --Accuratelibrarian (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Accuratelibrarian

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

Most of these comments are about reliable sources' analysis of Kirk's political views. Editors are allowed to discuss the POV that Charlie Kirk's views were bigoted; editors are allowed to agree with that POV, even. "A despicable person", howevever, is editorialization and crosses the line into WP:NOTFORUM and goes against the spirit of WP:BLP. I don't have a strong feeling as to whether the remedy to that is a formal or informal warning. Which is just as well, as procedurally I don't see any indication that Accuratelibrarian is WP:AWARE of WP:CT/AP or WP:CT/BLP, and as such we can't (as an AE action) do more than warn regardless. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Accuratelibrarian: Seeing that you're active again, I'd appreciate some kind of acknowledgment of this thread and of the applicability of NOTFORUM here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest an informal warning at this point. I've given them a BLP CTOP notification -- if someone wants to add on an AP alert, it probably wouldn't hurt. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alaexis

By a consensus of administrators, Alaexis is placed under the balanced editing restriction. Smallangryplanet is warned to assume good faith and not treat Wikipedia as a battleground. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Alaexis

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Alaexis (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

Violations of WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:BLP throughout the ARBPIA CTOP. These are only some of the relevant diffs, there are others across multiple articles showing violations of WP:CANVASSING/WP:BATTLEGROUND, which can be provided upon request.

2017 Hamas charter

Alaexis disputes use of WP:COMMONNAME, RS and MOS-compliant "2017 charter", systematically and intentionally removes & misrepresents RS to push this POV, violating WP:RS/WP:VER/WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:BRD.

Engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour to minimise references to the 2017 charter, violating WP:BRD: diff1, diff2, diff3,diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8
Deliberately misrepresented sources in an RM discussion table to argue for a name change: diff9 (NOTE: Fixed link 18:42 2025-09-23)
Removed a reliable source (Brenner) supporting "charter" terminology under false pretences: diff10, diff11, diff12
Refused to restore the removed source after the misrepresentation was pointed out: diff13, diff14, diff15, diff16
Repeatedly removed and minimised the same source in the Hamas article, violating BRD: diff17, diff18, diff19, diff20, diff21
POV pushed in disambiguation page in violation of MOS:DABSHORT/BATTLEGROUND/EDITWAR/BRD after RM failed: diff22, diff23, diff24, diff25, diff26
Added a misrepresented, out-of-context source violating WP:V, restored after rv including when proper WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT context was added violating WP:BRD, then deleted properly sourced content outright in violation of WP:NPOV: diff27, diff28, diff29, diff30, diff31, diff32, diff33, diff34
Added a misrepresented cherrypicked source to push the same POV violating WP:V and WP:NPOV: diff33, diff35

Hamas

Alaexis engaged in POV-pushing and misrepresentation of RS, violating WP:RS/WP:NPOV.

Broke prior consensus on the "Recognition" section by removing RS content and adding non-RS sources: diff36, diff37
Encouraged an IP editor to post on AC/DS-covered pages improperly: diff38

Ramy Abdu and Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

Alaexis misrepresented sources re: Ramy Abdu/Euro-Med Monitor, violating WP:BLP/WP:NPOV

Cherry-picked a line from The Independent to imply affiliation with Hamas, misrepresenting the source: diff39 Note: Alaexis has a recent formal warning for a similar BLP violation, see relevant section.

Added a non-RS fringe source to make the same allegation: diff40, diff41

October 7 attacks and related pages

Introduced a partial quote with an ellipsis, omitting text that contradicted his POV: diff42

Restored a NPOV-violating photo caption: diff43

Battleground, Canvassing, non-EC encouragement in WP:ARBECR talk

Alaexis cooperates with editors to request edits on his talk page, engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and WP:CANVASSING: diff44, diff45, diff46
Alaexis encouraged non-EC users to engage on WP:ARBECR'd talk pages, e.g.: diff47, diff48, diff49
Regarding reliability of sources, Alaexis voted 3 (50) in the RfC on Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, a human rights organisation that reports on Israeli human rights violations and is used by high quality RS. However, he voted 1 for Jerusalem Post (51), 2 for NGO Monitor (52), 2 for ADL for ARBPIA (53), and 1 for Pirate Wires (54), for which he cited WP:USEBYOTHERS despite the relevant source quality being distant to Euro-Meds. These are highly partisan pro-Israeli sources with a record of false claims per RS. This further suggests Alaexis does not judge reliability of sources by consistent standards of accuracy or editorial oversight.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Violated WP:1RR in Hamas, restricted to WP:0RR for ten days [109] by SilverLocust (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Violated WP:BLPRS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV in Anas al-Sharif, given a logged CTOP warning [110] by SilverLocust (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

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

Alaexis is a long-term editor with years of experience in this topic area and should be well aware of core policies.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Diff count extension granted by Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) here.

@Vanamonde93 I was granted an extension to 55 diffs prior to filing this report, please see above Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 I'm running up against the word count a bit here but it's explained in diffs 13 and 15. Basically Alaexis confirmed and kept a source from 2022, and then on another article saw the same author and same page used but with the wrong year, and instead of fixing it he removed it completely. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alaexis misrepresents the chain of events re the Brenner source removal per diff13 (the post he links too!). On 31 May, Alaexis removed the Brenner 2017 edition with the summary: there is nothing about it on p. 206 - probably it's a mistake, considering that it's a 2017 book. Two days before, 29 May, Alaexis removed another source from a sentence containing the exact same content from the Hamas article while keeping the correctly cited Brenner p. 206, 2022 edition for the sentence (the source title is identical). Alaexis did not restore the Brenner source to the Charter article after this was pointed out to him, further evidence imo of deliberate removal of RS ahead of his RM. Re diff9, I got the links mixed up and have sorted it now.

@Vanamonde93 sure, the "Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch" fails WP:RS by lacking any credible journalistic standards, editorial oversight, and functions as a WP:SPS by the person who runs it, Steven Merley. This is a non-notable non-expert whose background includes work for the Sheldon-Adelson funded Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, which is the Israeli government's often used think tank routinely cited by Netanyahu's office. Hardly a neutral or reliable source.

Merley's "Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch" includes such articles as:

FEATURED: Joe Biden Addresses US Muslim Brotherhood Conference; Continues To Legitimize the US Brotherhood

FEATURED: Biden Shares Virtual Stage With US Muslim Brotherhood Leaders- Stage Set For His Administration?

This is clearly a WP:FRINGE source and very far from meeting WP:DUE and WP:BLP standards.

The other source, Linkiesta, is also far from sufficient to meet these standards. This is an obscure newly founded Italian online outlet which briefly mentions that some figure who supposedly "coordinates" for the Euro-Med Monitor is "known by French intelligence" to be linked to Hamas, and that its current director Ramy Abdu is "blacklisted by the Tel Aviv government" (it does not state why). It then goes on to cite the NGO Monitor, founded by the Sheldon Adelson funded Jerusalem Center. As was noted in the edit summary for a revert by another editor, this is pure innuendo from a very weak source.

Alaexis introduced the claim that the Euro-Med's leadership is credibly tied to Hamas, and then when reverted for failing WP:RS, WP:DUE and WP:BLP standards he restored it, and then went back to do it again later with another misrepresented source on the Abdu article as I note in subsequent diffs. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some serious accusations being levelled at me with no evidence. WP:BOOMERANG requires more than just vague insinuations that the filer has misbehaved. I'm not going to respond because I am up against the word count, but I'm confident that my edits and behaviour will stand up under scrutiny. If admins would like me to reply here and grant an extension, I will, otherwise please lets don't derail this filing further. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification diff.

Discussion concerning Alaexis

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Alaexis

I disagree with the claims made by u:Smallangryplanet. For cherrypicking, due weight, NPOV it would require quite a lot of diffs to show the context and prove that no policy was violated.

However it's very easy to show that it's simply false that I Removed a reliable source (Brenner) supporting "charter" terminology under false pretences. This is the diff. I checked the source (2017 edition of Brenner's Gaza Under Hamas: From Islamic Democracy to Islamist Governance, p. 206), didn't find anything related to the charter and removed it from the article with a clear edit summary on 31 May 2024. A discussion at the talk ensued, other editors said that the charter was discussed in the 2022 edition. On June 11 I explained why I removed it and requested a quotation, it was provided, I acknowledged it and added the book to the list of sources I was preparing for the RM on the name of the article. It is also untrue that I Refused to restore the removed source after the misrepresentation was pointed out. Since the matter was resolved on June 11 I never removed this source from the article. @Vanamonde93: - I'm pinging you since you've asked a question about this claim.

Also, the claim that I Deliberately misrepresented sources in an RM discussion table to argue for a name change is untrue. The link leads to a table of sources I prepared for a RM. No specific examples of misrepresentation have been provided so I'm not sure how I can prove that it didn't happen.

@Tamzin:, could you clarify what evidence you're referring to in the last comment (18:32, 28 September 2025)? I'm asking since I haven't commented on the majority of claims made by u:Smallangryplanet and focused mostly on the issue with Brenner. If it's something specific I believe I can explain the rationale of my edits. I think I'm over 500 words already so I'd need an exemption too.

Responses to u:Vanamonde93

@Vanamonde93: Regarding this revert, I wasn't the author of the caption. I agree that the use of the word "Palestinians" is improper and that I should've been more careful there.

Regarding the GMBW, it was more than a year ago, so I can't quite remember what my reasoning was. Possibly the author could be considered a subject-matter expert for the purposes of WP:SPS but I'm not sure about it. In any case the information I added was supported also by Linkiesta newspaper whose reliability hasn't been challenged.

Responses to u:Butterscotch Beluga

The paragraph about the closeness of EuroMed and Hamas doesn't mention the Israeli government and the NGO Monitor, the statement is made in the newspaper's own voice. I'd be happy to discuss the reliability of Linkiesta at the appropriate venue - I'm pretty sure it's reliable given that it's used hundreds of times on it-wiki and here. I think that it's clear that using such a source was not a violation of WP:RS.

Responses to u:Raskolnikov.Rev

Regarding #2, when I removed Brenner in May 2025 I didn't recall that the same discrepancy had been discussed half a year ago. The proper way to address this would've be to simply add the correct edition of Brenner's book with an appropriate edit summary.

Responses to u:Vanamonde93

@Vanamonde93:, see my response above. I didn't feign ignorance in May 2025, I really didn't remember the earlier discussion. Note that before removing the incorrect citation (Brenner 2017) on May 24 I let other editors know about the failed verification on May 13 (might have missed something - corrections are welcome. I found two discrepancies compared to the previous list. Radonic doesn't seem to use the term "charter" while Brenner's book was published in 2017 and doesn't mention the new document.). Probably other editors also didn't remember the earlier discussion, otherwise this would've been resolved earlier.

@Vanamonde93:, I appreciate that you've taken time to review the evidence but I hope you reconsider. My behaviour was absolutely not consistent with any nefarious purposes. In addition to the heads up I gave (see the diff right above) the removal of this inaccurate citation had zero impact on the article since the content was supported by other sources as well. It would've made zero sense for me to do this on purpose. I didn't remember the previous discussion and other editors like u:Raskolnikov.Rev who also participated in the November 2024 discussion also *likely* didn't recall it immediately - otherwise they would've responded to my May 13th note or fixed the year right after my edit on May 24, rather than waiting until June 11 and responding with lots of unfounded accusations.

Responses to u:Thebiguglyalien

@Thebiguglyalien: I don't think that Wikipedia would benefit form having both of us tbanned. In the course of our editing, new content was added, new RS were introduced, unsourced content was removed and various mistakes were fixed. Obviously, both of us have a POV but so does everyone. I've tried to follow the letter and spirit of the policies and if there is an edit or group of edits that looks like pov-pushing to you, I'd be happy to explain my reasoning behind it.

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

@Vanamonde93 - The source "The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch" appears to be a WP:SPS. According to their FAQ "The GMBDW is the creation of its editor who has sole editorial control of its content.", i.e. Steven Merley.

The only previous discussion I can find regarding consensus is [111] - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis - With regards to coverage of Euro-Med Monitor, the article from Linkiesta seems to be citing WP:NGOMONITOR & the Israeli government. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien - Why are you proposing sanctions against @Smallangryplanet? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Raskolnikov.Rev

@Tamzin, the edit with "the palestinians" was reverted specifying NPOV/problematic language. While we should WP:AGF, the violation was spelled out and ignored.

@Vanamonde93, on EuroMed addition that they are Hamas: Alaexis inserted/restored citing fringe source he can't defend now, and Italian-language post of few hundred words with no original reporting, only repeating allegations from Israeli government, advocacy org NGO Monitor and intel services that moreover per its own claims has no bearing on EuroMeds leadership. This is far below WP:DUE standards especially for BLP-sensitive content. That Alaexis is defending it now while already having a BLP warning is deeply problematic.

Further context for Brenner removal, why this was highly problematic by itself and given related edits. N.B., minimizing uses of "charter" in sources while padding uses of "document" bolstered his RM for 2017 Hamas Charter page:

1. 24 May 2025, removes Brenner 2017 source twice stating 2017 charter accepts 1967 borders from Charter page.

29 May 2025, retains 2022 edition of Brenner with identical title citing exact same content on Hamas page.

31 May 2025, again removes Brenner 2017 source for same content from Charter page.

2. He was closely involved in writing Hamas page section including 2022 Brenner p. 206 source, and had already been told by multiple editors 2022 edition contains this information when inquiring about its absence in 2017 edition: AlaexisBrenner1, AlaexisBrenner2, AlaexisBrenner3, AlaexisBrenner4, AlaexisBrenner5, AlaexisBrenner6

3. He didn't restore Brenner correct edition after told of erroneous removal, nor provide explanation for how he could have mistakingly removed it given 1-2.

4. Brenner 2017 also calls it "new de facto charter", as cited in talk discussion Alaexis was active in. He said he incorporated sources from this discussion and the main Hamas page in his "charter versus documents" table, but left out Brenner 2017 and 2022, thereby padding uses of "document" bolstering his RM case.

5. That is not the only misrepresentation of sources in the table to pad "document".

Given context, combined with other source misrepresentations to pad "document" usage ahead of RM, subsequent behavior on disambiguation page per @Smallangryplanet diffs22/26, I believe it stretches AFG far beyond breaking point to say it was not intentional.

Engages in WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:BRD, WP:V and WP:BATTLEGROUND violations routinely always in same pro-Israeli POV direction, e.g.:

Misrepresenting source to push POV: diff1, diff2

Adding fringe/non-RS content casting doubt on Gaza Health Ministry death toll, violating WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV: diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8, diff9

Regarding RSN, Alaexis is defending COVID disinformation spreader WION which reads like an AI-generated site and has no WP:USEBYOTHERS basis as 1/potentially 2, 1 for Jewish Chronicle, 2 for Heritage Foundation, while voting 3 on EuroMed and Al Jazeera. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis it's not credible you forgot as you were and remain deeply involved with writing/editing the Hamas page Recognition section and specifically Brenner being cited for that identical content, and you again edited there and retained it cited for the same content in the very same days as you systematically removed it from Charter page. You also didn't restore when told. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

Speaking as a member of the community, I support measures against both Alaexis and Smallangryplanet to limit battleground behavior and POV issues in the topic area. I'm specifically looking at Vanamonde's comment A large number of the diffs show a consistent POV, but in my view fall within the realm of reasonable interpretation of the meaning and emphasis of a source, which treads dangerously close to endorsing the type of WP:CPUSH behavior that AE admins are here to prevent. My first choice would be topic bans, or logged warnings if these editors have enough social capital to avoid tbans. Alternatively, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5#Balanced editing restriction can be imposed without finding fault. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

~~The community should not tolerate any editing restrictions "imposed without finding fault" as suggested by Thebiguglyalien. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking. Probably not the place for this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Alexis' editing is one of quality not quantity. BER wouldn't address that; plus Alaexis would still be able to continue making the same number of edits in the topic area simply by expanding the number of their edits elsewhere. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Kip

Would like to endorse TBUA’s comment/proposed solutions here. From their respective editing histories, the filer and accused are the sort of temperature-raising partisans that we’ve previously attempted to remove from the area, and this case is in many ways a microcosm of some of the issues PIA5 attempted to address - several of the diffs provided are significant enough to reveal at-best careless/reckless and at-worst blatantly misleading and/or partisan editing by the accused party (who themselves were a named party to PIA5, but avoided being the target of any proposed remedies, let alone sanctions), but the considerable assumptions of bad faith/casting of the worst-possible-light on the more minor diffs in turn comes off as the filer hoping to use AE to remove an opponent from the topic area. As such, the “nuclear option” of sorts is once again needed. Despite some claims to the contrary, it worked well with PIA; with a handful of exceptions, the area is broadly more cohesive/less chaotic than it was at this time last year, with blatant incivility, POV-pushing, and the general temperature all becoming considerably lower after the TBANs of some of the worse offenders. Noticeably, this is the first major AE PIA case I’ve seen in a while; most PIA AE cases since January have been with respect to newer/less-experienced editors.

As expected, TBUA’s approach does not go over well with partisans (see several comments above from both the accused party and a third party), which is in turn exactly why it’s necessary. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, despite my stated belief in TBANs I will say that a BER for both filer and accused may be my slightly-preferred solution here - I’d like to see it in a sort of trial-run with some of the more visible partisans in the area, given it hasn’t often been utilized since it was created. Perhaps it does end up a less “destructive” alternative. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parabolist

If third party editors want to make serious behavioral claims of misconduct by the filer, they should actually be required to substantiate them, otherwise what the hell are we doing here? Or is doing that without diffs something we WOULDN'T describe as "temperature-raising"? I, too, am a member of the community, if that helps (Whatever that means.). Parabolist (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

Re Regarding reliability of sources, Alaexis voted 3 (50) etc. I don't think it's enough to dismiss this, WP:AE accusations about a person's RfC !votes should be condemned. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Alaexis

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

~~Smallangryplanet, reports are limited to 20 diffs, you are at 54. Please trim the report: this is far too much material for AE to parse. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)~~ Striking - I missed the exemption, in no small part because of the aforementioned 54 diffs, but I can't say you don't have permission. Reading through now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Smallangryplanet You say Alaexis removed content from the Brenner source "under false pretenses": does this mean the pages in question contained the information Alaexis said they didn't contain? Can you illustrate with a quote, please, inside a collapsed section? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Smallangryplanet Can you please explain which source added in diffs 40 and 41 are fringe, and if that designation has any consensus on Wikipedia, or if they obviously fail our criteria for RS? You may set aside the word limit for this reply. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read through all the diffs and I believe I have the context I need. The vast majority of these diffs do not feel actionable to me, and in some cases are being interpreted in the most negative light possible in a way that does not impress me. This discussion, for instance, shows Alaexis redirecting a different editor to the article talk page and informing them about canvassing - I cannot reasonably read that as "engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and WP:CANVASSING", and I would be minded to remind Smallangryplanet about assuming good faith. A large number of the diffs show a consistent POV, but in my view fall within the realm of reasonable interpretation of the meaning and emphasis of a source. I also cannot acquiesce to Smallangryplanet's description of the incident related to the use of Brenner 2017.
Three pieces of evidence do concern me. The caption Alaexis chose to add here (diff 43) contains a sweeping generalization not present in the article and verging on the inflammatory. To be clear, I am objecting to the constructions "by the Palestinians", and not anything else. That said, that diff is eleven months old. I am concerned by the apparent lack of consistency in applying WP:USEDBYOTHERS at WP:RSP (diffs 50/54). I am concerned by the use of the "Global Muslim Brotherhood Watch" source in diffs 40/41, but that set is 17 months old.
I am not enamored of consecutive logged warnings, but I can't support something harsher when the evidence predates the previous warning. I would like to hear from Alaexis as to their assessment of sources however. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I would like to hear from Alaexis on the last two points. However, I still cannot read anything into the Brenner issue. The charge is that in removing some content on 29 May, Alaexis saw the Brenner 2022 source, read it, realized it was related to the Brenner 2017 source, and two days later failed to replace rather than remove Brenner 2017? I find the explanation that they did not notice the similarity more in keeping with WP:AGF. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting just on one point here, "the Palestinians" can mean two things: the people of Palestine generally, or those specific folks we're talking about who are from Palestine. In the context it was used, it's definitely uncomfortable in that it can be read as the former, but I do feel inclined to extend some AGF on this point, particularly for a non-native English speaker (per previous versions of userpage). I know that when I speak other languages, subtle nuances of similar identity-based constructs can be very hard to keep track of (e.g. French "un Noir" literally means "a Black" but lacks the problematic connotation of its English equivalent). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I now see credible evidence that Alaexis was feigning ignorance with respect to Brenner. I would like to see a response related to that. I would also appreciate responses from other administrators here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's at least enough evidence here to meet WP:BER's threshold of it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area. Their current PIA editing percentage is 56.25%. I'll note that, even assuming arguendo that Smallangryplanet lowering activity would also be net-positive, there wouldn't be any point in imposing such a restriction on them at this time, since they're below the 33.3% threshold regardless. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, while there's technically no requirement that someone put under a BER be currently below the percentage threshold, to me that goes against the principle of preventative sanctioning, unless it's something like they've routinely been above it and only briefly dipped below. All that a BER would do at that point is apply a TBAN outside of mainspace/draftspace/their talkspaces, which, if there's a reason to do that specifically, then it should be that, not backdoor through a BER. This is again without reaching any conclusion as to whether one would be merited for SAP regardless. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to TBUA's comment that I'm endorsing civil pov-pushing: that's not a reasonable reading of my responses at AE over the years. I'd argue that I place greater weight on factors such as source misrepresentation and stonewalling. But any analysis of source use needs to recognize that there is usually space for reasonable editors to disagree with respect to the interpretation of a source. The individual instances presented in the first report largely fall within this realm.
That said, having considered the additional evidence provided here, and having slept on this, I have to conclude that while each individual edit may be defensible, the totality shows Alaexis exercising less care with respect to content that serves their POV vs content that does not. I don't know if a BER would address this, but I don't think I'm willing to levy a TBAN on this evidence alone, and so I would support a BER. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to consider the need for a BER on Smallangryplanet as well - there are hints in this evidence that that might be necessary - but their behavior is not a large part of the evidence seen here, and so I would want a separate filing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping more administrators would opine here, but it would seem it's not to be. Absent objections I will close this with a BER in a day or so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - it's crunch time for me last month and this month so I've been scarce. I think a BER works but I'd also informally warn Smallangryplanet that I felt their filing veered a bit close to battlegroundy behavior at times so they should watch that in the future. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through many of the diffs but not all. My impression was similar to Vanamonde's, and I think BER for Alaexis and an (informal) warning for Smallangryplanet is reasonable. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]

[1]