A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Arbitration enforcement request referral: Indian military history	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2025

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Arbitration enforcement request referral: Indian military history

Initiated by Tamzin at 14:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Arbitration enforcement thread: Dympies

Reason for referral: AE has in the past three months considered at least 13 threads regarding pre-Raj Indian military history, often with caste implications, featuring the same revolving cast of participants. These have become increasingly difficult to resolve.

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

Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (filing party at AE)
Dympies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User against whom enforcement was requested at AE)
AlvaKedak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ekdalian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Akshaypatill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Chronos.Zx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HerakliosJulianus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
RevolutionaryPatriot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
PadFoot2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hu741f4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Extorc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ivanvector (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Abecedare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Tamzin

The military history of pre-Raj India has increasingly become a flashpoint for disputes on-wiki, correlating with contemporary Indian political disputes. This has come in two principal varieties: the historiography of established figures like Sambhaji and Shivaji, and military actions of questionable historicity such as the alleged Sikh–Wahhabi War. In many cases this correlates with caste, religious, and ethnic tensions, especially in disputes over the Deccan wars. Below I have included the 13 (that I could find) threads in the past 3 months concerning this topic area.

I have selected parties (whose names are boldfaced in the table) based on having been sanctioned or warned or having participated in multiple threads in a potentially partisan manner. That's not to say that I think all of these editors have necessarily engaged in misconduct. Nor is it to say that no other parties should be added; Srijanx22 and LeónGonsalvesofGoa both come to mind as potential parties.

Date	Subject	Filer	Other involved participants	Closing/imposing admin	Outcome
2025-02-09	Ekdalian	Chronos.Zx [NXcrypto]	Orientls, LukeEmily, Capitals00	Seraphimblade	Ekdalian warned for PAs and canvassing
2025-02-10	PerspicazHistorian	Dympies	Vanamonde	Guerillero	PerspicazHistorian indeffed as a non-AE action
2025-03-01	Adamantine123	Capitals00	Vanamonde, Rosguill	Tamzin	Adamantine123 indeffed as a non-AE action
2025-03-03	Big fan of the Mughals	AlvaKedak	none	Abecedare	Big fan of the Mughals indeffed as a non-AE action
2025-03-04	RevolutionaryPatriot	Capitals00	none	Valereee	RevolutionaryPatriot p-blocked from mainspace as a non-AE action (since unblocked)
2025-03-28	Hu741f4	AlvaKedak	Koshuri Sultan, Capitals00	Valereee	Hu741f4, AlvaKedak, and Koshuri Sultan advised to go slow in CTOPs
2025-04-02	AlvaKedak	Extorc	none	Tamzin	No action
2025-04-05	Akshaypatill	Abhishek0831996	Koshuri Sultan, LukeEmily, Fowler&fowler, Ratnahastin	Rosguill	Logged warnings: Akshaypatill for edit warring; Capitals00, Abhishek0831996 and Koshuri Sultan for failure to AGF; Abhishek0831996 furthermore for frivolous complaints and word limit violations.
2025-04-08	ImperialAficionado	Mr.Hanes	AlvaKedak, Vanamonde, Extorc	SilverLocust	Archived unclosed after subject's retirement
2025-04-20	Dympies	Malik Al-Hind	Chronos.Zx [NXcrypto], Ekdalian, Sitush, LeónGonsalvesofGoa, HerakliosJulianus, IAmAtHome, LukeEmily, Capitals00	Valereee	Procedural close to allow refiling by a non-sock
2025-05-08	Dympies	unilateral sanction		Bishonen	IPA TBAN for Dympies
2025-05-08	Dympies	Capitals00	AlvaKedak, Ivanvector, AirshipJungleman29, Kowal2701, Ekdalian, Akshaypatill, Abecedare	Tamzin	This ARCA referral
2025-05-08	PadFoot2008	Srimant ROSHAN	Kowal2701, Shakakarta, Dympies, AlvaKedak, Mithilanchalputra7	Tamzin	PadFoot2008 TBANned
2025-05-08	Srijanx22	HerakliosJulianus	Maniacal ! Paradoxical	Tamzin	Maniacal ! Paradoxical TBANned

Parties' sanction history (excluding sanctions mentioned above)

Abhishek0831996: 72h block 2017-04-24 for disruptive editing.
Capitals00: 3 edit-warring blocks and 1 sockblock in 2013. TBANned from India–Pakistan conflict 2018-05-15; lifted at AN 2019-04-20.
Dympies: AE civility reminder 2022-12-31. TBANned from Rajputs on 2023-06-19; converted to full IPA ban on 2023-12-20, along with 1AR and indefs of sox Yoonadue and Togggle. TBAN lifted at AN 2024-08-21. P-blocked 2 weeks from 2019 Balakot airstrike on 2024-12-02 for edit-warring; time-served unblock after 5 days. Sockblocked 2025-04-21; reversed after further discussion 4 days later.
Koshuri Sultan: Sockblocked 2024-06-09; unblocked 2024-12-30 after appeal
Maniacal ! Paradoxical: Sockblocked 2024-06-1; unblocked 2025-01-07 after appeal.
RevolutionaryPatriot: P-blocked 1wk from Talk:1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre for PA 2024-09-12; expanded to 1mo mainspacewide a day later for not using ESes.

I'll note that three of the proposed parties are already TBANned. My reading of WP:BANEX #2 would include this process, but to avoid any doubt, I have included an exception in PadFoot and Maniacal's TBANs. It may be worth doing the same for Dympies.

I've also added as parties three admins whose comments, at the most recent AE thread and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yoonadue/Archive § 19 April 2025, were key in making the case that the status quo in this topic area is untenable. Of particular salience is Ivanvector's comment:

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.

Finally, a courtesy ping to all other participants in the AE thread: @AirshipJungleman29, Kowal2701, Asilvering, Valereee, Black Kite, Voorts, and Rosguill. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian: You are included because you were warned in [1] and participated in [2] and [3]. Inclusion in the party list does not mean you necessarily did something wrong (beyond what you've already been warned for), just that you have been involved in the dispute that is being referred here. If you would like to comment (which you don't have to), it's less a matter of defending yourself, and more a matter of your thoughts on the state of the topic area. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've received two questions about this from proposed parties about adding more, I would just like to reiterate/clarify: This is not a definitive list of proposed parties. These are the people who, in the course of my looking through the 13 AE threads, came up as key players. If anyone, party or non-party, wishes to propose more parties, they should do so in a statement below, listing usernames and what makes the user a key player in these related disputes (e.g. having been warned or sanctioned at AN/I, having been blocked for misconduct in the topic area, having participated disruptively at AfD or SPI, etc.). Clerks can add further parties as appropriate. Sorting out the various proposed parties will no doubt be a pain for the arbs, but, that's what they get paid the big bucks for.^[Joke] -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: To answer what could ArbCom do here that AE isn't empowered to do or can't reach a conclusion on?: Conduct an ArbCom case. AE is not well-equipped to hear complex multi-party cases involving years of evidence, some of it private. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

Yes a new craze of Maratha history has emerged among the masses in the recent months since the release of the historically misleading movie, Chhaava, however, admins will have to be cautious about judging the edits if they represent the history correctly or if they are simply ideologically motivated.

Some concerns were raised about poor AfD performance with regards to some of the users, but this is not the first time we have faced this problem. Mass topic bans over AfDs have happened before too on ANI and some of the users (including myself) had participated there.[4]

That said, I don't see what is there for Arbcom to suggest here. They have imposed AC/DS regime, which is more than enough to deal with any of these issues. Capitals00 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: You have totally got it all wrong. Bensebgli had emailed me, but I responded to him on his own talk page to better get himself unblocked first before pursuing any complaints about sockpuppetry. Have you checked this message? You are also wrong with claiming Bensebgli was inactive for 2 years because he is largely active across multiple Wikimedia projects.[5] Also, see his activity with his account Rasteem. He was an opponent of Dympies since last year.[6] He made nearly 6k edits with it in less than a year and was frequently editing until the day you blocked it.[7] Capitals00 (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dympies

Statement by AlvaKedak

I would like to second Vanamonde93's comment. It's a no-brainer that this topic area has been overrun by two or three groups of editors, each trying to take down members of the opposing sides. The exact identities of the editors involved in this Tripartite struggle aren't clear, but if I had to guess, there may be around 35–40 editors across all groups. These alone speaks volumes: 1 2 3 4 5. It is very concerning that they can easily sway any consensus process through these vague waves. I would like to appreciate Tamzin, Rosguill, and Valreee for actively monitoring AE cases related to IPA over the past three months. I've seen many ANI/AE threads where these editors push "block proposals" as a pattern, and then the same groups start voting. Given the ongoing warring between multiple factions, I truly believe an ArbCom case is warranted. AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ekdalian

Honestly speaking, I don't understand why my name figures in the list! I have neither filed any report at WP:AE nor initiated any SPI in the recent past! It would be great if the filer can explain my role in this case, so that I can actually respond or defend myself. Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tamzin for the clarification. I am really thankful to you for filling this report, and I sincerely believe that action will be taken against those involved in the offences clearly mentioned above by you! I had mentioned earlier about POV-pushing by Dympies both at ANI and AE, and admin Bishonen has very recently topic banned Dympies after more such evidence was presented by an uninvolved editor on her talk page! Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Akshaypatill

Looking at the AEs, ADFs and my own experience, I believe it's time for some higher authorities to have a look into the matter. The teams are out there poisoning everything. I almost have stopped making new edits to CTOP articles, as I don't see any point in it anymore, because 4-5 editors (usually, the same ones. After a while, you can almost predict who is going to comment next.) will be jumping on you one by one, till you exhaust and leave. If you persist, you will be dragged to ANI and AE, sooner or later. If you survive it somehow, you will be dragged to various admin talk pages. So, nowadays, I have limited myself to leaving my inputs and sources on talk pages, hoping someone with more time and patience than me may find it helpful someday. I am of the view that it's not enough just to sanction the problematic editors, but the articles that have suffered too need to be relieved of the damage that has been caused by the teams, by restoring it to the states before all these tag teaming stuff started. To sum up, I believe that, the circumstances warrant an in-depth investigation by ARBCOM.

CaptainEek, the scope is quite wide here, I don't see any reason for the recusal. Akshaypatill (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chronos.Zx

I am also not sure what Arbcom should do, when we already have admin noticeboards.

There are always some controversial aspects in this area, and due to the trending subject at the time, a particular subject happens to attract more contentious editing. Weeks ago it was Maratha military history as Tamzin notes, but now it is the India-Pakistan conflict.[8] These issues flare up mainly due to real-life events. I would urge admins to be more vigilant. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HerakliosJulianus

Statement by Maniacal ! Paradoxical

Statement by Abhishek0831996

Noting the recent sanctions on various involved editors, an ARBCOM case is unwarranted. The admins are completely empowered to deal with these ever present issues in the area, and so were these issues handled appropriately yesterday, if this pace keeps up, there would be no disruption in the area. Their refusal to handle things that they should be doing and seeing the disruption pile up slowly is what leads to the calls for these "mass sanctions".

I'll take a few examples, in how just a few admins willing to take action have made this area better in the last 4 days:

1) Maniacal! Paradoxical's topic ban from WP:ARBIPA on 8 May.[9]

2) Padfoot2008's topic ban from WP:ARBIPA.[10]

3) Dympies's topic ban from WP:ARBIPA on 8 May.[11]

4) Indef block on Rasteem on 6 May.[12] Rasteem was reported two times on WP:AE [13][14] and was under a 6 month topic ban from India and Pakistan for tendentious editing, blocking them as a confirmed sockpuppet of an LTA like Bensebgli has prevented further disruption that would have happened a few months down the line.

5) Shakakarta's temporary page block from Maratha Empire on 5 May.[15]

So in just the last 4 days, these sanctions were handed out, and I appreciate that. We do not need a likely trainwreck of an arbcom case with so many parties (likely few dozens), and workshops to handle something that has already been increasingly getting resolved now with the sanctions I noted above.

Rosguill's comment here sums it up. Admins need to be more active at AE, especially in light of the fact that the reports pertaining to the new Indian Pakistani conflict are already making its way there. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Koshuri Sultan

Statement by RevolutionaryPatriot

Statement by PadFoot2008

Statement by Hu741f4

Statement by Extorc

I witnessed the exemplary clerking by Tamzin at AE and I think if admins maintain such a pace, there would be no need for an arbcom case. Today, 3 editors were sanctioned for reports that were languishing for over a month. The ARBIPA sanction regime already covers this topic area, and I don't think it would warrant a separate ARBCOM case involving so many parties for what is only a subset of the topic area that witnesses disruptive editing.|Abecedare's second approach [16] would be better suited to deal with the area. "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." >>> Extorc.talk 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel, Elli, and Aoidh: Been 5 days since this ARCA was filed, and there are no current disputes over Indian military history. This ARCA is the only venue where this issue is being discussed right now. This is apparently due to the recent spate of sanctions, which have been mentioned above. I believe Arbcom should be the last resort, and it would only waste their time if we are going to rehash the already resolved matters. >>> Extorc.talk 11:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

Limiting the scope of this request as several arbitrators have already suggested predetermines that the case will be a failure. The conduct issues mentioned here are not limited in scope to any particular subject (many of these editors also cross into Israel-Palestine and/or other contentious topics) but at the very least the broader topic of ARBIPA should be examined. Anything less is a complete waste of time, and as I've already been mired in this for a goddamn decade, I'm not particularly interested in another weeks-long adventure in time-wasting bureaucracy. My earlier statement is withdrawn in full.

Several of the involved parties here who evidently completely lack the ability to self-reflect have suggested that there is no problem at all other than administrators being unwilling to act. End of statement. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

Tamzin, I've made an exception to Dympies' T-ban for participating in this case, so that they're on an equal footing with the other T-banned users. Bishonen | tålk 21:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

It's a systemic problem that we don't have enough admins familiar with the vast ARBIPA topic area; we have so few that even I, certainly not well read in it, have repeatedly been drawn into taking part. The shortage of knowledgeable admins is surely behind what a user below calls "their [=the admins'] refusal to handle things that they should be doing and seeing the disruption pile up slowly". I don't believe it's a question of "refusal", but of the fact that adminship unfortunately doesn't automatically confer expertise in all subjects — and even those with the IPA expertise sometimes have a Real Life. Considering this, it's a great boon that there is an actual arbitrator who knows the area. So please, CaptainEek, per Johnuniq, don't recuse. Bishonen | tålk 19:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Abecedare

I too urge arbcom to take up this case for reasons I recently spelled out at AE, although I don't envy you the task. Two particular reasons for the arbs to take this up:

Handling the complaints piecemeal at AN/AE has the downside of either aiding editors get their "opponents" sanctioned even when others are acting equally badly or overlooking genuinely problematic editing because others are acting equally badly. Neither is ideal.
There is a stream of emailed allegations, supposedly leaked evidence, and possibly relevant CU findings that Arbcom would be better positioned to examine than admins at AN/AE. Ivanvector and I had emailed some of this to the arbcom list on around April 22 when dealing with a recent SPI report and I have been told that there is more.

Abecedare (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by asilvering (non-party)

Extremely grateful to Tamzin for doing the work of referring this. Bringing forward my comment from the most recent AE thread: 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. -- asilvering (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll dig out some more AfDs as examples. Echoing Vanamonde93, I think the AE threads show only an iceberg's tip of the dispute. I think it is likely that involved editors may be more hesitant to bring disputes to AE than elsewhere, possibly because AE is harder to brigade, though of course that's a presumption on top of a presumption. The ANI example CoffeeCrumbs offers is a good one to demonstrate this: [17]. I closed it as it was getting out of hand and referred participants to AE; my close was objected to and the filer declined to refile at AE; and it turns out that there was indeed off-wiki co-ordination involved. -- asilvering (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler, I don't have an example handy for you, but I'm confident that affected AfDs, at least, have included skirmishes involving EIC troops. -- asilvering (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell, in addition to what others have already said, As with Israel-Palestine, the Wikipedia conflicts are a microcosm of real-world politics and will ebb and flow with trends that are outside of anyone's control. is true in a very general sense, but I don't really believe it to be true of the disruption in the milhist area. Sure, at one moment perhaps everyone is editing on topics more related to Shivaji, but at some other point it will be some other topic in the general area. That is, I'm not convinced the involved editors themselves are doing much ebbing and flowing, though perhaps a case will prove me wrong. -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

I urge ARBCOM to look into this. As with previous iterations of this conflict featuring massive tag-teaming and probable off-wiki coordination, there is unquestionably bad behavior that individual admins could sanction: but several of my colleagues are hesitant to do so, for not wanting to reward tag-teaming, hesitation about who is behaving worse vs who is better at gaming our system, and possibly hesitation about the blowback from other editors when sanctioning one. It is my view that a mass TBAN is going to be the minimum needed, but it is beyond the capacity of AE to determine the limits of such a sanction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking partly in response to Rosguill below, I do think the AE threads underestimate the severity of this dispute: there have been interminable SPIs, several AfDs, and some AN/ANI threads involving many of these parties: 1, 2, 2, 4, 5, 6 (noting that in the last few I'm referring to the nature of the editors' participation, rather than its existence). Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to scope, I would advise against ARBIPA2. The scope of the ARBIPA CT regime is broad: but doesn't mean every dispute spans the entire CT regime, and if you did decide this is ARBIPA2, I don't see how you could prevent every extant ARBIPA dispute from being thrown in your lap at once. Insofar as there is a single dispute here, it is a single dispute by way of the people involved: but we have moved away from naming cases after editors. There are a few strands to this set of disputes: 1) Military history of the Marathas 2) Military history of the Sikhs, 3) History (not just military) of the Rajputs, 4) Status (upper-caste or not) of many caste groups, and 5) Sundry military history. I confess I'm still trying to understand why a small group of editors has been so noisy across both the military history areas and the caste areas, but such is the way of things. If you want to encompass all of it - and I would prefer that you did - I would suggest a scope of "Caste and Indian military history" - that is, conduct related to either of those would be in scope. If that is still too sweeping, "Indian military history" would still address most of the behavior brought here. You may wish to add a time limitation (pre-1900, perhaps) to exclude the Indo-Pakistani conflict: this has flared up over the last couple of weeks, but features widespread conflict between large numbers of editors, rather the than trench warfare between small groups that precipitated this case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs (non-party)

I also urge ARBCOM to dig into this issue, as I believe the community is at its wits' end when trying to deal with this area. My feelings are similar to Ivanvector's, and many ANI discussions about the issues become too complex quickly with dueling charges and accusations, and it's causing experienced editors and admins to nope out of the whole thing, understandably. Discussions like this [18] have shown little holes of revolving any of the fundamental issues with warring cliques. The escalation of conflict in that part of the world is likely to make things worse here, not better. ARBCOM is the only party with the jurisdiction to make sense of this mess. While I am not a named party, in the interest of full disclosure, I've been involved in a few of the conversations about these issues. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that the dueling charges of off-Wiki coordination that have popped up a few times create additional complications that the community would have issues dealing with by normal means. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also ask CaptainEek not to recuse unless there's a compelling argument to recuse presented, beyond a philosophical position. Losing an arbitrator with a direct understanding of what's going on from a complicated, sprawling case as merely a precautionary measure would not serve the interests of the community. If a specific issue does come up, given the scope of the case and the large number of involved parties, I would also urge CaptainEek to first consider a partial recusal from a specific part of the case. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

I think I may be the one somewhat-dissenting admin in that I'm not sure we're really at wit's end at AE, just a bit backlogged. Several parties have received topic-bans today alone, and we've also handed out several warnings that should make further enforcement much more straightforward. Ironically, Tamzin herself has to a point resolved our backlog today by actioning several threads that had been languishing. Speaking for myself, I am hesitant to take action in many cases because I am generally hesitant to take action unilaterally except when there is a clear-as-day policy violation. I think it's easy to get tunnel-vision when reviewing POV wars and greatly appreciate other admins' input on AE cases. Low traffic from admins and making space for right of rebuttal means that these discussions can end up hanging open even when we have a pretty clear outcome, but I don't know that the situation is quite like the muddied-waters mutual breakdown of good faith editing or that we have evidence of off-wiki coordination such that have required other ARBCOM cases.

As a final note, I have been less aware of the issue concerning vote-brigading at AfD as described by asilvering, as this has not been a central component of cases I've examined at AE, and thus may be underestimating the severity over there. If possible, I think the opinion of admins that are heavily active in closing AfDs would be appreciated. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To HJ Mitchell's question, I think ARBCOM is better positioned to examine concerns of !vote-brigading at AfD (and if pertinent, RM, RfCs, etc.) and similar malfeasance. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

@CaptainEek: Please do not recuse unless someone provides credible evidence of a "significant conflict of interest" per WP:RECUSAL. I quickly reviewed comments with your user name at Talk:Sambhaji and its two archives. I do not see any reason for recusal. It would be very valuable for a case if someone with some knowledge of the topic were involved. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

Having worked at many of the AE cases Tamzin references, I agree opening a case would be helpful. CEek, I do not see any reason you need to recuse simply because you worked heavily on an article within this topic. The topic is huge.

HJ Mitchell, honestly I'm nearly at the point IvanVector is. It's hard to approach complaints within this topic sincerely when you sense at least some of those bringing complaints to AE (and at least some of those commenting/providing additional evidence) are themselves simply trying to throw as much up against the wall as they can to see what sticks. Just to brainstorm...allow AE to just declare a particular article off limits for anyone with under 10K edits because EC isn't anywhere near enough to show someone is HERE and meats/socks abound here? Limit how many cases can be created by any one editor in a given period within the topic? Specifically support indefs or tbans for any editor who brings more than X unsuccessful cases to AE within the topic over Y period? Disallow participation in a case by anyone who isn't a party?

So I'm seeing an argument that arbcom has given AE ability to do things like require 10K edits at a particular article where we think that's reasonably/proportionate. Ok, then. That isn't something I'd taken it to, but maybe AE needs to just move on in there?

Question on usage "pre-Raj" by Fowler&fowler (non-party)

(I was pinged above). I am unable to participate in the discussion. I do have a question about usage. I noticed "pre-Raj" in Tamzin's statement. The "Raj," i.e. the British Raj or the British Indian Empire did not begin until 1858. In my cursory look, the Wikipedia articles under the scanner here seem to be from an earlier period. Is pre-British implied? Pre-Raj would include East India Company rule in India, 1757–1857, but that period generally does not lack reliable sources, in fact there is even an embarrassment of riches. (See Proby Cautley.) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Asilvering for the clarification in your statement above. My question stands addressed. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

I have not participated in this situation more than some AfDs. What I have seen there has been deeply troubling. The battleground behaviour and disruptive editing, as far as I could see, is endemic; there is no "side" of editors more disruptive than the other. These accounts seem dedicated not to the improvement of Wikipedia, but to the promotion of articles which highlight their preferred nationalism/ideology and the deletion of those which do not.

The most frequent problem I have seen is wilful source manipulation and misrepresentation, the most difficult for any adjudicator to handle and especially hard when there is a shortage of administrators in a topic area (hence the extreme broadness of IPA). Then, there seems to have been extensive weaponisation of noticeboards with immediate impact (AfD, AE, SPI, ANI) to take "opponents" out of the game, also increasing the burden on administrators.

I'd ask the arbs to consider the limitations of governance in huge topic areas where administrator knowledge is superficial and numbers are few. You may be assured it makes life quite difficult for the rest of us. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I believe that ArbCom need only to take such testimony as required to determine that this a matter of POV pushing in contravention of the overall topic case, and issue such bans, topic or general, and reminders of the proper purpose of an encyclopedia, as required. My suggested metric would be the ratio between discussion between parties, and that of accusations, edit warring, and forum shopping. I once used to admin in these spaces, and would comment that there are entrenched viewponts regarding caste, religion, modern day political nationalism, post colonial pride, and a raft of other snares that make NPOV a difficult course to navigate. In view of the latter, making encyclopedic contributions to any related matter does not mean an arb should recuse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orientls

I would recommend Arbcom against accepting a case mainly for 2 reasons:

1) There are far more controversial subtopics within this topic, such as India-Pakistan, India-Bangladesh, India-China, Caste (see WP:GSCASTE), Hindu-Muslim conflict, and more.

2) Arbcom noticeboards will also attract forum shopping.

There have been times when this area has become heated up, such as during the times of the COVID crisis, a recent riot, government meddling into Wikipedia pages (see Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation), conflict between India and Pakistan/China, among other instances. An Arbcom case wasn't needed then, and I don't see why it should be needed now. Orientls (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jéské Couriano

Since the issue largely implicates WP:GS/CASTE (which is notionally under IP in the first place), why not cut the knot and confirm GS/CASTE as part of the IPA area in the first place, and then expand the balanced editing restriction and XCP to that particular topic area? I get the feeling that would address a lot of these ills. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

I have not read most of what has been posted here nor the AE case which preceded it. But I happened to catch Harry's comments and want to answer his questions So my question is, why can't this be handled at AE? I believe the admins who tell me that AE is struggling, having been an AE admin myself, so is there something ArbCom can do to help in that respect? Maybe the answer is ArbCom can do nothing that AE admins can't do. But the 14 of you have agreed to To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. You can try delegating that authority and indeed ArbCom has been successful often in delegating authority. But if the people you've delegated it to say they can't do it, then it's your responsibility to say "OK" and muddle through. Opening a case may be the wrong answer, but it can't be handled at AE because the people who staff that agree it can't be. Having 14 of you makes a difference because even this very well attended AE only attracted 6 uninvolved admin so there might be solutions or analysis found that a smaller group won't find. However, if at the end there's nothing that this ArbCom can do that AE can't, it remains true that handling the impossible as best you all can is what every person who runs for ArbCom has agreed to do. It's why I and so many others in the community remain appreciative for the act of service to the 14 people who have accepted that Herculean task. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee AE can already declare an article off limits because it's alloewd to do stuff under CT that individuals can't do. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

Just call it IPA2 instead of horse trading to craft a cute name. The scope is probably going to end up reaching that anyways no matter how much you all would like it to be something else. Folding the community created caste DS into the CT regime would be a fairly easy win, if you are looking for one. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Indian military history (AE referral): Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Indian military history (AE referral): Arbitrator views and discussion

Having first hand experience with repeated reports on matters too complicated to handle at AE , and with a consensus of admins referring, I see this as our responsibility. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indian military history and related caste issues sounds good to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, do you think that a full on IPA case has any possibility of not getting mired down in every conflict, especially if there is bleed-over into ARBPIA. Although WP:ARBPIAIPA and WP:ARBIPAPIA would make the PIA/IPA confusion even confusinger, I don't know if that would make it possible to have any decent outcome. I'm not totally opposed, but I think smaller bites are easier to chew, swallow, and digest, and I'd rather see 2-4 narrower cases than one grand megacase. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering recusal; I am a top contributor on Sambhaji, as I tried to help improve the page when the issue first arose. I'll recuse if folks think I should. Otherwise, I have made only limited edits to the military side of IPA, Battle of Ichogil Bund is the only one that comes to mind. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the various folks who weighed in on whether I should recuse, no one suggested I ought, and so I will be active on this. We should accept a case here based on Indian military history, although my preference would be pre-Raj, lest this become an India-Pakistan issue. I believe we should be happy to accept cases when AE refers them; I have repeatedly tried to send the signal to AE that we will take what they give us and that they should give us things if they are unable to resolve them. The AE admins are the forces on the ground and they have the sense of where the real issues and pressure points are. Procedurally speaking, in the past we've opened cases from ARCA via motion, although I'm not seeing why we couldn't net-four a case from here? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly inclined to accept as a full case, to consider largely public but also some private evidence, with the scope proposed being Indian military history and related issues. Daniel (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support hearing a case on this; not sure on what exact scope is best. Also strongly encourage Eek not to recuse; having Arbs with more of an understanding of the details/context here will be very helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Having thought on this, my ideal name/scope would be "South Asian military history and related caste issues"; fine with "India" as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accepting a full case seems (regrettably) to be the way forward. I also echo Elli's request that Eek not recuse. Cabayi (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also in support of accepting a case. - Aoidh (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Extorc: It wouldn't be the first time that an issue temporarily died down when ArbCom starts looking into the matter. There is also the private evidence aspect User:Daniel mentioned, which also needs to be examined. The question for me isn't if a case is needed, but that the exact scope should be. - Aoidh (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a matter of housekeeping, are we planning on focusing strictly on Indian military history, or will this be WP:ARBIPA2? Primefac (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I am supportive of Indian military history only (and not IPA2) as per my comment above, and am aligned with V93's comment here. Name "Indian military history", scope 'Indian military history and related caste issues'. Daniel (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed; it is easier to widen the scope if necessary than be drowned by a firehose of information tangentially related to the initial concerns. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support full case, with scope as named by Daniel above (Indian military history and related caste issues) or something similar. I do not think this needs to be a full ARBIPA2, but not against expanding the scope (or opening an ARBIPA2 case later) if that's where the evidence leads. Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we need a full case. Support per Daniel. Worm^TT(talk) 09:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started reading this with the inclination to open a case but I'm reminded of ARBPIA5: lots of people saying "something must be done", admins saying "we can't cope". ArbCom caved there and opened a case with a huge scope. After a few months, we issued some topic bans which were largely foregone conclusions and that was that. No systemic changes. No site bans. Nothing else. Of course, where we have a core group of editors making a topic area unmanageable, clearing out the "regulars" can be a useful thing to do, if only to give AE admins some temporary respite. But we don't need a months-long case with its attendant procedures and thousands of words of evidence to issue a handful of topic bans—the contentious topics procedure was created precisely to allow for disruption to be addressed quicker and with less bureaucracy. So my question is, why can't this be handled at AE? I believe the admins who tell me that AE is struggling, having been an AE admin myself, so is there something ArbCom can do to help in that respect? Or, to approach it from a different angle: what could ArbCom do here that AE isn't empowered to do or can't reach a conclusion on? What outcome are people looking for other than identifying a few troublemakers and banning them? As with Israel-Palestine, the Wikipedia conflicts are a microcosm of real-world politics and will ebb and flow with trends that are outside of anyone's control. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Shortcuts

This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (arbitrators only)

All editors are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension on this page below (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended comments or submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Requests for enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

DaltonCastle

DaltonCastle is warned that their behavior in this instance fell below acceptable civility standards, and should be especially mindful of conduct when discussing contentious subjects. DaltonCastle has agreed to improve that going forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning DaltonCastle

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

23 March (not GENSEX but presented as background): Removed an R&I CTOP alert from Generalrelative as drivel from a partisan editor7
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.
24 April: Removed my GENSEX alert as rubbish from a partisan editor
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)

[19]

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 [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. 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: [25]

Discussion concerning DaltonCastle

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

Statement by DaltonCastle

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]

Statement by Generalrelative

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]

Statement by Just10A

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 [26]. 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]

Result concerning DaltonCastle

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]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Fyukfy5

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]

Statement by Fyukfy5

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]

Statement by 331dot

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]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Fyukfy5

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

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

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]

Statement by Chess

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]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Fyukfy5

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]

Etcnoel1

Mooted by ANI Valereee (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Etcnoel1

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

16 February 2025 Edits an article that non-extended confirmed users are not allowed to edit, which I cautioned about
9 April 2025 Another GS/AA violation
21 April 2025 Another GS/AA violation
21 April 2025 Another GS/AA violation
22 April 2025 In addition to being another GS/AA violation, Etcnoel1 is citing Justin McCarthy (American historian) as a source
23 April 2025 Another GS/AA violation
23 April 2025 Another GS/AA violation
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

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.[27] 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

[28]

Discussion concerning Etcnoel1

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

Statement by Etcnoel1

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]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Etcnoel1

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]

Wikipedious1

Closed unactioned. Valereee (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Wikipedious1

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

18:56 30 April 2025 Original edit
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 [29], 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

Discussion concerning Wikipedious1

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

Statement by Wikipedious1

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]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wikipedious1

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]

Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti

Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from Albanian and Serbian topics, broadly construed. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti

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

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

Discussion concerning Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti

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

Statement by Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti

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]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti

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 ([30]) 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]

M.Bitton

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

Request concerning M.Bitton

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Closetside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: M.Bitton (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:ARBPIA

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

[31] Refuses to acknowledge a map of a RS and calls my reading of it an "interpretation." Furthermore, incredibly arrogant by refusing to recognize there even is a dispute, considering themself a mere purveyor of what the RS say.
[32] [33] Insists I wait for a 3O despite stating they don't disagree with me on those points (I previously assumed they did)
[34] Baselessly calls my perspective OR, despite previously providing sourced despite previously providing RS to back up my position
[35] [36] [37] [38] Again, refuses to acknowledge the sources I brought up to support my position, even though a 3O explicitly told them they were ignoring my sources beforehand.
[39] Despite the dispute being hashed out well already and advised by a 3O, they insisted we go to DRN. While this may be fine, they subsequently haven't opened up anything on DRN yet despite their insistence.
[40] Refused to acknowledge a legitimate rebuttal to their interpretation of the sources they cited.
[41] Insisted on coming here despite me giving them one last chance to correct their behavior and avoid this report.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[42] Blocked for disruptive editing (quite similar behavior) 2 months ago.
[43] Blocked for disruptive editing in 2015.

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

[44]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would like to respond to the allegations M.Bitton raised against me a few days ago.

I rewrote the lede after the RM was resolved. At the time, I thought the dispute was whether the Wadi Gaza and Besor Streams were one stream or two, and I thought the RM settled it as one. I was unaware of M.Bitton's notion of it originating near Hebron and did not revert their revert once they reverted it. My other rewrites were bold attempts at compromise per BRD and I did not revert their revert
My last declaration of retirement [45] was way before the AE report on MilesVorkosigan, so no, I wasn't gaming the system.
In Nahal Hevron removed "which is in the Palestinian Authority" for consiceness, not to declare that the West Bank was part of Israel. In fact, later on in the lede, I updated the jursidictions of the stream in Israeli territory and omitted Israel's administrative divisions in the West Bank, which implies the West Bank is not in Israel.
Nahal Hevron is the article name and the COMMONNAME. It deserves to be first (Hebron River/Stream is not the "official name" or anything), and providing a Hebrew translation for the transliteration is appropriate. The Arabic names remained in the main text in the first sentence. Compare this to the Nahal Be'er Sheva, an article I created about a stream entirely in Israel, where I relegated the Arabic to a footnote.

In conclusion, this editor has returned to their disruptive editing despite being blocked for a month a mere two months ago due to it. I wish they took the off ramp, but alas they didn't, so here we are.

Now to respond to M.Bitton's statement.

1) From the maps in the very source M.Bitton quoted in the statement, the Nahal Hevron ends at its confluence with the Nahal Be'er Sheva, so it is not in Gaza. Furthermore, when the very quote lists the Nahal Hevron's names, including both its Arabic names, Wadi Gaza is not one of them. Because the stream is not in Gaza, removing it from the Gaza category was justified.

2) MilesVorkosigan thought they were giving a 3O. M.Bitton even opined that 3O was a waste of time, which was an acknowledgement that there was a 3O. And this was before Richard Nevell, so this was a clear reference to MilesVorkosigan.

3) I had a legitimate challenge to Richard Nevell, which I asked, and Richard Nevell has chosen not to respond to while editing elsewhere, as he may. His comment was a mere suggestion, not an ironclad recommendation, as evidenced by the "perhaps." Regardless, this is Wikipedia where all editors are equal. Experience does not confer privilege in discussions, a lesson M.Bitton hasn't internalized.

4) With the RM, all editors are equal. I had my position, Richard Nevell had his, and the closer closed it as no consensus. Richard Nevell never accused me of incivility, and contrary to M.Bitton's framing, the "speaking time" in the discussion was roughly even.

5) I did not violate the 1rr, edit war, or unilaterally change the title. Furthermore, all my three edits conform to BRD; the second and third were attempted compromises, as evident from the edit summaries. The first two also occurred when I was unaware of the locus of the dispute (i.e. the origin of the Besor). So no, at least as far as I can tell, I did not repeating my past errors. Furthermore, this is about past, not ongoing behavior; I haven't edited the page in a week as I wait for the dispute to be resolved. Sanctions address ongoing, not past behavior per WP:NOTPUNITIVE. Closetside (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6) The accusation that I was "recruiting a friend" is ludicrous. MilesVorkosigan, came to me, not vice versa, in response a report this very M.Bitton reported against MilesVorkosigan. Similarly, the bludgeoning accusation is ludicrous; my arguments evolved throughout, including during my reply to Richard Nevell. M.Bitton's argument (two RS support the notion that the Besor originates in the Hebron Hills, while none oppose) was repeated by M.Bitton like a broken record, even as I cited opposing RS and eventually rebutted the claim those 2 RS support the notion. To hit this point home, he once referenced a comment by Bergman which they claimed supported the notion and dropped it in subsequent formations of his argument, referring back to only their 2 RS. Furthermore, they refused to engage with my rebutals whatsoever. Closetside (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nevell Barkeep49 see my penultimate diff where I argued that M.Bitton had no RS that backed up his position and rebutted the argument that the RS he brought supported his position. He did not respond my rebuttal, merely repeating his claim that those RS do support his position, provide new RS that support his position, or respond to my inquiry asking how his position would refer to what my position would name Upper Besor and Be'er Sheva streams. If his position were valid, responding to the last challenge and one or both of the first two would be trivial. Therefore, his position is invalid, and suggesting a compromise between my valid position, backed up by many RS, and his invalid position, not backed by a single one, is an application of the middle ground fallacy. And if he can respond sufficiently (to the above standard), I'd be happy to compromise or even concede if he can argue that the RS overwhelmingly supports his position. So far, he is uninterested in arguing or conceding gracefully, instead beating the same drum like a proponent of a canard, and this behaviour is harmful to the encyclopedia. Closetside (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 thanks for clarifying. The way to get to consensus is to make your point and let the community decide through consensus, not repeatedly trying to get your dispute opponent to concede. I withdraw the "refusing to argue or concede gracefully" part from the report and plan on starting in RfC to let the community form a consensus. However, insisting on a 3O despite not having a 2O and claiming that they are the faithful purveyor of RS, repeating the same argument many times like a broken record and claiming that I am pushing my POV through OR without RS (even though I am citing RS) is problematic behavior that deserves AE. This came from @Richard Nevell's last line Reading more of the article I think the way forward, content wise, is to emulate the description in the 'Introduction' section, noting the main channel and tributaries. As the source describes the Besor as having multiple headwaters trying to select a single one may be overly reductive., which suggests a compromise which seems to me as an application of the middle ground fallacy. However, I will respect the community's conclusion. Closetside (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened an RfC on the Talk:Besor Stream. @M.Bitton @Fiveby @MilesVorkosigan @Samuelshraga (not pinging Richard Nevell because he is already aware of it). Closetside (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[46]

Discussion concerning M.Bitton

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

Statement by M.Bitton

Since this is in response to my question to the admins, I'll copy and paste here what I mentioned previously:

Apart from the fact that Closetside has been canvassed, I will note that they have have a history of gaming the system (pretending to be "retired" when feeling the heat) and disruptive editing: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive322#Closetside and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive351#Closetside. Interestingly, after the last report, they went straight back to one of the articles that they edit warred on: despite what they claimed in that report I self-reverted those changes and I will not reinstate them until there is consensus (diff), they did not reinstate the sourced content that they removed; and a month later, they removed again the mention of Palestine (without consensus). As for them mentioning a block, all I can say to that is: that's rich coming for them. I will also note that their response to me suggesting we take the dispute to DRN is puzzling (to say the least).
These edits are also worth looking into: casting aspersions in an attempt to recruit a friend and removing the "retired template" (after I commented on it, even though others questioned it long before that). Being accused of bludgeoning by an editor who bludgeoned all the discussions (with walls of text) to death is a first.

More worrying though is the:

Disruptive editing and POV pushing: 1) Closetside removed the mention of the "Palestinian Authority" (West Bank) and Gaza (including the category), even though both are mentioned in the only cited source in that article, and 2) they added Hebrew to the lead to make it 100% Israeli. They did this in the middle of the discussion about a related subject. The cited source says: "The Hebron stream has many names: Wadi Al-Khalil, Wadi Al-Samen and Nahal Hevron. The stream originates in the Hebron Hills in the West Bank running southwest along 45 km crossing Be’er Sheva in Israel, and ending in Wadi Gaza and the Mediterranean Sea."
This edit is in line with the above: they adjusted the content to suit their POV and then started a RM (to make all the shared rivers and the streams 100% Israeli).
They edit warred over this content removal (which reeks of nationalism) until they were blocked by SRF for a week.

with regard to some of their comments:

I stick to every word that I wrote in this comment. The reliable sources that I cited here are very clear.
There was no 3O response.
Here's what an experience editor said. Obviously, Closetside didn't agree with them. They also drove them up the wall during the RM discussion that they bludgeoned (while refusing to compromise).
I didn't open a DRN because I didn't edit for the last 3 days and I was awaiting a response to this request. M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion, I don't think Closetside is capable of editing PIA related articles without pushing a nationalist POV, as evidenced by the two previous reports (September 2023 and April 2025) and the PIA related block. M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I was told that I couldn't complain about them in the other report because the scope of a discussion is limited to the "conduct of two parties". The section was collapsed and my request to add their name to the report was ignored (this report was made after they saw my request). I responded to what is worth responding to, the rest is them complaining about the fact that I don't agree with them and their attempt to censor properly sourced content that doesn't align with their POV (this is not a one off either). I will ping the other editor who is familiar with the discussion. @Richard Nevell: your input would be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What MilesVorkosigan (a non EC editor at the time who violated the ECR policy) is claiming is far from what happened. They accused me of ignoring the sources, and when I asked them which sources they are referring to, they provided what can only be described as "non answer", with a battleground approach to boot. M.Bitton (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source that was mentioned by Fiveby was used in a specific context: to prove that even the author of the map (that was presented by Closetside as a source that contradicts those that I cited) does not deny the West Bank origin of the stream. M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: the two are related. I cannot ignore the fact that they only started this report after realising that I was about to start one about their behaviour. That I don't agree with their interpretation of what happened is a given: they removed properly sourced content (the root of the issue), dismissed all the reliable sources that don't align with their pov, cited less explicit sources (not to prove another origin, but to disqualify the other and justify the sourced content removal), insisted on only using their preferred description (which they characterised, without a shred of evidence, as the " typical description"), etc. Luckily, Richard Nevell (who followed the discussion from the start) provided a third-party perspective. Had this been a one off, I would have dismissed it as a simple content dispute, but it's not, and the fact that, in the middle of the dispute, Closetside did the same thing to another PIA related article (mentioned above) is a serious cause for concern. M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fiveby

For a quick primer on the content dispute here i'd suggest admins take a quick look at figure 1 in "Analysis of extreme rainfall trend and mapping of the Wadi pluvial flood in the Gaza coastal plain of Palestine" (WPL Springer link) (the abstract of which MBitton has quoted on the take page) which illustrates the main channel of the stream and the drainage basin of all the tributaries. Not to decide the content issue but to determine if editors are making valid arguments and representing sources appropriately on the talk page. fiveby(zero) 14:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nevell, there is no controversy or confusion as to the physical geography here, a mundane bit of content with concepts and terminology we should have all learned in middle school. How and why such controversy and confusion has been manufactured on the talk page is an exercise for the admins here. While there are many ways of describing our water body we should not entertain those which move the source to the Hebron Hills nor those which have the course somehow reaching the Med without passing through Gaza. I submit that neutral editors would realize both that there are important issues concerning the tributary waters from the West Bank and that there is no need to alter the course in order to provide that content. fiveby(zero) 10:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (MilesVorkosigan)

In his statement, M.Bitton says that there was no 3O. That is only very, very technically correct, because I saw the request on the 3O page and went to the talk page for the article. I asked both users some questions, ClosetSide responded, M.Bitton refused to engage and just kept repeating that he would only use the one source that agreed with him. He would not explain why he chose to ignore the other sources mentioned on the talk page or why he would not discuss them. After I reminded him of policy, he filed a complaint here, trying to pretend that asking him about his sources violated the Arb decision about Israel/Palestine.

Then he removed all of my comments from the talk page.

MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that M.Bitton is perhaps slightly misleading in his most recent reply when he calls me a 'non-EC' editor. As he knows, it turns out I was at *that* time eight edits way from EC, and I am now well past that number, as pointed out by neutral editors in his complaint against me.

That is the reason that the most recent recommendation in his complaint is to close it without action.

As to the 'battleground' statement, I'll point out that M.Bitton has three blocks for edit warring in that last few months. I have none.

MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He edited his prior statement with an unclear edit summary, so now, after I mentioned it, it is correct. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that there is another clear inaccuracy in M.Bitton's statement, where he accuses Closetside of WP:Canvassing. Closetside didn't need to bring this new complaint to my attention, I obviously noted it because I was already watching the page, it was on my watchlist because of M.Bitton. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Richard Nevell

I am commenting here as both parties have pinged me in their comments. My previous involvement on the talk page largely been around the article title. I have watched the discussion about the current points of contention unfold but contributed little as my available time is unpredictable and I didn't want to join a conversation and go quiet.

There is some talking at cross purposes and not much meeting in the middle. M.Bitton has been quoting explicit statements from sources (eg: "The Khalil Besor river originates in the West Bank") whereas those used by Closetside are less explicit. Closetside has been making special pleading that the sources provided by M.Bitton define the watercourse in a different way to other sources. Even if that is the case, that does not negate the sources provided by M.Bitton it means we need to work out how to reconcile those differences.

Though not raised by Closetside in their opening statement, there is also the issue of the removal of sourced content about the Wadi Gaza Nature Reserve, which Closetside justified as being undue. Five sentences explaining the reserve's extent, ecological issues, and rehabilitation not only seems like useful information but an appropriate level of detail for the article in question. On reflection, I should have said as much on the talk page as the situation unfolded.

Closetside's approach is to make their point and set conditions which need to be met to 'disprove' them. It is a rhetorical approach which attempts to control the discussion and treats it more as a debate to be won rather than being based on consensus building. The contribution of the 3O giver was unhelpful as they misunderstood the ARBPIA restrictions and reacted poorly to being informed that they were not yet eligible to engage by accusing M.Bitton of owning the page, and I thought the mention of a topic ban read like a threat.

As a non-expert in this subject area I would look for secondary sources explicitly stating "the Besor Stream originates xyz". Speaking of which, thank you to User:Fiveby for pointing to fig 1 in Bergman et al 2022. That and the text from the same source quoted by M.Bitton suggests that there are different ways to describe the stream. It would explain how the sources M.Bitton and Closetside have been taking different approaches. Reading more of the article I think the way forward, content wise, is to emulate the description in the 'Introduction' section, noting the main channel and tributaries. As the source describes the Besor as having multiple headwaters trying to select a single one may be overly reductive. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Samuelshraga

Full disclosure: M.Bitton and I have a history, and I am the one who filed the recent AN/I thread which led to their month-long block.

The reason I am commenting here is because I don't think that M.Bitton's behaviour has meaningfully changed. They are fresh off a block for a litany of behavioural violations. I detailed then, for one, IDHT and invoking contrived interpretations of policy (then it was NPOV), without specifying what in the policy supports their position. In the Besor Stream dispute here, they similarly invoke WP:OR vaguely even when confronted with sources[47], [48], or just throws it at any opposing argument.[49]

This behaviour is not specific to this dispute or topic area (in fact the earlier behaviour was in a completely different topic area). Their POV-pushing there is still evident - here they tell an editor that their content doesn't belong on the Morocco page and to place it in the more obscure Germany–Morocco_relations [50], only to then revert that editor there 3 times in a row [51][52][53]. M.Bitton proceeds to template this editor (twice) for edit-warring. That editor has 352 edits by the way, so WP:BITE is a real concern, but I don't think that this would be proper conduct to anyone.

One of the reasons that M.Bitton got blocked is that when they were being reported for aggressive behaviour, they doubled down and went on the offensive. This is another instinct that has not changed since their block, if their first response above is anything to go by.

All I sought last time was for M.Bitton to recognise the problematic behaviours and change them. M.Bitton ended up apologising when they were caught for block evasion, but I am not aware of any instance of them recognising why they were blocked in the first place and undertaking, no matter how casually, to improve. Rather they've returned and within a month are embroiled in intractable content and conduct disputes across multiple topic areas.

Is it possible that this whole dispute with Closetside could have been avoided by starting it with a touch more civility and a lot fewer aspersions and assumptions of bad faith?[54][55] I think so. And if M.Bitton doesn't see the problem with their behaviour, is there any chance they're not going to be brought back again and again by far less experienced editors who they've attempted to beat into submission? Samuelshraga (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning M.Bitton

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

Hello, M.Bitton, it seems like your comment in this discussion is making further accusations against Closetside and not responding to the points they brought up in their complaint against you. Since Closetside opened this complaint and not you, it would be helpful if you could consider the examples they brought up and either confirm them or contest them rather than starting a brand new complaint against them. Otherwise we have two separate complaints going on at the same time. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton, you are correct that due to recent changes, complaints at ARE now can only concerns details about two editors, the filing party and the editor whom the complaint is about. So, that is why your comments about Closetside were not welcome on the other complaint but suitable for this one since Closetside is the filing party. But my own comment made yesterday was to encourage you to engage with Closetside's opening critique rather than bringing up unrelated complaints you had against Closetside. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not agree with all of the ways M.Bitton is characterizing Closetside, I do think he is correct to have noted that the 3rd opinion giver was not qualified to do so; given the complexity here it would be the incredibly rare editor who is capable even at 500 edits of being capable of understanding both the content and policies at play and so 8 edits short of extended confirmed or not I think he's right to give short shift to that. While on the narrow question at play here, I come to largely similar conclusions to Richard Nevell on the broader behavior questions I share Samuelshraga's concerns even if the evidence presented post-block do not appear to be in this forum's remit. I antcipate that I may not have time to further weigh in on this dispute and so do not need to be consulted by any admin(s) attempting to form consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Closetside: I am not suggesting a compromise nor do I see Richard Nevell doing so. Instead I agree with his comment that you, even in this comment I'm replying to, make their point and set conditions which need to be met to 'disprove' them. which isn't actually how consensus - not compromise - can be built. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've only skimmed this and have no position on the overall merits, but I am disappointed to read So far, he is uninterested in arguing or conceding gracefully, instead beating the same drum like a proponent of a canard, and this behaviour is harmful to the encyclopedia. and it seems like your comment in this discussion is making further accusations against Closetside and not responding to the points they brought up in their complaint against you in light of my recent block of M.Bitton. -- asilvering (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yarohj

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

Request concerning Yarohj

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: UtoD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Yarohj (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

6 May 2025 Continously removes content from the page of Mullivaikkal massacre insisting there is no RS despite the other user who added it again naming the RS and the same RS being discussed in talk page.
7 May 2025 And again reverting to remove the same content while insisting no RS. No talk page activity and clearly didn't even check it out.
6 May 2025 Adding large blatant WP:SOAPBOX copy-paste section dumps on the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page. No talkpage explanation either as the exact issue has been discussed and solved through RC.
7 May 2025 Uses reverting to try and force back the content and again, no talk page activity.
7 May 2025 And reverted again. No talk page activity which makes me give them a warning and notify them of CT sanctions despite them being previously active in SL pages under CT just in case if they are unaware.
7 May 2025 Ignores the warning and reverts yet again and dumps the massive WP:SOAPBOX section despite already being warned and notified of the CT sanctions in place.

@Femke: Note that user Johnwiki states the main citation is the UN panel report in Mullivaikkal page which is also present in the in-line citations. Also note that for Sri Lanka Armed Forces the issue has been discussed before and also an RfC decision for the page not to content dump WP:SOAPBOX sections which are already present in more relevant pages on it but to have a concise section in History explaining the things and give links to relevant articles which is already present. However the issue being reported is user Yarohj edit warring and trying to push them through by force even after being warned -UtoD 10:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [56]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[57]

Discussion concerning Yarohj

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

Statement by Yarohj

The source you linked literally says "The UN says most of those civilians died in government shelling as they were crammed into ever-diminishing “No Fire Zones” – though the Tamil Tigers are also alleged to have committed grave abuses including suicide bombings and the use of human shields.", I don't how you can mention allegations as established information, and make a big claim that LTTE has done massacres against Tamils in NFZs, while its well known established fact, that Sri Lanka Armed Forces have committed countless genocidal atrocities against Tamils in NFZs, backed by a lot of sources as mentioned in that article and @UtoD has removed a whole section of content from Sri Lanka Armed Forces page too, it was relevant content copy pasted from other articles with attribution, I don't know how any of this is WP:SOAPBOX, significant notable activities that happened in the civil war, how can that be WP:NPOV, portraying as if nothing happened, like there is no cases against them of genocide, war crime and human rights violations, not mentioning any of this is WP:SOAPBOX, a propaganda recruitment page for Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Yarohj (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Yarohj

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

Yarohj: I see you've not yet found your way to talk pages. When an edit is reverted, the standard route is to open a talk page discussion, to see if you can come to a consensus, for instance via compromise. This is called WP:Bold, revert, discuss. When you repeatedly revert, this is edit warring. I don't see any recent discussions of sourcing on Talk:Mullivaikkal massacre on either side. Can you explain why you believe the cited source ([58]) did not support the statement? Maybe you're unaware that the infobox does not always repeat citations for the rest of the article. Or do you believe that Channel4 is unreliable? These discussion need to happen on talk, not via repeated reversions in edit summaries. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing the discussion as a normal admin action may still be warranted. Yarohj: do you understand that thinking you're right is not an excuse for edit warring? Especially in contentious areas like this, you need to talk and reach consensus instead of edit warring. When you want to change the direction and tone of a page, you need to convince people on the talk page that the previous version was not neutral and did not reflect how the very highest-quality sources describe the topic. How much attention you give certain aspects of a topic impacts the neutrality (for good or worse), so text that is neutral is one article can be WP:UNDUE weight and non-neutral in another article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will just say (without having looked at the complaint in detail) that this is not a valid CT notice: the rule on awareness is that Only the officially designated templates should be used for an editor's first contentious topic alert, and more importantly I don't think "CT sanctions apply to these articles" is at all useful for a new editor who likely has no idea what CT even stands for. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've given them the CTOP warning now. @Yarohj, can you please respond to Femke's question above? -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Göycen

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: Göycen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Yamla (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Arbitration enforcement (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2): topic ban violations, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2024#User_sanctions_(AA) and see Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2025#AA

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

Notification of that administrator: notified

Statement by Göycen

(copied by Yamla without endorsement) I understand I was blocked after a series of reverts. Recently almost all my edits were re-reverts of material I believed to be inaccurate; I added no new content related to the ArbCom case and even replaced dead links with live archives to keep sources verifiable.

My editing record on the Turkish Wikipedia (see contribs there) shows consistent, constructive work. I am currently on hiatus, preparing for my medical board exams, and only logged in briefly to address these disputed edits.

My comment asking another editor to restore reliably sourced material was made in good faith and read more harshly than I intended, but I now see it can appear as canvassing; I accept responsibility for my wording and will be more careful.

If unblocked I will:

limit myself to one revert per issue unless consensus is obtained;
open or join a talk-page discussion (or seek WP:3O/DR) before reverting again;
stay civil, assume good faith and focus strictly on content;
comply fully with all ArbCom and community sanctions in the topic area. I unconditionally agree to refrain from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any page, discussion, or edit related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area, broadly construed, as defined by ArbCom and community sanctions.

I hope this demonstrates I understand the problem, will not repeat it, and can continue making constructive, policy compliant edits. Göycen (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from user talk page) Dear Liz Rosguill and asilvering,

I respectfully request that you review the complaint that led to my ban. I apologize for not providing enough context in my appeal; I assumed Firefangledfeathers would clarify the situation, but no further explanation was offered on my appeal page. I would therefore like to supply the missing background and address any misunderstandings.Göycen (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Firefangledfeathers, I would appreciate it if you could provide a more detailed explanation for my ban in light of following messages¹,² and the recent ban of the same sockpuppet from last year. I recognize that my reference to "Qajars" may have connections to Azerbaijan, and it's possible my comments regarding "kete" were perceived as canvassing. Göycen (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rosguill, Thank you for your last comment. However, I still haven’t seen your assessment regarding my appeal. Responding only by criticizing the tone and questioning my understanding is not, with all due respect, a sufficient response. Göycen (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Firefangledfeathers, Thank you for your comment. I also do not want to take more time of yours. Perhaps I should be more open: I am not entirely appealing your decision. My messages are simply intended to demonstrate my goodwill. I understand that I should be banned; I only find it unfair to be banned from Wikipedia indefinitely. I would appreciate it if you could consider reducing the length of my ban. I did not intentionally edit hot topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan. Although I acknowledge that I violated the topic ban, my actions were motivated by good intentions, particularly in response to edits made by a problematic IP address. Göycen (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rosguill, I know that time is the most valuable resource for both of us. This will be my final ping regarding my appeal.

With full sincerity, I kindly ask you to review it once more. I have already clearly stated in my original appeal that I unconditionally agree to refrain from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any page, discussion, or edit related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area, broadly construed, as defined by ArbCom and community sanctions. Göycen (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear asilvering, With full sincerity, I kindly ask you to review it once more. I have already clearly stated in my original appeal that I unconditionally agree to refrain from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any page, discussion, or edit related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area, broadly construed, as defined by ArbCom and community sanctions. Göycen (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Firefangledfeathers and Yamla,Thank you for reviewing my request. I would like to withdraw my appeal at this timeGöycen (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

I'm aware of this appeal (thanks Yamla!), and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Göycen, I didn't realize you were looking for further explanation. Is that still the case? Which part would you like me to clarify? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"...light of the following messages": I don't see #1 as relevant. #2 (a comment by me from last year) includes some examples of topics to avoid, including edits "tied to some Azerbaijan–Turkey cultural conflict". Some of your recent topic ban violations were related to cultural conflicts involving. For example, your edits at Pekmez were part of an edit war over how much to state or emphasize different nationalities' relationship to the drink, with both Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey involved in the edit war. I didn't remember providing the guidance I did in #2, but the reminder makes me more concerned that you didn't recognize those edits as TBAN violations.

"...recent ban of the sockpuppet": this is not relevant. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KhndzorUtogh

@Rosguill, @Asilvering Interestingly, their last appeal got rejected due to AI involvement [59]. This new appeal seems AI-generated as well, and for what it’s worth, it’s a total shift from the way they spoke last time in ANI (I dug up the archive below)

[60] I decided to look into the archived ANI case since I couldn't recall any specific things. This is where Göycen lost their EC rights, and there was a subscetion of “vandalism”/POV accusations that Göycen made in the same report which eventually led to their own blocks. It's kind of noteworthy they've been MIA since last August and just came back recently, and they still inaccurately label things with the term vandalism [61], [62].

Göycen has barely made any edits since last year, with their recent contributions primarily consisting of tban violations, improper use of vandalism to revert edits, and canvassing to WP:GAME their lack of EC rights; WP:GAME being the reason they lost it in the first place [63]. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Göycen

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

Statement by Yamla

I copied the appeal from User talk:Göycen and believe I count as an uninvolved editor. Please excuse any mistakes in procedure with my action here, I don't often see enforcement appeals while patrolling unblock requests. My opening of this appeal is in no way an endorsement of the appeal itself, I'm simply bringing it to the community. --Yamla (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Göycen

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

This appeal doesn't appear to acknowledge that Göycen is subject to a topic ban or that their edits violated it, which leads me to suspect that an AI was used to draft this statement. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure looks like AI to me too. GPTZero gives it its firmest possible no, however, which is an interesting failure, given that the editor's natural English last year looks like this: [64]. Göycen, if this appeal isn't robot-voice, I'm impressed. But I can't say I'm impressed by the content of the appeal itself, for the reasons Rosguill has mentioned. -- asilvering (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Göycen, I'm afraid that the report on FFF's talk page that you point to doesn't change my assessment of the situation, and I am confused as to why you believed that it would.

Reviewing now the link to prior discussions with Göycen that asilvering provided, I now see that these problems of failing to understand things in the face of clear explanations seems to be an ongoing feature, and would recommend that greater prejudice be used toward future requests from them. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Special:Diff/1290550589: successful appeals are supposed to demonstrate an understanding of the editing restrictions that the appellant is subject to and an intent to respect them. I'm not seeing that here; instead, I see promises to be careful and avoid edit wars when what we actually expect from you is to avoid Armenia/Azerbaijan topics entirely. I don't think I've commented on tone at all thus far, which raises further CIR/IDHT concerns. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on what limit myself to one revert per issue covers. Is this "per article", "per day", "per incident" (and how to guage that)....it seems murky and I can see where an editor and an admin could have different interpretations on whether or not an edit violates that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And not only was there a topic ban but the editor had EC status removed (see here) for GAMING ECR status. It doesn't appear that Göycen ever requested ECR permission to be restored so they shouldn't be editing any contentious topic that requires EC status. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this needs to continue any further; I cannot imagine any consensus developing to lift this block. The block is indefinite, and not timed, because we want to know that you understand why you were blocked before you go back to editing. Since you do not understand, you would simply be immediately reblocked, and there is no reason to unblock. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gazumpedheit

Blocked indefinitely as a non-AE action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Gazumpedheit

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: [65] (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 [66]

[67] 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

[68] 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.

[69] 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:

[70] 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)

[71] CTOP alert

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[72]

Discussion concerning Gazumpedheit

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

Statement by Gazumpedheit

Result concerning Gazumpedheit

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

Pikachu 9988

AE does not have jurisdiction over WP:GS/SASG. As a community-sanctions action I have issued a logged warning for TBAN violations. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Pikachu 9988

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

17:12, 16 May 2025
17:38, 16 May 2025
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, [73], [74], [75], but which Pikachu 9988 has repeatedly re-added: [76], [77], [78], [79].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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.

Discussion concerning Pikachu 9988

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

Statement by Pikachu 9988

Result concerning Pikachu 9988

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

JohnWiki159

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

Request concerning JohnWiki159

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Petextrodon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: JohnWiki159 (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

18 December 2021 Adds LTTE as perp to infobox, despite a source that he himself had cited making it clear LTTE was noted for its absence of sexual violence (pp. 134, 143, 146) barring few allegations.
29 December 2021 First revert, re-adds LTTE as perp to infobox after being removed by another editor who thought it misleading.
9 April 2024 Reverts my removal, and re-adds LTTE as perp to infobox, without addressing my edit explanation weeks earlier where I explained that one anti-LTTE source can't be given equal weight to other reliable sources in the lede contradicting it, although a talk discussion about this issue had been active since 27 March 2024 and even there he refused to engage my comments addressing him. Another editor issues an edit warring warning on JohnWiki159's user talk page.
14 April 2024 Re-adds LTTE as perp to infobox after another editor had removed it, without even engaging me in the talk, even after I had notified in the talk page that an admin had issued an edit warring warning on the issue. On the next day, I once again asked him to engage me in the talk and warned him that he could be topic banned but he ignored me.
16 May 2025 Re-adds the same disputed content an year later after another editor had removed it without engaging the active talk discussion.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
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 20 April 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is an years-long slow edit warring without talk engagement.---Petextrodon (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that JohnWiki159 has brought it up, I want admins to take note of the fact that he has now admitted to adding grapevine against Wiki policy. Not only that, but has also misrepresented the source by presenting it as a fact despite the source itself explicitly describing it as a grapevine. He has also misrepresented the other source, whose author is merely noting that UTHR has made these allegations, without commenting on their veracity and on several instances comments these allegations lack details (pp. 146-147). His "POV editing" accusation applies to his own behaviour, not just on the article in question but also on main article of the LTTE where for the past several years he has been adding excess weight to its negative representation. JohnWiki159 has further pointed out that several other editors also opposed his edit to the infobox. If that were the case, wouldn't the right course of action have been to open a talk discussion than to continue reverting over the years?---Petextrodon (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

AE Notice

Discussion concerning JohnWiki159

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

Statement by JohnWiki159

Dear all, I have added LTTE as Perpetrator to the info box because the article contains incidents of sexual violence by LTTE members against Tamils. The source cited lists cases of such violence against Tamils by LTTE members. Moreover, UTHR has reported such cases by LTTE and the source lists the cases reported by UTHR. UTHR has reported on violence perpetrated by both the state forces and LTTE. Petextrodon calls UTHR anti-LTTE but at the same time, Petextrodon uses the same UTHR reports as sources for violence perpetrated by the state forces as shown here. The article has several incidents which use UTHR as sources for violence perpetrated by the state forces. But when the same source is used to list the violence perpetrated by the LTTE, that source becomes anti-LTTE for Petextrodon. In this edit, Petextrodon adds a phrase "According to the anti-LTTE" for a LTTE violence reported by UTHR. Isn't this POV editing? The talk page discussion is about whether to include a LTTE violence in the article. Users Petextrodon and Oz346 have objected including an incident in the article reported by the the UTHR source where a forcibly recruited child soldier who had managed to escape faced sexual violence by LTTE members after being caught. The UTHR source says that the sexual violence of the escaped child soldier by LTTE members came to be known later through the grapevine straddling all sections that inhabit Batticaloa's interior. In the talk page, Users Petextrodon, Oz346 and Tame Rhino argue that "things heard through the grapevine are explicitly forbidden from Wikipedia hence this incident cannot be included in the article". However, my opinion is that this incident can be included in the article by mentioning the grapevine straddling. Moreover, the source talks about this incident as well. Since these users are objecting the inclusion of this incident in the article, I decided to only update the Perpetrator list since the article contains other incidents of sexual violence by LTTE members against Tamils, to maintain the neutral point of view of the article. It should be also noted that there have been several other attempts to remove LTTE from the List of Perpetrator and LTTE violence1 2 3 4 5 This gives the question why some users are so focused on trying to only remove the LTTE out of all the Perpetrators from the info box when there are LTTE violence incidents in the article. --JohnWiki159 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Petextrodon's comment

I believe Petextrodon has misunderstood what I wrote. I summarized the talk page discussion to help readers understand the points being raised. What I said was Users Petextrodon, Oz346 and Tame Rhino argue that "things heard through the grapevine are explicitly forbidden from Wikipedia hence this incident cannot be included in the article". I included the argument brought up by these users in quotation marks and then provided my own opinion afterward. I haven't admitted to anything.

Regarding Petextrodon's accusation that I am engaging in POV editing on the LTTE article, I have used reliable sources to add content to that article. I reject Petextrodon accusations of me adding excess weight to its negative representation. When examining contributions of Petextrodon, Petextrodon's edit count is more than twice mine in the LTTE article. Then as per Petextrodon's logic, this implies that Petextrodon has been adding far more excess weight to its positive representation. I believe all content, positive or negative, should be supported by reliable sources and presented in accordance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

Regarding the accusation of misrepresentation by Petextrodon, the source summarizes the specific incident reported by UTHR in which a forcibly recruited child soldier who had managed to escape was subjected to sexual violence LTTE members. There is no mention of "grapevine" in the source. Since Users Petextrodon, Oz346 and Tame Rhino have objected the inclusion of this incident in the article, I decided to only update the Perpetrator list. However, my opinion is that this incident can be included in the article by mentioning the grapevine straddling as highlighted in the UTHR report.

Regarding the content removal by different users, the content removal occurred gradually over the years, often in different stages. Most of the removals were made by IP users or newly created accounts. When the content was restored with proper explanations, there were no ongoing back-and-forth reverts or edit wars. Therefore, there was no need to open a talk page discussion at the time.

Petextrodon calls UTHR anti-LTTE but at the same time, Petextrodon uses the same UTHR reports as sources for violence perpetrated by the state forces as shown here. This inconsistent treatment of the same source appears to reflect a POV editing approach and compromises the article's neutral point of view. Selective application like this risks misleading readers.--JohnWiki159 (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning USERNAME

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

Mithilanchalputra7

Withdrawn Valereee (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Mithilanchalputra7

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

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.
13:47, 16 May 2025 - Edit warring to retain his problematic edits.
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.
12:47, 16 May 2025 - Incorrectly claiming Indian partisan media sources as third party.
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.[80]
07:06, 13 May 2025 - Reverting to keep partisan Indian media sources in.
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.[81]

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [82]

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

[83]

Discussion concerning Mithilanchalputra7

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

Statement by Mithilanchalputra7

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 [84], 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 [85] by Kautilya3. The contention [86][87] 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 [88][89] on the article. I saw Swat's comments [90][91] 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]

Result concerning Mithilanchalputra7

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]

Colin

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

Request concerning Colin

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RelmC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Colin (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#Final decision

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

11 December 2024 During Raladic's Arbitration Enforcement, cast aspersions against Administrator Black Kite.
12 December 2024 Creates a talk page topic on Black Kite's User page which includes "But it does indicate to all that you are prejudiced and have already put editors into two boxes: pro-trans and anti-trans. Which is awful. You may think it is harmless to be prejudiced on the side of the angels but all that shows is a simplistic view of Good-Correct people vs Bad-Incorrect people. And the real world is complicated, and I sincerely hope you are wiser and more intelligent than that would indicate." clearly displaying a continued Battleground mindset.
5 February 2025 After YFNS, who wrote the majority of the article, opened a DYK nomination for Transgender health care misinformation, Colin launched into several attacks, beginning with: "Readers of this sorry wiki article would be forgiven for thinking it was written by a really enthusiastic teenager who nobody had told NPOV was a core pillar, nor explained the difference between opinion and fact."
6 February 2025 Colin continued with the attacks against YFNS: "I guess this sort of tripe works on gullible twitter/blog-reading people already minded to hate, but it is Trump-level argumentation that does not impress at any intellectual level.", "This is simply hoax put about by activists to attempt to discredit the finest and most comprehensive review of youth trans healthcare yet published. And meanwhile, outside of your activist silo, it is being accepted and implemented by professionals who are not bigots.", and "As I said, this article reads like a teenager wrote it as an activist pamphlet to address problems they only see from a US perspective, fighting a certain kind of US bigot and thinking the rest of the world is like that too. It doesn't belong in an international encyclopaedia that claims to use professional sources. It certainly doesn't belong on the main page. This sort of subject needs to be written by editors with a commitment to NPOV, not a commitment to The Cause."
8 February 2025 and concluded with the most egregious remarks by calling the article an 'activist screed' and directly stating to YFNS "And you are an activist single-purpose account. Throwing stones at me doesn't change that."
2 March 2025 After the comments from Colin, the reviewer paused the review while a Good Article Re-evaluation could occur. Colin then continued with the animus against YFNS at the discussion for how the Re-evaluation should occur.
15 May 2025 Casts aspersions against Lewisguile.
16 May 2025 Shifts from aspersions to more directly stating: "I'm rather tired of editors who don't understand what 'assume good faith' is or what a 'personal attack' is, but more than happy to fling those terms about when butt hurt." in reply to Lewisguile pointing out the aspersions."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Sept 17th 2024 Arbitration Enforcement concluded "A consensus of administrators warns Colin against further uses of inflammatory language in this topic area."

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

Subject of a previous GENSEX arbitration enforcement [92].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Colin has shown that they contribute with no issue outside of the topic of GENSEX, and despite the previous warning they consistently launch into a battleground mindset driven approach when they edit on GENSEX by casting aspersions or directly making accusations against other editors directly when they venture into the topic area - typically through belittling their intelligence.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[93]

Discussion concerning Colin

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

Statement by Colin

Black Kite's comments and the negative reaction of at least three editors can be found here. IMO his statement at 19:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC) is the very definition of a battleground mentality, with no room whatsoever for editors occupying a middle ground, and prejudices any decision such an admin might make.

Transgender health care misinformation is the worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia. It appears to exist in a NPOV exclusion zone. What is described above as "attacks against YFNS" are about the false claim "The Cass Review—a non-peer-reviewed independent evaluation of trans healthcare within NHS England". It is false because the Cass Review consists of seven peer reviewed systematic reviews. Claiming it is not peer reviewed is a fine example of activist misinformation: our article on misinformation makes that false claim.

I reject the "casts aspersions" and "belittling their intelligence" claim entirely. My criticism of Black Kite is evidenced and agreed with by others. In the recent discussion there is no "misbehaviour" being alleged at all, evidenced or otherwise. Editors who are intelligent and working in good faith can also be wrong or misguided in their approach. I have absolutely no doubt that the editors on the above pages are intelligent and working in good faith to improve the encyclopaedia, as they see it.

WP:MEDASSESS warns editors of rejecting (or disparaging) higher level sources in favour of lower and "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review". Which is what the most recent discussion was doing, where editors were assessing Noone on the basis of whether they agreed with it rather than on P&G merits. The authors of the Noone paper are spectacularly lacking in authority or relevant experience, and the contrast with the York team is something I spell out clearly and forcefully.

I accept my language criticising the weaknesses of sources or in statements in or drawn from them is robust and having an inflammatory effect on those who would seek to push those sources or statements. Clearly that's not working or helpful.

I have never engaged with RelmC before, nor was she in those discussions AFAICS. That her first ever interaction with me is to post the above breaks so many rules of behaviour I'm boggled. I'm struggling to think of a clearer example of WP:BATTLEGROUND than that, frankly.

It's clearly this isn't working. I've never shied away from calling out bullshit and bollocks when I see it and don't think that's going to change. Those who know me know I am strongly sympathetic to the trans cause and oppose those who attack out of bigotry. For this reason, a topic ban would be deeply shaming, frankly. I propose a voluntary end to my editing in the GENSEX topic, and feel that I can be trusted to adhere to that. -- Colin°^Talk 15:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, ScottishFinnishRadish, Vanamonde93, can I request you close this with the acceptance of my offer. Admin actions are meant to be preventative not punitive, and you have my word the preventative aspect is already done. Continuing this will only lead to "punching me when I'm already down" comments or editors using this AE to attack each other. I hope others have the grace to spot an easy victory / hopeless case when they see it and do something positive with their time instead. -- Colin°^Talk 18:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snokalok, you don't "know" me at all, as you demonstrate in abundance. Feel free to ping whatever admins you like, I fail to see how pinging the admins who were robustly critical of me last time and most likely to be disappointed in my lack of improvement is me loading the dice in my favour, but clearly you see it how you see it. Sweet6970, this isn't helping. BlackKite's comments were made six months ago. Please can everyone just watch Eurovision instead of being hateful. -- Colin°^Talk 19:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin and Vanamonde93. Thank you for your carefully considered comments. I think your assessment is fair and I do acknowledge that my tone/approach/language is a serious problem, particularly in a contentious topic. "Uncivil NPOV-pushing", as Vanamonde93 isn't appropriate, or, frankly, working. Wrt my "dogged" approach, I am trying to adopt a pattern of posting and then taking a break for a day or two.

While I enormously appreciate Tamzin's comments about transphobia, as the author of WP:UPPERCASE, I know nobody will read them after this closes. I know that a mention of such a ban would be gleefully used as a weapon against me in any future disagreements anywhere on the project. I don't think there is any fuller move I can make than, or expression that the problem is not "everyone else", than to drop out of the topic completely, which I'm doing regardless of what you decide. -- Colin°^Talk 23:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re Parabolist. Horton has a "Doctor of Philosophy, Applied trans studies": they are not a medical doctor nor have they any experience or training in clinical research into drug treatments. Their professional work would amply qualify them to discuss and criticise Cass's recommendations on social aspects of trans youth. It does not, IMO, remotely qualify them as an expert in the the GRADE tool that National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (who kinda know a thing or two about systematic reviews) used for their two systematic reviews on clinical studies on drugs. WP:MEDASSESS does not allow us to dismiss top tier evidence on the basis of criticism from random people with a PhD. Same goes for the psychology lecturer from Galway. I accept I have at times mocked the unqualified, which is what us Brits do, and clearly isn't appreciated by this audience. You'd laugh perhaps if I was mocking an unqualified transphobe, I guess. Parabolist, I suspect your impression of me as one-sided is because of the Cass Review, and I've previously been involved in other discussions, such as about LBG Alliance or trans-inclusive word choices, where you'd likely say I was on your side. Wrt RGW, my reality is Cass Review#NHS Scotland and the professional healthcare response documented here. It is a world away from the transphobic report the US Government has recently published. The multidisciplinary clinical team that produced the linked documents are qualified experts, have everyone's best interests at heart, and more importantly, their report matters, and should matter to Wikipedia. Republished blog postings in Mother Jones do not, I'm afraid. -- Colin°^Talk 09:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re YFNS. Wrt the FRINGE discussion, I've already received and responded to criticism of my dogged approach. I can't find the accusations of bad faith you mention, vaguely recall them, but people saying things doesn't make them true, no more true than the accusations of casting aspersions in this AE report. The very opening sentence of WP:AGF is "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful." I think the approach to settling open controversies in medical science with a vote of Wikipedians is wrong, and doubly wrong for culture war topics. I think it is misguided and harmful for the project. Despite good intentions. There are three admins below saying I am wrong, am misguided and in this topic at least, am actually harming the project, but none of them believes I'm deliberately trying to harm the project. Nor are you.

Wrt the last comment about "german clinical practice guidelines" the source I was opposing was not them. I have no idea why I could be hypocritical about a source I've never discussed or am even aware of. Its existence would not magically make Chris from Galway a reliable source on systematic reviews of clinical research into drug treatments. I do think this demonstrates a fundamental difference to RS between me and you (and you and P&G). You think that if a RS (like those clinical guidelines, say) is critical of the Cass Review, that magically makes all and every other source that is critical of the Cass Review into a reliable source. But reliable sources are not reliable because of how they concluded or whether you or I agree with them. A systematic review of puberty blockers, say, may be a reliable source no matter whether it concludes positively or negatively. Reliability is something something has even before you read it.

I wish those MEDRS systematic reviews had concluded differently about trans healthcare, as I'd my talk page would be full of Defender of the Wiki barnstars from you guys rather than AE noticeboard links. -- Colin°^Talk 11:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re YFNS, wrt "followed to DYK", that's diff-worthy hostile allegation if ever I've seen one. Well done. The DYK nomination page is on more watchlists than the Village Pump. But fyi I saw the discussion on WAID's contribs. I'm sure I'm not alone in occasionally peeking at what wiki friends are up to. I didn't and don't care who wrote that article. I'm not going to respond further to you, em, ever. -- Colin°^Talk 19:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Void if removed

For context, the diff in [1] referenced an admin quite blatantly implying I was an "anti-trans POV pusher" and questioning my motives for bringing Raladic to AE, and Colin was objecting to this sort of unchecked incivility (same with the talk box followup): It does not, at the moment, appear to be very good at combating anti-trans POV pushers (unless they are obviously offensive), because many are civil and policy-compliant. The cynic in me wonders if this is trying to remove an editor who is trying to push back against some of this behaviour.

Complaining about such incivility is not "casting aspersions". Pointing out that this sort of lack of neutrality added nothing and undermines faith in the AE process is not a "battleground mindset". The rest of this complaint is a trawl through mostly months-old comments for anything that can be interpreted the worst possible way, with no consideration of the context. Void if removed (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as that's looking like the disappointing outcome, I'll just say that FWIW I think GENSEX can ill afford to lose editors of Colin's calibre and commitment to NPOV. Void if removed (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snokalok

I'm going to address a couple points here:

In regards to the Cass Review, we're obviously not here to dispute content, but as has been said to you a thousand times on this topic, Colin, The Cass Review is a different document from the systemic reviews it commissioned, and it draws different conclusions as them. Thus it cannot be treated as the same thing, AND ALSO we have reliable sources saying the Cass Report itself is not peer-reviewed.[94] And beyond that, a quick look at the Cass Review page shows the entire global medical community outside the UK ripping it to shreds - including but certainly not limited to America, Canada, Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Austria, Poland, Japan, Switzerland. Editors don't NEED to do academic peer review, the entire world already has and they're not impressed.

Those who know me know I am strongly sympathetic to the trans cause and oppose those who attack out of bigotry As someone who has edited with you extensively (as shown by the diffs in my previous AE thread linked above), I know absolutely no such thing. What I have seen is a relentless defense of the honor and credibility of what are widely recognized as pieces of anti-trans propaganda from a government with a long and reliably documented history of deliberately seeking to erode trans rights, being defended not in service of an anti-trans position, but rather in service of what I would characterize as British institutional exceptionalism. Your editorial stance, as I would characterize it, is not one of a directly anti-trans pov, but rather that if the right and proper institutions publish a non-peer reviewed report that cites right wing youtube channels to say that being trans might be caused by pornography and that conversion therapy is the answer - then that is vox dei; regardless of how much of the global medical community says "This is a hit piece backed by anti-trans lobby groups from a government and media apparatus that has been targeting trans people for a long time", regardless of whatever reviews or guidelines they publish tearing it apart, the fact is that the right and proper people in the British government have said X and therefore all other editors must uncritically abide by it and any criticism of it is mere trans activism that has no place on its page regardless of who-from, which has to be either watered down or excluded from the article entirely.

This all would be one thing, everyone has a position on everything, but as was said in this AE and the last one, you do kinda, go off the rails a little for it. I don't think you're a bad editor, but I do think you turn your brain off when it comes to GENSEX in a way that I don't think you're entirely cognizant of.

I support your promise to stay off of GENSEX, but I would support it being formalized - not in disgrace, and I would support a note saying that it's not in disgrace - but simply because I feel like if it isn't, we'll end up back here later on. Snokalok (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that I don't like the tagging of Barkeep, Raddish, and Vanamonde, because while they did handle the last thread, to me this feels like some degree of admin-shopping; and if the accused can tag the admins they want, anyone can. Snokalok (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sweet6970

1) I am one of the editors who complained about Black Kite’s comment at the AE discussion on Raladic, as linked by Colin. I stand by my comment: it is Black Kite’s comment which is shocking and worthy of sanctions, not Colin’s.

2) Regarding Colin’s offer to cease editing in gensex: this shows there is a very serious problem with Wikipedia’s attitude to editing in this area. Colin has said that he is pro-trans. But he is also an experienced medical editor (which I am not). If he cannot, under the current conditions on Wikipedia, call out bad medical editing, then the medical articles to do with gensex are going to be in a dire state, and probably would be better deleted than left to deteriorate and bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by YFNS

At the last AE report I spoke against a TBAN for Colin, and expressed hope that he'd 1) stop being incivil towards and insulting me and 2) stop accusing anybody who slightly criticized the Cass Review of misinformation and "activism" and etc. He has not. I was thinking of reporting in February but decided against it because I was scared it would look like the last case, walls of insulting text and a slap on the wrist, and didn't have time or energy to deal with it. At this point, I regrettably think a TBAN is necessary.

This year, he's made about ~100 edits, the majority of which were about trans topics and to some degree, uncivil. He has not been particularly active since his rounds of insulting me in February across the DYK and the talkpage of WP:FRINGE and participating in the GA in March, until resuming bludgeoning at Cass Review which sparked this.
I would not describe his behavior as "incivil-NPOV pushing". His POV, eclectic and principled as it may be, is not NPOV. His continued arguments that all critics of the Cass Review are american twitter activists and etc is not NPOV. At the DYK nom, he made the claim This is a field where both activist sides have indulged in misinformation. I'd expect a Wikipedia article to state that clearly and give examples of both., when I asked for sources for that claim he kept insulting me, when I again asked for sources and a cease to the insults, he kept insulting me. Claiming people are pushing misinformation and demanded it be included without providing an RS is not NPOV.

I would like to note that there were further instances of incivility:

Feb 8: But a deliberate category error. That last sentence in YFNS is written to mean organisations we hate (and thus regard as FRINGE for believing the Wrong Things) must only be written about by, em, sources that hate them.[95], the last sentence being a proposal for a FRINGEORG paragraph of FRINGE saying Articles on organizations known solely for fringe advocacy should be written using reliable and independent sources and avoid the pitfalls of determining the notability of fringe theories themselves., based on the current WP:BLPFRINGE guidance
- He left 32 comments at Wikipedia talk: Fringe theories#FRINGEORG over the next few days, being repeatedly asked by editors to stop assuming bad faith
Later in February, at WP:FTN, he left a mocking and off-topic diatribe against the RFC question Is the view that transgender identities are, in themselves, a mental illness or otherwise frequently caused by mental illness WP:FRINGE within the bounds of mainstream medicine and international human rights?[96] (permalink to closed discussion[97])
- Followed by snarky off-topic comments like Are we just going to work through every single contentious issue in the field of transgender topics and ask editors to declare it WP:FRINGE? Is that how Wikipedia works today. FRINGE or not-FRINGE.[98] and Oh I can guess the fifth. Conversion therapy. Or did we have that one already? The common thread in all these steps is the Cass Review. There are sources claiming each of the things we've declared to be FRINGE with the Cass Review. Well done.[99] - the fact that the fringe theories noticeboard found many claims fringe, and that RS keep pointing out these claims are made in the Cass Review's report, speaks to this issue with Colin repeatedly accusing all criticism of the review with "activism".

There is a general pattern across his comments of calling any social sciences researcher, particularly LGBT ones, "activists" without explanation or sources and doubling down:

At the latest discussion at the Cass Review Writers who have an obvious agenda (as every one of the Noone paper authors and all the York PDF authors have in abundance, claim by a bunch of writers who's only pertinent qualification is "activist" that "Our critical analysis reveals significant methodological problems in the commissioned systematic reviews" is an extra ordinary claim., (the "critical analysis" here being to systematically apply the ROBIS criteria, the go-to method of reviewing systematic reviews for risk of bias)
In March at the GA Horton is employed at a business school and most of their published work consists of interviews with groups of like-minded individuals on social media. They have no medical qualifications or clinical research experience and are a well known activist (a scholar with a PHD in trans studies who has written multiple articles about the impacts of discrimination against transgender people)[100]
I raised this at the previous AE report for him, noting he'd been referring to Horton's works as "the opinions of someone's mum."

Even in this discussion, there's no real apology and further doubling down:

Transgender health care misinformation is the worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia. It appears to exist in a NPOV exclusion zone. - this is a GA, he participated in the GAR and subsequent GA and was asked repeatedly to put forward sources or suggest improvements and just doubled down on insulting me and walls of text
- Claiming it is not peer reviewed is a fine example of activist misinformation: our article on misinformation makes that false claim. - it doesn't even say that anymore, per the GA he was a part of...
I reject the "casts aspersions" and "belittling their intelligence" claim entirely. - this is despite saying I write like a teenager, am obviously a single purpose account, etc
This latest comment WP:MEDASSESS warns editors of rejecting (or disparaging) higher level sources in favour of lower and "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review". feels hypocritical to me, considering that higher tier sources, such as the latest german clinical practice guidelines, have repeatedly criticized the Cass Review.

I wish a TBAN wasn't necessary, but his behavior has been unacceptable in all the same ways since the last AE report Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee - Frankly this in the DYK by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist looks like baiting. YFNS, were you seriously suggesting that This is a field where both activist sides have indulged in misinformation. is somehow a controversial statement?

1) Colin completely skipped raising concerns at talk and went straight to insulting me and claiming the article wasn't NPOV, but somehow asking him for RS is baiting him? Insofar as there was any baiting in that discussion, it was probably the person leaving long insulting diatribes in an off-topic place, then refusing to provide sources when asked...
2) Yes - because RS frankly don't back that up. I should know, I have read every academic/medical paper published in the last few decade talking about trans healthcare misinformation. What Colin calls for is a WP:FALSEBALANCE.
- Imagine if somebody said climate change denial isn't neutral because "both sides do misinformation", and then just insulted you when asking for sources
- Or somebody said "both sides have indulged in misinformation" about Vaccine misinformation followed by insults when asked for sources.
- On CTOPs particularly, you are expected to politely discuss things with RS. Not leave diatribes insisting other's find sources to back a position you think is true.

Tbh, I'm kinda shocked that anyone can look at someone pop up to DYK, insult an editor, claim they're biased, and then double down on insults when asked for sources, and take the position that the person he followed to DYK is baiting him for daring to ask for sources. Then express incredulity that a controversial statement that no RS support is controversial.

What is well documented is that Evangelical groups and ex-gay groups and etc make many false claims about trans healthcare and use these to seek to limit it. What is well documented is medical orgs and academics and researchers and etc call bullshit on that. The claim that trans people/doctors are engaged in misinformation to promote trans healthcare is not supported by RS - if I am wrong that is trivially disprovable.

@Colin

I think the approach to settling open controversies in medical science with a vote of Wikipedians is wrong, and doubly wrong for culture war topics. - whether trans identities are caused by mental illness is not an "open controversy" considering there are dozens of MEDORGS saying they aren't and none saying they are. Claiming things are more controversial in trans healthcare than they are is a recurring pattern with you
Those german clinical practice guidelines cite Noone et al and consider them reliable for their critiques of the Cass Review. So did the British Medical Association. When MEDORGs and overranking sources like CPGs say "this source's critiques of these reviews are valid", we listen.
I wish those MEDRS systematic reviews had concluded differently about trans healthcare, as I'd my talk page would be full of Defender of the Wiki barnstars from you guys rather than AE noticeboard links. - If you were civil there'd be no problem. Nobody disagrees the evidence is poor. This is a strawman you keep shadowboxing. What MEDORG's around the world agree on is: "we need better data, the evidence we have is poor, but it suggests that the only method that has ever worked for GD is helping them transition".
- Re "you guys", the last time at AE I opposed sanctions for you. It hurt to suggest they'd be needed now. I used to look up to you somewhat and for the past few months you keep popping in to insult me and jumping in with a battleground mentality. You lump all the editors disagreeing with you as activists or etc

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parabolist

Perhaps it's having read enough of these discussions, but I would absolutely not describe Colin's approach to these articles as purely NPOV like the admins below. When Colin agrees with sources, he is rigorous about how editors should respect the experience and skills of the doctors who wrote them. When he disagrees with sources, suddenly the doctors who have written those are no longer doctors, and are now activists, which seems to be defined as anyone he doesn't agree with. Look the discussions from the previous complaint, and see how he talks about Dr. Cal Horton, who he repeatedly denigrates as only having the qualification of "being the mother of a trans kid", or diff 8 of this complaint where he describes a peer reviewed study's authors as "a bunch of writers who's only pertinent qualification is "activist"". Disagreement with his point of view strips you of your credentials. This is not the approach of an editor looking to find consensus, it is one of a RGW editor. This is all aside from the fact that there is no way to read his interaction with Lewisguile as having the sort of attitude we should accept in a CTOP as contentious as this. Come on. Parabolist (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colin's response to me is a perfect example. Immediately it's about how if I saw discussions where he was "on my side" I wouldn't think this way, and that I'd be completely fine with this if he was doing it to a transphobe. How is this not a battleground approach to a topic? Disagreement with Colin's approach towards describing sources makes me a partisan for a "side" now, and therefore my judgement is immediately compromised, unlike his. But hey, maybe the third warning will work, especially since everyone is making sure to couch it in how right he is. The lesson is really being baked in. Parabolist (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

Colin, walk away from the topic area of Gensex. I'm not accusing you (or anyone else) of misbehavior. Just walk away. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

My statement referred to above at the previous AE was Wikipedia is very good at combating homophobic, misogynistic and racist behaviour. It does not, at the moment, appear to be very good at combating anti-trans POV pushers (unless they are obviously offensive), because many are civil and policy-compliant. The cynic in me wonders if this is trying to remove an editor who is trying to push back against some of this behaviour. I stand by every word of it, because I believe it is the case. It is not a PA (because I don't mention any particular editor) and I am unaware of any Wikipedia rule on having opinions. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I have a long and unpleasant history with Colin, and I want to stipulate that up front. I think it's important for admins to remember WP:BRIE here. I also want to point out, because it hasn't been mentioned yet, that Colin's history with combative language goes back to a 2020 ArbCom case here: [101]. That was in MEDRS/Medical topics outside of GENSEX, so I question how much mileage can still be squeezed out of logged warnings. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Colin

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

I'll start with my standard disclaimer that I sometimes edit in the GENSEX topic area. I do not believe that there is anything in this case that makes me involved, but welcome feedback if anyone disagrees.
I saw the February remarks to YFNS at the time and considered imposing sanctions; if I'd known about the September warning, I probably would have. That said, sanctions are meant to be preventative, and if the only issues since then are the comments to Lewisguile, then I'd see that as an argument that sanctions weren't in fact needed, because these comments, while not great, in my view fall short of being personal attacks: In the first one, I read the claim of people "bullshitting you" as being about Noone et al. rather than any editor; and the second falls in that unfortunate category, so hard to moderate, of "uncivil but not a PA".
But I'd like to put a pin in that and zoom out to talk about Colin's behavior in GENSEX in general. I quietly lurk in a lot of GENSEX discussions, and I have found two things about Colin's editing:
1. He is one of the most truly nonpartisan editors in the topic area. To the extent his edits reflect any personal POV, it does not at all seem to be the orthodoxy of any ideological camp, but a well-considered set of views that leads him to sometimes agree with trans rights activists' views, and other times with gender-critical feminists. And when he comes into conflict with other editors, it does read as being out of genuine concern (correct or not) for their compliance with policies and guidelines, not based on a sense that they are on "the other side" and thus the enemy.
2. He is incredibly dogged in his style of participation, often bludgeoning discussions in a way that forces out all but the small number of editors who are willing to match his endurance, and often too quick to resort to emotional language. Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 10 § "Womb" v. "uterus" (for, apparently, the nth time) is a representative example. This can lead to incivility and personal attacks, as seen most dramatically with YFNS.
All of that is to say that, if Colin does not want the stain of a TBAN that would imply he is a transphobe, well, I'd like to make clear that in my expert opinion he is not. Many user conduct issues in GENSEX are a matter of substance (i.e. POV-pushing), but Colin's issue is one of style (i.e. bludgeoning and incivility). Personally, my philosophy as an admin is that if a TBAN is needed, then it's needed even if the person promises they won't touch the thing, and if you're not TBANning someone, it's because you're okay with the prospect of them going right back to editing that topic area tomorrow. I'm not sure whether I'd be okay with that. I think Colin's attitude is that the problem in this topic area is everyone else, and he's quite right that there's disruptive participation by lots of others in GENSEX, and many of his disputes have been cases of "it takes two to tango". But he is also part of the problem. An acknowledgment of that would go a long way toward avoiding a TBAN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I have the capacity to get involved in this report. But I will say I do not find the ping of me, Vanamonde, and SFR improper. We were 3 people who landed at a logged warning of Colin at the last report, so while not a random collection of people it's also not one that is going to be unafraid to sanction him and in fact ones who are going to understand the history as well as any. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding here primarily as an AE admin active on the previous request, and not because I was pinged - but I don't find the ping inappropriate, as it was of the three admins who handled the previous request, which ended with a warning to Colin. I am not impressed by Colin's language at the DYK nomination: this, in particular "you are an activist SPA" is not acceptable in those circumstances. I don't immediately see anything actionably in the rest of the complaint, though. Colin's language is strong, even intemperate, but it is directed not at editors but a section of the populace engaging in specific behaviors: and while I have not analyzed the entirety of Colin's recent behavior the diffs I looked at suggest he is attempting to rigorously apply our PAGs. We talk often at AE about civil POV-pushing - I would characterize Colin's behavior as the exact opposite, uncivil NPOV-pushing, which I'm much more hesitant to sanction. If there's evidence of aspersions against other editors in recent edits I'm not seeing it. I am not in general willing to codify voluntary TBANs because of the difficulties of applying them. If a sanction is applied it should be an AE sanction: but I'm not convinced we need such. If this had been brought here in February, I would have considered a sanction for the comments at DYK. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the GAR and the FTN discussion. I see more of what I observed before - frustration often turning into incivility, off-topic commentary, and an aggressive defense of what Colin believes to be NPOV. Some of this is inappropriate, as I have noted, but "inappropriate" does not immediately equate to "TBAN-worthy". I do not see aspersions about editors besides the egregious one at the DYK. Indeed the tenor of some of those discussions is better than what we observed many months ago - there is more discussion of substance, and less ad-hominem and off-topic inflammatory commentary, and I find this encouraging. I would like to see comments from other administrators. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like what I'm seeing here is someone who has a hard time not expressing frustration slightly more strongly than is helpful, and as is often seen at CTOPs, that ends up with a gotcha filing here at AE to try to get rid of the person. Frankly this in the DYK by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist looks like baiting. YFNS, were you seriously suggesting that This is a field where both activist sides have indulged in misinformation. is somehow a controversial statement? Colin, I wish you could keep your temper, and it would help hugely if you'd just go back and edit yourself before you hit send with stuff like "butt hurt" and "you are a SPA activist account", which you know isn't helpful and also clearly know can be used against you in ways you'd hate. I do not see the need for a tban. I do see the need for you to either voluntarily get out of this topic -- which is unfortunate for the encyclopedia -- or learn to walk away when you're feeling frustrated rather than responding to people baiting you or even just being obtuse. If you can't do either, you eventually will end up with a tban that, yes, people will assume is for something very much more serious than "can't control his temper when CTOPs intersects with MEDRS".

I would support a logged warning for inflammatory language in CTOP:MEDRS discussions. Valereee (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't find the pings inappropriate. I might have pinged the same admins for the same reason. Valereee (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YFNS, both activist sides is the key term here. My interpretation of the DYK discussion was not that Colin was advocating for presenting both activist sides but neither. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

500 words, people. 500 words total. Good grief. -- asilvering (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only read the first 500 words of each editor's statement. If an editor has already exceeded 500 words, I will not read any additional comments. I generally agree with Tamzin's assessment of Colin's behavior (I don't know enough about his political views to comment on them), and agree with Valareee that a logged warning for incivility and bludgeoning is appropriate. I didn't read far enough in Colin's statement to see this, but I note that some editors have said that Colin has agreed to avoid GENSEX. That seems prudent to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Arbitration enforcement request referral: Indian military history

Statement by Tamzin

Statement by Capitals00

Statement by Dympies

Statement by AlvaKedak

Statement by Ekdalian

Statement by Akshaypatill

Statement by Chronos.Zx

Statement by HerakliosJulianus

Statement by Maniacal ! Paradoxical

Statement by Abhishek0831996

Statement by Koshuri Sultan

Statement by RevolutionaryPatriot

Statement by PadFoot2008

Statement by Hu741f4

Statement by Extorc

Statement by Ivanvector

Statement by Bishonen

Statement by Abecedare

Statement by asilvering (non-party)

Statement by Vanamonde

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs (non-party)

Statement by Rosguill

Statement by Johnuniq

Statement by Valereee

Question on usage "pre-Raj" by Fowler&fowler (non-party)

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

Statement by LessHeard vanU

Statement by Orientls

Statement by Jéské Couriano

Statement by Barkeep49

Statement by Guerillero

Statement by {other-editor}

Indian military history (AE referral): Clerk notes

Indian military history (AE referral): Arbitrator views and discussion

Motions

Requests for enforcement

DaltonCastle

Request concerning DaltonCastle

Discussion concerning DaltonCastle

Statement by DaltonCastle

Statement by Generalrelative

Statement by Just10A

Result concerning DaltonCastle

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Fyukfy5

Statement by Fyukfy5

Statement by 331dot

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Fyukfy5

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

Statement by Chess

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Fyukfy5

Etcnoel1

Request concerning Etcnoel1

Discussion concerning Etcnoel1

Statement by Etcnoel1

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Etcnoel1

Wikipedious1

Request concerning Wikipedious1

Discussion concerning Wikipedious1

Statement by Wikipedious1

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wikipedious1

Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti

Request concerning Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti

Discussion concerning Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti

Statement by Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti

M.Bitton

Request concerning M.Bitton

Discussion concerning M.Bitton

Statement by M.Bitton