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

Swatjester (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)23:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision primarily, andWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision is also relevant.

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

1. 14:53 March 7, 2025:Casts repeated uncivilWP:ASPERSIONS and compares the renaming of a military base to deadnaming ofElliot Page.
2. 15:05 March 7, 2025:Implies that somehow now I'm the one doing this, doubling down on the comparison of trans people to an inanimate object with a healthy side of DARVO.
3. 15:07 March 7, 2025:Denies being transphobic, immediately goes into "but if I was, I would have said this...."
4. 16:08, March 7, 2025:My response, explaining why this is uncivil and demeaning to trans people, warning not to cast further aspersions and giving a heads up that I would bring this to AE if this continues.
5. 17:50, March 7, 2025:In an astonishing display of gaslighting, they're now outright accusing me of deadnaming.I'm not the one deadnaming. Im implying you would as you are deadnaming Fort Benning.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. None that I'm aware of.

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, onMarch 4, 2025 (see the system log linked to above). Removedtoday by JazzBandDrummer, which means they're aware.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This AE is being filed purely based on the user's behavior with regard to civility and transphobic comments. The underlying dispute here is a controversial page move (reverted and then followed by a series of out-of-process page moves) forFort Moore, reflecting the spilling over of the current U.S. political culture war over Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's renaming of military bases formerly named after Confederate soldiers that had been renamed under the Biden administration. I'm not seeking to litigate that page move here in this AE request, though I'm happy to provide background on it if necessary. But the context here is relevant, as it reflects broader potential motivation behind this behavior that's relevant not just to the post-92 AP CTOPS but also the GENSEX one as well given. I believe the behavior concerns stand on their own as unacceptable regardless of the context. Nobody has the right to put words into my mouth and imply that I've deadnamed someone; certainly not someone who is comparing trans people to inanimate objects. I warned them that I'd take this to AE if they continued; they doubled-down on it.⇒SWATJester^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!}23:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts::As a minor clarification, while it's correct thatWP:NAMECHANGES was not cited by name in that discussion, I did quote a substantial portion of the texthere; though that was to a different editor. I'd thought I'd linked to the policy in that diff but apparently not (the hazards of editing at 4am). I agree with you that a reminder of that policy from a third party or AE admin would be helpful to the underlying discussion.⇒SWATJester^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!}02:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect maybe we could close this with a logged warning? JazzBandDrummer's not edited in a week, which is consistent with their general history of a few sporadic edits weeks or months apart. They haven't responded to Valereee, and at this point I suspect may well have forgotten about this page. The RM stuff is being handled elsewhere, so there's not really anything left to do here that wouldn't be punitive other than closing with "don't do that in the future", aka a logged warning.⇒SWATJester^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!}21:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

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.

All these accusations are false or misinterpreted. For number 3, I didn't say "but if I was..." that is a false quote already. I'm comparing the policy of if something (like a base) or someone (like a celebrity) says their name is something, then it should be followed. SwatJester's constant misinterpretations are causing false accusations as well as a back and forth editing frenzy on Fort Benning's page. There is nothing transphobic about mentioning another wiki case of renaming (especially since I said that Elliot is Elliot, and NOT Ellen). SwatJester is twisting this so they can get back at someone who doesn't agree with their editing on a page.

Statement to SJ's additional comment: I didn't double down, I clarified what I previously said because SwatJester was putting words into my mouth, saying I'm transphobic when I'm not.

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

I'll note that JazzBandDrummer has not been notified of GENSEX before this AE was opened. I'm inclined to issue a final warning here for incivility. I think it would be beneficial to open a procedural RM and explicitly citeWP:NAMECHANGES, which has not been cited in theTalk:Fort Moore discussion.voorts (talk/contributions)00:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JazzBandDrummer: For what its worth, I don't think that your intention is to be transphobic here. However, I can understand why someone might take offense to comparing deadnaming a trans person to what we should call a military base; the former is a breach of a person's dignity, the latter a semantic dispute. In any event, you have been quite hostile in this discussion, and now here, and need to tone things down a notch. Remember that there's a person behind the account and the dispute that you're in isn't that serious: it's about the title of a single page out of the billions of pages on the Internet.voorts (talk/contributions)02:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the unproductive talk discussions and opened an RM discussion.voorts (talk/contributions)03:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Are you good with a logged warning?voorts (talk/contributions)22:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me.Valereee (talk)10:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• JazzBandDrummer, not sure why you went to a hugely contentious topic (Gender) to find an analogy when making arguments at another hugely contentious topic (US politics). I highly, highly recommend that while you are still a newbie you don't make comparisons that just seem to be either intended to offend or completely clueless. Do you really not understand the difference between what a real live person might feel if they were deadnamed and what a military base would...um, "feel"?..if it were called by a former name? Surely you must be able to see that there is a vast difference?Valereee (talk)19:07, 8 March 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

Tgeorgescu (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)03:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

3rdspace (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBCAM andWP:ARBPS

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

1. [1] 8 March 2025—WP:ASPERSIONS of racism
2. [2] 9 March 2025—WP:ASPERSIONS of racism and sexism, andWP:CANVASSING
3. [3] 1 March 2025—revivesWP:ASPERSIONS of racism made by an IP
4. [4] 1 March 2025—WP:ASPERSIONS andWP:CANVASSING

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)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on[5] 1 March 2025 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• I do not want to get her blocked, just a stern warning about trolling would do. Her overt agenda is that Wikipedia should stop calling acupuncture "a pseudoscience" and "quackery".
• @Voorts: The problem is that her attempts to enforce such agenda are indistinguishable from trolling.
• I agree she isn't trolling, but it has the appearance of trolling. Even a sincere desire to address perceived bias could be seen as disruptive.
• Oh, yes, I now realize[6] are her own edits, not those of an IP.
• @Tamzin: What I did wrong? I tried to persuade her to desist, because getting persuaded is better than getting blocked. Should I desist from seeking to persuade people their intended edits are wrong? Let's be serious: her intended edits areWP:SNOW. It does not help her to pretend otherwise. I did not threaten her, I did not say swear words, I just stated plainly that her overt purpose is not achievable. And Wikipedia is a public place, edits are public for Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians alike, following someone's edits is not stalking. Besides, I feel that I'm singled out for behavior that is far too common in discussions about pseudoscience and quackery: I'm not the worst offender.
• About bludgeoning her talk page: there is a longer quote in green, which are not my words, and copy/paste fromWP:GOODBIAS, which are not my words. For the rest, I did not write that many words upon her talk page. 406 words are mine.
• The problem with my edits is that I don't know where the red line is. If one can clearly define a red line, I'm for it. Since I heard all those arguments over and over, I can no longer distinguish between newbies and LTA. I know this does not plead in my favor, just saying.
• I would like to get the following restriction: in the field ofWP:ARBPS I'm prohibited to write personal opinions or quotes from others at the talk pages of users having less than 500 edits. I'm prepared to agree with either such a restriction, or with the text written byTamzin. Because till now I was like a US soldier from the war against Saddam Hussein, who was given no rules of engagement. If the rules are clear, I'm for it.
• Agree with this restriction: I'm not allowed to reply or send messages to users who are not extended confirmed for subjects withinWP:ARBCAM andWP:ARBPS. That is: I may report them toWP:FTN but not reply to or message them.
• To say it as it is: it was already clear to me that I should not talk too much. That's why I wrote only 406 words. But I didn't know that quoting speech by others will be held against me.
• Okay, since a solution is difficult, I would agree with a 30 days block from User talk space.tgeorgescu (talk)15:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [7] 9 March 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.

I don't think that this process was initiated in good faith, but I appreciate the eyes of admins here, as I have had a very strange experience onacupuncture.I have a full time tech job, two kids under 9, and a chronic illness. The acupuncture lead is actively harmful and I promise you is hurting people whose voices will never be heard here for reasons described inWikipedia:systemic_bias.

• @Voorts: my previous account was from 2006 and I made maybe a couple dozen edits. Wikipedia was a very different place then. I certainly never had anyone land on my talk page to start arguments and bully me. I fully own that I came in hot and if I could delete the comment you quote, I would, but I was advised editing comments is not good Wikipedia etiquette. In my later comments I tried to moderate my tone. To be clear I don't think anyone has a conscious racist agenda here and I never said that they did, nor do I intend to.
• I originally came to the talk page to leave a comment on someone else's discussion, buttgeorgescu repeatedly reverted my replies. They then descended on my talk page try to intimidate me[8] and later vandalized it with a manifesto[9] after I had already indicated I didn't think exchange there was productive. I would have reported harassment then but I didn't know what the procedure was and didn't want to waste anyone's time. My comments on the acupuncture talk page were primarily to post sources, buttgeorgescu continued to reply making personal comments when I was not talking to them.[10] I have no idea why they think I am trolling (or that I have an agenda beyond wanting Wikipedia to play by its own rules).
• I didn't even knowacupuncture as a wikipedia article was so problematic that there have been news articles about it until today (it seems like those articles belong in the list of wikipedia controversies?). It would be great if administrators could take an interest in the talk history. I really do not have the bandwidth to grind the bureaucracy. I reached out to Pecopteris for advice because I was baffled at the replies I was getting, and it strikes me as creepy thattgeorgescu was watching that message. I feel like I am being stalked.
• Much appreciate your comments, FeydHuxtable and your ability to communicate more elegantly and appropriately than I can. I have refrained from commenting here since I'm not sure how much I should just be absorbing the discussion, btw, not intending to be rude through non-response. I feel the same way aboutacupuncture fwiw - I do intend to withdraw from it as advised, but want to 'close the loop' (incl admission of having an amateur approach) so as not to give the impression that I just stomped off. :) I do intend to revise my initial comment as well, and FeydHuxtable hits my intent very closely.3rdspace (talk)19:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On first glance this filing had gentle boomerang written all over it, but now hoping this gets closed as 'no action'. 3rdspaceentered the discussion with a post that'sobjectionable & unintentionaly ironic on several levels. Including that editors she seems to suspect of unconcious bias have in fact done more than probably anyone else on Wikipedia to combat anti chinese racism (per their work against lab leak theory). That said, 3rdspace could be an absolutely awesome editor. If she ever has the time to learn our ways, she'll likely soon see the editors watching over the acupuncture page are just trying to make the world better in their own way.FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC) Struck objectionable as only wrote that as thought it helped to show TG might warrant some leeway. Acupuncture is now a part of mainstream western medicine -every one of the top 10 ranked US hospitals offer it, as do a clear majority of the UK's NHS & private pain clinics and hospices. The staunchly pro-materialist philosophy our valued skeptic editors share is rarely encountered outside of Wikipedia. Even a substantial portion of the "lessWrong" crew have recently converted topro-Sprit side. So totally understandable that 3rdSpace concluded the miss-information in our article's lede could only result from systemic bias. Punishing such a newbie for calling out what she saw a bit too passionately would be rather eccentric.FeydHuxtable (talk)17:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with BlackKite's comments here. While TG's conduct on the acupuncture talk page has been inappropriately personalized in several places, he has otherwise been quite restrained, considering howutterly exhausting it is to explain medical consensus to true believers of a pseudoscience over and over and over again. Especially when comments citing anecdata and low-quality sources are punctuated by repeated insinuations of racism, e.g.Further sources (with bonus minimal melanin). That said, if abrasive, insulting comments are a regular issue with TG, then having a ban on making negative personalized comments in general would be a better alternative than restricting their editing area.JoelleJay (talk)00:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently posted this on the article talk page, in hopes of quieting things down:[11]. I hope that it's self-explanatory. But today, 3rdspace posted this:[12]. I see it as a kind-of thanks-no-thanks to what I tried to say, and a doubling down on theWP:RGW that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are racist. For me, that's the last straw. Maybe the promise to withdraw now is sincere, or maybe not, but in either case this editor needs to be removed from the topic area (and if they will really withdraw, then a TBAN would not be much of a loss from their perspective). --Tryptofish (talk)18:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This mostly seems like a content dispute, but @3rdspace, in general, please comment on edits, not editors, and do not accuse other editors of advancing a racist agenda.voorts (talk/contributions)04:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: i think 3rdspace is being earnest, not trolling. The rest of this is just a run-of-the-mill content dispute and you're not going to persuade someone they're incorrect by calling them a troll.voorts (talk/contributions)04:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I see the editor saying that there is a systematic bias on Wikipedia, which is acknowledged to be true, not calling any editor a racist. Criticism of Wikipedia is completely valid, and often accurate, that is not the same as casting aspersions at a person, at least not on the three edits I examined. And Tgeorgescu, considering how new this editor is, you sure had a lengthy discussion on their User talk page about all this. I also see phrases like "her attempts to enforce such agenda" stated about editors and people of all types of views when another person disagrees with them. You seem to be treating this editor rather harshly. I understand standardizing our language on contentious topics but it's predictable that new editors will appear who will challenge those norms. We can reinforce those standards without accusing a new editor of trolling.Liz^Read!Talk!04:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz: this editor is not new. They've stated they had an account years ago that they lost the password to. I agree that stating that there's systemic bias on Wikipedia is not only valid and accurate, but useful, but this is not that:Shame on all of you who defend this outrageously racist framing.voorts (talk/contributions)04:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a TBAN for TG would be overbroad. I like something like Tamzin's suggestion.voorts (talk/contributions)21:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree that this is mostly a content dispute and second the reminder to comment on edits, not editors, and avoid accusing other editors of racist behaviour. However, I would like to state very clearly, as a general comment, thatobserving systemic bias is not the same as being racist or accusing other editors of being racist. A neutral encyclopedia aims to minimize systemic bias as much as possible. More specifically,tgeorgescu, I'm really unimpressed by what I'm seeing onUser talk:3rdspace. I don't think it rises to the bar of harassment... but it's notnot harassment. I can't imagine what it would feel like to be faced with this as a new editor. --asilvering (talk)04:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I wrote the above before seeing the comment about "indistinguishable from trolling". @Tgeorgescu, this isn't evenclose to trolling. --asilvering (talk)04:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: If you're not aware, please seethis logged warning, including a suspended sanction elsewhere in ARBPS, to Tgeorgescu fromSeraphimblade andthis logged warning fromTheSandDoctor—both for substantively the same issues as here. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)07:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'm feeling like pseudoscience might be a topic TG is not temperamentally suited to contribute in. I know that's a major editing interest for them, but I feel like their responses to this editor were way over the top, and they've done this often enough for a logged warning. AND they appear to be unaware that this was absurd, or they wouldn't have brought this here. I feel like they really do see pseudoscience as a battleground, and they approach every editor who disagrees as if they were the same long-term abuser.Valereee (talk)16:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. --asilvering (talk)18:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is systemic bias a thing? Of course it is. However, as I pointed out onTalk:Acupuncture, there is no systemic bias going on here. All pseudoscientific medical topics are awash with flaky sources trying to claim that they are real medicine, including Western pseudoscientific topics such as chiropractic and homeopathy. The fact that the majority of the dubious sources inthis case originate from China is merely a function of the topic's popularity and use in that region. Calling those out isnot systemic bias, because they would be called out whatever their origin. Exactly the same can be seen atAyurveda, for example. I think 3rdspace is trying to be a positive editor here, but they really need to dial the claims of racism back. And when this was pointed out to 3rdspace, their reply ofSince you all seem sensitive about racial bias... wasn't the best reply. If they can stick to the topic without throwing aspersions around then there is no issue here.Black Kite (talk)08:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to say I'm pretty unamused bytgeorgescu's edithere in which they say both on the page and in the edit summary -- really bad idea to make a habit of copying your entire post into your edit summaries, TG, since unlike posts, edit summaries can't be revised --Again, the difference between you and me is that I don't complain I'm bullied by an evil conspiracy of racists/Satanists/whatever atabortion andhealth effects of salt. That's really a pretty crappy thing to say to a good-faith editor, especially when she wasn't actually talking to you and didn't seem to be complaining beyond one slightly snarky aside. It feels like you were baiting her.Valereee (talk)16:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tgeorgescu, while this case is being discussed, I'm going to ask you to stay off 3rdspace's user talk. Frankly I'm astonished someone with fewer than 50 edits hasn't just decided, "Wikipedia, nope, not for me."Valereee (talk)16:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valereee: The user has admitted they have a previous account, which appears to have stopped editing in 2012.Black Kite (talk)16:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, so maybe not quite as horrifying as if she'd had zero earlier experience. Well, I still am thinking she's been pretty resilient. And of course that doesn't change that TG was responding to anapparent newbie. @3rdspace, re:I fully own that I came in hot and if I could delete the comment you quote, I would, but I was advised editing comments is not good Wikipedia etiquette., yes, it's best not to remove comments that have been replied to, but you canstrike what you wish you hadn't said and/orinsert what you wish you'd said instead and just leave an edit summary of 'Sorry for coming in hot' or something.Valereee (talk)16:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see anything horrifying at all. Look at the conversation atTalk:Acupuncture. Tgeorgescu is unfailingly polite there. This just needs to be closed, I think.Black Kite (talk)16:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, the difference between you and me is that I don't complain I'm bullied by an evil conspiracy of racists/Satanists/whatever is unfailingly polite?Valereee (talk)16:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  TGis literally #1 editor of 3rdspace's talk both by #edits and text.Valereee (talk)16:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How aboutthis for unfailingly polite? Just a link toWP:LUNATICS. In response to an IP agreeing with3rdspae. Nice.Valereee (talk)17:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Or thisedit, again copied to the edit summary to ensure permanence:As I told you, my views about abortion and health effects of salt are WP:FRINGE. The only difference is that I fully understand it, therefore I'm not trolling the talk pages of those articles. That does not look like unfailingly polite to me.Valereee (talk)17:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tgeorgescu, you saidSince I heard all those arguments over and over, I can no longer distinguish between newbies and LTA. Yes, that's what it feels like to me. I think that's pretty common, I've even seen it at Teahouse. I think if you aren't sure where the red line is, if you can't recognize your own burnout and take those articles off your watch for a while, maybe simply don't participate in discussions with newbies at pseudoscience. I assume you have nav popups enabled, so you can hover to see someone's status?

  I thinkI'm prohibited to write personal opinions or quotes from others at the talk pages of users having less than 500 edits is not a bad idea, but I'd maybe take it one step further: in the topic of pseudoscience, don't engage at article talk or post to the user talk of editors who aren't EC? For me, that would allow us to give you one last chance before some sort of tban while still preventing BITE. And it might be slightly easier to navigate than Tamzin's, which does require judgement.Valereee (talk)12:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• TG - "About bludgeoning her talk page: there is a longer quote in green, which are not my words, and copy/paste from WP:GOODBIAS, which are not my words. For the rest, I did not write that many words upon her talk page. 406 words are mine." You still copy-pasted a huge quantity of text onto the talk page - whether it was quotes or not is not germane to whether you were bludgeoning or not. All that text is going to come across as bludgeoning because you are the one who put them on the talk page, whether they are quotes does not mean that they aren't something you added to the discussion. You do need to learn how to not bludgeon and not approach this topic area as a battleground, because I see a lot of snide commentary that isn't helpful to discussion - thebit here about "Objectively showing that acupuncture is effective would be rewarded with a Nobel Prize. Since that has not happened, there is no reason to assume it is" is really not helpful to the discussion. And that's just one comment that jumped out at me.

  And 3rdspace - may I suggest that editing in a less fraught area for a bit while you learn the ropes will be a much less stressful introduction to editing here, and will help you better understand sourcing and other things that have an uniquely Wikipedian-spin. I don't see a need for a formal warning or anything for you, but generally using "race/racial" around Wikipedia can turn a discussion sideways very fast - so avoiding that is probably safer for your sanity.Ealdgyth (talk)17:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1.Valereee (talk)17:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In a lot of ways I feel bad for Tgeorgescu here. This sort of conduct, arguing with (actual or perceived) "true believers" about why they are wrong, is something that this community once considered acceptable, and that at least some in this community still socially reward. And I will give Tgeorgescu some credit that, unlike some people who do that sort of thing, he doesn't seem motivated by a desire to show off his intellectual superiority over the "fundies" or whomever. I believe him that he genuinely wants to make people like 3rdspace into better Wikipedia editors. And there is a place for that in CTOP editing. Analogizing (without drawing any moral equivalence) to my own experience editing a different CTOP, a few times over the years I have gone to someone who was making questionable gender-related edits and told them, basically, "If you keep doing that you'll get sanctioned, so here's how to participate constructively". The important difference there, though, is that I don't try to convince them they're wrong on what they believe. I give them a choice between editing the topic area constructively, or persisting in disrupting and probably getting themselves sanctioned. There can be gray areas, sure. Maybe sometimes someone appears to have a simple factual misunderstanding that it might be worth clearing up. But once you wind up in a long back-and-forth, it should be clear that you're not going to change their mind.Debating people's views, rather than their conduct, is almost never productive. Even if their views are Wrong™.
  The bitter irony here is that, for all his determination to remove pro-fringe advocacy from Wikipedia, Tgeorgescu's conduct in situations like this make that harder for admins, not easier. For the same reason that it's harder to resolve a dispute where an antivandal has told a vandal "go fuck yourself", it's harder to resolve a dispute where an anti-fringe editor has bludgeoned a discussion with a pro-fringe editor. (Note: That's a generic pro-fringe editor; not prejudging 3rdspace' case). As Ealdgyth and I said to Tgeorgescuin the 2023 thread: If someone's participation in an ARBPS article or on a talkpage is disruptive, and you find yourself talking in circles rather than making progress, then either disengage, get outside feedback, or take them to a noticeboard (preferably here). But Wikipedia is not debate club, and there is no encyclopedic purpose served by debating people's views with themad nauseam.
  I find myself hoping that there's some combination of words I could write here that would make Tgeorgescu understand the above. But that's what I thought last time, and there would be an irony in making the same assumption I'm faulting Tgeorgescu for—that if I just phrase my words right, he'll come around and agree with me. I wrote in the 2023 thread,

  The issue is how you are treating your peers, no more, no less. You are an experienced editor and I'm hoping that an AE warning could serve as a wake-up call that fighting pseudoscience is not an exception from our user conduct policies. You are still expected to have civil discussions on article talkpages built around what should or should not be in the article (not built on whether another user's actual or perceived POV is stupid, nor what other things they might believe), and to seek dispute resolution in a timely, civil, and non-bludgeoning fashion if you reach an impasse.

  The standard remedy after such a warning is a binding sanction, and Tgeorgescu has been extended the unusual leniency, in his last thread, of only getting a warning and narrow suspended sanction. But I think we've now reached an impasse of our own, and so I see no option other than a TBAN. If Tgeorgescu has ideas for narrow carve-outs we could place that would allow him to continue some of his ARBPS editing, I am open to that idea.
  For 3rdspace, I would support an informal warning that efforts to change the POV of pseudoscience-related articles often lead toone against many situations, which often get editors topic-banned or blocked, and that they may wish to consider spending more time familiarizing themself with Wikipedia editing before engaging to this degree on a contentious article. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)18:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm open to carveouts, too. I really hate tbanning anyone from a major editing interest, and if there are spaces theyaren't treating as battlegrounds, I'm open to it.Valereee (talk)18:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Would it be sane to suggest "medical pseudoscience" as a more restricted tban thanall pseudoscience? That's mostly what has come up in this thread. My hesitation here is that it's not always easy to distinguish one from the other. Example: isAstrology medical? --asilvering (talk)19:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't bannered as being of interest to WikiProject Medicine, which acupuncture is.Valereee (talk)19:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well both the 2023 warning and the 2024 suspended sanction concernanthroposophy, which has some medical tie-ins but is much broader than that. I think a carve-out more likely to succeed would be something based on type of conduct, not subtopic, like limiting responses to proposed edits within ARBPS to those of the form of "Source X is not reliable because Y" or "Source A does not support claim B", to be made only on the article's talk or a suitable noticeboard. But I would only consider that if it had significant buy-in from Tgeorgescu; giving someone a complex carve-out without a clear up-front understanding is a good way to wind up with a chain of misunderstandings that ends in a block. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)19:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm more than happy to defer to the experienced AE folks on what kinds of tbans work and what kinds don't - but given his responses here and in the relevant talk pages, I think "Source X is not reliable because Y" is likely to cause that exact misunderstanding problem. I'm immediately picturing "Source X is not reliable because [link to polemic essay]", and so forth. It'lllook less bad, but will itbe less bad? --asilvering (talk)20:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I will simply say that I am opposed to any TBAN for tgeorgescu. We don't have enough editors who regularly stand against the waves of medical PSCI true believers at this and multiple other articles, and I can quite understand why, because it's exhausting. I amespecially opposed to levying a ban when it is clearly that they are not the party who caused this particular issue.Black Kite (talk)19:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite: I respect your opinion as someone who knows the topic area well, but shouldn't your comments be in the section above? You commented in the underlying content dispute, as well as several previous threads onTalk:Acupuncture. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)19:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought about that, but I felt my comment to 3rdspace was only in an administrative senseI can assure you that no administrator is going to sanction someone who tells another editor to fuck off, if that editor has been accusing them of racism with no evidence whatsoever rather than taking part in the discussion. If there is consensus that my comments shouldn't be here I am happy to move them, however.Black Kite (talk)19:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Generally my question to myself here is whether I've worked enough in a CTOP that I consider myself involved in several articles, or whether I've worked with either editor enough that I might be involved w/re them. Fortunately for me food isn't a CTOP. :)Valereee (talk)19:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, if the article concerned had been - for example - Ayurveda or Homeopathy I would have recused; I've got Acupuncture watchlisted but that's simply keeping an eye on the issues on the talkpage; I've never edited the article.Black Kite (talk)20:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• BK, I do understand the exhaustion of editors at these articles. TG's statement thatI'm not the worst offender is a bit chilling on many levels; I'm not sure how we get more admin attention to that area to make sure both that well-intentioned newbs aren't getting bitten and long-time editors aren't getting exhausted. But I feel like the idea that TG is somehow too important to tban isn't really a great argument.Valereee (talk)19:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not saying they're too important to TBAN, I'm saying that I don't believe they deserve to be TBANned based on this interaction; but also that we need to givesome leeway to editors working in a difficult area.Black Kite (talk)19:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that we need to givesome leeway to editors working in a difficult area. I also think tgeorgescu's conduct has been out of line, and that two previous logged warnings is rather more than "some" leeway already. --asilvering (talk)19:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I kind of feel like they've gotten some leeway for that. @Black Kite, on the basis of the diffs they brought and with knowledge of their posts on 3rd's user talk, would you have recommended TG bringing this here? If not,why?Valereee (talk)19:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I wouldn't, because I don't think 3rdspace's behaviour rises to the level of an AE report yet. Their comments were not optimal, especially regarding the racism claims, but if anything I would take that - which is really a civility issue - to ANI rather than AE.Black Kite (talk)20:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Voorts: I tried drafting a more precise wording of what I spitballed above, and there's just too many edge cases and ambiguities if we take the "allow-list" approach. I think this has to be framed as a partial denial, not a partial allowance from a general denial. So the best I can come up with is:

  Within the topic area of pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly construed, Tgeorgescu is indefinitely restricted from making any comments in a disagreement over an article's content that go beyond discussing specific improvements (narrowly construed). For instance, he may notdiscuss the merits of the article's subject nordigress into tangentially related topics. He may not contact users on their talk pages to discuss such disagreements, except to give neutral, policy-compliant notifications of discussions elsewhere or giveCTOP alerts. He may bring such disputes to user conduct noticeboards if necessary, but his reports should be narrowly focused on the conduct of the user in question, not the merits of the underlying dispute.

  This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks, or the imposition of a partial or complete topic ban, at the discretion of the enforcing administrator. An administrator may also impose a topic ban if disruption continues in the topic area in other forms.

  This is ugly and cumbersome and I didn't like writing it. In a lot of ways it feels like we'd be setting Tgeorgescu up for failure. I'm not sure I would support this, and I think if I were given this offer myself, I might just take the TBAN instead. But I guess I'd like to know whatTgeorgescu thinks. TG, do you think you could abide by this sanction? If not, is there a sanction that you think you could abide by, somewhere between this and a full TBAN? --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)22:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst I'm still opposed to any sanction at all, I suppose it's mostly reasonable; but I would saydiscuss the merits of the article's subject isway, way too broad; it would mean, for example, when an editor turns up to say that they believe $PSEUDOMEDICINE is definitely a real thing and works brilliantly, TG wouldn't even be able to write "I'm sorry, that's incorrect, because...". Indeed, as written, it could prevent a lot of comments that would be perfectly normal on a talk page because it's semantically so close todiscuss the article's subject, which of course is pretty much every comment on a talk page.Black Kite (talk)23:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite: If you're going to continue to comment here, I'll say it more pointedly: You are involved here. The fact that your involvement is only on the article's talkpage, and not the article itself, is irrelevant, especially because this is a dispute about the article's talkpage. Even if your comment in the current thread is purely administrative, which I'm not convinced of, you've made three previous comments[13][14][15] to the talkpage in support of the text that 3rdspace is criticizing, most recently on February 6. You should be commenting in the section for involved users.

  That said, I would respond to this whichever section it was posted in, so, regardingwould mean, for example, when an editor turns up to say that they believe $PSEUDOMEDICINE is definitely a real thing and works brilliantly, TG wouldn't even be able to write 'I'm sorry, that's incorrect, because...', yes, that's the idea. Those are the exact kinds of edits TG has shown himself unable to make without haranguing users or violating NOTFORUM. There is not actually any need to tell someone that $PSEUDOMEDICINE isnot a real thing and works brilliantly, if they are not proposing an edit. At most, they need a pointer to NOTFORUM themself, but it's not the end of the world if Tgeorgescu cannot be the one to give them that pointer. Or if they are proposing an edit, then this restriction would allow TG to critique it. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)23:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Frankly, I'm not convincedanyone should be saying "I'm sorry, that's incorrect, because...". What happened to "Hi newbie, our articles reflect what is said about them in reliable, independent, secondary sources." ? --asilvering (talk)00:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to have to agree with Tamzin, here. In general I'm reluctant to find a well-intentioned editor involved when they sincerely don’t think they are. And I completely believe you sincerely don’t think you are. But between your argument thatWe don't have enough editors who regularly stand against the waves of medical PSCI true believers at this and multiple other articles and your argument for more leeway than has already been given, I’m having a hard time. This feels like involvement at a topic.Valereee (talk)00:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, whatever. I can see the way this is going anyway. I will say, however, that the result of this, even if unintended,may be to enableWP:RGW editors on medical pseudoscience articles even further, which I think is suboptimal.Black Kite (talk)09:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's supoptimal, too. We've just seen another CTOPs where multiple highly-experienced and mostly productive editors were tbanned, and it worries me. The thing is, we need to trying something to prevent this, and even with workers here being willing to consider customized sanctions, we're having a difficult time finding one. TG is telling us they don't know where the line is, possibly because, as they're saying, they aren't the worst offender. Which makes this even suckier for them because they came here voluntarily and stated right up front that they weren't looking for a block for 3rdspace, just a warning. Which 3rdspace will likely get, but the investigation also exposed an issue that is ongoing with TG.Valereee (talk)12:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @JoelleJay, I get it aboutconsidering how utterly exhausting it is to explain medical consensus to true believers of a pseudoscience over and over and over again. I've dealt with similar. I understand it's exhausting. But if you're exhausted to the point you cannot treat a newbie like a newbie -- if you can only treat them like an LTA -- maybe it's time to step back. I'd rather protect the article than burn out volunteers.Valereee (talk)00:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a tough one. I think I'm seeing a couple of issues here. We do need to draw a very firm line against articles on pseudoscience being used topush the pseudoscience, including any kind of "both sides" approach. I don't think we act swiftly enough to remove people from those areas who arenot there in good faith, and that does lead to burnout of those trying to keep articles free of that kind of thing. Here, we have someone who jumped straight to calling people racists, and we're actually considering continuing to allow them to participate there, even though that's almost certainly the part which needlessly escalated the situation. I do not think 3rdspace should be participating any more in pseudoscience/CAM topics at all, and at the very least, certainly not atacupuncture or discussions regarding it. That said, tgeorgescu should also not have risen to the bait, and has had plenty of chances to dial it back. So, I don't see any other outcome than a sanction there, either, but if he's sanctioned hereand 3rdspace is not, I would see that as a completely unacceptable outcome. I don't know what account they operated before, but they're not a "newbie", and even if they were, your average reasonable person who has never edited Wikipedia at all should be well aware that accusing someone of racism is quite inflammatory.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}15:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Our 'very firm line' against using pseudoscience articles to push pseudoscience doesn't mean we treat every brand new editor who is making the same tired arguments as the last 500 editors did as if theyare those last 500 editors. Maybe let's remove that from the discussion?

  TG was only asking for a warning of 3rdspace in the first place. 3rdspace is saying they'll take the advice to stay away from acupuncture. Hopefully they've also learned to be careful of language around accusations of racist behavior rather than discussing bias on WP. Hopefully they'll also avoid coming in hot on other things that upset them. Yes, we all should come into every new place calm, even when we're highly upset.

  If you're arguing that somehow we need to treat a highly experienced editor who hastwo logged warnings about the same behavior in the same CTOP as if a third concern about the exact same thing is the equivalent of a newbie going off half-cocked, I can't agree. I mean, if this exact same complaint about 3rdspace had come in here from an editor who didn't have that history, we'd probably be talking warning about casting aspersions -- which, again, is what TG was looking for in the first place -- and advising them to stick to editing outside of CTOPs while they learn.Valereee (talk)21:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we've got torecognize that there were those last 500 editors, and that it may cause some degree of exhaustion and exasperation among the editors who regularly edit those articles. And we don't act quickly enough to get them out of there. People have a lot of motivations to push crap and woo, be that financial or ideological, but those who actually try to enforce MEDRS and the like are a lot more rare. So, I'm tremendously loathe to remove one of them, though not entirely opposed. I think there is a place to tell people "Already discussed, already rejected, go read the archives" without having to have the same old argument once again. That said, I think the stuff in this case were over the top, but I canunderstand the motivation behind it, even if I don't entirely agree with what came of it.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}23:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not being able to recognize or understand the motivation behind tgeorgescu's comments would be a failure of both basic empathy and basic reading comprehension. We can recognize and understand that motivation while also recognizing and understanding that if two logged warnings have failed to have a significant effect, something else has to be done. --asilvering (talk)01:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand it, too. What I don't understand is why, after two logged warnings, an editor wouldn't take steps on their own to prevent a recurrence. That's why I'm suggesting a solution: just don't interact with non-EC editors w/re pseudoscience, either at article talk or their user talk. That doesn't remove the editor from the area. That just prevents them from biting newbies. And TG seems open to that as a red line solution.Valereee (talk)11:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would go with that as long as both voluntary restrictions are made formal. Tgeorgescu with the above restriction, and 3rdspace topic banned from acupuncture.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}18:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How would you feel about a tban that would expire when extended confirmed?Valereee (talk)18:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose we could give that a go. Hopefully some experience would tone things down.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}13:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding TG's proposal, I will post more thoughts later, but briefly: I am glad TG is trying to meet us halfway, but I don't think the no-non-EC-interaction proposal actually addresses the problem here. The previous two warnings concerned dealings with EC users. It also raises the question of what happens if, say, a non-EC user posts on an ARBPS article's talkpage challenging the accuracy of something TG added. Again, more thoughts later. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)20:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin just a noodge. Since it isn't on your user talk, figured it might be off your radar that you'd intended to circle back. :DValereee (talk)12:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Valereee: Ah sorry. Fittingly for the topic area, I was out of commission while a couple vaccines put my immune system through its paces. And then just busy for a day or two. Okay so: My view is, the core issue here isn't how Tgeorgescu interacts with new users. It's how Tgeorgescu interacts with users that he sees as substantivelywrong about fringe/pseudo topics. In a lot of ways I respect Tgeorgescu's desire to save people from beingwrong on the Internet. I appreciate some of the points he makes to users, such as that he has views of his own that conflict with science and that he does the right thing by not pushing those views as fact. However, as we find ourselves here a third time, it's become clear that he can't have those conversations without it devolving into something ugly and contrary to the purpose of building an encyclopedia.
  Tgeorgescu says he'd agree to the broad-disagreement restriction I propose above. I still don't love that restriction, but I think it's the only thing we've discussed here that would actually address the pattern of behavior seen in this case and the previous two warnings. I would tentatively support that, despite my reservations, but if there is not consensus for that, if the options are TBAN or no binding action, then my !vote is TBAN. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)17:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't love it, either, as I worry that TG has repeatedly stated they'd prefer a red line, and yours requires them to make judgement calls. But as vs either no binding action or a tban, I'd be willing to try it.Valereee (talk)17:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess the thing we can make very clear, if we go down that route, is that Tgeorgescu is welcome, and maybe even encouraged, to hold himself to a narrower restriction. If he wants to not interact with anyone non-EC in the topic area, then by all means, he can. There's just an issue with making that enforceable, as it would have both false positives and false negatives. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)17:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can live with the proposals, although I agree with Tamzin that it's not TG interacting with new editors but how he treats editors he thinks are wrong, but I'm not sure how to craft something that will work besides a topic ban from areas where he gets into battleground mode (it's not just psuedoscience/fringe, but religious articles too where he gets into bludgeoning and other problems). But rather than spend more weeks trying to craft the perfect remedy, we might as well try the less-than-perfect first.Ealdgyth (talk)14:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can also live with this. Thanks for working on it, Tamzin.voorts (talk/contributions)15:10, 17 March 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

Alalch E. (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)00:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Mountain of Eden (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

1. 28 February 2025 Instead of allowing me to normally continue the discussion on the merits of the issue, the editor (not giving me a reasonable time to respond) pivoted to questioning my "real motives", which is anWP:ASPERSION, and the editor pinged four editors of whom three have Hebrew usernames or names, claiming that "they have edited the page", and while I suppose that they have edited the article, there are other users who have edited the article more extensively and who have not been pinged, making this a pretty clear nationalistWP:INAPPNOTE.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. (Log entry)

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. (Log entry)
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on21 July 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The reported editor countered myWP:APPNOTE in the form of my pinging a single and only other previous participant in a discussion concerning the image (whereas the current branch of the discussion concerns solely the caption), by anWP:INAPPNOTE in the form of their pinging four editors in relation to whom, seen as a group, it can be reasonably assumed that,they, the reported editor, (I am not accusing thepinged editors of anything) believed would bring him an advantage in continuing to enforce their preferred version of the caption. These editors are not especially prominent contributors to the article and had not participated in a related discussion.

The same editor had introduced that caption; I do not find the caption problematic on any "deeper" level. I was opposing it solely on mundane grounds of style and conventions on captions as captions. I like short captions I guess? Being accused of having ulterior motives with respect to this topic is emotionally upsetting to me and makes it difficult or maybe even impossible for me to engage seriously with this editor on that article's talk page. The reported editor is probably unaware that I have made approx. 70% edits and have a 60% added text contribution and have brought the article to GA. That is because my motives are to ensure that the article on this particular topic is in good shape. Throughout this time, since 2023, no one has accused me of "motives".

I would have responded to their previous comment in the thread, but after the accusation of having "motives" and the inappropriate notification, I am asking for corrective action before I continue discussing the (ultimately unimportant) caption.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Special:Diff/1278193062

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 hope this complaint gets closed as a superfluous report. If I am reading the complaint correctly, the basis for this report is that the reporting editor is unhappy by my choice of editors that I pinged. They are free to ping additional editors.
As forWP:ASPERSION, I think my suspicions that the filing editor has unstated motives is consistent with their behavior of misusing policies and guidelines,as stated in their edit summary, and now filing this superfluous complaint.
What the complaining editor is neglecting to mention is that the one editor that they pinged is an editor who isnot very active, so not likely to respond any time soon. It was therefore necessary to ping more active editors, which is what I did. --The Mountain of Eden (talk)02:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the reporting editor is behaving in a manner consistent with unstated motivesby deleting the caption based on misuse of WP policies only afterI added the words "award winning" and "Hamas", along with replacing the words "their return" with "abducting", in the caption. --The Mountain of Eden (talk)03:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At 12+ days, this is now the longest break between edits for The Mountain of Eden dating back to June 2024, when their account was only eight edits old. They started editing about the Gaza War in July 2024, after 510 edits, within a day of qualifying for extended confirmed.starship.paint (talk /cont)01:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The Mountain of Eden, pings to other editors are expected to follow the guidelineWP:CANVASS--you are accountable for who you choose to ping, and are expected to be doing so in the spirit of giving all interested editors a say in the consensus process. Further, I'm really baffled by the continued aspersions here, given the extensive editing work that Alalch E. has put into that page that includes meticulous efforts toaccuratelydocument thegruesome violence committed byHamas. If they have an ulterior motive to minimize mention of Hamas committing massacres, they're doing a spectacularly poor job of it. Accusations of an ulterior motive without solid evidence to back it are aspersions. Even if it wasn't quite so trivial to grab a half dozen diffs of Alalch contributing to that article, it still wouldn't be ok to accuse them of ulterior motives unless you had hard evidence of a pattern of such behavior._signed,Rosguill^talk03:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a perverse irony in hearing an ARBPIA dispute where the actual details could have happened on literally any article: At its core, this is just two editors disagreeing about a relatively minor stylistic decision. (Another way to put that is, neither editor's preferred version would bewrong; the question is just whose isbetter. Which of course is not for AE to decide.) But this sort of thing happens when tensions run high. People see good-faith edits that touch on a sensitive detail of an article (in this case, a very sensitive detail) and emotion overcomes AGF. The Mountain of Eden spends almost all of their time on-wiki editing about individual killings in the Arab–Israeli conflict. On one level, that's commendable. On another level, it does seem to contribute to a level of jaundice. So my current inclination is abalanced editing restriction. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)18:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rosguill or @anyone else: Any thoughts on this? --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)19:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see the reasoning that it could break a possible feeling of tunnel-vision on Mountain of Eden’s part and thereby reduce hostility. My concern is that MoE hasn’t acknowledged that their actions were out of line, which makes me think that a complex sanction like BER is a doomed-to-fail formality.

  A possible tangent, but bears stating: I don’t agree that this is adispute where the actual details could have happened on literally any article: At its core, this is just two editors disagreeing about a relatively minor stylistic decision. Alalch E.’s expressed views here are a stylistic preference; MoE’s expressed views here are that Alalch E. has engaged in pro-Hamas POV pushing. That’s a uniquely PIA problem._signed,Rosguill^talk19:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Or put another way: If MoE responds now with an acknowledgment of wrongdoing and clear commitment to do better, I think they're in logged warning territory (if they'd done that as their first response, without trying to first dismiss report out of hand, they could have avoided a warning). If they totally ignore this and/or double down, they're in tban territory. BER territory would be if they give some sort of ambiguous response that falls between those poles._signed,Rosguill^talk19:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Mountain of Eden, after making dozens of edits almost every day for nearly three months has taken a break in editing that almost exactly coincides with the suggestion of a balanced editing requirement. I am going to support a BER or TBAN, appealable immediately upon their resumption of editing and making the acknowledgements Rosguill is suggesting.Valereee (talk)17:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tamzin,Rosguill, any thoughts regarding the above suggestion fromValereee, since no response has been received?The Mountain of Eden, I would note that you still have the option of responding, and your choice whether or not to do so may affect the outcome here.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}04:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I stand by my recommendation of a tban given that we have seen no further response from MoE._signed,Rosguill^talk04:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with a TBAN, without prejudice against early downgrading/lifting based on a reasonable appeal. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)01:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the above, I think either a tban or perhaps the balanced editing restriction? As an aside, can I complain about the closeness ofWP:ARBPIA andWP:ARBIPA shortcuts? It's occasionally very confusing...Ealdgyth (talk)14:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I keep it memorized by remembering thatIPAs were sent to India. It's even more confusing when you remember that the PIA code for the alert/first template is...a-i._signed,Rosguill^talk14:51, 17 March 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

Smallangryplanet (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)09:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Johnadams11 (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

Johnadams11 received a couple of CTOP notices in September (link) and was subsequently warned for failing WP:ECR again (link). He kept editing in pages within the PIA topic, opening discussions that were not edit requests, mostly inTalk:Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip well before reaching ECR in February 7 (link). Almost 25% of the total edits made there are from him, the majority before being EC. As a result, he was temporarily blocked in January 27 for a week (link). But at that point he had more than 400 edits so he reached EC shortly afterwards. The focus has been almost solely on PIA articles or about the topic after getting to 500 edits.

Johnadams11 has been repeatedly trying to push for a redefinition of children related to Palestinian victims of the Gaza war. He created 4 discussions inTalk:Casualties of the Gaza war, 1 of which was removed because he wasn’t EC at the time; the other 3 were posted in a period of 4 days (Jan 27,Feb 7,Feb 8,Feb 11). He also accused one of the participants of the discussion of bad faith both in the discussion itself (link) and on their talk page (link) for pointing out that there were numerous discussions about the same topic, the RfC was malformed, and that behaviour seemed likeWP:BLUDGEONING. In my opinion, this kind of behaviour on multiple pages looks likeWP:FORUMSHOP.

Additionally, onDenial of the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, heremoved sourced content, and when reverted,removed it again, arguing that because a discussion initiated previously on the talk page failed to attract editors for a couple of days, that meant consensus was void. TheWP:ONUS falls on the person removing content if it has been there for a time, and the status quo should be maintained while a discussion is in place. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how consensus works. On the same page he refused to comply with the 1RR sanctions in place in the topic area (link) though this was later reverted by another editor.

He has also engaged inWP:VOTESTACKINGhere, seemingly alluding to me specifically, since I interacted with this user in the discussion mentioned there. I don't see how asserting that I am testing his limits cannot be interpreted as a personal attack and castingWP:ASPERSIONS.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2025-01-27EditingTalk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war in violation of the restrictions in place.

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on2025-01-27 byScottishFinnishRadish (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on2024-09-07 (see the system log linked to above).
• Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Re: was the 1rr a removal or a revert: There were only 21 edits between the first version of that section being added in October and John's removal. 14 were specifically editing that section. The edit prior to John's removal also involved updating that section. If you add content and then the next edit is removing a big chunk including your addition, that seems like a revert to me. Especially while the section is actively being discussed. I can add the individual diffs if an admin will give me the okay to exceed the diff limit.Smallangryplanet (talk)19:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: I'm not sure I understand your comment – are you agreeing that this particular behaviour constitutes a revert? I share the sentiment that removing content added a long time ago shouldn't count as a revert. However, that doesn't apply here: the section that was removed was actively being worked on and had new content added right before John removed it. To me, that falls under the definition of reversion inWikipedia:Reverting#What_is_a_reversion?.Smallangryplanet (talk)10:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth documenting here that John has more or lessadmitted (more on this here) that he planned to file - and thendid file - a retaliatory AE topic about me.Hello. Your recent filing of an AE request against me elevated my interest both in the subject of AEs and in your editing history. I've now observed a number of edits that in my opinion raise serious questions. I was dropping in to ask if you'd prefer to discuss them here before I build an AE. is how he phrased it. I stand by my edits and will/have engage/d with the topic in good faith, naturally, but it seems like relevant information for this topic as well.Smallangryplanet (talk)16:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification on user talk page.

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.

The discussion about my pre-EC editing history is largely accurate but doesn’t emphasize what I believe to be an important dimension of that history. The accusation that I “kept editing in pages within the PIA topic” masks the fact that 100% of these were Talk comments, and that all were related to my not comprehending that the absence of platform locks wasnot a signal that I was free to participate in Talk. I  wrotea (too long) comment] on this dynamic in my appeal of my block. More importantly though, I also sought to prevent other editors from falling into the same misunderstanding that I did, byrecommending an improvement to the way templated warnings on Talk pages are presented -- and I’m more than a little proud that my recommendation waslater adopted, and is presently in place.

OnCasualties of The Gaza War, I do indeed believe that the article’s clarity would be meaningfully improved with a single sentence of definition. (The word “children” is used 57 times at my last count.) This is by no means a "redefinition" as the article contains no definition at all. My error in discussing this on Talk (I have never edited the Article) appears to be that in seeking to drive discussion on this question, I added newtopics in Talk instead of creating newsections within the initial topic.Here I thank an editor for teaching me this. Ultimately, I chose tostart an RfC, which  indeed was a very specific wish for “comments” more than a wish to frame the discussion with a formatted list of choices. I do see now that I properly should not have inserted my own opinion here, but any read of what I wrote shows no agenda other than consensus seeking. Later, after some furious replies about how the RfC was “malformed,” and afterseeking advice from an admin on the matter, I, in an abundance of caution (and of cowardice)chose to remove the RfC.

The accusation that I accused another editor of bad faith is not in my opinion coherent.I made a comment on the tone and style of a reply to my RfC, and thenquickly removed that comment, because as I said in the edit comment, it really didn’t further the discussion. I also went to an editor’s talk page toask for their comments on the merits. IMO, one would have to do a fair amount of construction to find some sort of accusation of bad faith in either of these.

On theDenial of the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, 1RR accusations,this began with a discussion on Talk describing the edit I wished to make. In a week of seeking discussion and consensus, no one had commented, soI made the edit. This edit was reverted, and I reverted back. I have now been coached (see below) that instead of my last revert, I should have gone back to Talk. Lesson learned. I hope it’s clear though the time sequence andthe discussion that I was indeed seeking consensus and  that the last revert, is in part, a function of not having gotten any participation. That said, if one finds that my initial edit was a “revert” then I am surely guilty of a 1RR violation. It was exactly because the content I had edited was inserted last October, and because I retained the basic thought for the content I'd removed, that I did not see it as a revert. I was fully conscious of 1RR at the time I made the revert of smallangryplanet's edit and believed it lawful because I did not see the initial edit as a “revert.”

On aspersion casting, Even ifmy comment is understood to apply to some specific editor (who was not named), I specifically said that I WAS assuming good faith. I merely added that certain behaviors were “testing my limits.” Bad faith obviously exists in our world, and I can't imagine I am being asked to ban that possibility entirely from my consciousness.  

I’m not sure what the “1339” discussion of theIsraeli Bombing of the Gaza Strip article means exactly, but I think it’s important to note that by my count, I have made fewer than ten (generally single sentence) edits to the Article itself.

I really do try to be polite and kind with everyone I talk to on WP, and I welcome anyone who takes the time to read the body of what I’ve tried to contribute here.

Going forward I recommit myself to hyper sensitivity to CTOP, constructive collaboration, consensus building and strict adherence to policy.Johnadams11 (talk)21:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valeree Hello. Thanks so much for your thoughtful review of all this. I see that the error I made was that because SAP had not commented on my request in Talk, and because theirrevert of my edit also did not contain any comment on the merits, I didn't think a return to Talk would be fruitful. I do understand now that this is recommended protocol, and shall abide it. Thanks again. Does your (amazingly rapid) review of this case mean I do not have to post a formal reply? Thanks again.Johnadams11 (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Moved from results section; please comment in your own section, including when responding to others.Valereee (talk)15:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee Thanks for filling me in. It's interesting. For me, I have a certain time capacity (as must we all) for contributing to WP, and because certain articles intersect my area of study, and because they are to me, "important," I've focused on them. Many of these topics, as one example:my productive collaboration with another editor onYom Kippur War, which required a non-trivial amount of off platform study. In any event, I'll obviously comply with whatever rule changes or restrictions are applied. Thanks again. I'm now a proud knower of the 1339 filter!Johnadams11 (talk)22:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee If I understandWP:AGF, the whole notion of inferring "retaliation," seems at odds with it -- at least right now. If my case turns out to be brazenly frivolous on the merits, then I think it would be reasonable to explore motive. However, I don't see that as the sequence here. Can you explain?Johnadams11 (talk)15:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee Thanks for the reply. Yes, after an editor had lodged formal charges against me (which I believe are frivolous, and contained brazen aspersions), I became curious both about the process, and about who it was exactly who was doing this against me. Further, the note you reference was a specific attempt to NOT file the AE. For you to come to the conclusion that you have, you must find that that note was written in bad faith. Something you have no evidence for, and which again (in my view) is a violation ofWP:AGF. I promise you, it's not hard to convince me of my own errors. But so far, your case is not especially convincing.Johnadams11 (talk)17:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Looks like Johnadams11 has triggered filter 1339 over a hundred times in the past six weeks, if I'm understanding that correctly? And #1 editor both by #edits and amount of text atTalk:Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip is a pretty shocking statistic for someone who's barely ECR.

SAP, I findtheir argument that the first removal onDenial of the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel wasn't a revert is pretty plausible. If the content had been added 25 hours earlier, I'd consider it a revert. But if it was added in October, a removal in March is arguably just a removal. I don't find the diffs referring to accusations of bad faith very compelling. The misfires on trying to get a discussion started about the definition of children are pretty annoying, the kind of thing that justifies making PIA ECR-only, but I'm not sure they rise to the level of more than a warning for disruptive editing at this point when the editor is this new and still learning how to productively start a discussion? The canvassing they did to that RfC was definitely not okay, and the user they canvassed should have ignored it.

JA11, I'll point out that if someone is objecting to a revert you've made, just revert yourself and go talk. In fact if you get reverted at a CTOP, just go talk in the first place. You were arguing in your edit summary for that revert that no one had responded in over a week to your suggested removal. That was a valid reason for making the removal. It was not a valid argument for making the revert instead of going immediately to the talk page to discuss an edit you'd made at a CTOP that another editor was objecting to. The fact I find your argument about the first removal not being a revert plausible doesnot mean it was an okay thing to do,and other editors may disagree with my take on that. I'm going to say what I say to all new editors who jump right into CTOPs: that's a terrible place to learn how to edit. Editors have pretty much zero patience with newbie mistakes there. And this particular CTOP is the most contentious on the entire site, even experienced editors get into major trouble there completely innocently.Valereee (talk)14:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnadams11, no, you'll still want to respond. AE cases are almost never decided by a single admin, and never before giving the editor who is being considered for enforcement a chance to respond. Please respond in your own section, as if you were talking to yourself.Valereee (talk)15:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 1339 checks what percentage of an editor's edits in a thirty-day period were within the PIA CTOP. There's a new restriction we can apply that requires fewer than 1/3 of a given editor's edits fall within the CTOP, which is designed to discourage single-purpose accounts within the topic.Valereee (talk)21:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnadams11, we get it. It's taken 24 years for us to try this restriction. We don't like restrictions, we really want WP to be editable by anyone, but the literally constant disruption within the PIA (Palestine-Israel-Arabs) topic finally made us decide we were going to try this "balanced editing restriction" in hopes that it will help. Literally just placed the first one a couple days ago.Valereee (talk)23:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Smallangryplanet, yeah, as I said above, other editors may (completely validly) disagree about my take on whether that represented a vio of 1RR. This is for me sort of a gray area...is a removal of contentinherently a revert, because it's removing content someone else added? I'm open to argument.Valereee (talk)19:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have generally not been impressed with the "removal is always a revert" argument. If the removed text was added recently, I would generally consider that a revert, but I have a hard time saying with a straight face that removing years-old text is a "revert". At that point, I think that's just a normal part of the editing process.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}18:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  SAP, JA11 is saying the bulk of the removed content dated back several months, are you saying that's not correct? I will say that it's absolutely true that the first removal came onlyafter JA11 had opened a section about it and then waited a week with no response before making that removal. To me that looks like a good faith removal, even if part of the content removed had been added/changed more recently.Valereee (talk)11:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that in§ Smallangryplanet I've suggested, at a minimum, a TBAN of JA. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)22:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow.Johnadams11, immediately after being warned about new editors and contentious topics, and before your own case is even settled, you file what appears to be a retaliatory case. Literally sitting here shaking my head.Valereee (talk)15:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Johnadams11, you literally said on their user talkYour recent filing of an AE request against me elevated my interest both in the subject of AEs and in your editing history. Yousaid this was your motivation. I didn't have to "infer" anything.Valereee (talk)16:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry you don't find it convincing, JA11. If you believe I've violated AGF, you can open a section atWP:AN. If you believe I've done so in a way that violates admin acountability, you can open a section atWP:XRV.Valereee (talk)17:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Per my comments in SAP's section, if there's no objection from other admins by early tomorrow UTC, I will close this as an indef TBAN, appealable to ARCA. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)17:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection.Valereee (talk)17:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Holding off pending comment from JA after discussion on my talk. While JA is already over the word limit, I'm willing to be lenient for an issue that arose after the initial filing, so I have granted an extension of 238 words past the current word count, specifically for JA to discuss the "sadly" diff and their reaction to it. Equitably, @Smallangryplanet, you get the same extension with the same limited scope, but please don't take that as me saying a reply is needed; just letting you know you have the option. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)00:45, 17 March 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

TarnishedPath (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)00:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dancasun (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:ARBCOVID-19

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

1. 00:50, 15 March 2025WP:ABF, accusing another editor ofreflexive resistance to correcting outdated information and biased language and stating that they have alack of good faith.
2. 01:00, 15 March 2025WP:ABF, accusing me ofreflexive resistance to correcting outdated information and biased language and stating that I have alack of good faith.

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, on20:30, 14 March 2025 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Johnuniq ECP is probably a good idea. Almost every time there is some minor reporting concerning the lab leak there's an influx of editors (often with very low edit counts) that come along toWP:RGW at related articles.TarnishedPath^talk01:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

11:37, 15 March 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.

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

• I recently fully protectedCOVID-19 lab leak theory due to a small edit war. It was previouslyWP:ECP. The issue was a news report "German spy agency concluded COVID virus likely leaked from lab". That same issue is now atOrigin of SARS-CoV-2 (example diff). Perhaps the latter article should be ECP protected?ToBeFree reduced protection to semi last December. Dancasun has 26 edits and so may not be aware of the significance of the "Introduction to contentious topics" section on their talk.Johnuniq (talk)01:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It always seems a little like overkill to bring an editor to AE who has only made a dozen or so edits. I mean this is the highest level of enforcement bureaucracy and I doubt they have any familiarity with administration enforcement.Liz^Read!Talk!02:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree but the reason for bringing an issue here is that if Dancasun were to add the material again, the established editors would be stuck because they know that engaging in even a small edit war would be evidence that they should be sanctioned. It is not satisfactory that an inexperienced editor can force material into an article on a contentious topic. I would have resolved the matter by applying ECP but it was recently downgraded to semi so I think it's best to get some agreement here first.Johnuniq (talk)02:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the ping! I don't (and will never) object to increasing protection wherever I have tried decreasing it. As long as even one single edit happened since the protection decrease, I wouldn't even view it as an undoing of my action.~ ToBeFree (talk)16:16, 15 March 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

Bon courage (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)09:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

RememberOrwell (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:ARBCOVID-19

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

User is repeatedly adding excerpts for a disinformation web site to the article lede (such sites are described in the article[16]).

1. 08:25, 15 March 2025 first addition
2. 8:31, 15 March 2025 Reversion of material

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

CTOP notice.[17]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[18]

Addendum

• Note RememberOrwell self-reverted after being given an AE notice, rendering my particular complaint largely moot.Bon courage (talk)16:05, 18 March 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.

1. I already posted this reply to my talk page before this section was created:
   I don't find it. FYI, I moved the image down, I didn't notice 'till after that you had removed it. Also, you lied. The image I added didn't introduce a link at all. RememberOrwell (talk) 1:59 am, Today (UTC−7)
2. Also, I've already self-reverted edit 2, above .
3. Also, I didn't even intentionally edit this page initially. I clicked edit on theCovid-19 misinformation page and it results in an edit page forIvermectin_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic - which I didn't notice 'till after I submitted my edit (marked "first addition", above).

To be clear, #1, "I moved the image down," means there was no intent on my part to revert the reporter's edit.

I wouldn't have mentioned the lying, if it wasn't the case that I've noted the reporter's talk page (and edit history are) full of evidence of them frequently stating outright falsehoods, some in the form of personal attacks, and fair constructive criticism for "wasting other people's time and energy for them, and gaming the system, which is obstructing the improvement and development of articles."

Also, why shouldn't I be adding images to an article on misinformation, such asCovid-19 misinformation in the first place? That's appropriate, no? I would argue my edit is intentionally mischaracterized as adding "links" "for a disinformation web site to the article lede". Isn't there a clear policy strongly encouraging adding appropriate images to an article almost entirely bereft of them? It's essential to a good or featured article, no? And did I not caption the image appropriately?

To be clear, I clicked an edit button atCovid-19 misinformation to add this to that page:

It didn't work right. So I edited the pageto move the image down, so that this second attempt to add this to the toCovid-19 misinformation page would work. I wonder why it didn't work and how I'd get it to work - if there's support for putting it back in the article.

Please refer toSpecial:Diff/1280722344, a comment made during a discussion atWP:ANI. In his comment the subject made insinuations that there areWP:PAID in a discussionTalk:COVID-19 lab leak theory without providing a skerrick of evidence.TarnishedPath^talk08:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel their ANI and talk page comments are a more serious problem than their article edits. Just from thediff above:

• I didn't buy the rationale or irredemability, but said nothing, not wanting to be beaten up, so to speak, as is the norm on this topic.
• I see lots of such behavior from several editors on the topic indistinguishable from that which I would expect of a paid editor.
• It seems to indicate such desperation it scares me... plusI mean I would not be surprised to see that only if someone was pleading because their life depended on being right, but added as commented out for some reason.

These show a clearWP:BATTLEGROUND mentality,WP:ASPERSIONs, and are generally not the sort of behavior that such a tense topic area needs right now. And their other comments are no better: (These generally fall underWP:ARBPS instead)

• Here,You keep dodging questions andYou are full of nonsense.
• Here:Your irrational, unfounded beliefs don't matter.
• Or onHavana syndrome:But it is odd that you are now saying stuff thats BLATANTLY FALSE.

Generally justWP:AGF failures,WP:ASPERSIONs, and incivility. --Aquillion (talk)14:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• One wonders why this is at AE, and notTalk:Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. It looks to me like RememberOrwell added the disputed material, re-added it once, and then self-reverted, so the talk page seems the logical next step to me. That said,RememberOrwell, it is not acceptable to call people liars. You can certainly point out that you believe someone ismistaken, but calling them a liar is apersonal attack.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}22:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless any uninvolved admin sees any cause for action here within the next day or so, I will close this with an informal reminder that talk page discussion and not AE threads should be the first resort for disputed material.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}04:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  RememberOrwell, I was initially going to just informally caution you regarding the civility issues, but with the later material that's been presented, the incivility seems to be a pattern with you, even as far as the same manner of thing (That's what, the third <cough> falsehood Rusalkii has posted in this discussion?, in[19]), is similar to your habit above of accusing people of lying), and the others above are also concerning. If you are going to be unable to remain civil when you are frustrated, you should not be editing in contentious areas. Does that need to be the outcome here, or is that something you think you could improve upon?Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}21:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At the very least I think this needs a formal warning. I tbannedBabbleOnto after finding they already had an AE warning for this kind of thing, and then went about preparing an SPI report for the two editors, only to find one had already been made (result: technically unrelated). The behaviour goes back for months. --asilvering (talk)23:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If the edit was self-reverted, and even the filer considers the complaint mostly moot, then it would seem to have mostly stopped being an AE issue in any case. That said, I would be remiss to say nothing about the incivility in some of these diffs, especially their remarks in the NORN thread toRusalkii — which I saw a few days ago and struck me as unusually rude, even for Wikipedia, and basically warranted by nothing. Part of the problem here may be that, especially editing in a CT area, they may be seeing a lot of bad examples of how to behave. But even if the rules are unfairly enforced, they nonetheless exist, and at any rate Rusalkii has got absolutely nothing to do with the COVID stuff anyway; it's one thing to snap back at someone who has been needling you about politics stuff all day, but it's another thing to go off on a person who never even did anything besides mind their own business and edit properly. I would not push for a siteban or anything, but I'd really strongly recommend they try to not do stuff like this.jp×g🗯️13:34, 19 March 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

Zero0000 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)10:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mgfdhsrhe (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

ARBPIA General Sanctions (30/500)

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

This editor achieved 30/500 largely by a sequence of trivial edits.

1. 4 October 2024 This is 13 separate edits in the space of 2 minutes, adding one item to a list in each edit.

1. 5 October 2024 This is 24 edits which in total accomplished almost nothing. Most of them are addition or removal of one character without an editorial purpose:delete a character,delete a character,delete a character, and so on.

1. 5 October 2024 This is 85 edits removing about 15 consecutive words one character at a time.

1. 5 October 2024 This is 21 edits removing one character at a time.

1. 5 October 2024 This is 47 edits removing part of a sentence one character at a time.

Within a few edits after this, the editor reached 500 (or close to it) and made their firstARBPIA edit.

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

CTOP notice on talk page. Note that the notice was delivered after the above sequence of trivial edits. However, I suggest that the very fact of making all those trivial edits just when they were needed to reach 500 is sufficient evidence that they were aware of the 30/500 restriction.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

AlvaKedak (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)13:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hu741f4 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 03:43, 1 March 2025: Although previously removed[20]. But later changed their mind for some reason (perhaps POV bias?) to add such content, when several sources have been presented which clearly differ with this view in the talk page.
2. 09:48, 28 February 2025: Constantly pushing a certain viewpoint[21] with no regards of NPOV or highlighting the other side, clearly just here todefame.
3. 14:39, 26 February 2025: Calls a test edit made by an IP address vandalism and does the same with a new editor.[22].
4. 08:45, 27 February 2025: Labeling a reputed scholar as a “Hindutva mouthpiece” without backing the statement with any reliable source. They have tried to poison the discussion with multiple inflammatory claims[23][24]. Such an aggressive behavior in a area dealing with a contentious topic is not healthy for the community.
5. 16:30, 26 February 2025: Readily removing the inline template without addressing the issue.
6. 08:10, 26 February 2025: Arguing against an attempt to fix the NPOV issues in order to circumvent the process, this shows their regressive nature more likestonewalling.
7. [25]: Cleverly changing the sourced wordings to showcase a certain side with wrong doings.
8. 02:21, 23 February 2025: The level of falsification escalated when they attempted to include unrelated pieces of information that has no relevance to the article. The inclusion of atrocities committed by common soldiers during the laterMaratha invasions of Bengal in mid 18th century which didn't have anything to do with Sambhaji is quite concerning.
9. 01:36, 23 February 2025: On top of their frivolous edits, they persisted in arguing over irrelevant additions, showing a clear indications ofWP:IDHT.
10. 07:09, 15 February 2025: Removed sourced contents, claimingUnverified claim unsupported by the cited source.

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

[26][27]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user continues to exhibit a confrontational editing style, unnecessarily contesting obvious attempts to resolve issues. It would certainly be better if they refrained from editing this topic area altogether, as the mess they’ve created is still under scrutiny and may take more time to fix. One may need to go through their all additions and verify the sources.AlvaKedak (talk)13:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, @Valereee see if that will do:

1. 23:26, 5 February 2025: Removed precise notion despite the source outright supporting it:

But there was mounting evidence that among the Bengalis, the Hindu minority was doubly marked out for persecution.

1. 01:50, 4 February 2025: Citing a dubious primary source from an unknown publisher.
2. 00:08, 2 February 2025: Removing sourced contents claiming it was all "unnecessary" just to promote their fringe views.
3. 18:17, 31 January 2025: Removed a decent source along with the controversial phrase, which primarily revolves aroundVed Bhasin.
4. 19:55, 24 January 2025: Once again removing long standing content along with the sources, just to push their pov. When challenged for their disruptive removal, they proceed to refer to the IP User's edit as "vandalism"[28] without realising it's them who are involved in vandalism.
5. 17:45, 23 January 2025: Falsely claims that the source doesn't mentions this statement when it does.
6. 23:39, 30 December 2024: Again removing sourced contents. It should be apparent by now that this user wants to remove any Indian mentions from articles.
7. 12:16, 30 December 2024: At this point this seems more like a religious hatred than just trolling. Adding a citation that is poorly source to add the slur in the list.
8. 04:45, 30 October 2024: Yet again they're on the spree of removing any sourced 'Indian origins' long standing contents.
9. Another instance ofWP:IDHT[29].AlvaKedak (talk)21:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, on #8 they are clearly hallucinating the contents. Why did they add later instances of mid 18th century conflicts between Marathas &Bengal Subah to this page of the monarch who died in 1689? what relevance does it have here? They are clearly not here to contribute constructively and neutrally but to perform destructive edits with only one certain point of view. Their aggressive behaviour is not in compliance with this cooperative encyclopedia. The utter un-seriousness in the editing pattern and discussing behaviour is a serious issue.AlvaKedak (talk)16:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, I am pretty sure that I have not shown more than 20 diffs. Also, do additional comments and replies to admins and users count? Please restore my recent given diffs.AlvaKedak (talk)20:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, there are only 257 words in my first 10 dffs, the other 10 diffs has not more than 336, I can reduce it by removing the quotes and other extra details. But I'm curious as to why User:Abhishek didn't get reverted when they crossed the word limit[30].AlvaKedak (talk)20:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, not really, please check again through Wordcount.net. Both of my 20 diffs and comment allegations doesn't contain more than 591 words (including numbers and dates). I don't know how to link my result, but you can get the same result by pasting the text from this note link:[31]AlvaKedak (talk)08:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, it was an unintended ping because it was the first time I used the "Ping" template. I was testing it by taking the usernames of other editors here but didn't realise it'd turn it out this way, should have used my sandbox. I apologize to Capitals00 for bothering them.

@Valereee what must I do? Should I present all of my other 10 diffs without any explanation, or should I provide just a 3-5 word explanation for each? All, I want to say id that please have a quick look through the diffs just once for they are more problematic than the former diffs.AlvaKedak (talk)18:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee thanks for the suggestion. I have looked through the previous diffs that I provided. I will do something to include all of it here again by either collapsing redundant comments or removing them.AlvaKedak (talk)19:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have any remedy in action here? Please re-evaluate the later given diffs[32] swiftly, @Hu741f4 seems to be making non-apologetic apology, in essence, they are attempting to defend themselves by saying something along the lines of "I was not wrong, but if it was reverted then alright". This user is involved inWP:COI, all of these issues do not help to gain confidence in the improvement of their editing behaviour.AlvaKedak (talk)14:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valereee, I apologize if I did not make my statement clearer. I am not accusing them of paid editing but rather pointing out that they may be alignment with a personal, religious, or political viewpoint for their edits, as evident by the given diffs. This user is in no way followingWP:NPOV.AlvaKedak (talk)17:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[33]

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.

Article edits:

1)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1278215040 This piece of info isn't my addition. Someone else added that. The edit which this user is citing is reversion of my previous edithttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1278214650 where I had removed that info. Many of the edits which this user is citing (as edit number 8) was reverted by me just moments after I realized my mistake for example herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277169207 andhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277168808and herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277169019

2)This edit is supported by multiple sources, all of them use the term "historical inaccuracies"

3)All the three edits by this user were vandalism. In one of those edits, the user changed the name of vice chancellor to Himanta Biswa Sarma who is the CM of Assam.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Science_and_Technology,_Meghalaya&diff=prev&oldid=1277721484

5)I gave the reason in the edit summary (please check)To put this tag, the sources should fit under description of insufficiently reliable sourceshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources

7)The previous wording was this:On 22 February 2025, Israel refused to release 620 Palestinian prisoners as stipulated,because repeated violations of the deal by Hamas, instead instituting an indefinite delay despite Hamas releasing six living hostages".Because it consisted typo like missing "of" and the wording wasn't neutral as it implied that Hamas was indeed violating the deal, I added the word "accused" and fixed some grammatical mistakes. Another thing to note here is that this entire edit which I modified failed to mention that it is a quote. The user who made this edit later sent thank on my edit. I did nothing wrong here

8) I reverted that just moments after I realized my mistake for example herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277169207 and herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277168808and herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277169019 There isn't even a minute delay in reversion

10)This is the only legit accusation. I was indeed wrong here. I mistakenly searched page 168 of "Snedden, Kashmir: The Unwritten History, 2013" instead of Snedden, Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris, 2015". Thankfully this edit was reverted.

Talk page edits:

4)I cited the source— The satyagarah Magazine.

6)Just an opinion Overall I didn't break any Wikipedia guidelines or rule except in one case (mistakenly).

Reply to fresh accusations

Pinging other involved editors@Koshuri Sultan,Capitals00,Seraphimblade,Valereee, andRosguill:

23:26, 5 February 2025:The wording of the article implied that Genocide was comitted "especially" against the Hindus, but this isn't true since majority of Bengalis who were targeted were not Hindus. Even if you look at citation, you'll find that this isn't exactly what the source is saying. "Including" would have been a better word choice. Nevertheless, I accepted the revert when someone reverted my edit saying that this was added after consensus and I stopped editing that article.

01:50, 4 February 2025:The book is an English translation ofTafsir ibn Kathir. This isn't the only refrence that is cited to support that info. There are other citations too which are reliable. The aim of the edit was to show the translation of Tafsir ibn Kathir. I understand thatI should have provided a better and reliable translation of Tafsir ibn Kathir as source.

00:08, 2 February 2025:Unnecessary because it was duplicate. This info wasmentioned twice in the article— at the beginning and also at the bottom of the same section. Another thing to note is that the source cited in the footnotes after this, doesn't mention this info.

18:17, 31 January 2025:The link redirected me to a website which wasfull of adverts. So I removed it asI thought it was unreliable (I was careless but there was no dishonesty or hidden agenda from my side), but now since you pointed that edit, I revisited the link and realized that despite all those adverts, it contains a speech by Ved Bhasin. I'll be taking extra care from now.

19:55, 24 January 2025:Indiatimes.com pieces composed by people who have no expertise in history of food can't be used as citations especially when academic sources are saying otherwise. There is a policy that sources should be reliablein context seeWP:SECONDARY andWP:CONTEXTMATTERS. We need a source likeK. T. Achaya

17:45, 23 January 2025:Yes! The cited sourcedoesn't mention "in accordance with ceasefire term"https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-troops-kill-gaza-terror-operative-who-posed-a-threat-amid-ceasefire/

23:39, 30 December 2024:Yes! The cited sourcedoesn't say anything like this regarding the "Binomial coefficients". You can check it out yourself.

04:45, 30 October 2024:Yes! The cited sourcedoesn't mention use of "Sine rule" by Brahmagupta and I discussed that with other editors in the Talk pagehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Law_of_sines&diff=prev&oldid=1254263327 They had similar concern regarding this piece of info. The content has been modified. This is the problem with many articles that are related to India. You'll find several contents that have citations, but on checking you'll find that what the cited source says, is very different from what the article says.

12:16, 30 December 2024:Indeed my mistake. I accept it, as I wasn't familiar withWP:GSNR back thenhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1279466825

[114]isn't that simple. Check my replies and also check other sections including this onehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system#Recent_edit_by_Jacobolus and the later three sections. Other editors like M bitton agreed with my edit.

• That slur is widely used on social media. My citation includes a Google search result demonstrating its use on platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and others. I recall reading a Wikipedia policy that permits the use of social media as citations under specific circumstances. I wasn't familiar withWP:GSNR at that time.Hu741f4 (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)Moved to correct section; please respond only in your own sectionValereee (talk)19:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lately, I have been very busy with my real life, and I may not be able to reply to every accusation and new accusation being brought against me by this editor. Although the wording used by this editor against me is very harsh, I did my best to reply to each and every diff and concern (including the most recent one). Many allegations are baseless, but some (atleast two) are true, which I have accepted. I am still thankful toValereee for giving me an opportunity to reflect and improve. Whatever decision the admins take against me, I will gladly accept it, but they should look at my defense as well. Thank you!

• Yes! I am thankful to all the editors who helped me learn more and more. In fact, I am also thankful to AlvaKedak for pointing out my previous mistakes, which I need to reflect upon to become a better editor. Although most of the 20 diffs that he mentioned were taken out of context and may not be sanctionable, he still made some valid points about areas where I need to improve.Hu741f4 (talk)20:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My analysis:

• 1st diff - There is nothing wrong with making a self-revert.
• 2nd diff - There is no evidence to "defame" anybody here. The added sentences are supported by the cited sources, and are neutrally composed.
• 3rd diff - You can call it "test edit", but it is not outrageous to call it "vandalism".
• 4th diff - Yes Gajanan Mehendale has been discarded as a source before as well.[34][35][36] What Hu741f4 is doing is not anything wrong.
• 5th diff - The tag itself was recently added without enough basis. Nobody restored the tag again.
• 6th diff - Yes there is "no need to attribute each and every piece of information to its author in the article (especially when the information is supported by multiple independent reliable sources)". What is wrong with saying that?
• 7th diff - Totally irrelevant to WP:ARBIPA.
• 8th diff - This was added to support the claim that "Jadunath Sarkar notes that the Marathas were notorious for gang-raping women during invasions". I don't find it outrageous.
• 9th diff - What is exactly "irrelevant" about it? I also don't see where did you mention any "frivolous edits".
• 10th diff - It is possible that Hu741f4 believed that the mentioned atrocities are being attributed to Indian army since the preparator is not mentioned. If Hu741f4 restored his edits again then that could be a problem, but I don't see him doing that.

That said, I believe the OP deserves aWP:BOOMERANG here. With only 400 edits his talk page is also full of warnings.[37][38][39]Koshuri^(グ)14:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I waspinged above at all. I don't see a merit in this report. Upon seeing the recent history here I would like to see some discussion overthis comment by AlvaKedak; "All of the above diffs simply shows that this user is not here to build Wikipedia by collaborating with other users but for a specific cause to push their "anti-Indian" pov or should I say trolling and IDHT in a contentious topic area. The user should be indef'd, a Tban may not suffice." Not only is this demand totally baseless but it also beyond the pale when it comes to violatingWP:NPA andWP:BATTLEGROUND.@Seraphimblade,Valereee, andRosguill: What do you think?Capitals00 (talk)02:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• My assessment of the evidence:

1. Does not demonstrate any problematic editing, speculation as to the editors' motives in this edit is not well-founded
2. Does not demonstrate problematic editing. Additional diffs are needed to demonstrate that this change isconstant orWP:UNDUE
3. I'm not convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that this was vandalism, but at the same time I'm not seeing any serious issue with Hu741f4's conduct here.
4. Hu741f4's talk page arguments here are all fair game. Arguing that Mehendale is aligned with Hindutva based on a Satyaagrah article praising him is a weak argument, but I don't think it's tendentious, and the other arguments seem sound.
5. Additional diffs concerning related edits and talk page discussion are needed to assess if this was tendentious. Based on the initial report, the evidence presented does not demonstrate it.
6. Again, potentially could be part of a pattern of problematic editing, but this comment on its own (or together with the other diffs in the initial report) does not demonstrate that.
7. Ironically, this may be the most problematic diff thus far, as it's not an accurate edit summary. It does not, however, fall within theIndia, Pakistan Afghanistan CTOP but rather in thePalestine-Israel articles CTOP, so unless there is additional evidence of a problem in Palestine-Israel articles, I don't see cause for action here nor does it strengthen the case of the other diffs in the complaint.
8. I don't see any falsification here, and I note that the text added in this diff was added as a relevant quote inside a citation used to directly support the claim. While this quote does not mention Sambhaji, a footnote clarifies its relevance:The Maratha soldiers were notorious for their practice of gangrape in invaded territories from a very early time. In 1688 when they invaded the Goa districts under the eyes of their king Shambhuji, they committed this kind of outrage... It can be argued in a content discussion that the source in question is notWP:DUE or reliable and thus should not be included, but the argument that it's irrelevant to the reign of Sambhaji or misrepresenting what the source says seems inaccurate.
9. I don't see any indication that this comment was inappropriate, as it seems an adequate, lede-friendly summary of the cited content. Again, there's room for disagreement and discussion over the content, but there's nothing in this diff that demonstrates tendentiousness or noncompliance with policy.
10. This one is iffy, although I think that Hu741f4's explanation is adequate. FWIW, several combinations of keywords that I tried searching to determine if the cited source backed up the content, such asHindu and Sikh rape,Mirpur rape,Poonch rape, etc., generally did not turn up the relevant content. It was only by copying exact text from the page 167 preview that I was eventually able to unearth the supporting phrase...in Mirpur District and the Poonch Jagir, Muslims killed large numbers of Hindus and Sikhs, raped and / or abducted females... While this is apparently not the case of what happened with Hu741f4's edit, per their explanation that they searched for the wrong source and appreciate the revert, I think it is very plausible that a well-intentioned editor could come to the wrong conclusion about whether Snedden supported the claim in question based on available Google Books resources.

In general, it does not appear that these complaints have merit, and they seem to have a similar issue to what has been on display in the case against Akshaypatill above, so I'll repeat my comments from there:simply provid[ing] examples of edits that align with a purported view...is not enough to justify a sanction. To justify sanctions here, it must be demonstrated that the edits are consistently in violation of policies, guidelines, and/or blatantly disrespectful of other editors they are working with._signed,Rosguill^talk16:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlvaKedak, regarding diff #8, in their response here Hu741f4 noted their own error and that they corrected it themselves within 30 minutes of the first edit, without anyone else asking them to. Given that the source in question mentions both details from the 1740s campaigns and from Sambhaji's 1680s campaigns, the error seems understandable, and Hu741f4's seemingly-unprompted self-correction makes this particularly poor evidence of tendentiousness._signed,Rosguill^talk17:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlvaKedak, please respect the 500 word/20 diff limit. It is your responsibility to make a compelling case before you hit that limit._signed,Rosguill^talk19:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlvaKedak, Wordcount.net puts your prior comments at 1047 words. As for the different response to Akshaypatill, I think there's a significant difference between responding to questions/comments by others in defense of yourself and bringing in a fresh new batch of allegations. While defendants don't have free reign to say whatever they want, I think it's appropriate to be a bit more lenient with their word count limit as long as they're being constructive and relevant, and especially if they're responding to new allegations against them. The purpose of the word limits is to encourage reports that are to the point and focused on strong evidence, and to discourage fishing for sanctions._signed,Rosguill^talk21:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlvaKedak, pasting the text that you linked (for convenience), I get 1,167 words 7,191 characters

in WordCounter, 1202 words in a desktop word processor app. If I exclude the initial diffs from the word count (not standard, but trying to figure out how to reproduce your different result), I get 856 words._signed,Rosguill^talk16:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlvaKedak, now that Capitals00 has brought it to our attention, can you explain why you pinged and addressed them in your second additional comment statement? Feel free to take up to 200 additional words for this response (if that isn't enough, say what you can and request an extension)._signed,Rosguill^talk16:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)These look like content issues and disputes to me. It is not up to AE to decide who is correct or incorrect in content matters; that is a matter for discussion and if need be furtherdispute resolution if consensus can't be reached that way. I do not see any sanctionable behavior here.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}16:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Koshuri Sultan, please don't call for a boomerang here at AE. This isn't ANI, things work differently here.Valereee (talk)23:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @AlvaKedak, it isn't just the original diffs. We count every word you write, including responses to us and responses to the comments of others. My count agrees with Rosguill's except for the fact your most recent response added another 50 words. The point here is to keep the entire discussion brief enough that uninvolved admins will want to bother trying to read it all. This forces you and other commenters to focus on what's important instead of quibbling about trivial or tangential details.Valereee (talk)15:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @AlvaKedak, it's unfortunate that you've gotten into this kind of situation as a very new editor, as you don't really understand how AE works, but I'm not sure how to recommend you fix this. In general you can delete anything that no one has replied to, but again unfortunately most of what you'd written, someone has replied to. I guess you could collapse stuff you think is probably not essential that has been replied to, which will tell admins you don't think they need to consider it. In future: plan better. The fact we limit you to 20 diffs doesNOT mean twenty diffs are better than ten. You can give us the 5 diffs that best illustrate the problem, note something like, "I have fifteen more diffs if anyone wants to see more, but I felt like these five were the most compelling."

  That said, I did go look at one of the second set of diffs, and yes, it was problematic, andHu741f4 did not include it in their response to you (both since deleted as a clerk action). Hu, can you explainthis addition to a list of religious slurs that you cited to a google search?Valereee (talk)18:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hu741f4, so you're clearnow that you cannot use a google search as a citation? Are you also clear with what can and cannot be used from social media? Because if you aren't, don't use social media as a source, and especially not in a contentious topic.Valereee (talk)19:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hu741f4, your responses have been moved to your own section. All responses here need to be in your section, so various people have moved them there.Valereee (talk)22:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @AlvaKedak, forgive me if I've missed it in this long discussion, but what conflict of interest are you referring to that Hu has?Valereee (talk)16:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I'm seeing consensus to close this unactioned as primarily a content issue, maybe with a warning to all three of these fairly new editors that CTOPs are not a good place to learn basic policy. If no one objects, I'll close it that way tomorrow.Valereee (talk)16:14, 24 March 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

Smallangryplanet (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)16:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

BePrepared1907 (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:EC /WP:GAMING

BePrepared1907 created their account in 2015, making 50 edits that year. They edited occasionally from 2015–2022. By October 2023, they had under 100 edits. In November and December 2023, they added 454 edits, becoming ECR:

• 317 in November (including 129 on November 30 and 70 on November 27)
• 137 in December (94 on December 3)

Most of their edits involve adding/updating descriptions, adding the same source across articles, or wikilinking, suggesting possible gaming. After some inactivity, they resumed regular edits in August 2024, becoming a SPA. Many of their contributions focus on deleting content, often citing POV or SYNTH issues, though many edits lack descriptions.

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

• Adding POV changes with misleading or no edit descriptions (diff,diffs) (diff,diff,diff)
• Restoring content added without consensus (diff) which was also the subject of adiscussion involving multiple socks pushing for the lead to be updated. The content was restored byShoogiboogi, a blocked sock, reverted, and then restored again by BePrepared1907.
• FailingWP:FRINGE,WP:UNDUE andWP:EW (diffs). The same content was previously added by Shoogiboogi in the Gaza genocide article.
• FailingWP:NPOV (diff). Shoogiboogi did the same edit after a couple of weeks.
• Removing a quote criticising hasbara, with the summary “Why is this big POV quote by a French communist notable at all?” (diff)

Recently the user Boksi was blocked for being a sock of Galamore. I noticed some similarities between Boksi and BePrepared that might warrant a closer look. I am not familiar with Galamore so there might be some behavioural clues that I am missing. Since November 2024 – when the Boksi account switched to being a SPA in PIA – there have been some instances where the edits are similar or outright identical, for example:

• Template:Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–2024) infobox (Boksi,BePrepared)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for the destruction of Israel (2nd nomination) – both of them voted which doesn’t say much but it is a weird coincidence that both forgot to sign and had to add a signature later (Boksi,BePrepared)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian suicide attacks – both of them also voted here on the same days of the previously mentioned AfD, Boksi on January 9 and BePrepared on January 15 (Boksi,BePrepared)
• Criticism of Amnesty International (BePrepared,Boksi) both do the exact same revert with a 12hr difference. Seemingly to avoid edit warring. It was the first edit on that page by both accounts. The content being reverted was also highlighted off wiki (tweet)
• Palestinian suicide attacks – again, same revert within a day (BePrepared1,Boksi1,BePrepared2,Boksi2)

I have also noticed they are usually never online the same days or, for the few days when both accounts are active, never at the same time. Both have long periods without editing. The day after Boksi was blocked, BePrepared was active again, after 10 days of inactivity. Might be worth looking into.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2025-01-12 Not a sanction as such but they've been accused several times in that SPI of being a sock and investigations are as far as I can tell ongoing.

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, on2024-09-28 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note that this isnot a request for an SPI, I included that information for context, but that investigation is already happening over on that corner of the site. This is for AE regarding ARBPIA/EC/GAMING, and a separate issue. I could open a new SPI as well/in lieu if that's what you recommend? (cc @Liz)Smallangryplanet (talk)20:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff of notification

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.

Thank you for reopening this thread. I appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns regarding my topic ban related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.I want to acknowledge the issues that have been raised about my editing behavior and the allegations of potential sockpuppetry. I understand that my recent activity may have raised some flags, and I take these concerns seriously.To provide some context, I created my account in 2015 and initially focused on topics related to global scouting. My shift to the Arab-Israeli conflict was motivated by a desire to contribute to discussions I find important, but I realize now that my approach may not have aligned with community expectations. I recognize that my editing patterns, particularly the volume of edits, may have suggested gaming the system, which was not my intention.Regarding the sockpuppetry allegations, I want to clarify that I am not involved with any other accounts. Any similarities in editing patterns with other users are coincidental, and I am committed to editing independently.I apologize if my previous message seemed overly formal or not reflective of my own voice. I assure you that I am committed to engaging in this discussion authentically and constructively. I am open to feedback on how I can improve my contributions moving forward. If there are specific areas where you believe I can adjust my approach or guidelines I should pay closer attention to, I would greatly appreciate your guidance.Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to your feedback.Best regards,BePrepared1907 (talk)12:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I want to clarify that I have been traveling in Asia for the past year, which has limited my time for Wikipedia. This travel has made it challenging for me to engage consistently with the community, but I am eager to return and contribute meaningfully. I appreciate your understanding in this matter.BePrepared1907 (talk)12:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you @Tamzin, I wrote my comment here. I do use LLM to help with my English. I am currently traveling in Asia and don't have much time, but just wanted to make sure you all know I am a real person and not working with anyone else regarding my edits in Wikipedia.BePrepared1907 (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)moved from discussion section, please comment only in your own section.Valereee (talk)13:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. I will only be focusing on minor fixes while I am not available. Thank you for the understanding.BePrepared1907 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)likewise moved --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)01:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"never at the same time." is not quite right. Both accounts edit in short bursts of a few edits (ban evading actors operating multiple accounts sometimes display this pattern), and sometimes the bursts are close to each other. Not often though. Examples include 2024-11-10 and 2025-01-15. You can see the patternhere.Sean.hoyland (talk)17:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very likely sock account of Galamore based on overlapping editing with Boksi and Shoogiboogi. But whether or not this user is confirmed as a sock, their behaviour regarding POV-pushing should be taken seriously here.IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)21:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of BER. If a user's editing in a topic area is unacceptable then they should be topic banned; and if their editing is acceptable then they should be allowed to edit as much as they want.IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)19:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could see it being useful for bludgeoning or similar, but in this case it's the quality more than the quantity of this user's editing which is problematic.

I don't see why reducing this user's disruptive editing (which appears to me to be POV-pushinhg) would be preferrable to preventing it altogether.IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)19:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• AE is to investigate possible violations of arbitration case guidelines. If you have suspicions about possible sockpuppetry, please file a case atWP:SPI. All editors and most admins who would respond here do not have the privileges enabled to investigate sockpuppetry claims. Plus, it just belongs at SPI especially if it relates to an existing case.Liz^Read!Talk!19:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smallangryplanet, my concerns with sockpuppetry claims on any noticeboard is that at times they can be brought up to disparage an editor in a way that regular admins on the project can't verify to indicate that they are accurate. That's why filers are directed to go toSPI if they have these concerns. This is just my point of view, but I think it's best to only bring up claims and charges that can be supported by diffs so editors and admins can see the argument that is being made. Raising issues that can't be verified, here, can just serve to prejudice other editors against the accused editor. I'm not accusing you of doing this, you just posed the question to me about SPIs and this is my general response.Liz^Read!Talk!21:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally, I don't have a problem with sockpuppetry allegations being made outside of SPI, as long as it's in the pursuit of an administrative remedy and not a mereaspersion. Bringing this up at AE has the disadvantage of potentially fewer sockpuppetry-oriented admins, but the advantage that we can also consider whether edits are sanctionable under CTOP. (I mean, wecan do that at SPI, and occasionally do, but it's not our mandate.) On the socking front, I hope to be able to post thoughts in this space within the next 24 hours, but I need to talk a bit more with a few other admins who are familiar with relevant SPIs. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)23:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Based onsome information I can't post on-wiki, I'm pretty confident that the same person is in control of the account as when it made its first edit to hewiki 19 years ago, which rules out being an Icewhiz/Galamore sock. What's harder to say is whether any meatpuppetry or tag-team editing is going on. The evidence above paints a concerning picture in that regard. It occurs to me that this, a case of an editor whose edits until a few months ago were almost exclusively about global scouting, and whose edits since are almost exclusively about the Arab–Israeli conflict, is the exact sort of person who the newBER would make sense on. Note that that remedy explicitly says itsimply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive. I think this is such a case. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)03:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objections to a BER but would suggest that it be narrowed it to the current conflict rather than all of PIA (as a rough consensus administrators are not bound to the standard set of restrictions there is nothing stopping us from modifying BER in this way) given this user's past editing. On the socking front, with additional behavioral evidence I see now I agree 100% with Tamzin's assertion that I think this is the same person behind the keyboard as it was in the past and if I'd had been aware of that behavioral evidence when I was doing the CU I'd have probably labeled it Unlikely.Barkeep49 (talk)09:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49: A BER for anything other than the full topic area would be significantly harder to track, since the rate of in-area edits is meant to be tracked by1339, meaning that BePrepared would have to manually calculate his percentage rather than relying onn-ninety-five, and so would any admin checking compliance. Plus if we're talking about, like, a page on a Zionist youth movement likeYoung Judaea, I don't think most of those are ECP'd to begin with (and thus don't count toward the BER dividend); and even if they were, the BER wouldn't stop him from editing them, just limit his rate. Now, since a BER includes a namespace-specific TBAN, I'd be fine with something like "is subject to a balanced editing restriction, except that the topic ban inWP:BER's second bullet point shall not apply to content that a) relates to youth movements and b) doesnot relate to theGaza war (2023–present)". I'd be fine with the same exception if there's consensus to TBAN rather than impose BER. But I'll reserve judgment until BP (who often goes weeks between edits) responds. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)01:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Taken individually many of those edits may be justifiable or excusable. Taken together I am seeing a pattern of reflexive reverting and insufficient engagement with contentious edits in both edit-summaries and talk-page engagement. I also find the tag-team evidence concerning: there are far too many instances of a first edit being to revert in support of a blocked editor, or to revert a perceived opponent. I support a BER at the bare minimum, and would strongly prefer we include a logged warning.Vanamonde93 (talk)17:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• BePrepared isn't an every-day editor, but by my count this is the longest he's gone without editing since he began routine PIA editing in August. I won't suggest bad faith there—maybe he's just busy—but it's not tenable for us to keep this open indefinitely, and not equitable for us to close this without action when there's a colorable case for sanctions. If this continues a few days longer, I suggest an interim TBAN that will expire upon the final resolution of this thread (unless the thread's end result is to TBAN), and then provisionally closing this thread, reopenable at any time on BP's request. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)19:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I had initially closed as follows:Resolved provisionally, andwithout prejudice, as a single-admin CTOP action: BePrepared1907 is topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. I am closing this thread for now, but at any point in the future BePrepared can ask on my usertalk or atWT:AE for this thread to be reopened (and, if necessary, unarchived). This topic ban will terminate automatically upon the final resolution of this thread. (If the final resolution is to TBAN, that should be logged as a new sanction.) BP has nowexercised that option, and so I am reopening this.@BePrepared1907: Please comment above at your soonest convenience. As I noted on my usertalk, please keep in mind that the TBAN remains in effect for now (althoughyou are exempt from it here). Also, your comment on my usertalk looks like it was written by an LLM. I'm not going to hold that against you, but please, for your response here, we'd like to hear about things in your own words. Also, courtesy ping toSmallangryplanet that this has been reopened. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)20:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm thinking the combination of inexperienced editor, ARBPIA5/Arab-Israeli conflict, and regularly unavailable for lengthy periods is a terrible one.BePrepared1907, I would highlyhighly recommend that you not edit anythingeven slightly contentious within the Arab-Israeli conflict until you are reliably available to discuss concerns about your editing. If you're going to make an edit in the most contentious topic area on Wikipedia that someone somewhere might possibly object to, you need to be available to discuss it. If valid concerns about your participation in topics around the Arab-Israeli conflict end up here again, a tban is a likely outcome, and that would definitely prevent you from working on things likeYoung Judea andHebrew Scouts Movement in Israel.Valereee (talk)14:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that we have a statement from BePrepared, I stand by my statement above in favor of a BER, with a carve-out from the included TBAN for content about youth movements if it doesn't relate to the '23–present Gaza war. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)01:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So how does this work w/re things likeHebrew Scouts Movement leaders praise scouting youth for wartime activism? HSMiI is not bannered to be caught by filter 1339...so the tban comes into play, and this is something BePrepared could not add to that article? Or do we banner the article, and BP could add that in, and it gets included in the 1/3 limitation?Valereee (talk)11:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The TBAN only applies outside mainspace in the first place. So all this would matter for is like, BP wouldn't be violation if he chose to takeHebrew Scouts Movement in Israel to GAN. There's no mainspace TBAN in either case, so yes, he'd be allowed to edit about the link you gave; whether it counts toward the numerator for the BER would depend strictly on whether the article in question has the talkpage banner, as the BER is defined in purely technical terms. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)22:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm prepared to close this with a BER, but I'm hoping to hear from the clerks' team first for clarification on how we should handle cross-namespace moves. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)05:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @HouseBlaster @SilverLocust @Elli: Should we expect a resolution on that front anytime soon? If not, I'll just go ahead and impose a BER, and if that edge case arises we can deal with it then. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)02:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you should impose a BER if you feel that is appropriate. If an edge case comes up, we can deal with it then. Based on discussion with ArbCom, I wouldtentatively we can assume that cross-namespace moves have not occurred. Best (not FTAC),HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)03:14, 30 March 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

Chess (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)16:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Genabab (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:ARBPIA5#Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum

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

1. 2025-03-17 Argues that "massacre" should be included in an article title because of the number of children killed. This disregardsWP:NCENPOV, which says non-neutral descriptors in article titles should be chosen based on reliable sources.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not applicable for this specific editor. However, three other editors were sanctioned by ArbCom for disruptive editing cited to FOARP's evidence about dubious reasoning on the term "massacre" in requested moves.[40][41][42]

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, on2024-04-08

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The comment thread should be hatted (I can't myself, because I'mWP:INVOLVED) and a warning given not to use independent reasoning/original research to determine whether an event is a massacre, because it clearly contradicts article titling policy and sparksWP:NOTFORUM violation over editors' subjective perceptions on whether the event was a mass murder targeting civilians or a legitimate military operation.

Specifically, the policy isWP:NCENPOV which says that articles should, in order of preference, be titled with aWP:COMMONNAME, a "generally accepted descriptor, even if controversial", and finally a neutral descriptive word. The word "massacre" is given as a specific example of a word of "questionable neutrality". Arguments at requested moves to include the word "massacre" should, by any reasonable interpretation of policy, use reliable sources to demonstrate that the word "massacre" is a common name or a generally accepted descriptor.

This is an issue for Arbitration Enforcement becauseWP:ARBPIA5 resulted in multiple bans as a result of evidence presented by FOARP with regards to editors selectively interpreting article titling policy related to the term "massacre".[43] The topic area would benefit if AE admins intervened early to remind editors that they should try to follow content guidelines.

@Seraphimblade: I don't really want a sanction. I'd rather see mild disruption in the area stop before it rises to the level of sanctionable behaviour. If that's an inappropriate use of AE then go ahead and close without action. But my impression of the recentWP:ARBPIA5 case is that things like the balanced editing restriction indicate that ArbCom is interested in trying to address issues before they become t-bannable with less severe/punitive remedies.Chess (talk)(pleasemention me on reply)02:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[44]

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 don't think there's a lot to seriously respond to here. All I'll say is anyone who checks that talk page will see that I do also highlight how RS describe the events there as a massacre, alongside previous RFC's consensus on the issue, which has been ignored by the complainant.

@Valereee On your post on the results section.. Did you check the talk page? I follow it up with citations of RS's and previous RFC decisions on the matter... I feel like I'm the only person aware of that here...

@Valereee, I'm not sure I understand what the functional difference between "Oppose, I think enough highest-quality RS are calling this a massacre,[1][2][3]" and " this opinion of yours is backed up by X, Y, Z" is supposed to be. Ultimately, RS's are being cited. Isn't that the point? For example, in the message beginning "Partisan doesn't mean not Reliable." I go on to list a few sources that call it a massacre (UN, Guardian, etc..) and in the messages after that I repeat the fact that RS' say that the majority who died were civillians. What's the difference between that and what you don't take issue with?

It may be worth noting that Genabab does have asemi-recent logged warning for conduct in the ARBPIA/A-I area; that said, as stated below I’m not sure if this singular diff can truly be considered sanctionable.TheKip^(contribs)05:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a title should include "massacre" is a frequent debate in this area. I think Genabab's comment is reasonable (but one Idisagree with). There are two issues here:

• is "massacre"always a POV title, which canonly be used if its also aWP:COMMONNAME? Some think so (I do too), but if this is not the case, then Genabab's comment can be reasonable.
• how the heck do you determine what's a COMMONNAME? It's not simple, seethis discussion between myself and the OP.

Whether or not "massacre" isalways a POV title seems to be disputed. For example,in this RM, the first closer (who later vacated) said:

Ayenaee argued very forcefully and convincingly that it was a massacre (and I agree: it was a massacre, and I thank Ayenaee for their contribution to this discussion). For this reason, it was hard to give a lot of weight to the argument that "massacre" is a POV name, since it is clearly accurate given the facts. Showing that it was a POV name would require casting doubt on it having been a massacre from non-fringe viewpoints, but this was not done and likely could not be done.

The second closer, an admin, said:

I might have entertained the argument that, by nature of being a descriptive title, NDESC considers the content in the article in whole, instead of the specific turns of phrase journalists choose. The citation of The Guardian [being used to support the descriptor "attack" instead of "massacre"] was particularly sloppy, given that the article also refers to it as a part of a pattern of "assuault"s and takes the tone of horror in covering the entire tragedy.

I trieda community discussion on this very issue, but there was no conclusion. No one should be sanctioned for an opinion the community itself is so confused about.VR_{(Pleaseping on reply)}11:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is an opinion provided at a move request soliciting such opinions. While a pattern of non-neutral editing can indeed be cause for concern and/or sanction, that requires establishing such as a pattern. I do not see any grounds for sanction here.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}01:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW, I do see this as an unhelpful argument: "I mean 64 children died. Imagine if 64 children died in any other context, it would be called a massacre with just that alone." I don't see that as grounds for sanction, butGenabab, that's not a policy-based argument, and at PIA it's especially unhelpful.Valereee (talk)16:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Genabab, I hadn't looked at the talk page, but I now have, and what I see is you making a non-policy argument in an RM, and when someone objected, having a long argument that this opinion of yours is backed up by X, Y, Z. If your initial argument had been "Oppose, I think enough highest-quality RS are calling this a massacre,[1][2][3]", with 1, 2, 3 being links to those highest quality sources using the term massacre, and then stopped arguing, you'd have been on safe ground. This is not just a CTOPs, it's a contender for Current Most Contentious Article™.Valereee (talk)14:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Seraphimblade and Valereee. Suggest closing with an informal warning per Val. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)05:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]