Important information Shortcuts WP:AEWP:AE WP:AREWP:ARE Please use this pageonly to: request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or acontentious topic restriction imposed by anadministrator, request contentious topic restrictions against apreviously alerted editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, requestpage 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 thedispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please usethe clarification and amendment noticeboard. Onlyregistered users who areautoconfirmed may file enforcement requests here; requests filed bytemporary accounts 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 anextended-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, appeals, and statements in response to them may not exceed500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.(Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Administrators may remove or shorten comments that are overlong or unconstructive, and may instruct users to stop participating or impose AE sanctions in response to disruptive contributions such aspersonal attacks orgroundless complaints. 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, unless AE admins waive this rule. Any uninvolved admin may furtherrestrict participation by non-parties at their discretion. 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 TheArbitration Committeeprocedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (andlogged 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 thearbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at theadministrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit arequest for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made byemail. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using theapplicable 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: aclear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, aclear 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 thearbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at theadministrators' 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 arequest 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 TheArbitration Committeeprocedures 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 thearbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at theadministrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at theamendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email throughSpecial:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, toarbcom-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. Word counts may be added using the following template:{{ACWordStatus|page=AE|section=REQUEST NAME|user=USERNAME}}. Extensions may be granted using the following template:{{ApprovedWordLimit|words=NEW TOTAL|sig=~~~~}}. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between{{hat}} and{{hab}} tags. Hatted requests will later be archived by an admin (often after a few days to a week). Please considerreferring 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 theArbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on thetalk page.

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Smallangryplanet (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

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

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

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

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on2023-04-05 and re-iterated on2024-11-25 (see the system log linked to above).
• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on2024-12-18 byFemke (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification diff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate theUCoC policy, but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g.this attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. —xDanielx^T/_C\^R03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January[1]permanent archive

For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks:

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

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

For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See[2] (archived). If you reveal your real identity on Wikipedia, your tweets about Wikipedia on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet[3].Hemiauchenia (talk)02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• While I understandVanamonde93's concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV.Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Guidance for editors places an obligation toWithin contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to thepurposes of Wikipedia. The linked page provides thatWikipedia is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. If an editor isonly adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor makingonly one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that thewhole article is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole.arcticocean ■20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I take it that perBarkeep49's brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (Special:Diff/1269845558), and then restoration of the same (Special:Diff/1269848988), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits?_signed,Rosguill^talk19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• I'm not satisfied with שלומית ליר's please of good faith. I think that the call for "interference" on Twitter (not even a week ago!) is a real concern in light of the standards being established by PIA5. I'm also concerned about the timeline of their knowledge of relevant CTOP sanctions. They were warned about PIA in April 2023 (by me, apparently). They should have been familiar with canvassing rules from the moment they got that warning to be on their best behavior. Not only that, but perusing their edit history, I see that there are several edits that are PIA violations prior to reaching XC on December 8 (e.g.Special:Diff/1256599528, although there's clearly many others in their edit history). In sum, I see no reason to believe the narrative of good faith presented here by them in light of the available evidence and do believe that we should consider at the minimum a logged warning._signed,Rosguill^talk20:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

  I wouldn't call it gaming, I think it's a pattern of intentional defiance of community rules, which in turn makes the otherwise rather exemplary defense written here by them less than convincing._signed,Rosguill^talk21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

  works for meValereee (talk)18:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 12:51, 11 January 2025 - Restoring recently added disputed content, contrary toWP:ONUS
2. 21:55, 11 January 2025 - Casting unsubstantiated aspersions and poisoning the well against another editor.
3. 12:01, 13 January 2025 - Poisoning the well against another user without any evidence of misconduct.
4. 19:11, 15 January 2025 - Restoring recently added disputed content again and essentially asking to get consensus for it, contrary toWP:ONUS.
5. 15:05, 16 January 2025 - Performs a blanket revert in order to make aWP:POINT, just because their previous edit was reverted, despite it being the version that was arrived upon by a month long discussion onthe talkpage, also saying "LE also wants to discuss and revisit the content proposed by the sock" , LukeEmily later elaborated that they are okay with the version that Ekdalian was actually reverting[18]
6. 17:42, 16 January 2025 - Same as above but edit warring
7. 19:42, 16 January 2025 - Edit warring and casting aspersions saying that reverting editor is acting like the blocked sockNobita456 "stop behaving like Nobita please"
8. 14:31, 18 January 2025 - Attacks and tries to poison the well against another editor also says that "WP:ONUS doesn't mean you need to achieve consensus with editors condemned by admins for persistent POV pushing! "
9. 18:47, 18 January 2025 - Restores the aforementioned attack saying "Related to the content only, related to WP:CONSENSUS to be precise; accept the truth, I don't want to report minor incidents" when told to focus on content
10. 18:29, 19 January 2025 - calling aWP:NOTVANDAL edit as vandalism and issues final warning for vandalism[19]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Has a {{Ds/aware|ipa}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.[20] and notified of WP:ARBIPA by Dennis Brown in 2022[21]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I also note that Ekdalian has a history of aggressive edit warring in the contentious topic as a part of slow running edit war[22].OnBengali Kayastha, many of their most recent edits have been reverts to prevent content addition as well. It has gotten to the point where experienced users likeSitush have called them out for it[23][24][25] because they usually misrepresent the consensus or comments by editors such as Sitush to claim that consensus already exists when there is none, they do not provide diffs when asked to substantiate their claims either. They have been reprimanded in past[26] over similar conduct about misrepresentation and exaggeration by@Dennis Brown: on this venue as well. They have a history of attacking other users and trying to poison the well against them instead offocusing on the content as diffs above prove.

I am not seeking any topic bans but Ekdalian should be at least told not to misuse the talk page for adding more fuel into heated disputes, and use the revert button only when it is necessary.NxcryptoMessage03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unimpressed by your defence of #10, it was an unsourced change, sure disruptive but not vandalism (which has a very specific meaning). Please refer toWP:NOTVANDAL.NxcryptoMessage07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. So, do you still stand by your aspersions in the edit summary and restoration of disputed content contrary toWP:ONUS?
2. Were you wishing to ensure WP:NPOV by poisoning the well against an editor? How does that even help the discussion? ReadWP:FOC.
3. So, do you believe you have the right to cast aspersions without accompanying it with required diffs? "Admins are aware how you had kept the term 'Kshatriya' in the article onMahishya in spite of knowing that it is an agrarian caste! " - Which admins are aware of this "edit" that you accuse CharlesWain of pushing? In fact you made a similar accusation before too but it was a different good faith editor that made that edit not, CharlesWain.[27][28]
4. So you think the onus to achieve consensus depends not on the people who want to include the content but on those who dispute it?
5. It's only you who considered it a WIP version[29] contrary to these comments that indicates that there was a consensus at the talkpage[30][31], secondly why did you perform a blanket revert only because your previous edit was reverted, isn't that a veryWP:POINTY behaviour?
6. Why did you have to start a heated edit war? You could instead asked them for clarification to know what exactly they meant when they said that content needs to be "revisited". You state that the editor has been warned for "teaming up with Nobita", when did that happen?
7. Knowing someone on wiki doesn't mean you get to attack them also what do you mean by "behaving like Nobita"?
8. Do you really think the attack you made at the editor and saying that you don't need to achieve consensus with them just because they were blocked for edit warring was the "truth"?
9. Same as above, that restoration combined with your assertion here proves that you think it's appropriate to poison the well.
10. ReadWP:VANDTYPES andWP:NOTVANDAL, vandalism and disruptive editing are not the same, the only thing being discussed here is that diff which you still assert as vandalism, not the account.NxcryptoMessage13:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[32]

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

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

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

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

• In response to Bishonen's comments, I would like to inform here that Sitush is referring to my response at a time whenNobita456's sock was driving a discussion and I had filed an SPI! Therefore, I was delaying the discussion in order to eliminate the sock from the same. Sitush has been quoted out of context! Thanks.Ekdalian (talk)12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  1. My edit summary explains why I reverted.

  2. I wanted to ensure that NPOV is maintained.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Are you aware of the socks ofNobita456 and their activities?

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

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

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

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

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

  Coming to your questions, please find my replies below:

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

  2. Let admins decide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This reasoning seems odd, especially when Sitush himself states: "CharlesWain began this discussion. They are not a sock, are they?"[33], implying that you were opposing changes proposed by an editor who was not a sock by misrepresenting Sitush's comments. I also think canvassing was inappropriate, particularly with its problematic heading, "Kind attention: Bishonen and admins active here." It sounds as if you are trying to recruit people to back you up here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rajput/Rajputra POV pushing comment by adminAbecedare to falsely indicate Royal originhere

Comment bySitush about POV pushing Rajputra :here

Fowler and Fowler (2021) cites several sources and saysRajputs were basically a community of armed peasants before 16th centuryheremorehere andhere

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

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

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

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

Just noting here that the reported user Ekdalian is canvassing other admins, asking them to comment on this ARE report.[34][35][36]Capitals00 (talk)09:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I will point out that I wascanvassed to this discussion by Ekdalian. That said, I'll state that I don't think NXcrypto's diffs are anything much; it's surely a stretch to call them "casting apersions" and "poisoning the well" and the like, especially in the IPA area where the tone is often sharp. The comments by Sitush are a little more concerning, though.Bishonen |tålk10:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• My investigation:
  • Rajput's history shows a lot of subpar engagement by multiple editors, in which Ekdalian's participation is non-constructive (if not the worst offender)
  • The aspersion against Dympies is unnecessary, even though it is factual with respect to a 2023 TBAN that was eventually appealed a bit over a year later
  • The reply to Charles Wain in the 3rd diff, while not quite a personal attack, is less than civil
  • I'm not sure the edit is POINT-y, but both Ekdalian and CharlesWain are engaging in too much edit warring
  • Diffs 8 and 9 are completely unacceptable and I can only assume thattBishonen didn't get that far into reviewing the report. An editor who has had their topic ban appealed is an editor in good standing until proven otherwise. If there are issues with Dympies behavior so severe that they preclude collaboration, you need to bring that to AE with appropriate evidence. You do not get to assume bad faith of people simply for having been previously sanctioned.
  • Diff 10 is a non-issue

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

• Alsocanvassed by Ekdalian. I'm not convinced about a TBA but warning is certainly needed here. I'd like to see what Luke Emily has to add and would be happy to wait a couple of days. It still might be worthwhile to examine others participating, but we can only bring one person here at a time now.Doug Wellertalk15:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My thinking regarding "we need to examine others" is that if we were to reach a consensus to tban here, I would go about and look through the pages that saw edit warring identified in this report and either file new AE cases or take action in my capacity as an uninvolved admin._signed,Rosguill^talk16:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I was also asked to comment here by Ekdalian. My reading is similar to that of Rosguill's, and I endorse a logged warning.Talk:Rajput is full ofad hominem that has absolutely no place in a collaborative environment. That other users have also engaged in personal commentary does not excuse Ekdalian's behavior. Ekdalian, your language in the diffs above is not appropriate: it is far too aggressive and far too personal. If you are unable to make your point withoutad hominem, you will find yourself prevented from editing contentious material. I am not endorsing a TBAN at this time only because I have a strong feeling we are not being presented a full picture here.Vanamonde93 (talk)18:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not thrilled with all the canvassing going on here.Ekdalian, stop doing that, and if you end up here again, don't do it again.Valereee (talk)21:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• A logged warning at the very least. Between the canvassing and thepersonal attacks in #8/#9, I am doubtful that Ekdalian should be editing in this area at all. If that doesn't happen here, I would assure you thatany more behavior like this would be very likely indeed to lead to that result.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}01:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

Alex 19041 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA &WP:IBAN

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

1. 21 January 2025

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

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

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

— Precedingunsigned comment added byAlex 19041 (talk •contribs)15:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rosguill,Deepfriedokra,Beeblebrox, andValereee: They even tracked my name from that edit and posted it on social media for Zionist extremists to threaten me.[37] Aren't we supposed to feel safe when contributing to Wikipedia? This is not acceptable at all.Est. 2021 (talk ·contribs) 11:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)moved from below; please comment in own sectionValereee (talk)12:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Valereee: No, I did not; you must browse through my subpages to find it. But even if it was on my main page, that would not imply they could post it online in response to extremists' pages for them to harass and threaten me, as they did.Est. 2021 (talk ·contribs)12:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Valereee: Again: private or not, that does not imply they could post it online in response to extremists' pages for them to harass and threaten me, as they did. IBAN is the least I could request.Est. 2021 (talk ·contribs)12:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• To recap what's already been said at the initial hearing this gotat ARBCOM, it has been identified that Alex19041 is not extended-confirmed, has now been made aware of the 30/500 editing restriction for PIA, has acknowledged that they should not make any edits to the topic, but has not quite acknowledged that they also should not make comments relating to the topic outside of article space. If they can acknowledge that, an IBAN would be unnecessary as they will not be engaging further with the discussion at-issue for some time. If they can't acknowledge that, we'd likely need to escalate to blocks, as there's no reason to expect the IBAN to be observed. Some concern was also raised that Est. 2021's replies to Alex 19041 included personal attacks, although it should be noted that Est. 2021 has made an effort to remove potentially-problematic statements from their prior comments at ARBCOM (sections on their talk page containing similar language have been removed entirely, which is within their purview on a user talk page)._signed,Rosguill^talk16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• (came here from the ill-fated ArbCom case request). I agree with Rosguill. Some assurance from Alex 19041 and from Est. 2021 that they will leave the problematic edits behind would be good.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)21:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• I agree that the reported user needs to show some understanding that as a non-EC user, they need to leave thisCTOP aloneacross all namespaces. However, sanctions are for serious, ongoing problems, three unwelcome talk page posts made over the course of an hour does not strike me as sufficient cause for a formal iban. If there's more to it than that, it needs to be made clear, with diffs.Beeblebrox^Beebletalks21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It doesn't look likeAlex 19041 has edited since the case started. Alex, if you are seeing this, you do need to come in here and respond. Ignoring this will not make it go away.Valereee (talk)15:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  I'm forced to agree. If you post your real identity anywhere on WP, that's your decision and it is public. Of course I also agree with what Deepfriedokra has said about letting the office know about it.Beeblebrox^Beebletalks18:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that no policy is violating by attributing an edit to a publicly disclosed off-wiki identity. Also, as to the underlying dispute, @Est. 2021: Based onyour talkpage comment I'mwilling to believe that you were trying to avoid the exact error you wound up introducing, but, to be clear, youdid introduce a serious factual error to the lead of a heavily-viewed and deeply controversial article.AirshipJungleman29 is entirely correct that the plain reading ofOn 7 October 2023, Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, taking 251 captive, against which Israelis responded applying the controversial Hannibal Directive, resulting in the death of 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals, among which 815 civilians is that Israel killed all 1,195. If, as you indicate on the talkpage, that misunderstanding is because English is not your first language, that's fine, but you need to be more careful, especially in restoring something that was already removed once. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)19:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm concerned thatAlex 19041 is refusing to continue discussing here and is continuing to edit in the topic. A topic ban seems silly since they're refusing to comply with an ECR restriction; both require voluntary compliance. I hate to suggest a p-block from article space, as they do seem to want to contribute productively in other areas, but I'm not sure what else to do if they're refusing to comply/discuss.Valereee (talk)19:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This is beginning to look like a competence issue more than an intentional flouting of the rules. Based on the most recent statement[38] I would leave a final warning that making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict would be grounds for an immediate block.Vanamonde93 (talk)21:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought I'd leave a comment. It looks like Alex 19041 hasn't participated here in a few weeks but they have come by a couple times to rewrite their only comment in this discussion. I left a note for them asking for them to post additional comments with recent signatures so we could see they are aware of the discussion here instead of making small changes to their existing remark.Liz^Read!Talk!06:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

[39]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[40]

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

This is my side ;

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

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

1. 3 Allegations : It was related to 2nd allegation. It was indeed a Vandalism, because after discussion done in that talk page[41] that editor was again removing all this , so i had to go to his talk page and said about this is Vandalism pls stop doing it but again that guy deleted my vandalism warning without replying to mesee , But ultimately that editor stopped doing vandalism in that page and it then remains restored after so my efforts for continuous 5 days.
   But i don't know how that respected complainer think that this is not vandalism? IT WAS VANDALISM.
   

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

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

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

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

Issue : Today revert by me onAmbedkar Jayanti Page :-

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

Here matter remain quite silent for 1 month , but today again , @Ratnahastin revert it by saying discuss in talk page. but in talk page, no one talk about credibility of sources that i provided which is secondary, govt etc. so i revert today and reply to stick with the sources.
That's the all matter of Bhim Jayanti page.
Now let's talk about little Main articleB R Ambedkar page issue.
Where the way lead was written, I thought need to be revised. so being that time a new not extended user, i take talk page discussion, but there @Ratnahastin came and give his opinion which is misleading, when I reply to him to correct your fact , he don't replyback.
In that discussion both give wrong information, and once i corrected them they won't reply and just changed lead by claiming, we had discussion on talk page but in talk page matter won'tsolve
After this whole discussion, they always try to impose me that we had discussion in main article about your claim and that was debunk , which is entirely different.
They give wrong info , and when i informed about their error, they won't reply further and changed on theirWP:OR. see1 then i again fortalk page then theyrevised.
This is whole issue.
Whenever I edit anything on Ambedkar related based on what i read on the books or journals or articles, i try to write in that page for articles enrichement , but these editors just came click revert and call that by single line like POV pushing orpuffery or anything. they don't talk about theWP:RS that i provided. they should talk about how or which paragraph is unsourced or puffery or unacademic etc , but they never do. they just give their prejudice mind opinions.
This is all about my side.
i think i all that i want to say. Rest is on administrators.
Thanks.
Much Regards.Callmehelper (talk)20:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: The above acknowledgements by Callmehelper seem nothing more than lip-service. He has resumed his page ownership and edit warring with multiple editors atAmbedkar Jayanti, even after being told months ago that he should avoid rehashing same debunked argument which was already addressed on the main article.[42] However, he is continuing that in violation ofWP:ONUS, and is still ignoringWP:BRD.[43] -Ratnahastin (talk)18:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• I think this report can be closed without further action. While the diffs highlighted in this report are subpar, Callmehelper has admitted their errors and resolved to do better._signed,Rosguill^talk 03:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC) Partially struck._signed,Rosguill^talk18:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ratnahastin, thank you for bringing these more recent diffs to my attention. I agree that the slow-motion edit warring is not appropriate.Callmehelper, can you please explain the reasoning behind your edits atAmbedkar Jayanti. From what I can see at that page, you appear to be slow-motion edit warring against the objections of Srijanx22 and Ratnahastin. Can you please address your edits there particularlythis edit today? The discussion on the talk page does not demonstrate a firm consensus one way or another, and Ratnahastin's comments indicate that this dispute is related to other discussions (which I have not investigated in detail but which,ceteris paribus, would indicate that there's even less support for your edit than what is indicated atTalk:Ambedkar Jayanti)._signed,Rosguill^talk18:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Callmehelper, the correct answer I was looking for would have been something along the lines of "I am sorry for edit warring,being right isn't enough". Further edits to that article should have been avoided until the matter was resolved on the talk page; if discussion with Ratnahastin was not heading towards consensus, you should have appealed to any number ofdispute resolution options._signed,Rosguill^talk20:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This post should probably go on the talk page, but I am posting here for visibility. InWP:PIA5, the Arbitration Committeehas decided tolimit all reports at AE to two parties: the filer and the reported party. To reiterate, this isnot limited to the PIA topic area. 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.

In the PIA area, abalanced editing restriction (shortcut:WP:BERWP:BER) has been added to your toolbox, as part ofthe standard set of restrictions. The details of the restriction can be found at the link, but the short version is it requires editors to make no more than a third of their edits in mainspace, draftspace, and their respective talk spaces in the PIA5 area. Editors subject to BER are also topic banned from PIA outside of those namespaces.

Finally, the Committee has unanimously decided toformally thank administrators for volunteering at AE, especially in the PIA topic area. Keep being awesome :)

Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)01:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think separate threads for qualitatively different reports is a very good idea.Darkfrog24 (talk)00:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Rainsage (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)02:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ecpiandy (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

26 July 2024 Indefinite topic ban from Arab-Israeli conflict

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

1. 22 November 2024 PIA topic area
2. 15 December 2024 PIA topic area
3. 29 December 2024 PIA topic area
4. 29 December 2024 PIA topic area
5. 29 December 2024 PIA topic area
6. 29 December 2024 PIA topic area
7. 30 December 2024 PIA topic area
8. 18 January 2025 Responds to message fromUser:Vice_regent about their topic ban saying they had forgotten about it
9. 29 January 2025 PIA topic area
10. 29 January 2025 PIA topic area
11. 29 January 2025 PIA topic area
12. 29 January 2025 PIA topic area
13. 30 January 2025 Blanks their Talk page after I post a message about topic ban
14. 31 January 2025 PIA topic area
15. 01 February 2025 PIA topic area

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 26 July 2024 1 week block for edit warring
2. 9 August 2024 1 week block for violating topic ban

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

• 27 July 2024 Responds to 1 week ban by promising to follow topic ban
• 20 September 2024 Topic ban appeal was denied

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I only included a sample of their edits violating topic ban; there are many more.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

01 February 2025

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

Yes I have been updating the content to reflect the new article title I have not been doing anything controversial. If you want to ban me then fine, I've been an editor for a long time all I want to do is improve the encyclopedia.Ecpiandy (talk)02:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Ecpiandy, a topic ban does not mean that you may not make controversial edits in the topic area. It means you may not makeany edits in the topic area at all. After repeated warnings, if you don't understand that, I don't see any outcome but an indefinite block as you clearly are either unwilling or unable to abide by the restriction.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}03:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And looking now, I'm even seeing ban violating edits after Ecpiandy replied here:[51],[52],[53] as some examples but not an exhaustive list. Given this, I don't see any solution but an indef here.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}03:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this editor understands that a topic ban covers all edits regarding a subject in all areas of the project. Unfortunately, the evidence is strong here that either Ecpiandy either doesn't understand topic bans or is unwilling to abide by Wikipedia guidelines. As a longtime editor, either one of these scenarios is unfortunate.Liz^Read!Talk!07:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Liz and Seraphimblade. I would be inclined to show clemency if the offending edits were all truly controversy-free improvements like fixing grammar, but as Seraphimblade identifies they also include edits to material that has been the subject of extensive disputes, and has been repeated several times. If there were any indication fromEcpiandy that they intend to follow community rules going forward a shorter sanction could be justified on the basis of a long history productive edits elsewhere, but their responses here do not provide room for this possibility._signed,Rosguill^talk17:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As a temporary matter pending resolution of this enforcement request, I've blocked Ecpiandy from editing articles for continuing to violate the topic ban.SilverLocust 💬17:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

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

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

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

[54]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[55]

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

Also of note:

1. Another unjustified removal of significant sourced content

1. Another relevant talk page "discussion"

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

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

• I am unimpressed by the repeated reverts with no talk page engagement, and also by the claim of reverting a TBAN violation that in fact had occurred before the TBAN was enacted. I would like to hear from Boksi before deciding what to do.Vanamonde93 (talk)17:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: Per therules 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 (seeWP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

One week site block, imposed by voorts perSpecial:Diff/1273538257, logged atWP:AELOG/2025#IRP

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

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

Copied fromSpecial:Diff/1273551095:

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

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

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

Response toSpecial:Diff/1273556202:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Taha has received several warnings about the edit warring policy (June 2023;December 2024;January 2025) and disruptive editing (January 2025). Over the past two months, Taha has edit warred atAli al-Sistani,Mohammed Ridha al-Sistani,Ebrahim Raisi,Al-Farabi, andJabir ibn Hayyan, including in the minutes before he was blocked. Given that there's still anWP:IDHT issue, a 0RR restriction might be appropriate.voorts (talk/contributions)22:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline - This should have been left for a patrolling admin to decline, as now that it's here it is evidence of further battleground behavior and a rather shocking sense of entitlement on Taha Danesh's part. Not only is it clear-cut edit warring in a contentious topic, it's primarily about infobox/lead nationality details, so irrespective of whoever is "right" in the underlying dispute, it's sloppy article writing. I don't like imposing extra sanctions in response to appeals, so if Taha Danesh is able to avoid doubling down I think this can be closed as declined. But the behavior displayed thus far is consistent with what gets people topic-banned indefinitely._signed,Rosguill^talk22:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clearTaha Danesh, warnings are not issued on a per-article or per-dispute basis: once you are warned about a behavior (especially something as fundamental as edit warring), you are expected to observe these rules across all articles, and especially those that fall within contentious topics (as these do). The level of edit warring you've engaged in across multiple articles is the kind of thing people can get blocked for withzero warnings. Your attitude from here on out needs to be about staying on your best behavior, not acting like you are entitled to receive a warning on every distinct question. I would recommend that while blocked you go back through the warnings you have received and carefully read through the policies they are linked to_signed,Rosguill^talk23:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline I believe that I am uninvolved, although I did make a comment atWP:BLPN recently suggesting a reliable source about Sistani's citizenship and birthplace. I have never edited that article or the others, or interacted with this editor to my recollection. This editor has the mistaken notion that repeated, regular warnings about edit warring are required regarding each individual article. That's completely false. I am in full agreement withRosguill on this matter. Roughly 15 years ago when I was a newbie, an administrator gave me a single gentle caution about edit warring and I have avoided edit warring scrupulously ever since. This editor should take the same approach when their block expires.Cullen328 (talk)01:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ratnahastin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)17:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 21:47, 3 February 2025 - First revert on an articleunder 1RR remedy.
2. 22:08, 3 February 2025 - Second revert on an article under 1RR remedy.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions on19:48, 4 February 2023 and is aware of them as per the DS/aware templateon their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[56]

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

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

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

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

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

• In light of Akshaypatil's response here, this seems like a relatively minor infraction. Is even a logged warning necessary?_signed,Rosguill^talk21:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Warrenmck (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)18:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Toa Nidhiki05 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2

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

Toa is continuing the same behaviour that got them TBANned from American politics in 2022, with the exact same MO in what appears to be aWP:CPUSH. I'm about to be accused of venue shopping since the admins let the ANI go stale, but there was still a general consensus this should have been an AE posting and Toa seems to be continuing the behaviour as if nothing happened. A link to that discussion can be foundhere. I highly recommend reading the whole thing for anyone who is patient enough, because Toa repeats the exact behaviour he's accused of in the ANI.

I'm not going to respond to any direct accusations from Toa, but please consider verifying any claims they make about other editors. That was a bit of an issue at the ANI.

1. diff Toa insisted that a change could not be made, citing prior consensus, and linked three posts which do not show prior consensus. Toa refused to provide any evidence of a prior consensus.
2. diff Toa tried in the ANI to get around providing any evidence of a prior consensus, when they finally providedanything they called the consensus they linked fundamentally flawed. This claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny (diff)
3. diff Added a source which failed verification, then removed the failed verification tag. Attempts to engage Toa discussing this went wholly unanswered (diff), though in response theyWP:POINT added a ton of failed verification tags to the article (diff), then started a new discussion thread aboutthat (link). Many of those sources did not fail verification, and they've refused to engage with any editors around clarifications to their standards for inclusion, despite being repeatedly asked (diff).
4. diff During the RFC, over and over asked for academic sources then wholly ignored them when they were provided, insisting they'd never been put forward and "nothing new" was presented, again pointing to the mythical previous consensus (diff), which in almost a month of back and forth on a talk page they haven't provided any evidence of.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 5/11/22 TBAN for identical behaviour as this AE

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is exhausting. Toa has been guarding against the inclusion of "far right" onRepublican Party (United States) page forfourteen years (diff). Practically every uninvolved editor in the ANI saw the issue, so I'm just going to repeat the most pertinent line from the last WP:AE sanction:

There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any baseis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and which appears to already have a rough consensus in favor of it.

Toa appears to use a refusal to engage as a shield against edits they don't like. They shortcut the BRD process to hold the article in a status quo regardless of sourcing, consensus, or talk page discussions. Beyond just not engaging, Toa often starts parallel discussions which are related but exclude their behaviour, then point to that as evidence that they are attempting to engage in good faith (addendum: anexact behaviour they have repeated below).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

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

There’s nothing I can say here that wasn’t already said in the AN/I thread, and I’m flying home today anyway, so I don’t have the time to. As in the AN/I, Warrenmck is simply lying, or giving half-truths - specifically, no, my topic ban was for embarrassing, disruptive behavior, which I have apologized for and haven’t repeated. What Wareenmck is upset about is acontent dispute. I profusely apologize that editors are going to have to read the AN/I thread, which was a phenomenal waste of time for everyone involved.

Fundamentally, Warrenmck is not being honest. Most uninvolved editors in the thread were confused or bewildered by the report. There was no consensus for an AE report - although Warrenmck repeatedly floated the idea, the thread expired due to inactivity. Warrenmck is lying about the page consensus; the talk page, and numerous other editors, have confirmed it to them. Warrenmck is lying about the source verification - you can literally go to the talk pageright now and find discussions I’m engaging in about the sources, includingreplacement sources to back up the claims in question.

Towards the end of the AN/I report, Warrenmck was even accusing other editors (specificallySpringee) of being part of a vast conspiracy to keep the content Warrenmck wants off the page. Meanwhile, Warrenmck’s own, proposed edits seem unlikely to be added: the RfC (which Warrenmck set up) for adding “far-right”, in particular, appears set to fail, with a 2:1 margin opposing it with at least two dozen participants so far.

This is more or less a clear case offorum shopping; the RfC isn’t going their way, the. AN/I didn’t work, so Warrenmck is going here instead. If Warrenmck’s response to not getting what they want is to just report people, they probably should reconsider their involvement in AP2 topics. Aboomerangtrouting may be warranted.ToaNidhiki0518:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First off this is not forum shopping. The reason the AN/I filing was closed is because most of the parties to that discussion felt it was more appropriate to address complex behavioural issues such as CPUSH at AE. Second, as an example of CPUSH, Toa Nidhiki05 has been quite persistent in insisting that academic sources should be provided for including far-right in the list of Republican political ideologies. With that in mind I spent considerable time in Wikipedia Library finding academic sources that did just that. Unless I somehow missed it, to this day, Toa Nidhiki05 has never even acknowledged that those sources were found, let alone conceded the presence of multipleWP:BESTSOURCES would support some inclusion of the term far-right. In other words it appears they set the standard assuming nobody would go through the effort and, when I did go through the effort, they decided to just ignore those sources. This is exceptionally frustrating. Reading academic papers about the Republican Party isn't exactly my idea of fun and to have that effort just ignoredwhen it was asked for is frankly insulting.Simonm223 (talk)18:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the claim Toa Nidhiki05 is making about the RFC is only based on their up-down vote-count and disregards strength of argument. Nobody except Toa Nidhiki05 is treating the RFC as decided.Simonm223 (talk)18:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly saying somebody is lying and being dishonest, here of all places, requires some sort of evidence or a block/ban for "casting aspersions". If somebody is accusing somebody else of lying they need to prove that, and in that case the liar should be given a block/ban or some sort, or be blocked/banned for the attack.nableezy -21:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The division of discussion across various forums makes it a bit difficult to ascertain that I've read through all of the relevant arguments.Toa Nidhiki05, could you please point me to a summary of the bibliography you believe establishesthe majority of academic sources refer to the party as either center-right or right-wing, as well as brief comments regarding the bibliography compiled bySimonm223 and how they figure into your overall assessment of the literature?_signed,Rosguill^talk21:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia arbitration
• Wikipedia requests