Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive353

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

PadFoot2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 13 April 2025: Moving pages without any building understanding on the talk page, for which they were previously warned [1][2][3][4]. They have made many reckless moves [5][6][7] in the past (their move log is full of disruptive moves) which led their page mover right being ultimately revoked. It's not like they aren't aware of "reverting undiscussed moves" [8][9].
2. 02:27, 26 February 2025: Refused to follow WP:COMMONNAME, reverted by involved user [10] but yet again PadFoot were quick to follow suit the edit war and restore their poor additions [11] and again disregarding the common name of entity [12][13][14], this continues ignorance and WP:IDHT pattern led the editors to conclude that PF is POV pushing [15], but instead they want another "consensus" to use the common name [16]. PF actually landed in the OR area yet again [17] by replacing "dynasty" with "Empire" of an entity, after which they were told to start RM for that particular entity [18]. One might need to see this discussion.
3. 15:07, 12 March 2025: Removed sources with a fallacious edit summary, despite both sources seem differentiable. Edit warred over their wrong doings [19]. Partial reverted after getting recalled on talk [20] but refused to restore other source without citing any guidelines.
4. 11:34, 15 October 2024: Adding their uploaded unsourced "seals" and "coins" in infobox to label the entity's flags which is OR and is not required per MOS:MILFLAGS [21]
5. 12:55, 12 October 2024: Again, adding a poor map by removing the solid sourced and stable map, the source cited^[1] has failed to verify their addition. After getting challenged, PadFoot claims, in contrast to the cited sources that their map is "accurate" [22]. Then again removed by another user [23] as presumed, PadFoot simply reverted the removal without citing a source for their addition [24]. After this much contention, they finally started adding sources [25][26][27] which is nothing but synthesizing, as no visual presentation is provided. Even after that, the users proceed to add their poor map [28][29].
6. 11 April 2025: Removing content along with the source by giving a confusing "Not required" edit summary.
7. 21 October 2024: With the summary of 'Improve' they actually ended up in doing WP:OR, there's not a single reference in the page to support their Aryavart link.
8. 29 August 2024: This is just absurd, quoting half heartedly, Brittanica no where concludes that Pratiharas were victor. For what they added: The war ultimately resulted in the Pratiharas winning the crown of Kannauj in 816 - certainly doesn't align with the source. On the same cited article of Britannica we find that the conflict resumed over 900s: After the death of Mahendrapala, the succession is obscure. The power of the Pratiharas was apparently weakened by dynastic strife. It was further diminished as a result of a great raid from the Deccan, led by the Rastrakuta king Indra III, who about 916 sacked Kannauj. Same case with the other two sources (of which one is unreliable) we won't find them mentioning this conflict as Pratihara victory. Clearly an obvious attempt to sabotage Wikipedia by only presenting their partisan view.
9. 30 August 2024: This is not ce as they say, just another poor unsourced addition [30][31][32].
10. [33][34]: The inevitable edit war was started, ironically Padfoot labeling the edits by Maglorbd as "Unconstructive" is just vague, it can be seen from above diffs, Padfoot has been making poor edits influenced by their Pov.

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

[35]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

• First look should be given at #8. In which he cites three sources. [36]: It doesn't further affirm their addition of "Pratihara victory", In fact it's just a misinterpretations that conflict ended in 816 CE while the source mention that it lasted till the mid of 10th century, with no ultimate result. This is consonant by Britannica as well. Same case with other [37].
• Another look should be given at #3 where they seem to be outrightly removing sources and at #2 they were casting aspersions [38] on editors because they didn't get to oppose common name and were ultimately challanged.
• PF shouldn't be allowed to put unsourced and synthesized files and maps. See #4 and #5, it's clear that he can't avoid adding poor unsourced map by removing the stable and well sourced map [39] [40].
• Also found them recently canvassing [41] to gain votes in a move discussion. Not surprisingly they gained attention of some more editors who are complaint the same behaviour on ANI.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Rosguill, regarding #5, the sources PF added after facing contentions do not support their case. All but the synthesized citations (like X says the entity's territory stretched from A to B, Y says it stretched from B to C, Z says the entity captured D and made it its feudatory, and so on) have been provided, which PF interpreted without basing their creation on any visual work. Moreover, the sources for tracing the Ayudha dynasty and the Pala Empire in their map are unfounded in the Commons file. The user also has a rather tarnished history of placing unsourced and distorted maps. For example, this unsourced map was added to multiple articles [42][43], which was recently reverted -- courtesy ping AlvaKedak. There are more instances where PF has repeatedly added unsourced maps that are still inserted to this day, but mentioning all would exceed my word and diff limits, so I'm refraining from doing so. Regarding #7, they did not resolve the issue but actually added defunct "Kingdom of X" articles into the parameter.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[44]

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.

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

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

  The statement by Kowal2701, is pure gobbledygook. How in the world does WP:SEALION applies to me. Also, nowhere in this two year old thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#PadFoot2008 - LTA RGW editing, was I accused of 'anti-India POV' by anyone, it's likely that Kowal didn't even bother properly reading the entire thing and was just looking for material to put here. PadFoot (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Rosguill,

  • (For #4) For the Pratihara coinage, I sourced it from this site (see fourth listing), I've now added the same to the commons page as well.
  • (For #10) Maglorbd had contacted me on my user talk page as well, that's where the discussion took place: User talk:PadFoot2008/Archive 4#Regarding Tripartite Struggle.

  PadFoot (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rosguill, the source added by me, though backing the vassalage, was indeed lacking the exact year and emperor. There's this source which does back it though. The new lead too is more or less fine by me. PadFoot (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Asilvering, the author is Jaswant Lal Mehta. This thread, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 419#Reliability of Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, concludes that it's a reliable source. The source is also present in Scholar. PadFoot (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The new claim by Shakakarta is frivolous and dishonest. The full sentence in the lead is: Marathas from the time of Shahu recognised the Mughal emperor as their nominal suzerain, similar to other contemporary Indian entities, though in practice, imperial politics at Delhi were largely influenced by the Marathas between 1737 and 1803. Thus, it clearly mentions (1) that emperor was the nominal suzerain, and (2) that the actual control or influence was in the Maratha hands. PadFoot (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rosguill, I intended to create separate articles for the dynasty and the kingdom it ruled, which is the structure present in the European history space. I understand now that the Kannauj one had WP:SYNTH issues, as I had checked different sources which mentioned a particular dynasty as ruling the 'kingdom of Kannauj'. But the others didn't have SYNTH issues? The others were only seen as problematic because it was seen unnecessary by other editors as having two separate articles for the dynasty and the kingdom. PadFoot (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kowal2701, indeed, you're correct, and I had, during that period, attempted to create distinct separate articles for the kingdoms and their respective ruling dynasties (one or many), and had unknowingly created SYNTH issues on Kingdom of Kannauj. Some former country articles like Vijayanagara Empire too cover multiple dynasties that ruled the polity, which have their own separate articles as well. PadFoot (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The new statement by Shrimant Roshan is pretty muddled up. I didn't synthesise two citations that say that this kingdom extended from A to B and another source saying extended from B to C, I've only provided one citation per kingdom that mentioned that particular kingdom's territorial extent and another citation that mentioned the kingdom's feudatories. And anyways, the issue has been resolved and a new map has been added which is perfectly sourced to a map in a reference. As for his argument for (#7), I had added "Kannauj" as one of the locations, and linked to "Kingdom of Kannauj", but it's accurate nonetheless if it refers to the city. PadFoot (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While my earlier maps had been based on written descriptions in sources, which I perceive to be an issue, I have sourced all the maps since the new Tripartite Struggle one (such as the Aibak one) to visual maps from scholarly sources. PadFoot (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rosguill, the reason why I incorrectly assumed that canvassing didn't apply to RMs (or normal discussions) was because I had seen other editors ping/notify others at RMs and discussions, while at an AfD, as soon as I notified another editor, an admin instantly told me that I couldn't notify other editors. This had never happened in an RM ever before, even though I had seen other editors pinging others, as well as I having done so as well. PadFoot (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The POV accusations of Mithilanchalputra are baseless. I am being accused of having anti-Maratha and pro-Hindutva POVs at the same time, which is rather silly in itself.
• The source had cited page 366, which I had read through and not finding the claimed portion (which was on pg. 367, my own fault that I hadn't read through the whole chapter), I had replaced it with this: At its peak, it ruled over territories from Mandaran in Hooghly (modern-day West Bengal) to Kondaveedu (modern-day Andhra Pradesh). which was sourced from pg. 366 of the same source: Between 1450-54 the Orissan army reduced Rājahmundry, crossed the Krishna and cap-tured Kondavidu, as has already been mentioned above in Chapter XII...Kapilendra was also successful in his campaign against Bengal. It appears that he captured some territories in West Bengal to the west of the Ganga, including the fort of Mandaran (Hooghly district), though it seems to have been lost later...
• The source mentions that Chandragupta was the first 'historical' emperor of India in the sense that he is the earliest emperor in Indian History whose historicity can be established on the solid ground of ascertained chronology., and does not support first Emperor of United India and first king with a vision of uniting India, which is pure original research. Also note that both the sources are extremely old and outdated (1940 and 1967) and newer sources should be preferred.

PadFoot (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts, I shall not notify or ping any editor to any form of discussion ever again. If I do, you can impose any restrictions that you seem fit. PadFoot (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Tbf, there is a bit of ongoing ambiguity regarding Wikipedia having both dynasty and former country articles which tend to have big overlaps, we often have articles only on dynasties which are de facto just about the states. See Almoravid dynasty, Hafsid dynasty, Wattasid dynasty etc. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts:, I think he meant that editors involved in disputes with Padfoot would be more incentivised to start RfCs, but pointing newcomers to the points made in the WP:RFCBEFORE can address this (and obv sanctions for WP:GAMING) Kowal2701 (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user has some serious issues when it comes to falsely interpreting the source and citing an outdated source authored by British administrators in India. I thought bringing such issues here would be appropriate. Padfoot cites the wrong volume [45] of The Cambridge History of India which falls under WP:RAJ. I don't know why anyone would cite such a weak source to back Vassal of the Mughal Empire. Then again they tried to wash off this mistake by citing a source which nowhere backs their claims: recognised by Emperor Bahadur Shah I as a tributary state in 1707 following a prolonged rebellion. that too in the lead, while the quote says: The Marathas went on to become the leading political force in eighteenth century India, powerfully shaping the process by which British power emerged. But their growth took place as a vassal of the Mughal empire. It's clearly WP:OR, the source never backs their claims of vassalage after 1707 by Bahadur Shah I. This repeated behaviour should not be unnoticed. Shakakarta (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out this issue, Asilvering. I had explained to Padfoot why the source he used is not considered reliable. This is the second time they've openly demonstrated a lack of understanding when it comes to identifying reliable sources. Shakakarta (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's again restoring his version, which is full of original research [46]. The article says: Marathas from the time of Shahu recognised the Mughal emperor as their nominal suzerain. But the quote from the source actually says:

This treaty, by which Shahu accepted the nominal suzerainty of the Mughal Crown in return for his right to collect chauth and sardeshmukhi from all the six provinces of 'the Mughal Deccan'... Delhi became the hub of Maratha political and military activities with effect from 1752, and they used the Mughal emperor as a mere tool in their hands to wield the imperial powers in his name and under his nominal suzerainty.^[1]

There are two issues here -- First, this should not be included in the lead because Padfoot repeatedly failed to adhere to WP:UNDUE & WP:NPOV, only adding the 'suzerainty' part but leaving out the 'mere tool' part. Secondly, the same dubious source with no pages, nowhere says the Marathas continued to follow this after Shahu I. Shakakarta (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Padfoot engaged in a disruptive behaviour for a long time, much of which largely went unnoticed. No doubt they lost their page mover hat due to their pov pushing page moves. Padfoot made statements such as: "You're completely right. I too agree with you on the opinion that this article is full of misinformation and Anti-Hindu Propaganda. I've also been noting that many Wikipedia articles present an anti-BJP Propaganda. This article must be unlocked and be available to all editors rather than only anti-nationalists and anti-Hinduists." [47], these things went unnoticed.

Padfoot created several articles by POV-forking. I believe this warrants renewed administrative attention.

• Padfoot POV-forked the Magadha page into Magadhan Empire (Pseudo historical Empire), which was later deleted through AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magadhan Empire.

Multiple other articles created by Padfoot were also deleted after being identified as POV forks:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Gujarat:

• • Chaulukya dynasty POV fork without discussion
  • Vaghela dynasty POV fork without discussion

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Daśapura:

• • Second Aulikara dynasty POV fork without discussion
  • Aulikaras POV fork without discussion

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Malwa:
  • Paramara dynasty POV fork without discussion

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kannauj. Dympies (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to ping) Yes, I have noticed their addition of unsourced maps as well, and am concerned about it too. In fact, I have tried to reached out to them about this matter more than once [48] [49], but aside from a a few replies that only addressed the Tripartite Struggle map situation, I have not received any response since. Regards, AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008, it appears that your comment has become quite lengthy. As of right now, it exceedes a 1,000 words, with a precise count of approximately 1,291. AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would second Voorts' suggestion to indef PadFoot, not only because they have been found consistently canvassing, but also for forging pseudohistory-ridden bad forks and making rash page moves. Their justification for the recent move on Firuz Shah Tughlaq falls flat after this RM. It's unclear to me why they're asking for another chance after this, this, and this. It is clear the user still does not grasp the gravity of their past actions, as noted at ANI--their canvassing has plagued multiple RfCs and RMs. The users most often influenced by their doctored canvassing were Flemmish Nietzsche, Noorullah21, and Someguywhosbored. So if it is not an indef block, I see no other remedy besides a carpet Tban from page moves, XfDs, and IPA. AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am really surprised that no one still address the root cause of these behaviour by Padfoot which I think his religious (possibly Hindutva) views. Maybe this is because these editors doesn't have much interaction with Padfoot like me. I have so many interaction with Padfoot and discussions.

• Padfoot has a pattern of edit warring with JJ (Joshua Jonathan) over promoting the term "Hinduism" in articles such as Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka, History of Hinduism, and others. Padfoot wanted to insert "Hinduism" into the Ashoka page [50], and added "Ancient Hinduism" in the History of Hinduism article against the sourcing, only stopping after being warned by an admin [51]. In several cases where reliable sources refer to "Brahmanism," Padfoot changed the terminology to "Hinduism," even engaging in edit-warring with JJ over this [52] [53]. It will be good if JJ also comment here.

• Not only this I have observed, I have also seen many times that Padfoot misinterpreted sources, like recently:Here, they removed long standing contents and inserts their synthesis ridden original research. The source doesn't support their changes, rather backs the former on p. 367: ...empire stretching from the lower Ganga in the north to the Kaveri in the south.
• I had added a content which padfoot removed without once verifying from the sources cited. Mookerji seems to back > first Emperor of United India and first king with a vision of uniting India < this part of the diff. Chapter 5 of Jansari roughly backs the contents as well. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 17:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

My evaluation of the evidence

1. It is noted that PadFoot2008 has received multiple warnings from admins regarding ill-advised moves. The most recent move highlighted in the first diff, however, is not strictly a repeat of issues that they had previously been warned about.
2. There's clearly edit warring, although it looks like ultimately PadFoot2008 was the one to start the discussion to resolve the dispute. Special:Diff/1280132541 further seems WP:POINT-y
3. While it seems that there was some failure of the editors to understand each other on the talk page, I can see PadFoot2008's reasoning: they felt it was unnecessary to cite two different works by the same author to support a single claim. The 1989 work is still cited elsewhere in the article, so it's not like this is removing access to information or undermining any particular POV's presence. This seems like a benign disagreement over how best to copyedit.
4. The coinage does not appear to be properly sourced. No evidence or arguments have been provided to verify that these are genuine artifacts or faithful reproductions.
5. Regarding the map, I haven't investigated the extent to which the map itself was OR, but PadFoot2008 seems to have appropriately engaged with the discussion on the talk page, and their one potentially excessive revert (Special:Diff/1278280827) was in relation to a confusing edit summary that didn't obviously engage with their edit.
6. "Not required" doesn't seem unreasonable as an edit summary: it's expressing an opinion about what is due for inclusion in the infobox
7. PadFoot2008's explanation seems reasonable.
8. I don't see the issue. The article in question is Tripartite Struggle, and according to the lead its scope is 785-816. There's evidently a dispute among editors over whether the scope of the conflict should be wider, but you can't fault someone for supporting a claim consistent with the article's general framing. Britannica says In the complicated and badly documented wars of the early 9th century—involving Pratiharas, Rastrakutas, and Palas—Nagabhata II played an important part. About 816 he invaded the Indo-Gangetic Plain and captured Kannauj from the local king Chakrayudha, who had the protection of the Pala ruler Dharmapala. With the power of the Rastrakutas weakened, Nagabhata II became the most powerful ruler of northern India and established his new capital at Kannauj. Nagabhata II was succeeded by his son Ramabhadra about 833, who after a brief reign was succeeded by his son Mihira Bhoja about 836. Under Bhoja and his successor Mahendrapala (reigned c. 890–910), the Pratihara empire reached its peak of prosperity and power. The part about the Pratiharas' fall from grace only comes later, after various successions culminating in another war in 916. PF's edit seems sound.
9. It's not a snapshot of stellar reference-work, but this seems like a totally normal edit to make in the context of copyediting an article with multiple dense sources. Unless there is a discussion demonstrating how this specific change is contentious to introduce and that PF was aware of such a consensus before making this edit, there's nothing sanctionable here.
10. I see that PF asserted that they resolved this on a talk page, but on the talk page I only see Maglorbd's comments on this topic. Where did PF engage with the question?

• Further having reviewed the ANI thread, I agree with rsjaffe that PF's claims to have been unaware of canvassing norms appear specious. Even if we accept as totally sincere the idea that PF believed that the canvassing guideline applied only to AfD (which is not at all an impression that one would normally get from reading WP:CANVASS, which mentions several venues as examples), that falls short of the expectations of CTOP editing from an editor with several thousand edits.
• I don't see how PF's engagement amounts to sealioning. Bludgeoning, maybe, although not a particularly egregious or sanctionable example.
• Shakakarta's criticism of PF's edit is noted; this is a rather recent edit and it doesn't appear that PF has responded whether by editing or on the talk page yet.

Overall, the most serious thing that I see here is the canvassing, although as I've noted we're also lacking an adequate response to #4, #10 and Shakakarta's concerns and I would want to see what PadFoot2008 has to say about that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response PadFoot2008. Regarding #4, I think editors could continue to quibble with the sourcing and/or suitability of including these images in the infobox, but I think this becomes something that falls within editorial discretion and requires further content discussion, not admin intervention. For #10, I'm satisfied that the engagement with Maglorbd on your talk page appropriately addressed the situation. Were you planning on offering any further response to Shakakarta's concerns? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't dug through the entirety of the discussion and edit history for each of the page splits identified by Dympies, but overall they do appear to paint a picture of problematic editing. When taken together with the fact that PadFoot2008 does not appear to have any trouble identifying SYNTH articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early Mughal–Sikh wars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha campaigns in Gujarat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, which largely predate the edits that Dympies is objecting to) this seems to give cause for concern. Between that and the canvassing issue, I think that there is enough evidence of subpar engagement in the topic area that a topic ban seems warranted. asilvering, thoughts? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• PadFoot2008, that source you've offered in response to Shakakarta's comments doesn't look very promising - do you know anything about the press or the author? Neither press website (given on pg ii) works, I can't find any evidence either publisher still exists in a quick google search, and the only J L Mehta that comes up in a similarly quick check is Jarava Lal Mehta, a philosopher. Do you know anything more about this book? -- asilvering (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shakakarta, this new one looks to me to be fully in the realm of "content dispute". "recognised the Mughal emperor as their nominal suzerain" is an accurate paraphrase of the quoted sentences, and nothing in the wording there suggests that the arrangement ceased after Shahu. There may be perfectly good editorial reasons to say or not say Marathas from the time of Shahu recognised the Mughal emperor as their nominal suzerain., but on the face of it here there's no evidence I can see of source misuse, deliberate or otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I can't help but notice that there's a lot of rhetoric going on in those AfDs, but not a whole lot of source analysis. When there is source analysis, it looks like Uncle G's in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Gujarat (I'm astonished this was closed as "delete"). So I'm not sure how far I want to trust any of these AfDs as far as establishing a pattern of problematic editing goes. Given that basically everything else we've looked at here, with the exception of the canvassing, looks like pretty typical editing, I'm not sure there's much to rest a tban on. Certainly, a warning about canvassing. Perhaps something stronger about page moves. A tban from IPA... eh. Have I missed something? -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  asilvering My thinking was that the canvassing alone, together with explanations for it in the ANI thread that seem insincere (why would anyone assume that canvassing rules only pertain to AfD?), practically justifies a topic-ban in itself, if partially because it's very hard to otherwise craft a sanction that addresses canvassing and only canvassing. My concern with the AfDs is that it seems that, given evidence that PF has on several occasions called for the deletion of articles on SYNTH grounds, while at the same time creating their own articles that appear to have similar sourcing issues, that there is a tendentious pattern underlying the participation at AfD rather than a good faith application of policy. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose the real root of my hesitation here is my sense that others in the topic area are engaged in far worse. Is this conduct sanctionable? Maybe so, and maybe if I weren't as new to AE as I am, I'd have a longer history of resolved cases to draw on, and agree without hesitation. As someone who instead has watched this topic area from the perspective of AfDs and occasionally being pinged in for a source check in a talk page dispute, my impression is something more like "if this is bannable, then everyone needs to go." But it looks like, further down this page, that may be where we're headed. -- asilvering (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My view is that this kind of reasoning makes sense when you're addressing issues that are subjective and reciprocal, like civility and edit warring. Canvassing and gaming AfD aren't conditioned on responding to other people's behavior in the same way, and thus other people's behavior is much less of a mitigating factor in my view. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I wasn't thinking of it as a mitigating factor, so much as thinking in terms of "what is the bar for a TBAN". -- asilvering (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Rosguill that a sanction is warranted. I propose a topic ban from XfDs, RMs, and other similar processes, broadly construed. I also find the response to the recent canvassing at an RM insincere. The first sentence in WP:VOTESTACKING is very broad and the mention of specific processes is preceded by "such as". I understand asilvering's concern about being evenhanded (to be sure, there are worse offenders). However, our job at AE is to prevent disruption as it is presented to us. Canvassing is a weapon in the ideological warfare fought on Wikipedia that is particularly damaging to the trustworthiness of the project and the trust of the community. A topic ban to prevent further canvassing is not disproportionate. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm a little bit concerned that such a scope could create perverse incentives around avoiding or forcing RfCs for resolving content disputes emerging from regular editing. Any thoughts of how to handle that? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the only alternatives are a total topic ban or an indef if we think this behavior will continue outside of the topic areas. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  voorts, my reading of this reply is that you don't consider RfCs on article talk pages to be a similar process to XfDs and RMs? I think it's a workable approach, although I think that we need to be clear about the scope. I would propose a topic ban from XfDs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions relating to IPA, broadly construed. If I'm misunderstanding you please correct me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think a TBAN from IPA makes sense or a logged warning about canvassing makes sense, but a TBAN from specific kinds of discussion is likely to have unintended consequences. PadFoot's statement, I shall not notify or ping any editor to any form of discussion ever again. If I do, you can impose any restrictions that you seem fit., is basically an acknowledgement of that warning, which is a good start at least. -- asilvering (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We can carve out RfCs if you think that's prudent. I had actually thought RfCs would be covered under my proposals. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My initial understanding was that RfCs were intended to be included. My concern is that I don’t want to end up creating a situation where they’re allowed to edit a page but then are not able to engage in consensus-building discussion, and that this could encourage GAME-y behavior either by PF or by anyone else engaging with them. I misread your follow up as implying that we should leave out RfCs, or else just issue a full tban for editing the topic _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All "noticeboard discussions relating to IPA" seems a bit overbroad. For example, it would prevent PF from responding if a source is brought to RSN. I'm now leaning towards a IPA topic ban unless we can find a workable narrower restriction. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So, reviewing this again it seems like we're cohering on an IPA topic-ban for PadFoot2008. If there are not objections from other administrators I would move to close this in the next few days. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBIPA

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

I am filing this report after seeing the concerns raised by Bishonen with this user,[54] because the recent edits by this user are creating problems well across WP:ARBIPA.

1. 27 April - Misrepresents the statement of Sitush by using strawman fallacy. Sitush never opposed the proposal of Dympies "without even looking at sources".
2. 27 April - Instead of addressing his misrepresentations of sources, he is accusing another editor of not knowing the meaning of the words like "synonymous" or "interchangeable", and tells them to look them up "in a dictionary".
3. 27 April - Continuing his attacks on the participants; "A group of editors are not allowing well-sourced content. They are giving prevalence to their pov over RS."
4. 26 April - Attacks the participants by lamenting "entire talk page is suffering from "trust me bro" syndrome."
5. 26 April - Claims "sources indeed have a good amount of coverage", but inside his "Source assessment table" he gives not more than a single source for significant coverage.
6. 25 April - Telling another editor to be "cautious" while falsely claiming that the content he is reverting was "recently added in the lead by PadFoot", contrary to the fact the content existed since 2024.[55]
7. 24 April - Supports an inappropriate AfD of a highly notable topic by falsely claiming that the article is "largely unsourced", when most of the statements of the article are sourced.
8. 23 April - Used a Islamophobic pro-Hindutva outlet myind.net" for source. A broader issue with his edits was raised on talk page but it saw no response from him.
9. 16 April - Claiming on Talk:Shivaji that this image was contemporary. This is contrary to the fact that it is a reproduction of a contemporary painting by Valentyn painted by V.S Bendrey.
10. 6 April - Created List of Chitpavan Brahmins, where the source was misrepresented for the names like Chintaman Ganesh Kolhatkar.
11. 1 April - Falsely accused Sitush of violation of "WP:AGF, WP:COI and WP:OR", just because he posted this. The violation of WP:NPA was beyond the pale there.

These problems are long-term despite multiple topic bans and blocks. Capitals00 (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 19 June 2023: Indefinitely topic-banned from Rajput by Abecedare
2. 20 December 2023: Topic ban from Rajput converted into a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA
3. 2 December 2024: 2 weeks edit warring block over 2019 Balakot airstrike

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

See above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Asilvering: I have cited 11 diffs of which 8 diffs postdate the SPI. They are just 6 days old. You had yourself agreed that a new AE against Dympies should be filed. SPI was not a get out of jail free card. We are here discussing an editor who is unrepentant about his long-term editing problems as clear from his response here and also here despite multiple topic bans and blocks. Capitals00 (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Can you be more specific about whom you are referring to? As Valeree has clarified to Asilvering, the filing of report was pre-discussed because the earlier one was filed by a sock and a number of experienced editors had also raised issues with Dympies.[56] I am a regular on AE. You can see a total of 4 AE filings from last 12 year from me. All of them resulted in a block or topic ban.[57][58][59][60]

The demands to block me are without any basis. You won't find me doing any kind of tendentious editing. I don't disagree with what Abecedare said there. For example, you can see the presence of AlvaKedak on this report, who is demanding "an IPA ban or perhaps an indefinite block"[61] on me without any evidence even though this report did not even concern him. This amount of "battleground conduct" remains unprecedented in this area. Capitals00 (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[62]

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.

Capitals00 became hostile towards me ever since I supported a move proposal (on 19 April) which they had opposed at Talk:Maratha Confederacy. On the same day, Capitals00 made a comment in the previous AE report against me (archived two days back) promising admins of providing good diffs within 24 hours [63]. They must have tried finding some strong diffs. But, upon failing, they filed a frivolous SPI against me [64]. Now they are here again to harass me with some weak diffs. I wish to respond to the diffs one after one :

1. That wasn't wrong on my part. On 29 March, Sitush expresses his disagreement with my proposed content. He keeps on giving arguments against proposal and on 27 April he admits that he hadn't seen all the sources by then!

2. Koshuri Sultan had been repeatedly expressing their disagreement with my representation of sources [65][66][67]. At last, I reminded him of the basic meaning of "synonymous" and "interchangeable" as I thought it was necessary.

3. On Talk:Rajput, multiple users had been giving their personal opinions without taking sources under consideration. To stop that, I gave those remarks.

4. I said to the admin what I had observed in the discussion. The way RS were being ignored, my observation was fair.

5. Strange. You're reporting me for neutrally assessing sources? What a complete waste of time. I found two sources that provide decent coverage of the event, so I voted accordingly. How can that be problematic for you, of all people? It seems voting against your opinion offends you the most.

6. The content was indeed added by PadFoot around 8 to 10 months ago [68][69][70], and was backed by poor sources. You have falsely linked the wrong version in order to portray me in a negative light.

7. I have nothing to say if you think that the crux of the page i. e. Anglo-Mughal war (1686–1690)#Events is well sourced.[71]

8. I had added a bundled citation which included six references. MyInd was among them because I was unaware of its reliability issues. I didn't respond to the comment on the talk page of the article because some other users had already responded appropriately that omitting MyInd and moving on with other sources was the right approach as too many RS were supporting the content.

9. Reproduction of a contemporary painting is still better than a painting drawn after Shivaji's death. The painting in question is indeed considered the most reliable portrayal of Shivaji.

10. I had copied all entries from the page Chitpavan Brahmins and wrote in my edit summary: Copied from Chitpavan Brahmins. This frees me of all the liability of checking each individual entry.

11. The accusations weren't false. Sitush literally said twice that there may be COI involved in my editing at Rajput page as if I am affiliated to Rajputs [72][73]. Such behavior violates WP:AGF and WP:COI. As far as WP:OR is concerned, see Sitush's comments at Talk: Rajput. In a comment, he makes an exaggerating claim that there are hundreds of sources to counter the proposed content[74], but could not produce a single one in a one month period. Despite using strong words like "nonsense" for my proposed content,[75] he didn't care to discuss sources but heavily relied on his original research. However, considering his seniority, I later struck WP:COI and WP:OR from my AE comment out of respect[76], but Capitals didn't mention that! Dympies (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen, your comment is not helpful[77]. I don't find my editing to be tendentious. On my talk page, I provided you clear evidence of Sitush's problematic behaviour[78] (which I have also discussed above in my primary response), but you didn't appear to have taken note of that. And now you appear here with desire to put sanction on me on the basis of such a weak report. Dympies (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that all talks in admins' section regarding "tagteaming" and "battleground behaviour" pertains to Capitals00 as I haven't reported any user here in recent past. I am rather a victim. Dympies (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This report is beyond frivolous and almost vexatious, especially coming right after an ill-considered SPI filed by the same user. I would refer admins to these comments by Ivanvector [79] [80], which express concern over the conduct of Capitals00. Most of the issues raised here are content-related and fall well within the realm of editorial discretion and some are outright disingenuous. Given this pattern, I request that AE admins consider placing a restriction on Capitals00 from filing further AE reports. Considering they have already received a logged warning [81] for failing to assume good faith, I believe an IPA ban or perhaps an indefinite block should be considered. AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged, so I'm responding. Block everyone. There is no point wasting our time reviewing the complaints and counter-complaints here because no matter what happens, someone will file a new report in a few days with slightly different complaints or a slightly different group of editors involved, or maybe they'll try SPI again instead, or they'll try some other board to eliminate their enemies. It just goes on and on forever here. There comes a point, and in this topic the point is long since past, where we need to stop letting ourselves be used for these games and just start kicking the tendentious editors out. Blocking everyone involved is the best way forward for Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's far worse than what Abecedare wrote in that SPI, Bish. In the course of that investigation, good evidence came to light that several accounts operating in this topic area are being shared amongst a group of individuals for the purpose of disrupting our administrative processes in order to intimidate or eliminate political opponents. See revdeleted edits on User talk:Togggle for example. I suspect that many of the accounts commenting in this enforcement request, and in the others currently on this page for the same topic, are involved with that activity in some way. But it is not our duty nor responsibility to determine who is "in the right" or who is necessarily doing what for what purpose - our only duty here is to prevent disruption. So when I say block everyone, I absolutely mean it. This sort of disruption has been going on at least as long as I've been hanging around SPI, which is a very long time now (I submitted a clerk application in 2014), and nothing else that we have tried has done a damn thing.

I'm sure people are going to say we can't actually block everyone. I disagree, but here is an actual proposal: an enforced discussion sanction. Any person editing in the topic area covered by ARBIPA is required to make a genuine, good-faith and serious effort to resolve disputes through discussion. With the exception of patently obvious vandalism as described by the vandalism policy, and good-faith requests for page protection, anyone who submits a request for administrative enforcement on any page must provide evidence in the form of diffs showing that they have genuinely attempted to discuss the issue, and in the pursuit of consensus, not in an attempt to wear down their opponent nor to recruit editors to support their viewpoint. If a consensus of administrators determines that they failed to do so, then after one warning they will be indefinitely banned from the topic. I have other sanctions in mind but I'm probably already over my word limit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: in my (probably also naïve) view, they either stop filing frivolous complaints, or we block them. Either way is good for Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I remember saying somewhere, maybe within the last few months and on a page I can't recall at the moment, that no matter what happens, someone will file a new report in a few days with slightly different complaints or a slightly different group of editors involved, or maybe they'll try SPI again instead, or they'll try some other board to eliminate their enemies. It just goes on and on forever. I do wish I could find that diff. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: I corrected your link from your user page to your talk page; I assume that's what you meant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Warning: a probably unhelpful statement follows.) I have no dog in this game, save for the one who is increasingly barking at how Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History has been majority Indian MILHIST for weeks, if not months (as asilvering is definitely aware). From what I can see looking at those innumerable AfDs, there is tendentious editing of every sort from every side so that it is impossible to form a collaborative working enviroment. I am not in the least surprised that AE and SPI have become equally viable areas for these disruptive editors to fight their proxy disputes. Please, either do as Ivanvector says and block literally everyone, or send the whole shebang to ARBCOM. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like with PIA5, blocking everyone mostly benefits the sockmasters, who will continue to sock unperturbed especially now that their main 'opponents' who will be most familiar with their patterns are gone. A CT descending into a tendentious and polarising mess where everyone becomes complicit is a predictable thing and it will happen again and again. There needs to be a more constructive way to handle this, and guide topic areas back to collaborative spaces. An unorthodox way could be to address the polarisation by encouraging a couple of the most reasonable and least tendentious regulars from each side to interact off-wiki or in a less combative environment, and use that bridge. Or maybe give someone the option of, instead of being blocked, being under stronger neutrality restrictions such that any conscious POV push or battleground filing becomes blockable (having the same neutrality bar for everyone devoid of context seems counterintuitive). Ultimately some creativity here wouldn’t go amiss. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to repeat what I had already mentioned in the last report here recently. I believe the admins here have already noted the diffs related to Sitush's comments! I don't want to add further comments which go against Dympies since it hardly adds more value to this report. I would only like to add that Dympies is using the logged warning (for personal attacks) as a tool to negate my opinion, which is not acceptable; please see this comment by Dympies! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hate delving on these non-productive pages, but I guess a comment is due here. I believe, I was recently tried under one such frivolous complain as mentioned by Ivanvector. Fortunately, the involved admins quickly realized what was happening, and the filer was formally warned for filing a frivolous complaint [82]. Capitals00 was also involved and tried to get me sanctioned based on 3-4 years old edits and warnings from my initial days on Wiki, who ended up receiving a WP:AGF warning [83]. I guess the statement from Fowler&fowler regarding the filer's and Capitals00's conduct helped very much and I am thankful for it [84]. Anyways, the purpose of my comment was to bring attention to the damage these 'teams' have done to the articles. Along with whatever actions that will be taken, the content also needs to be fixed. I would purpose restoring the affected pages (at least the major ones) to at least their one year old versions. I am not sure whether that will be enough, but we have to start somewhere. Akshaypatill (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment below not about Dympies per se but motivated in part by related report on Bishonen's talkpage)

As an admin active in this area I completely share the observations that:

• There is a huge problem with POV pushing, battleground conduct etc in (early modern) Indian history area often related to associated caste or community identities
• Editors are clearly tag-teaming on wiki with strong indication of off-wiki co-cordination. Account sharing/hacking/trading makes matters worse as it pollutes CU and behavioral evidence.
• Such conduct at articles, RFCs, RMs and AFDs makes consensus hard to determine as these are flooded with likely co-ordinated !votes
• Involved editors have weaponized the AN/AE/SPI etc boards to try to get members of their rival groups sanctioned while protecting their "own"; again comment-flooding often makes these discussions too long to read and are perforce closed without action.

The place where I, and I assume many other admins, are stuck is what to do about this.

1. One approach would be to pass this all onto arbcom, so that the problematic editors "on all sides" can be dealt with at one go. I have softly advocated for this especially since I, like many other admins, hate to be potentially used as a tool in proxy fights. However, being aware of the considerable on-wiki loci of dispute and at least some of the evidence/allegations of off-wiki coordination, I know just how vast and messy such a collective case would be to present or adjudicate. Consider for example, the current ARBM discussion involving just two editors; here we are talking about a potential group of 10-20, divided into sometimes overlapping cliques.
2. The other approach would be to simply judge each individual report of misconduct individually, and apply (potentially boomerang) sanctions without worrying about whether sanctioning editor A indirectly "rewards" members of their rival groups, as long as the sanction is merited. That way we are not giving problematic conduct a free pass just because other editors are guilty too.

In theory, I still prefer the first approach, and would love if someone(s) would take the initiative to see it through. But I am slowly coming to the view that the second approach may be more feasible...though I may flip-flop again. :). Abecedare (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I can't believe Capitals00 is already back here after that SPI. I'm with Ivanvector. -- asilvering (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Capitals00, I said that nearly two weeks ago. Given the timing, that's not really an argument in your favour. -- asilvering (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This would be my fault, if anyone's. It was discussed in the original case, no one objected to closing that one to allow refiling, and that's how I closed it. Valereee (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you guys mean indef "everyone" in the sense of Dympies and Capitals00? Or more (such as PadFoot2008 per above?) I'm on board with indeffing those two for persistent tendentious editing, though I'm not as optimistic about the good effect of that as others may be. As Abecedare pointed out in the Yoonadue SPI, the amount of at least meat puppetry, tag-teaming, and battleground conduct in the area is such that a fresh Arb case may be warranted. Bishonen | tålk 15:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  I agree that we may be at the point for an ARCA referral. I think the cleanest scope would be Indian military history and related caste issues. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's a good scope, I think. Endorsing what @AirshipJungleman29 said, above. The problem has existed at least since I started editing, but recently it's been getting much, much worse. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War is a prime example. It's become effectively impossible to trust most !votes in this topic area because of issues of competence, partisanship, or both. I started a discussion at WT:MILHIST#Articles on "battles" and "wars" to see if we could get some specific sourcing guidelines written out to attempt to head off some of this. But it's a deluge. -- asilvering (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding that @PadFoot2008 wrote this on my talk page, before reconsidering in Special:Diff/1288583087. (I checked if that would be ok to share.) Which is to say, it's not just me and Airship losing our minds over this business in Indian milhist, particularly at AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair to Capitals00 regarding that SPI, Shinjoya was obviously a sock of someone, even if not of Dympies; but as Abecedare said, I am not surprised that Shinjoya's fresh login would be from a fresh location/device than Dympies. The amount of socking and meatpuppetry in this area is so extreme that frankly you could block half a dozen of the most active editors and you wouldn't make any difference to the issues at all. Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I am in favor of referring this to ARBCOM per Tamzin. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't read through this complaint's substance, although I've done my fair share of fielding IPA-related requests in the past month or two. I think that Ivanvector's recommendation of a forced discussion sanction (more of a regime than a sanction if we're applying it across the board, imo) is in line with what I've been recommending in cases in practice, i.e. treating partisan complaints in the absence of constructive collaboration (and which rely on incredibly old diffs) with extreme prejudice to the point of issuing sanctions. Perhaps I'm naive in thinking that continuing to apply this method will push people to stop lodging frivolous complains? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Dympies, you're over the word count. -- asilvering (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. I hope something will come of this discussion, such as an arbcom case. Meanwhile, it has drifted rather from the ostensible subject (Dympies). A separate discussion of that editor has started on my page, which has made me consider t-banning them from WP:ARBIPA, without reference to this AE. Bishonen | tålk 04:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  Another update: I have topic banned Dympies from WP:ARBIPA as an individual admin action, without reference to this AE. Bishonen | tålk 09:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  If anyone wants to start the arb case request, much obliged. Brief relevant discussion at User talk:asilvering#Arb case. -- asilvering (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ivanvector sure did. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FactOrOpinion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mkstokes (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:ARBAP2, WP:ARBBLP

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

1. 18 April alleges to another editor that I ignore policy and reject article content due to bias, states that he disagrees with WP:BLP applying to BLP content in non-biographical articles, and cuts off a BLPPRIMARY sentence to suggest that it’s OK to use court documents to supplement RSs for BLP content
2. 18 April similar reasons to Diff #1, except it’s now an allegation about many editors (including me)
3. 22 April made a baiting comment to me at 22:41, another editor (MilesVorkosigan) reminds him about CIVIL, and he then alleges that my entire editing history shows bad faith and that civility isn’t necessarily required; both the baiting comment and this one again allege bias
4. 23 April alleges MilesVorkosigan is politically biased, uncivil comment about “feeding the trolls”, makes a false claim about MilesVorkosigan’s article editing
5. 24 April makes a baiting comment to MilesVorkosigan, implies political bias
6. 24 April says he was conducting a “little behavioral experiment” on his fellow editors
7. 24 April after I pointed out that 5 of 8 sources he’d suggested were GUNREL, he repeats that it was part of his experiment
8. 26 April insults me again (e.g., the Dunning Kruger reference), and presents a purported quote to bolster his argument; when I then asked him to provide the source (on a suspicion that the purported quote was AI-generated), he insulted me again
9. 29 April insults me again, and says he thinks WP is a game
10. 29 April added a court document as a citation for BLP content in the article, even though it had been pointed out that this is contrary to BLPPRIMARY
11. 29 April added OR to the article (the phrase “without providing proof,” which the source he cited doesn’t say/imply), and indicated on the talk page that it came from his own assessment of the court document
12. 1 May added OR to the article (“Abrego Garcia claims” and “His claim contradicts”, which the sources don’t say/imply); on the talk page he indicated that these come from his own reading of a court document and assessment of news
13. 30 April through 2 May This is a subthread in which I asked him to work with me to come to consensus about some article content (the text included what I consider an UNDUE block quote he’d added twice), we go back and forth with me making some concessions and him not making any; he eventually says that he just wants to stick with the text he added and claims that he has consensus for that.
14. 3 May I had asked on the talk page about whether a source he cited for an edit with BLP content is self-published (and so subject to BLPSPS), and when he did not resolve it with me there, I went to the RSN for an outside opinion. He again alleges bias, falsely claims I’ve challenged all of his edits, claims all political articles on WP are misleading, and later challenges WP’s policies: “I'm for getting the story 100% correct, period. Wikipedia's policies ensure the opposite.”

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 22 January 2024 AE TBAN for two BLPs
2. 15 March 2024 1 month block for violating the TBAN (discussion here)

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 22 January 2024 by Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 3 January 2024 (BLP) and 24 February 2024 (AP2) (see the system log linked to above).
• Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 27 April 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

He only has ~500 edits, and has mostly edited BLP and/or AP2 content. The diffs above are just a sample of comments that I see as problematic, but all fall into the same categories as above (e.g., allegations that others ignore policies due to bias, insults, pushing to use court documents for BLP content). I have gone to his user talk three times re: my concerns (here, here, and here). When I looked things up to fill out this form, I saw that others had previously expressed concerns that overlap with mine.

@TarnishedPath, done. I'd thought the talk/noticeboard exchanges would be easier to follow with comment links, sorry. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User_talk:Mkstokes#Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion

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

@FactOrOpinion, the links you've provided above under the heading Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it are not diffs. For example the corresponding diff for your first link is either [85] or Special:Diff/1286190422.
Can you please update the links provided so that they are diffs. TarnishedPath^talk 01:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the evidence provider by FactOrOpinion in this filing resembles the behaviour I experienced prior to filing the report from which Mkstokes recieved a topic ban from two BLPs.

In particular them:

• WP:WIKILAWYERING on the meanings of sections of WP:BLP, in particular the prohibition on the usage of court documents in BLPs laid out in the BLPPRIMARY section,
• WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY violations, and
• WP:GASLIGHTING other editors during content discussions.

Given the continued behaviour in BLPs, which has spread to AP2, I think something firmer than a topic ban is in order. TarnishedPath^talk 05:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional diffs:

• [86] What does Wikipedia use? It's own editors. So it's definition of "reliable sources" is ny nature biased. So let's stop the preaching, okay. Furthermore, reputable researchers value secondary sources over primary sources, period. So let's stop with the bullshit. ... So what the he'll are you talking about? So-called "high quality" sources got it wrong! So spare me the bullshit, okay? All you've said is that the media machine has a monopoly on the truth. Welcome to Orwell's 1984, then.
• [87] Okay, @FactOrOpinion, drop the obtuseness and look out in the world to find me more than 2 sources that have the language "around 2011 or 2012." ... I'll wait for your results, but I know what it will be and I know you'll dance.
• [88] Thank you for staying consistent and constantly moving the goal posts.

Most of their recent talk conversations have related to the dispute above, but here's some slightly older diffs in other topics, just to make it clear that this extends across all of WP:AP2 and not this one article:

• [89]: Honestly, this topic discussion is useless and not even allowed on Wikipedia as we are supposed to assume "best intentions" unless there is evidence to the contrary.
• [90] I'm not suggesting you should be concerned with anything I say. In fact, given your proud bias I'd be shocked if you could be objective about anything.

In addition to the obvious incivility and presumption of bad faith, these diffs make it clear that they're here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

Also note that immediately before this was filed (when concerns with their conduct were raised), they asked for the narrow topic ban noted above to be lifted, here, which I feel shows a startling lack of awareness of their own recent conduct. --Aquillion (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Diffs 3, 4 are plainly unprovoked personal attacks that merit an NPA block in themselves. Given the pervasive nature of the barbs included in the rest of the evidence and the past disruption, that's going to be an indefinite block as a regular admin action. The sheer quantity of examples given their short editing history and their singular focus on US politics controversies essentially make this a case of someone who is WP:NOTHERE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rosguill has indefinitely blocked this editor so I think this complaint can be closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TurboSuperA+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

User talk:Manyareasexpert#Topic ban

By the consensus of the Wikipeida community, you have been topic banned from the subjects of the Holocaust, Nazism, Eastern European political organizations post-1941, and Jewish history broadly construed.

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

1. 6 May 2025 Azov Brigade is an "Eastern European political organization post-1941".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 9 April 2025 Blocked for unresponsiveness following ANI thread.

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

Not applicable.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

They received the TBAN less than a week ago and their first edit in Article space is on Azov Brigade. This editor has no intention of following the restrictions placed upon them. There is no way anyone could in good faith assume that Azov Brigade isn't covered by the restriction.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Manyareasexpert&diff=1289221084

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.

Azov Brigade is a military unit. There are article sections which do fall under the TB (Azov Movement section, because it's some political movement, allegations section, and Russian propaganda sections). Military history, including the defence of Mariupol in 2014 and 2022, and Sham Trials (mostly written by me) sections - do they fall under the TB?
Here is the excerpt of the article I intended to bring editors' attention to - The Palgrave Handbook of Non-State Actors in East-West Relations | SpringerLink -
Azov came into being during the post-Euromaidan turmoil. After President Yanukovych had fled Ukraine, the state apparatus was half-paralyzed. Political institutions (the executive and legislative branches in particular) were working heavily to elaborate the best solution to the ensuing political crisis. Russia seized this opportunity to advance its geopolitical interests and undermine the new Ukrainian pro-Western government by first taking over Crimea and then stirring up separatist unrest in Eastern Ukraine. During this moment of foreign policy crisis, the Ukrainian army, nominally 130,000-strong, was able to field only 6000 soldiers. Therefore, Ukrainian officials were eager to use all means possible to contain the Russian incursion. Numerous volunteer formations (e.g., “Donbas-Ukraine battal ion,”“Phoenix battalion,”“Sheikh Mansur battalion,”“Serhii Kulchytskyi battal ion,” etc.) were established for this purpose, sometimes funded by wealthy oligarchs with pro-Ukrainian tendencies (Puglisi, 2015). ...
What here falls under the TB? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto-public, while reading through the latest article edits, in particular by Sonnyvalentino, I found that the History section was missing the abovementioned context on unit creation which can be found in Gomza article. Not intending to edit myself to not to cause any steer, I wanted to bring Sonnyvalentino and other editors attention to a possible improvement. Not intending to create a new thread, it was done in a thread the latest edits were discussed at - Talk:Azov Brigade#Edit just now : there is a book chapter giving context on the times the unit was created, where I talk about the unit, not the movement. I was not participating in other latest active, more contentious threads, those which could be found on a talk page there. The thread I posted in is pretty peaceful and has no disagreements, only support for the latest edits. As mentioned above, I was not intended to comment anything on the Movement. Anyway, it was not my intention to go through another judgement because of that invitation for improvement, assuming it being innocent and corresponding to WP:GOALS. Apparently, my mistake.

Not sure which report you mention in The report doesn't mention your editing about the defence of Mariupol. I was not editing after the TB issued. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Manyareasexpert, I would agree that the parts of Azov Brigade which discuss the military unit rather than the political movement are not obviously covered by this topic ban, but the diff cited at the beginning of this complaint is part of a talkpage thread which seems to me to be clearly about the movement, wherein you link to a source titled "The Azov Movement: The Trajectory of a Far-Right Movement in Post-Euromaidan Ukraine" (my emphasis). The report doesn't mention your editing about the defence of Mariupol. Why do you think that this specific comment is not covered by the topic ban on "Eastern European political organizations post-1941"? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is obviously a tban violation, and I am astounded to see a paragraph that clearly outlines the subject's relationship to politics being used as evidence that this is not a tban violation. -- asilvering (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't believe we have jurisdiction over this at AE per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope: "For all other matters, including ... the enforcement of other community-imposed sanctions, editors should use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process." voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I know that complaints about this editor have been filed here at ARE before but this topic ban was applied after a discussion at ANI (seen here), not as the result of a discussion at ARE. Some of the subjects included in the topic ban have been covered in Arbitration cases but this topic ban wasn't imposed at ARE or as the result of an Arbitration case so I'm not sure whether this is the correct forum to bring this complaint. I regret that this may seem overly bureaucratic but overstepping authority can result in further complaints from editors and, if true, be grounds for setting aside any sanctions that could arise here. I'd like to hear what admins who are more active at ARE than I am have to say. I will add that in past discussion here, I've seen actions taken at ARE be designated as "regular admin actions" and not "arbitration actions". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Petextrodon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Merline303 (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/SL

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

1. 1 April 2025 Adds misleading statement about International Court of Justice from a poor primary source (see additional comments for more details)
2. 18 April 2025 Re-adds the same statement without engaging other editors who removed it
3. 25 April 2025 Re-adds the same disputed content to a related article after being removed

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 18 April 2025 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Merline303 has been engaging in a tendentious editing to push a POV in Tamil genocide and related articles. Tamil genocide has attracted several bad-faith SPAs and I suspect this recently created account is another one. His earliest edits were about public figures and NGOs who recognize Tamil genocide and are mentioned in the Tamil genocide article. His edit history in some of these articles is tendentious as he gave prominence to minor events in such a way to discredit these figures. In Vijay Thanigasalam (which is also his top edited page), a Canadian MPP who introduced the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, he framed the MPP's entry into politics negatively by highlighting a tabloid-generated controversy in excess words. Another editor further expanded the controversy. When I condensed the paragraph to comply with WP:BLP guidelines, Merline303 reverted my edit saying it was RS. When I restored the content with explanation specifying the issue was not about RS but BLP, specifically NPOV, as his edits were giving undue weight to a controversy, he replied in the Talk page making it a RS issue once again. When I once again made it clear the issue was with undue weight, he once again made it a RS issue and asked me for re-explanation. I explained to him that this was a "sealioning" behavior for which editors get sanctioned.

In Tamil genocide article itself, he added content from a primary source court document of the Ontario Court of Appeal to both the lede and a section. It stated that "the International Court of Justice has not found the Sri Lankan state responsible for a genocide," which is misleading since only states are allowed to submit genocide cases to the ICJ and no state had done so in the case of Tamil genocide. He further added that, "This judgement was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada," which is a deliberate distortion since the cited source (another primary source court document, 29 words in all) only states that the Supreme Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal's judgement was with regards to the constitutional validity of the bill "Tamil Genocide Education Week Act", and the mention of the ICJ was only an incidental background detail. The purpose of adding these two misleading statements was to create the false impression that ICJ had rejected the claim of Tamil genocide which is why he insists on using this particularly poor primary source when a better secondary RS would have made it clear that no such a case had been submitted to the ICJ by any state in the first place.

Another editor removed the repetitive content from the lede explaining the appropriate section already had the same content. Later I removed the whole thing, explaining it needed a better secondary RS. Weeks later, Merline303 re-added the content to the lede without even engaging other editors either in the edit explanation or the Talk page. I left an edit war warning in his Talk page, clearly explaining that he was "repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree," to which he replied the same sealioning response of not being able to understand it.

Days later, I removed the same misleading content that he had added to the main article of Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, explaining that he needed a better secondary RS and that the phrasing was misleading. He reverted that days later, despite the edit war warning that had advised him to discuss in Talk, claiming that WP:RSPRIMARY allowed it although WP:PRIMARY states that such sources need to be used with care because "it is easy to misuse them" which is what he was doing.

After another editor had removed his re-added content from the lede of Tamil genocide article, he finally opened a Talk discussion, insisting on re-adding the same content to the lede, claiming that WP:RSPRIMARY allows it. Even after the other editor re-added the content to the appropriate section as a compromise, he keeps insisting it should be re-added to the lede itself, rejecting any compromise and repeating the same sealioning behavior of not understanding.

This seems to be a case of Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia.--Petextrodon (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverLocust

1) That statement you cited is only a summary of the preamble in the bill itself. Edits on Vijay Thanigasalam should speak for themselves.

2) Deliberate distortion: The court document Merline303 cited to support his statement goes against the very principle that he himself had cited: "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". It was an original research on his part and he should have known better.

3) ICJ: Yes the court document doesn't note that context which is why it's a poor source to use in the way he repeatedly did even after other editors had challenged its reliability and appropriateness.

Problematic behaviors I had listed should not be seen in isolation but as a whole. As they say, once is a mistake, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.---Petextrodon (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

AE notification diff

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

I am lost for words? I reject Petextrodon's accusation of POV pushing, badgering and edit waring. I have been creating articles and expanding on gaps in Wikipedia. However, Petextrodon seems to be targeting me for some reason.

• Vijay Thanigasalam - Petextrodon had removed content [91], [92] and I attempted to engage in Talk:Vijay_Thanigasalam#Content_removal_by_Petextrodon, which Petextrodon didn't taken an effort to. I even took Petextrodon's queue to move content to a topic of its own Bill 104, Tamil Genocide Education Week Act.
• Bill 104, Tamil Genocide Education Week Act - Petextrodon removed content [93] without engaging in the talk page until 1 May.
• Tamil genocide - I initiated the discussion on Talk:Tamil_genocide#Judgement_of_the_Canadian_Federal_Court_of_Appeal, and there was progress until, Petextrodon jumped in yesterday [94] with accusing me of badgering.
• International Truth and Justice Project - Petextrodon removed content [95] with a vague comment on 22 April only engaged in the Talk page on 1 May.

I am not going explain the content dispute on the FCA case, instead I would urge everyone to read the discussion in the talk page Talk:Tamil_genocide#Judgement_of_the_Canadian_Federal_Court_of_Appeal. I believe its self-explanatory. I will be happy to answer any questions anyone has. Now I am concerned about making any more edits as I feel these would be portrayed as POV pushing if Petextrodon doesn't agree with me. Merline303 (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

A topic ban at minimum is warranted. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

voorts, do you still advocate a topic ban after additional comments have been made in this discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't seem to me that Merline303 is trying to discredit those who recognize the Tamil genocide given that Merline303 created an article with the statement "the Tamil community in Ontario had families suffering the effects of the genocide that the Sri Lankan state perpetrated against the Tamils during the civil war from 1983 to 2009." I think Petextrodon may be mistakenly attributing a denialist POV to Merline303, but I'd welcome clarification of my confusion.
  Nor is it likely to be "deliberate distortion" to refer to denial of an appeal (by a court with discretionary jurisdiction) as upholding the lower court's decision. People frequently mistakenly think that the denial of a discretionary appeal (such as certiorari) expresses agreement with the lower court opinion. In any event, it certainly allows the ruling to stand.
  Nor would I sanction them for thinking the thing about the ICJ not having "found the Sri Lankan state responsible for a genocide" was an appropriate use of a primary source. That certainly qualifies as a "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". It might be "misleading" not to note that no nation has asked the ICJ to consider that question, but that is context that the court decision also doesn't note.
  As to the two reverts on April 18 and April 25, I wouldn't impose sanctions for that. It is at most very light edit warring.
  @Petextrodon: I will give you an additional 150 words if you would like to respond (especially to my first paragraph). (Your filing was already more than 200 words over the limit of 500.) – JensonSL (SilverLocust) 05:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I align with SL's reading here, noting that it appears to be Merline303 who opened discussion on the talk page, and has not continued the edit war since then. I'm a bit more skeptical of the propriety of citing a court case out of the blue, without reference to a reliable secondary source, but unless there's evidence of this being a pervasive pattern, against clear consensus, it does not rise to the level of sanctions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanezi Astghik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Etcnoel1 (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:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan

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

1. 16 February 2025 Edits an article that non-extended confirmed users are not allowed to edit, which I cautioned about
2. 9 April 2025 Another GS/AA violation
3. 21 April 2025 Another GS/AA violation
4. 21 April 2025 Another GS/AA violation
5. 22 April 2025 In addition to being another GS/AA violation, Etcnoel1 is citing Justin McCarthy (American historian) as a source
6. 23 April 2025 Another GS/AA violation
7. 23 April 2025 Another GS/AA violation
8. 18:57, 24 April 2025 Another GS/AA violation, in addition to evidence of sock puppetry, which I will explain in addition comments

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 19 February 2025 Blocked for sockpuppeting

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 19 February 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I noticed on the Leo V the Armenian edits violating GS/AA that Etcnoel1 is using the Swedish version of Google Books. I suspect this user is sockpuppeting with IP 2A02:AA1:1000:0:0:0:0:0/37 which also uses Swedish Google Books.[96] And this isn't just a case of editing while logged out, because Etcnoel1 was banned from 19 February to 7 April, during which time the IP was editing the same articles Etcnoel1 edits, such as Agha Petros and Battle of Aqra Dagh (1920).

I understand the sockpuppeting evidence alone would belong on SPI. Given the various issues, I wanted to include everything in one post to avoid possible forum shopping. I can open a separate SPI if requested to, though personally I think this is a WP:DUCK. Vanezi (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[97]

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.

RE Vanezi: The sockpuppet issue regarding me was already addressed on my talk page, I believe everything here has formally been addressed and resolved. Etcnoel1 (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RE Rosguill: I’m confused, what in those pages did I do in order for me to basically break the rules? I’m fully aware of my past notice. Etcnoel1 (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you for telling me this, I wasn’t aware of this, my apologies. Etcnoel1 (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

While a few of the cited diffs could be considered unrelated, such as the edits to the Enver Pasha image or the Sayfo details, the edits at Battle of Sardarabad and Andranik are clearly within scope, and Etcnoel1 had received a prior notice. Etcnoel1, can you please address why you made these edits despite having received prior notice? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanezi Astghik, my understanding is that the editing while logged out was identified and addressed during their unblock request at User talk:Etcnoel1#Block for ‘‘sockpuppet’’. Overall, I find the quality of Etcnoel1's edits thus far to be low and consistent with ethnically-motivated POV-pushing. However, given that they are focused on inserting mentions of Assyrian identity, rather than directly relating to Armenia/Azerbaijan dispute, I don't think it would be appropriate to issue a harsh sanction at this time. I find the explanation of ignorance plausible, while noting that it's not entirely exculpatory given that editors engaging in WP:CTOP editing are expected to be fully mindful of best practices and relevant policies and guidelines. I'm thus finding myself gravitating towards a logged warning against Etcnoel1 for ethnic POV-pushing in the lead and infobox of articles, but would appreciate input from other admins. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I’m not trying to be biased—I do my best to stay neutral on Wikipedia. I’m not here to push Assyrian identity over anything else. If some of my edits came off as low quality, I’m sorry—that wasn’t my intention and I promise you that. Etcnoel1 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Etcnoel1: Please keep comments in your section, including responses to others. I've moved your responses there. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Etcnoel1, the general understanding of WP:GS/AA is that, as it is "broadly construed", any edits relating to Armenian history and claims to land are out of bounds. Edits to articles specifically about Armenian-Ottoman military conflict during WWI (Battle of Sardarabad) and one of the leaders of the Ottoman-era Armenian national liberation movement (Andranik) are definitely covered. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we have to go with a logged warning at least, but given that they're presently blocked for personal attacks and Assyrian identity itself might be about to end up under community sanctions, I'm thinking it might be better to go for a topic ban. Two main reasons: one, I'm skeptical that a warning will have any more effect than it did at ANI; two, they're a new editor who has jumped into CTOPs, and it's my belief generally that anyone who jumps straight into CTOPs and gets into trouble ought to be shivvied out of the topic area as soon as possible to give them a chance to develop as an editor. I'd really prefer to see new editors learn the ways of Wikipedia somewhere "safe", rather than end up sadly defining the terms of their eventual community ban. -- asilvering (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there’s a jurisdiction issue, as Assyrian topics, which is clearly the crux of the disruption, are not subject to any CTOP yet. I don’t think banning them from AA, meanwhile, would accomplish much. I suppose we could refer this to ANI (although that is perhaps redundant with the extant ANI thread relating to Etcnoel1 over there) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My thinking is that it would at least get them out of the Armenian stuff, which this board does have jurisdiction over. -- asilvering (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess that's reasonable, although it would probably also be worthwhile for you to hop over and weigh in on the ANI thread too. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm, thought I had, though perhaps I just got distracted by the sockpuppet thing. I'll take another look. Regarding the tban, I think we're both at an "eh, I guess", on either sides of the decision, which imo works out to a "no consensus for tban". -- asilvering (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I'd forgotten that you'd already commented there, that's what I get for responding to admin business on my phone. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we can close this report, as I am recommending a community tban from Assyrian topics at ANI, which makes the more marginal sanctions we were considering here moot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wikipedious1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 18:56 30 April 2025 Original edit
2. 00:53 3 May 2025 Reinstatement

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)

• Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 28 April 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

RegentsPark has placed the page 2025 Pahalgam attack under Active Arbitration Remedies, which include an enforced BRD. The edit notice on the page states: You must 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.

Wikipedious1 added content in diff 1, and, after it was reverted, reinstated it in diff 2 without any discussion on the talk page. Even worse, he has not even answered the talk page discussion that I myself initiated.

It seems like a clear violation of the Arbitration Remedy.

Since the editor has now reverted their reinstatement, I am happy to withdraw the complaint. I would just note that if the reason for revert is not clear, it is perfectly fine to query it on the talk page. There is no need for this kind of drama. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I was hasty in expressing my willingness to withdraw the complaint, since the user's WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude continues even on this page.

• "Pakistani" and "Muslim" are identities that they are bringing to the table. They were neither mentioned by Deutsche Welle nor by me anywhere in the discussion. Clearly, the editor is seeing the whole discussion as an identitarian battle and the substance of the discussions is completely escaping their notice.
• I had used the phrase 'supposed historian and political analyst' for the expert named by Deutsche Welle, because what he states is completely contrary to what I had written earlier in that talk page section [98], where the description given in the Harvard Law Review as well as Indian constitution's provisions were analysed. The expert's claim that the said land laws violate the Indian constitution is unsubstantiated, and completely devoid of fact. The ability to purchase land and settle down anywhere in the country is part of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian constitution, and laws can be enacted to restrict it only under the exceptions mentioned in the constitution. The expert is claiming the exact opposite.
• The editor is also peeved about the term "narrative", which they believe applies to themselves in some way. My edit summary said, Removing "settler colonialism" narrative; present your evidence on the talk page. From this it should be clear that it is "settler colonialism" that has been called a "narrative", not the edit or the editor. My talk page discussion had already explained why it remains a "narrative", which the editor seems to have neither read nor understood. Another scholar had described all this as a "mass-scale hysteria".

It seems that the editor's unwarranted defensiveness, inability to follow and comprehend the discussions in a timely manner, and inability to follow quite straightforward edit restrictions, would seem to warrant a topic ban from this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

3 May 2025

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

I made the edit Kautilya3 has linked above, which I regarded as a "bold edit" per BRD. My understanding is that it was fine for someone to revert this edit so long as they followed BRD, i.e., (quoting from BRD) "briefly explain why you reverted. You can encourage the bold editor to start a discussion on the article talk page if they want to learn more about why you reverted. Alternatively, start a discussion yourself on the article talk page about the issue."

Later, I saw that my edit was reverted by Kautilya3. I was not aware that Kautilya3 started a talk page discussion about this content, and I only learned that this discussion was started after seeing it linked above in this very noticeboard discussion. It seems Kautilya3 created a sub-section under an earlier discussion, and did not ping me, so I was not aware of it, as I only checked for recent talk page discussions. All I saw was their revert which completely removed my additions and their edit summary: "Removing "settler colonialism" narrative; present your evidence on the talk page"

I thought their edit summary was ambiguous and hostile ("your narrative", "present your evidence"), and that it violated BRD, mainly because their edit summary did not present an actual dispute with the content and instead gave a vague command. I felt confused as to how to follow the command since I did not know what narrative or evidence Kautilya3 wanted to discuss, I also felt offended that my edit was being dismissed as a narrative, and that Kautilya3 was putting me on the defensive about my edit when I did not know exactly what they disputed. I felt that because it was Kautilya3's dispute with the content, it was on them to, at the least, explain their exact reason for reverting, and at most, start a talk discussion with their specific disputes. Though in reviewing BRD I understand the onus of taking it to talk was on either of us, – and I realize now that, in any case, Kautilya3 did indeed start a talk discussion before making the revert. Not knowing this I reverted Kautilya3's revert and told them to discuss in the talk page in my edit summary.

After reverting Kautilya3's edit I left this message on their talk page expressing that I believed they violated BRD. Kautilya3 then informed me that for this article, BRD applies "after your edit is reverted". I did not understand this prior to reverting Kautilya3's revert. Understanding this now, I am totally willing to comply, but I do find the instruction confusing because BRD begins with a bold edit and does not begin with a revert. In any case, per Kautilya3's suggestion I have manually reverted the disputed content. I think this is a misunderstanding on my part, and I am willing to discuss any disputes harmoniously, just as I have been. Wikipedious1 (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of drama? Do you mind explaining why someone would want to engage with you civilly when, before any discussion happens, you dismiss their edits as a "narrative", and when you use language like

"A supposed "historian and political analyst" called [Pakistani Muslim name]"

from the talk page discussion you created and linked above. Is there something wrong with that name?

You can obviously do whatever you want, but I want to hear what uninvolved admins have to say now, so no, I would advise you to not withdraw the complaint. (Edit) And to be perfectly clear I still would engage with you and anyone else with civility. But from reviewing the aspects of the complaint and what led up to it, and your rhetoric, I do now want to hear what admin have to say. Wikipedious1 (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

So, having agreed that the initial edit by Wikipedious1 was a good faith lack of understanding of the relevant sanctions in force and that they now understand what not to do, this has devolved into petty bickering. Wikipedious1, unless you have additional diffs demonstrating that Kautilya3 has a habit of dismissing Pakistani and/or Muslim sources on frivolous grounds, there is no basis for any sanctions. I think "this kind of drama" quip was unnecessary, I can understand being put off by it, but I can't fault Kautilya3 for expressing displeasure for receiving a long and imperious lecture when they were in the right. I would recommend closing without further action unless you have additional diffs to present. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

voorts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Contentious topic designation

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

1. 3 May 2025: OR RE Bajgora offensive. None of the sources mention this offensive by name.
2. 20 April 2025: More OR. (See user talk discussion.
3. 5 April 2025: More OR.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

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

Alerted 7 September 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• This editor has been warned several times on their talk page regarding original research and use of reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti: The link you've shared doesn't work for me, but even if it did, citing an entire non-English book without providing a page number is not helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Dr. Kurti basically admits that the Bajgora offensive article is OR: Special:Diff/1288902321. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Another response in the AfD: Special:Diff/1288965135. I think some sort of editing restriction is warranted here. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some POV editing thrown in: Special:Diff/1289229650. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Almost all of his edits have been related to the Kosovo War, which is covered by Albanian/Serbian TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1288638628

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.

The offensive is mentioned by name in the book i referenced by the professor Dr Sabit Syla.asa.edu.al/site/ih/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/01/Revista-Studime-historike-3-4-2020-223-248.pdf I request you remove my article from deletion and check this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti (talk • contribs) 09:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What page? Can you quote the source material? Mooonswimmer 07:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

To be honest, the edits I find most concerning here are the provision of offline book-length sources without page numbers (and particularly doing so to make sweeping claims about cultural patrimony, as in the second diff that the report cites. Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti, you need to acknowledge this and refrain from making further unverifiable edits. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti appears to have decided to take a relatively abrupt and unprecedented break from editing following this report, I would propose to close this with a topic ban from Serbian and Albanian topics, broadly construed, in a few days' time if they have no further response here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Rosguill above, adding that talk page comments like my edits are being wrongfully reverted based on lies by serbs like you ([99]) don't give me a lot of hope. -- asilvering (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rosguill and asilvering; I'm intending to close this with a topic ban but I'm uncertain if you think Albanian/Serbian topics is enough or if you'd want to make it Balkans to make it more clear. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're broadening it past Albanian/Serbian topics, better to stop at "former Yugoslavia" or something. I'm not sure "Balkans" actually makes it any more clear. -- asilvering (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Er, "Albania and former Yugoslavia". I swear I understand historical geography. -- asilvering (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Albanian/Serbian would be enough, as the crux of the issue in this case seems to be Albanian claims to Yugoslav patrimony, but the broader definitions are also fine by me. N.b., Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti has continued editing the topic area over the past few days, so I expect that they will require an extended explanation of the topic ban once it is placed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gazumpedheit (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

[100] (GENSEX)

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

Gazumpedheit is WP:NOTHERE to write a good encyclopedia, but rather here to POV-push for “gender-critical” views in violation of WP:HID.

His page opens with Gender-critical editor, trying to reinstate neutrality into heavily biased articles which are currently making a mockery of Wikipedia [101]

[102] 17 April 2025 When later advised by @User:GraziePrego on his talk page to remember NPOV, he goes on a long rant about the the damage the T has done to my LGB community and about the evils of transgender wikipedia editors who cannot accept that reality has won out, and that humans cannot change sex. The good thing is that the Talk pages contain all the receipts we need. Look for the ones with trans flags in the signatures

[103] 1 May 2025 Going on a whole thing calling trans women men and trans lesbians straight men, as reason to strip the word “cisgender” from the article.

[104] 13 May 2025 Long unasked for tangent on my talk page about the definition of man and women and males gaining access to female only spaces and how that doesn’t make one transphobic. Tagging @User:HandThatFeeds for their involvement at this point

When I responded by quoting the first diff and pointing out his openly stated desire to POV push for GC beliefs, he replied as thus:

[105] 15 May 2025 In which he states that he stands by everything said in his April 17 diff, and politely cast aspersions of me being against gay rights simply for supporting the rights of trans people

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

[106] CTOP alert

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[107]

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

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fortuna imperatrix mundi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Pikachu 9988 (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:General sanctions/South Asian social groups (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive231#Discretionary sanctions on caste articles and more)

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

1. 17:12, 16 May 2025
2. 17:38, 16 May 2025
3. 18:17, 16 May 2025 (which last was even after being alerted to this report)

Adds a controversial—and subpar (it's a blog, and not WP:RSBLOG)—source which has been disputed (and to be fair) edit-warred over for some time, [108], [109], [110], but which Pikachu 9988 has repeatedly re-added: [111], [112], [113], [114].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 08:14, 17 August 2024 Blocked indefinitely (appealed and accepted) for persistently adding poor sourcing.

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 02:13, 16 May 2025 by Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): Indefinitely banned from GS/CASTE articles.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is basically a slow burning edit-warrior in the topic, recidivist behavior from the previous block regarding disregard of WP:V, WP:ONUS and WP:EW.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 17:50, 16 May 2025.

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

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tamzin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

DaltonCastle (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/Gender and sexuality

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

1. 23 March (not GENSEX but presented as background): Removed an R&I CTOP alert from Generalrelative as drivel from a partisan editor7
2. 17 April (pre–CTOP awareness): But hey, people have their biases and agendas. Will be interesting to see what happens when all the USAID funding finally stops. — Implying that a GENSEX FA is a covert government operation.
3. 24 April: Removed my GENSEX alert as rubbish from a partisan editor
4. 24 April: Removed my request to explain or retract the accusations against me and Generalrelative, again as rubbish

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

AMPOL AE block in 2016, appeal declined

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

[115]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Obviously editors can remove CTOP alerts, but they are not exempt from WP:NPA in doing so. I am not aware of anything I've done that would reasonably give DaltonCastle the impression that I am a partisan in this topic area: I did not participate in the discussion that spurred the alert; I have never been accused of partisan bias in the GENSEX articles I've written; I have tended to be a moderate in GENSEX content disputes; and, not that it should matter, I have middle-of-the-road opinions on most trans issues. The only thing I can think of that would give DaltonCastle the impression that I am partisan is that I am nonbinary, which is a rather unfortunate stereotyping that assumes I'm too self-centered to base my worldview around anything other than my gender. I note that Generalrelative indicates they/them pronouns and "dubious and undisclosed gender" on their userpage, while Generalissima, the apparent target of the USAID-funding accusation, lists she/it pronouns, giving the impression of a gender-based pattern in who Dalton personally attacks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Just10A: I didn't say I'm a political moderate. (I have somewhat esoteric political views that don't map neatly onto any camp.) I said I hold moderate views on most trans issues, because I do; and that there is no reasonable basis to assume that I don't, because there isn't. Someone inferring such a bias based merely on my opposition to Donald Trump (currently the position of a majority of Americans, including plenty of transphobes) would be betraying a battleground mentality even deeper than one that leads to inference based on identity. I get that some people on this site sometimes pull the "Well you can't prove I have XYZ bias" schtick, and it's obnoxious when they do, but I'm not saying "You can't prove it"; I'm saying it's not true. My actual POV on trans issues is not a secret [116] [117] [118] [119] [120]. I think going any further into that would be off-topic for this 'board, but feel free to inquire on my talkpage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Just to note, in removing the notification for this AE thread, DaltonCastle has added a hidden comment reading unwarranted harassment for a personal vendetta will be reported. As with the accusations of partisanship, they have not presented any evidence that anyone is harassing them, for personal vendettas or otherwise. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[121]

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.

Alright, fair enough. Perhaps I have been too emotional. I will take a break and be more civil. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only recall one brief series of interactions with DaltonCastle, where they sought to remove language on race being a social construct from a section of Intelligence quotient. See Talk:Intelligence quotient#Race, where I invited them to engage. Could be they looked at my user page and saw my pronouns, but perhaps more likely they just assumed I'm "a partisan editor" because I disagreed with them about race. Generalrelative (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm traditionally a very big fan of the community pushing WP:CIVILITY (I don't think we do it enough), but I think this is jumping to conclusions. This shouldn't be much more than a trout for being rude.

Also, the statement "The only thing I can think of that would give DaltonCastle the impression that I am partisan is that I am nonbinary" is a little presumptive. Tamzin, you are aware that there is legitimately outside reliable source coverage of your politcal views, correct? We don't need to hold a referendum on those views. Wikipedia editors are allowed to hold almost any views they wish, but those views are not particularly moderate. There are plenty of ways DaltonCastle could have come to that conclusion beyond identity politics. Your views are public knowledge, and he could have come to that conclusion through the media coverage or even just by interacting with you on this site. However, we can't just say: "He said I was partisan, and I'm trans, so therefore he must harbor some sort of deepseated anti-LGBT agenda and deserves a GENSEX sanction." That's a huge leap in logic. Also note that he's been similarly rude (which, again, I do not endorse) to editors with no such gender statements on their page [122]. This isn't a GENSEX issue, he's just being a jerk and needs to be more civil.

DaltonCastle, I encourage you to act with a little more restraint and maybe not be so preemptively dismissive. This should serve as a stern warning, and maybe a trout. Just10A (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin I agree. Like I said, we don't need to hold a referendum on the actual views. Wikipedia editors can mostly have whatever views they want. However, I don't think the position of: "The only possible way this person could think I'm partisan is because I'm trans" is accurate given the data. Again, your views are public information. Or even better, as pointed out by @Generalrelative he also could've formed such an opinion from just interacting with your work on the site like any other normal editor. It's still uncivil, I'm just pointing that there doesn't seem to be any GENSEX relation here. He's just being indiscriminately moody. That's worthy of reprimand, but not GENSEX sanctions. Just10A (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am inclined to take no action given that Dalton has promised to take a break and remain civil going forward. I would add, @DaltonCastle, that you should focus on edits, not editors. Do not accuse other editors of being "partisan" (I agree with Just10A that this isn't related to gender) or make snarky political comments (e.g., your USAID quip) about them on talk pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leaning more towards a warning, at least as long as the hidden comment is still there, as it's not a leap to think this is meant as an attack towards certain editors. On the one hand, we've got a promise from Dalton to take a break and be more kind. On the other hand, we've got an editor who's been here long enough to know better. Happy to close with no action once DaltonCastle has acted on their words. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this discussion serves as more or less a warning in itself, and it seems the editor has understood that such behavior must not happen going forward. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I'll close this as essentially an informal warning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Seraphimblade's suggestion of what is essentially an informal warning. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Orientls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mithilanchalputra7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 14:19, 16 May 2025 - Completely ignoring the importance of publication which is the most important aspect of this subject in order to decide whether the publication is independent or not.
2. 13:47, 16 May 2025 - Edit warring to retain his problematic edits.
3. 13:36, 16 May 2025 - Cited a syndicated feed from Indian media outlet Asian News International (ANI) mirrored by Times of Oman after being told to only cite third party sources.
4. 12:47, 16 May 2025 - Incorrectly claiming Indian partisan media sources as third party.
5. 07:35, 16 May 2025 - Misrepresenting Al-Jazeera source to falsely claim that "India seemed to have an upper hand in the conflict". This misrepresentation was fixed by another editor.[123]
6. 07:06, 13 May 2025 - Reverting to keep partisan Indian media sources in.
7. 14:46, 12 May 2025 - Calling Dawn (newspaper) a state media source, while asking for only citing neutral sources, but he himself cites partisan Indian outlet on main article.[124]

Orientls (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

[125]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Having read a number of positive commitments made by Mithilanchalputra7, I am withdrawing the report. Nevertheless, I will add some points for the editor. 1) See This discussion. Concluding that Al-Jazeera article said India had the upper hand was misleading. 2) Regardless of who adds the content, it is you who is responsible when you are restoring or defending it. 3) Saying that you got convinced only after "saw Swat's comments" is problematic because several editors had already raised valid objections with the content. That's all I have to add. Best of luck with your future editing. Orientls (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[126]

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.

• Firstly your claim that I cited Indian outlet is inaccurate because those analysis were published by respective experts themselves it was just that Indian media was reporting on it, infact I didn't even add them .
• I didn't mislead Al Jazeera source it clearly stated more military meat seemed to be India's, its added by another user now.
• Thus, a large chunk of this request is based on me citing Indian outlets which I have clarified
• Also my removal of Dawn and urge for citing only third party sources was for Analysis section only not whole article.Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 14:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To make it more understable, I'll brief the issues quickly. It basically revolves around the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Analysis section, I failed to understand that why is there contention to remove Indian sources/viewpoints while keeping Pakistani sources [127], a room should be given to all analysis whether neutral or partisan. The Indian sources are based on expertly opinions/interviews of Tom Cooper, John Spencer and C. Christine Fair, which was added [128] by Kautilya3. The contention [129][130] of @Azuredivay and Orientls: Solely revolves around Godi media while the sources are not even regarded as weak on WP:RSN. The article can't run solely on neutral sources and it shouldn't, if reliable sources from the both sides gives analytical presentation then it can be added maturely. However I do find it vague that both of these editors only found this specific issue in their first edits [131][132] on the article. I saw Swat's comments [133][134] on this matter after which I'm convinced that this issue is well within a broad editorial discretion and of course a broad talk page discussion. Since then I have not made any edits regarding this. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 15:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to take a break from editing India-Pakistan conflict-related articles for the next 5-6 months. I've realized that engaging in these topics has been affecting my peace of mind, and I believe stepping back will help me maintain a better stability in my life. Apologies for my mistake that happens due to lack of understanding in differentiating secondary and tertiary sources. I can assure that it will not happen in the future. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 09:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm willing to take Mithilanchalputra7 at their word that they'll avoid the topic of the conflict between India and Pakistan until they've got more experience with policy. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

Fyukfy5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 331dot (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

3 month block for my edit request about Israel's identity on Israel's talk page. (I don't know how to link to specific past requests but the sanction can be found on my talk page and the edit history on Israel's talk page).

Administrator imposing the sanction

331dot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

User pinged me and I moved the request here. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given for my block is that "Israel's identity is an integral part of the conflict" and therefore I cannot make edit requests about Israel's identity. I find this to be a troubling view because every detail pertaining to Israel is part of its identity and would not be allowed to be discussed about by non EC users. Everything from Israeli street names, to Israeli weather, to Israeli sports teams and Israeli inventions are part of its identity and if it's true that Israel's identity is integral to the conflict, all articles that have to do with those topics and so many more should be EC blocked and so should their talk pages. My edit specifically was about adding Israel's identity as a Jewish state to the lede of the Israel article and didn't mention Israel's neighbors, Palestinians, war, or any other mention of the conflict. I hope we could all agree that the sole statement "Israel is a Jewish state" is not one which discusses conflict just as the statement "Bread is comprised of carbohydrates and wheat protein" is not one discussing Celiac's disease. As a bit of an Orwellian fear, if this sanction stands then the same reasoning could be used by sanctioning users against any user they dislike or disagree with that has ever made an edit regarding anything in Israel or Palestine. Both these places are so much more than the conflict between them and they shouldn't be reduced or minimized to it.

All that being said I hold no ill will towards the sanctioning user. I dont know them but I have no reason to dislike them and I believe they were just trying to do what is best for this platform. Fyukfy5 (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I'd like to clarify a few things in response to what I've read on my case:

1. If it is the consensus opinion on wikipedia that stating Israel's Jewish Identity is controversial/part of the conflict I'd like to apologize. While I evidently disagree I still respect the consensus opinion and truly didn't mean to make that claim as part of a controversial request.

2. The one point I'd like to rebut is @Rosguill's of my edit requests being narrowly focused on the conflict. Of the few topics I'm interested in editing and taking part in on wikipedia like American sports, medicine/biology, and this conflict, the latter is the only one that is broadly EC protected. Therefore, of course my requests are almost entirely on the topic of this conflict because it's the only one where I have to make requests and can't edit the page myslef. With that, as @Chess stated, I have been trying to make my requests more on the topic of semantics and such and not adding/retracting information because I know that that is more controversial. If semantics is also deemed a controversial edit request I need some more guidance on what is and isn't allowed. Fyukfy5 (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I blocked due to having two prior AE blocks(see their user talk), and the topic seems connected to the CTOP area to me. I'm happy to remove the block myself if it's felt it's not sufficiently connected. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Chess After their second AE block they were advised to stay away from the topic area. They didn't. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• SilverLocust After two prior AE blocks I woukd expect someone in their position to tread very carefully in the topic area, and maybe ask if something is a violation first. It's well pointed out that these topic areas are interpreted broadly. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I find this explanation extremely unconvincing. The core identity of Israel as a Jewish state is undeniably one of the fundamental issues central to the Israel-Palestine conflict, yet the editor outright states that one could say the same about Israeli weather or Israeli sports or about the carbohydrates in bread vis-à-vis celiac disease. I daresay that the violence in the region is not connected to the Köppen climate classification for Israel nor is there sectarian violence over the nutrional content of bread, with this possible exception.

If this argument is made in good faith, it represents someone should not be editing in this sensitive area at all at this time, even to make an edit request. If this argument is made in bad faith, it's a specious one that seeks to decontextualize the whole conflict, with the same ultimate conclusion. Given that this is not the first offense, and at no time has Fyukfy5 displayed a good understanding of what WP:ECR entail, I would ask ArbCom to topic ban Fyukfy5 from the area, broadly construed, with an appeal after six months and 500 good-faith edits. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The three month block here is probably too harsh. The basis of the sanction is a link that was made by the blocking administrator and not by the user themselves. As a general rule, we're more lenient on editors that unknowingly violate restrictions or are attempting to conform their behaviour to those restrictions. Rosguill points out that Prior edit requests were all narrowly focused on the Gaza war, the label of "genocide", and tactics used by Hamas. This indicates that this user is moving away from what is clearly within the conflict, which indicates that they are listening to admins on what the definition of the topic area is.

There's no disruptiveness beyond the WP:ECR violations. The purpose of ECR isn't to prevent new editors from editing, it's to make it harder for sockmasters to influence Wikipedia. If Fyukfy5 wasn't constantly getting blocked they could just make 258 edits and there wouldn't actually be an issue for Arbitration Enforcement to deal with.

A narrowly tailored restriction would be to t-ban Fyukfy5 from making edit requests until they get the extended confirmed right. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: The issue is Fyukfy5 not understanding or claiming not to understand the boundaries of the topic area. It might be necessary to be more specific than just siteblocks or Israel-Palestine t-bans, e.g. A ban on edit requests as a whole.

It's also unclear what Fyukfy5 has to do to successfully appeal the indefinite t-ban being proposed here, because it will literally be impossible for them to violate WP:ECR once they hit 500/30. At that point, the ban can't prevent disruption even if Fyukfy5 has zero understanding of WP:ECR. That's why I proposed the edit request t-ban until 500/30, since it takes away the one loophole that non-WP:500/30 editors have to interact with WP:PIA as Fyukfy5 isn't able to understand when to make edit requests. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The failure of this appeal to recognize that this is their third PIA-related block in less than six months seems like a nonstarter. While I can sympathize that it can be frustrating that sectarian conflicts permeate the cultural production of the groups involved, that is the fact of it (and is true of pretty much every sectarian conflict, with similar provisions for those designated as contentious topics like Armenia-Azerbaijan). Further, it's not like the proposed edits were about say, Israeli musicians with minimal involvement in the conflict: their most recent edit request was specifically about the character of Israel as a Jewish state and homeland, which is very much the center of the territorial dispute (regardless of one's opinion on the underlying history and moral questions of the conflict). Prior edit requests were all narrowly focused on the Gaza war, the label of "genocide", and tactics used by Hamas. I'm inclined to agree that an indefinite topic ban is needed given the degree of the disconnect between Fyukfy5's comments here and the reality of their past activity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There's nothing I can say here that CoffeeCrumbs hasn't already said. -- asilvering (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The block was for making an edit request (this one) "requiring discussion". Had Fyukfy5 previously been told that the edit request exception to WP:ARBECR only extends to non-controversial changes (which isn't explicitly stated there)? If not, I don't really think a 3 month block was "reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption" (WP:CTOPAPPEALS). – JensonSL (SilverLocust) 06:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The text at WP:EDITXY that explains how to make an edit request, linked to by ARBECR, specifies that edit requests must be uncontroversial, and explains what that means in terms of consensus process and discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It does, though even assuming one has read it, it would be quite easy to think that requirement is specifically about fully protected edit requests (given that the entire paragraph is about fully protected edit requests). JensonSL (SilverLocust) 03:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 3 months feels incredibly generous after the prior blocks. I would decline this appeal --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• If this were their first time getting blocked for something like this, I'd be inclined to say three months is excessive. But I would expect an editor who has already been blocked twice for such issues to either be very careful when editing in the same area to learn and scrupulously follow the rules, or else just to avoid the area entirely for a while. If the previous two blocks didn't get the point across, I really don't see what else we're to do but give a sanction that shows "No, really, we mean it when we say this stuff." I would therefore decline the appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]