Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352

Srijanx22

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

Request concerning Srijanx22

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: HerakliosJulianus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Srijanx22 (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

05:38, 2 April 2025: Frivolously revenge-nominating articles [1][2][3] for taking them on SPI, and then claims reliable publishers like JSTOR and Sage Publishing as "non-academic", that simply shows the user is a practitioner of battleground mentality.
07:46, 18 March 2025: Before advocating against reliable sources, he cites a deprecated source [4].
06:38, 17 March 2025: Pov Pushing on Bangladesh Liberation War [5] by disregarding the previous discussions Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 10#Statusquo.
05:34, 13 March 2025: Outrightly reverting productive edit (Afaik...the sources cited were reliable) without giving any summary or following WP:BRD rule.
05:20, 25 August 2024: Performing disruptive edits [6].

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

[7]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor is not only engaged in battleground issues, but they obviously lack competence as evident in the above diffs, where they cannot distinguish between reliable and non-reliable sources. Heraklios 20:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The response by Srijanx22 is evasive and WP:IDHT at best, all of the articles getting nominated in the last two days? couldn't be coincidence. By "publishers" I mainly meant Sage publications and JSTOR doesn't index a source/journal/paper in their collection "regardless of their reliability". Exactly what do you find odd with Islamic Research Institute and the works of Muin-ud-din Ahmad Khan & Hari Ram Gupta, that you label them as "non-academic" voice? These are simply WP:STONEWALLING and WP:IDONTLIKEIT problems. Moreover you're still defying that Moneylife is an unreliable source and smartly overlooked the RSN discussion.

"I made this edit per WP:BOLD since all the cited sources term it as an Indian victory": While you say this, you are defying the previous discussion in which you were actively involved [8] so WP:BOLD does not apply in anyway. You didn't follow WP:CONDD either. If we rule out sockfarms [9][10] and canvassed editors then look into the comments of veteran and non-partisan editors [11][12][13], the consensus still stands out.

Srijan still haven't given any justification for the reverts of sourced additions [14]. The edits [15][16] remain unchallenged because you casually reverted your disruptive edits.

The report is about to review your incompetence, IDHT and battleground issues so bringing some previous SPI and ANI diffs will get you nowhere, instead of derailing this thread, you need to focus on the raised issues. Heraklios 16:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: I raised serious concerns here, and the initial SPI comment by Wordsmith was: There's a lot of overlap and similarity in language and patterns, even for users that specialize in the same topic area. If the CU result was "unrelated," then that was satisfactory—regardless of the behavioral evidence. Later, I did not miss this SPI. I believe I should be waived from any logged warnings as long as I don't file any frivolous reports. That said, I understand the seriousness of the evidence presented and will reconsider before filing an ARE report again. @Rosguill: In #2, they not only cite poor sources like WP:TIMESOFINDIA, but also Moneylife, which is an abandoned source. Heraklios 13:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Srijanx is being dishonest with this, as we can see, the bot is notifying me for significantly contributing on the page and nothing more than that. Their justification for removing the journal from Islamic Research Institute is absurd. Indian Historical Review is published by ICHR which is a goverment body but obviously a reliable journal. This is not what we call a 'discussion'. Heraklios 22:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[17]

Discussion concerning Srijanx22

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

Statement by Srijanx22

1. None of those nominations are frivolous but are moving towards successful deletion. HerakliosJulianus is falsely claiming just any nomination of his articles as a "revenge nomination",[18] when when the nomination does not involve me, instead of addressing the issues with his articles. It is ironic that he is talking about competence when he does not even understand that JSTOR is not a publisher but a collection of various sources regardless of their reliability. Even right now, HerakliosJulianus has failed to confirm how any of his sources verify the subject in question. This shows HerakliosJulianus lacks understanding of even WP:V.

2. Anyone can see none of the sources used here are "deprecated", contrary to the false claim by HerakliosJulianus.

3. I made this edit per WP:BOLD since all the cited sources term it as an Indian victory. I don't recall a years old discussion which will have to be ignored and new discussion will have to be initiated since the former was infested with this sockfarm.

4. It is embarrassing that you are treating this edit as "constructive" and cited WP:BRD while completely omitting the whole talk page discussion against edits like that.[19]

5. This edit remains unchallenged to this day. Calling it disruptive can be treated as nothing more than a personal attacks.

Srijanx22 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: To be honest, the Islamic Research Institute which owned the journal at the time of the publication of the source in question was a research division under the Pakistani government. Since government authorized publications may not be WP:HISTRS, I did not consider it as academic at the time. Maybe we shall need a discussion on RSN if the government owned journals are reliable enough or not, depending on their press freedom. While Ram Hari Gupta is not such a clear-cut example, his early publications were too old and not very reliable as being discussed here. Instead of providing a description for each of them, I just thought of directly coming to the point if any of those sources support the war in question. This was entirely a content dispute and had to be resolved on AfD, rather than filing AE.

@Firefangledfeathers: I have clarified my comment on the sources. I disagree with your assessment. I failed "to respond to Valereee", as I am busy IRL and the last time I had edited was on 16 April, days before Valereee commented on 18 April.[20] Nevertheless, I trimmed my comment. I am not alone with nominating the articles of HerakliosJulianus, as others also successfully did it days before me,[21] and now one experienced editor is also raising concerns over his copyright violations.[22] As for pinging specific admins, I pinged those admins who are experienced in this area because nobody was attending this report filled with false accusations by 2 editors for 14 days now. As per my experience on AE, this noticeboard is no longer as actively managed as it was sometime ago. I hope you agree. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maniacal ! Paradoxical

Apart from what the above problematic diffs have been presented, this user has a long shot history of:

gaming to increase edit counts (of his only last 500 edits):

Citing unreliable sources and categorising reliable sources as poor:

15:48, 18 April 2024: Labeling reliable sources as Godi media.
19:59, 5 December 2023: Cites a politician authored source by H. V. Hande in B. R. Ambedkar.

Sourced content removals:

19:05, 9 November 2022: Removing sourced contents.
08:53, 25 September 2022: Gives misleading edit summary and then removes sources. Upon going through the previous revision it was found that the "1987" source was used for: "~~At the time of Akash's birth,~~ Reliance Industries—a conglomerate founded by his grandfather Dhirubhai Ambani—was one of the largest companies in India."--of which only strikethrew part was unfounded in the cited source, which obviously lies around WP:OR, but giving such misleading summaries can often discourage editors to cross verify. I'd call this a classic subtle vandalism.
08:49, 25 September 2022: Yet another unnecessary sourced removal. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I agree that there could be weak evidence presented by me, and I'll retract them spontaneously, but please relook at some legitimate given diffs. There's no consensus on RSN that Zee news is unreliable source infact there it's established that it is a reliable source, and if article on Godi Media holds much authority than RSN then I could be wrong. How far citing a non scholarly work by Hande is legitimate? Although the book is published by Macmillan Publishers, I can't say entirely that the source is unreliable. #Re removal 1 was referring to the criticism of Ambedkar's book named Who Were the Shudras where in it he made dubious claims of high social status of Shudras. So there's no question this is entirely WP:DUE and relevant to the topic which is not in discretion for an editor to boldly make such decisions.

The article was recently nominated for its deletion before continuous BLARing attempt Draft:Akash Ambani, in order to improve this, I found their removal of sourced contents. I have clarified how the source was relevant for the person's grandfather, so "saying source is from 1987" this shouldn't be used is baseless. For your topic ban proposal, I am still contributing positively by opening multiple discussions and starting articles, so it's not warranted when I gave the reasoning to dig up into their edits and some of the evidence contains real issues. I would apologise if these all were a waste of time for our workers. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Srijanx22

Srijanx22, you are now at 855 words, which is 355 longer than you are allowed. I strongly suggest you cut that wall of text by at least 500 words, as you may need a few words to respond to workers here who have questions. The shorter the better. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the diffs in the initial complaint:

The accusation that the AfDs were frivolous falls flat given that the AfDs all ended in deletion, and a challenged closure was endorsed at DRV. On the other hand, Srijanx22's line of argumentation about the JSTOR source is silly to the point of tendentious when the linked JSTOR page literally has a hyperlink for the journal's entry on JSTOR, which in turn says Islamic Studies is an internationally peer reviewed research journal, published by Islamic Research Institute, Islamabad, Pakistan, since 1962. The other two sources are less self-evidently solid (although it didn't take me long to find Altaf Qadir's Google Scholar profile, and Heraklios identified Hari Ram Gupta in the AfD discussion). There are real, valid arguments that Srijanx22 could have made against Heraklios's presentation of the sources, but instead there's just a gish gallop that the sources are both non-academic and don't verify the specific claims that they are being used to support. Heraklios provided page numbers, and glancing at the sources they do include statements like [Bareilly] left his home on a Jihad campaign against the Sikhs on Monday, 16 January 1826. I don't see a good faith attempt from Srijanx22 to engage with the sources and make pertinent arguments, but rather a wholesale dismissal of Heraklios's arguments out of hand.
I don't really see the issue with this edit from a contentious topics perspective. The sources aren't great, but the claim in question seems entirely uncontroversial and no evidence of duplicity or hypocrisy of their use of these sources has been provided.
I think that Srijanx22's explanation here is plausible. Edit warring to reinstate the change in light of prior past discussions would be problematic, but a WP:BOLD edit several years after the last relevant discussion is fine.
In light of the talk page discussion over the prior months, Srijanx22's edit here seems entirely appropriate.
This seems spurious: based on the page history surrounding this edit from 8 months ago, Srijanx22 accidentally wiped the better part of the page, then realized their mistake and self-corrected within an hour.

Reviewing the diffs from Maniacal ! Paradoxical

I don't see how this is gaming. Srijanx22 has been extended-confirmed since July 2020, increasing their edit count after that point is meaningless.
Re sourcing 1: I see that at least some of the sources removed in that edit are in fact listed on the page Godi media. Is this the best of all arguments and edits? No. Is it tendentious? I don't think so.
Re sourcing 2: the claim in question, concerning the circumstances of Ambedkar's resignation, seems entirely uncontroversial as written. Unless there's evidence of dispute over this claim, I don't see the issue with this edit.
Re removal 1: this looks like normal copy editing to me. R. S. Sharma calls him a historian without hedging (and the source, Sharma himself, definitely doesn't claim that Sharma is only a "self-declared" historian). The second chunk of removed text is ungrammatical to the point that it's not clear what it's trying to say. Is it referring to Ambedkar's book, or the theory that Shudra had high-caste origins? Either way, it's dubious that this is WP:DUE as part of a summary of Sharma's criticism of Ambedkar, so this is well within editorial discretion.
Re removal 2: There seems to be a bit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but their objection to the use of the 1987 source is legitimate, and in the broader context of that page being repeatedly found to fall short of meeting WP:GNG, I don't think that they're out of line here. This is also a 3 year old diff; the only reason to be pulling out edits this old is if they are flagrantly disruptive in a way that immediately demonstrates bad faith (e.g. hurling slurs, blatant lies without any possible good faith explanation, etc.). This edit does not remotely meet that standard.
Re removal 3: Removing an individual's entry from a list because their article was deleted is an entirely normal edit. It's even sillier to clutch pearls at this given that the article was WP:BLARed by someone else in the following edit.

Overall, I find the case presented here unconvincing, although there is one clear example of tendentious argumentation by Srijanx22 with respect to how they went about challenging the sources presented by Heraklios. At most I could see considering a logged warning about assuming good faith and engaging with sources in response to that edit. While I'm unimpressed by the rest of the edits presented by Heraklios, I don't think they're quite so frivolous as to require a logged warning at this time (but let's not make a habit of it). The participation by Maniacal ! Paradoxical, however, has been a complete waste of our time here, and is a clear expression of battleground attitude in how deeply into Srijanx22's editing history it dug to find essentially nothing. Coming so soon after being unblocked, with the prior block being for a range of tendentious behavior in relation to IPA topics, I think that a topic ban for them is warranted. They are clearly not using their return to contribute positively to Wikipedia, as they had indicated they would when requesting an unblock. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet reviewed all of Maniacal's evidence. I agree with Rosguill that the initial complaint contains little convincing evidence, with exceptions I'll come back to. I might be slightly more inclined to warn Heraklios, since this filing came so soon after the SPI closed (which called Heraklios' evidence 'weak') and this discussion happened, in which The Wordsmith suggests that a future SPI filing without 'significantly stronger' evidence could be seen as disruptive. I'd have hoped Heraklios could generalize this advice to filings beyond SPI.

I think it's more likely than not that Srijanx22 did target Heraklios' articles. Three AfDs in a couple days, with Srijanx22 having never edited any of the articles previously. Srijanx22 is not a prolific AfD nominator, and it had been about 8 months since their last nomination. I can't be certain of Srijanx22's motivation in nominating those three articles, but the theory that it was a response to the SPI is a strong one. I also agree with Rosguill that Srijanx22's comments on the academic sources were poor. I'm displeased with Srijanx22's conduct during this filing, with the flouting of the word limit, pings for specific admins, and failure to respond to Valeree. Combined, I'm seeing enough evidence of battleground conduct that I'm inclined to log a warning. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Shadow-Fighter

The Shadow-Fighter has acknowledged the problems with their behavior described here, and has been given stern informal warnings from responding admins to not let it happen again. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning The Shadow-Fighter

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Lf8u2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: The Shadow-Fighter (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

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

The Shadow-Fighter (SF) violated 1RR in Mohammed Deif in December 2024 ([32] [33] [34]), and as a result was first warned ([35]) and then blocked for a week ([36]).
After that block SF refrained from editing in the area until February, with editing in Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Gaza war. After making a single comment on an edit request in that page ([37]) SF proceeded to engage in WP:CANVASSING, more specifically WP:VOTESTACKING, by selectively notifying @Alaexis: to back their position on said discussion. A section titled “Meet me at the "Sexual violence on 10/7" talk page” was made asking Would you be interested in showing your support for this guy and his argument over on the talk page?. SF then proceeded to make another comment there asking for support: I’m not sure I like this current version and Do you have anything to add to his retort to your statement? ([38])

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

17 December 2024 Blocked for a period of 1 week per item 1 above.

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- YYes, on 17 December 2024 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict
- YYes, on 17 December 2024 (per the system log linked to above).
Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 8 March 2024
- YYes

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Someone who cannot engage in constructive editing without immediately resorting to edit warring or canvassing is not qualified to participate in the most contentious topic in Wikipedia. I believe a topic-ban is in order.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

Discussion concerning The Shadow-Fighter

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

Statement by The Shadow-Fighter

I was not aware that I’d engaged in any kind of “canvassing”. I reached out one time to a fellow editor who had made very similar changes to myself on the article in question, because this was a topic we shared a passion on. The subject was regarding the question “did any sexual violence definitively take place on 10/7”, which we were adamant that the sources pointed to a clear “yes”, and ultimately it appears that our argument was successful, because the current state of the article reflects the position we took.

I wasn’t aware that reaching out to a fellow editor regarding a topic we both deeply cared about qualified as “canvassing”. I will be mindful of this in the future and not reach out to anyone directly like that for help on a talk page again. In regards to the “edit warring” accusation, the conflict on Mohammed Deif is the only time I’ve been accused of such a thing, and I took my ban and haven’t engaged in anything of the sort since then. Going forward, I’ll make an effort to be more delicate with contentious topics such as this. I’ll leave it at that. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was angry and I acted out of hand. The folks I was contending with gave no explanation whatsoever for why they were continuing to revert my edit while I was giving a clear and concise reason for doing so. If one person had just attempted to explain in an edit summary why they felt my edit was erroneous I would have relented, but all I got was “undo” “undo” “undo” and that got deep under my skin. And so I overreacted and didn’t stop. From my point of view at the time, I wasn’t the one warring, but the one combatting the edit war being waged on myself with seemingly no explanation. I’m not saying this was right, and of course the only proper solution would have been to make a discussion on the talk page; I’m just explaining what my mindset was at the time. In regards to your comment about my lack of knowledge on canvassing, this has been my first time engaging in lengthy talk page debates in my entire 17 years on Wikipedia. It was never an area of interest to me previously and I’ve only recently dipped my toes into it. Wikipedia’s never really been a “passion” for me until fairly recently, now that I have more time on my hands, and I’ve taken a deeper interest in politics. Frankly, I still think it’s a bit odd that it’s against policy to seek out somebody who had made very similar edits to myself and invite them to participate in a talk page discussion about something we’ve both made extensive edits on. It’s not like I was pulling support out of thin air; this was a guy who was already heavily engaged in editing this article and I felt it was a conversation he would want to take part in. But in hindsight I can understand how this could’ve appeared like I’m manipulating a vote count, though I didn’t explicitly seek out a “support” or “oppose” vote from him. So even though I don’t necessarily agree, I understand the policy. Either way, I’m not here to debate what is and what isn’t the Wikipedia policy. I’ve acknowledged my wrongdoing here and I’ve taken my consequences on the chin. I’ll make sure to observe the guidelines more closely in the future as I continue to defend Wikipedia’s objectivity and fairness on these very delicate subjects. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Moving to correct section; please respond to others in your own section. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Yes, this all sounds reasonable, and I appreciate your understanding. I'm not sure what PIA or CTOP stand for, though. If you could point me to these policies you speak of, I'd be happy to read through them and use this knowledge to help me going forward. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The Shadow-Fighter

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

The Shadow-Fighter, the problem isn't reaching out to a fellow editor regarding a topic both deeply cared about as much as it is selecting that person based on having made made very similar changes to myself on the article in question – it heavily comes across as though you chose that person based on their viewpoint, which is inappropriate in a consensus-building discussion. You might want to reread the canvassing guideline if you haven't already. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Shadow-Fighter, it is a bit dismaying that an editor with nearly 10K edits going back 17 years isn't aware of our policies on canvassing. And this is a major problem: in response to an edit summary of Reverting edit(s) by The Shadow-Fighter (talk) to rev. 1263470422 by Skitash: Remedy 1RR violation. This is an arbitration enforcement action -- an edit summary you were pinged to -- you reverted again with the edit summary you guys just don’t know when to quit do you? I’m not stopping. You have not provided any reason whatsoever for why this redundant statement is necessary. Can you please explain what in the world you were thinking when you continued edit warring in a contentious topic after having been notified you'd been reverted as an arb enforcement, and then threatened to continue edit warring? Valereee (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aight. I'm going to tell you that you get ONE of these temper tantrums, at most. And we don't care if people weren't responding the way you wanted them to. I do understand what you're explaining about your thinking at the time, but edit summaries are not where we discuss contentious edits. We discuss contentious edits at talk pages. If you can't edit at a CTOP without letting it get under your skin, you shouldn't edit at a CTOP. Period.

In the recent past, there have been many editors who have come into PIA after years of unproblematic editing at unrelated subjects, and they're like newbies who don't understand basic policy: they don't understand CTOPs policy. You should consider reading at this CTOP for a while. It is, as you can imagine, the most contentious topic on the site right now. There is a lot to understand. There are a lot of well-intentioned editors with whom you may vehemently disagree; that doesn't mean you can edit war or otherwise edit disruptively. Do you think you can and are willing to understand this? Valereee (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @TSF, meant to ping. Valereee (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is certainly true that The Shadow-Fighter has rarely engaged in talk page conversations before - nearly 92% of their edits through their whole career are to mainspace. But I note that they also barely ever use edit summaries. And when edit summaries are used, it's mostly to further an argument. The Shadow-Fighter, when you feel the urge to write an edit summary, it looks like that's a very good sign you ought to be on the article talk page instead. Not to mention that you should be using them rather more often in general. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Shadow-Fighter, WP:PIA5 (PIA) and Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict explain the restrictions/allowable sanctions on the contentious topic (CTOP). Before editing at contentious topics, these are policies you need to understand to keep out of trouble. Valereee (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

preventing archiving unactioned. Valereee (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the above, it looks like the discussion is converging on a stern informal warning, which has essentially already been given. Is there anything more that needs to be said Valereee, asilvering? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a warning seems fine to me. It doesn't look like anything has come up since. -- asilvering (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Valereee (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

79.77.194.92

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

Request concerning 79.77.194.92

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Swatjester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 79.77.194.92 (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

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

April 5, 2025 In response to being told that we need to follow reliable source, What a weak response! this is called gaslighting by the way, the first of several such aspersions.
April 10, 2025 A second accusation, followed by battleground editing behavior. First "ping" of my account. Swatjester outright gaslighted and ignored all evidence. This is irrefutable, it is just a factually incorrect translation. Claims that any disagreement is "unreasonable" and that nobody may conclude otherwise, again classic battleground editing behavior. If you are a reasonable person and have read and went through all the sources provided, there is no other conclusion than the logical, true one which I have laid out. Note: IP has blown well past the 1,000 word count limitation for a formal discussion (the topic they are discuss is fundamentally a malformed edit-request).
April 10, 2025 My reply, pointing to the arbitration remedies disclaimer on the article, reminding the editor to behave themselves appropriately and to stop casting aspersions.
April 10, 2025 A few minutes later, IP repeats almost the exact same massive wall of text, "pinging" me again.
April 10, 2025 IP immediately reverts their prior edit. They will later pretend they never made it.
April 10, 2025 IP attempts to conceal that they were using ChatGPT, note that the "source" is a livejournal blog -- IP is making no attempt to comply with our WP:RS policy nor to read it as they've been requested.
April 10, 2025 My warning to IP, instructing them to stop pinging me, stop spamming edits, and leave me alone. Reminder that my sole interaction prior to the IP's misbehavior was pointing out our reliable source policy. They could easily continue their edit request without ever talking to or referencing me further, but they will subsequently choose not to do so.
April 10, 2025 Simultaneously, a user talk page warning to the IP, warning them that I will take them to AE if this behavior continues, and instructing them to cease pinging me.
April 11, 2025 IP responds by accusing me of "victimizing" myself (WP:NPA), demands I exit the talk page discussion (WP:OWN/WP:TE).
April 11, 2025 on user talk page, IP again accuses me of "victimizing" myself, tells me to "get over" myself, and denies pinging me (ironically, the same gaslighting behavior they were accusing me of.)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None that I'm aware of.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have only ever made three (unrelated) edits to the Mossad article and none since June of last year; my only edits to Talk:Mossad prior to this issue were cleanup from an unrelated LTA vandal, or archiving old conversations. Because this involves behavior that would be unacceptable regardless of the subject matter area, I'm requesting two separate sanctions here: A TBAN for this user from the A-I topic under the auspices of the CTOP; as well as blocking the user as a standard administrative sanction for repeated personal attacks and harassment. At a minimum, they need a 1-way IBAN, but I have no confidence that they even understand what they did wrong, so I have little confidence that any sanctions short of a block will be sufficient to prevent future harm, as this IP appears to edit in the same topic areas that I do (military and defense). I'd also note that they seem to be having difficulty with understanding WP:RS in a completely unrelated (and outside the A-I CTOP) discussion on Talk:Sukhoi Su-57#No trusted source of Algeria buying Su-57, where they're insisting that sources cannot be used if they're not on the "perennial" list at WP:RSP, and already throwing around accusations at other editors like You did not read anything did you?, so this clearly isn't just a "me" problem and it's going to quickly spill outside of the confines of the CTOP if unchecked.

@Tamzin: -- Can you clarify what exactly you're proposing to give me an informal warning for? If it's to "chill out and focus on content, not contributors", I don't see how such a warning is congruous with your statement that me saying "we go by what reliable sources say the translation is," is "not cool", nor how it fits with my subsequent response to the IP that they shouldn't be getting their sources from ChatGPT and that livejournal isn't an acceptable source. Are these not focusing on content? Because that's two of my three edits, and as for the third edit, I'd love to know why I'm getting a warning for telling an IP not to make the personal attacks that you have also agreed here are "not cool"? Can you clarify where my warning to them to abide by the committee's sanctions was incorrect, or a violation of policies and guidelines? What this is saying is that an IP misbehaving and me reporting it should be treated as equally bad offenses, but if that's the case I'm going to need y'all to be a little bit more specific than "not cool" when specifying what I've done that's on the same level as telling someone to "stop victimizing yourself." Like, am I living in a bizarro-world where we didn't just have an ARBPIA5 case that reiterated that this topic space is not a battleground, that being right on a substantive point isn't enough and doesn't excuse violating our behavioral expectations, and that AE is the appropriate place for bringing up these disputes? And so here I go, trying to follow the letter of how the committee says I'm supposed to handle such a dispute and the result is that it gets ignored for days and the only response is "let's just warn both of them"? That seems like bad practice, and I really don't appreciate being placed on the same level as someone who's openly saying "I don't care." I do care. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was quite clear in my initial statement as to why I was seeking the particular sanctions I am -- because the IP has made it explicit that they're not familiar with nor interested in following our reliable sourcing guidelines, on this article and (as I've shown above) on others in areas that I'm likely to run into them again. No, AE is not a moot court; it is however an appropriate venue for preventing future harm. It seems like you disagree with the fact that I brought this to AE vs. some other form of dispute resolution, but I don't see how that merits a warning of any sort, unless I've violated some bright-line rule by doing so. I especially don't see how it merits a warning if I don't go out and find an appropriate source for the IP -- as Zero noted in his comment, it's more nuanced than just providing an out of context translation (the source would need to directly address the Mossad motto, which the IP had not done at that point), the IP already noted that "all the sources are in hebrew" and the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the person seeking to make the change. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning 79.77.194.92

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

Statement by 79.77.194.92

I'm just a hebrew speaker that pointed out a false translation and i gave many sources. Anyways, i dont care.

I do understand this policy, and I only created an edit request on the Mossad talk page. So I think you misunderstood something 79.77.194.92 (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 79.77.194.92

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

This is technically within ARBPIA jurisdiction but that appears largely incidental to this dispute, which is over the correct translation of a Bible verse. If we are to sit in judgment, I'm honestly not super impressed with Swatjester's response to a somewhat over-the-top but nonetheless constructive request to correct an error: "we go by what reliable sources say the translation is" doesn't really make sense as a response when the current translation is unsourced. The IP's "gaslighting" comment is not cool, but responding with an accusation of battleground editing (while still not engaging on the underlying complaint, even after another editor had found it meritorious) is also not cool. Calling a few pings harassment is not cool. Accusing a colleague of "victimizing" themself is not cool. Taking this to AE is not cool. Replying at AE that "I dont care" is not cool. I would suggest closing this with an informal warning to both editors to chill out and focus on content, not contributors. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Swatjester, what I'm saying is this reads like a petty slapfight over how to translate a Bible verse, in which the IP unduly personalized things and you're now responding in kind. There is a simple factual question before y'all. The article currently cites no sources either way. Why are you here, trying to get this user topic-banned, interaction-banned, and blocked, for conduct only tangentially within ARBPIA at that, instead of working on resolving the seemingly straightforward content issue? The existence of AE does not change the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a moot court. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it would have been better to cut to the chase and look for sources along the lines of what Zero suggested, I think that Swatjester's response to personal attacks by stating that they should avoid casting aspersions is not something that rises to the level of a sanction. Further bringing it here seems to be a reasonable response to the evident hounding at Sukhoi Su-57. That's died off, and the IP's most recent edits appear to be entirely unrelated. Any further hounding or personal attacks from the IP will be immediate grounds for a block. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that they did a further PIA violation here, although it was interpreted as an edit request by a responding editor. Given that they had expressed confusion on their talk page which had not been clarified, and that another editor already graciously handled the request, I've written out an explanation on their talk page, but any further boundary-testing or violation of the EC restriction should be met with blocks at this point. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This IP editor shouldn't even be editing in PIA except to create edit requests on talk pages. IP, do you understand this policy? Valereee (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP 79, this isn't an edit request. Valereee (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This reads to me as being within the spirit of the edit-request exemption. Their initial post, while not in "change X to Y" format, boils down to a request to remove or improve an unsourced sentence. The diff you cite is a follow-up to that. Plus this is only tangentially an ARBPIA matter. As far as the IP is concerned, I'm much more concerned with the incivility than with whether there was a by-the-letter ECR violation, personally. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PadFoot2008

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

Request concerning PadFoot2008

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Srimant ROSHAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: PadFoot2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA

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

13 April 2025: Moving pages without any building understanding on the talk page, for which they were previously warned [40][41][42][43]. They have made many reckless moves [44][45][46] in the past (their move log is full of disruptive moves) which led their page mover right being ultimately revoked. It's not like they aren't aware of "reverting undiscussed moves" [47][48].
02:27, 26 February 2025: Refused to follow WP:COMMONNAME, reverted by involved user [49] but yet again PadFoot were quick to follow suit the edit war and restore their poor additions [50] and again disregarding the common name of entity [51][52][53], this continues ignorance and WP:IDHT pattern led the editors to conclude that PF is POV pushing [54], but instead they want another "consensus" to use the common name [55]. PF actually landed in the OR area yet again [56] by replacing "dynasty" with "Empire" of an entity, after which they were told to start RM for that particular entity [57]. One might need to see this discussion.
15:07, 12 March 2025: Removed sources with a fallacious edit summary, despite both sources seem differentiable. Edit warred over their wrong doings [58]. Partial reverted after getting recalled on talk [59] but refused to restore other source without citing any guidelines.
11:34, 15 October 2024: Adding their uploaded unsourced "seals" and "coins" in infobox to label the entity's flags which is OR and is not required per MOS:MILFLAGS [60]
12:55, 12 October 2024: Again, adding a poor map by removing the solid sourced and stable map, the source cited^[1] has failed to verify their addition. After getting challenged, PadFoot claims, in contrast to the cited sources that their map is "accurate" [61]. Then again removed by another user [62] as presumed, PadFoot simply reverted the removal without citing a source for their addition [63]. After this much contention, they finally started adding sources [64][65][66] which is nothing but synthesizing, as no visual presentation is provided. Even after that, the users proceed to add their poor map [67][68].
11 April 2025: Removing content along with the source by giving a confusing "Not required" edit summary.
21 October 2024: With the summary of 'Improve' they actually ended up in doing WP:OR, there's not a single reference in the page to support their Aryavart link.
29 August 2024: This is just absurd, quoting half heartedly, Brittanica no where concludes that Pratiharas were victor. For what they added: The war ultimately resulted in the Pratiharas winning the crown of Kannauj in 816 - certainly doesn't align with the source. On the same cited article of Britannica we find that the conflict resumed over 900s: After the death of Mahendrapala, the succession is obscure. The power of the Pratiharas was apparently weakened by dynastic strife. It was further diminished as a result of a great raid from the Deccan, led by the Rastrakuta king Indra III, who about 916 sacked Kannauj. Same case with the other two sources (of which one is unreliable) we won't find them mentioning this conflict as Pratihara victory. Clearly an obvious attempt to sabotage Wikipedia by only presenting their partisan view.
30 August 2024: This is not ce as they say, just another poor unsourced addition [69][70][71].
[72][73]: The inevitable edit war was started, ironically Padfoot labeling the edits by Maglorbd as "Unconstructive" is just vague, it can be seen from above diffs, Padfoot has been making poor edits influenced by their Pov.

References

^ Keay, John (2000). India: A History. Grove Publication. p. 198. ISBN 0802137970.

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

[74]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

First look should be given at #8. In which he cites three sources. [75]: It doesn't further affirm their addition of "Pratihara victory", In fact it's just a misinterpretations that conflict ended in 816 CE while the source mention that it lasted till the mid of 10th century, with no ultimate result. This is consonant by Britannica as well. Same case with other [76].
Another look should be given at #3 where they seem to be outrightly removing sources and at #2 they were casting aspersions [77] on editors because they didn't get to oppose common name and were ultimately challanged.
PF shouldn't be allowed to put unsourced and synthesized files and maps. See #4 and #5, it's clear that he can't avoid adding poor unsourced map by removing the stable and well sourced map [78] [79].
Also found them recently canvassing [80] to gain votes in a move discussion. Not surprisingly they gained attention of some more editors who are complaint the same behaviour on ANI.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, regarding #5, the sources PF added after facing contentions do not support their case. All but the synthesized citations (like X says the entity's territory stretched from A to B, Y says it stretched from B to C, Z says the entity captured D and made it its feudatory, and so on) have been provided, which PF interpreted without basing their creation on any visual work. Moreover, the sources for tracing the Ayudha dynasty and the Pala Empire in their map are unfounded in the Commons file. The user also has a rather tarnished history of placing unsourced and distorted maps. For example, this unsourced map was added to multiple articles [81][82], which was recently reverted -- courtesy ping AlvaKedak. There are more instances where PF has repeatedly added unsourced maps that are still inserted to this day, but mentioning all would exceed my word and diff limits, so I'm refraining from doing so. Regarding #7, they did not resolve the issue but actually added defunct "Kingdom of X" articles into the parameter.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [83]

Discussion concerning PadFoot2008

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

Statement by PadFoot2008

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

A move discussion is necessary if a move might be perceived as contentious. All the moves mentioned by nom are non-contentious, and none were contested.
The nominator also appears to be unaware that WP:COMMONNAME is an article titling policy; it doesn't mandate that every single link to an article must mirror the title exactly.
The so-called 'source-removing edit', as I explained in the talk page of the concerned article, was because an editor had included the same author twice within the same reference listing multiple sources, and presenting them as though they were two different sources instead of listing them together.
The coinage is obviously not original research.
The dynasty-to-empire conversion allegation is absolutely ridiculous, seeing that I initially attempted to do the opposite. I had change the empires to mention the three dynasties instead, and when my edit was reverted and the editor made the decision that two parties should be referred to as empires and the third as a dynasty, I attempted introduce consistency into the empire-dynasty clutter, only for the editor to revert that as well.
Following this, I engaged in the discussion regarding both the issues in the Tripartite Struggle in the talk page of the article. The map issue was resolved in the talk page and a new map was added.
The total figure I had removed because two figures from two different decades were added together, and pages on some other Indic languages like Marathi language did not include such a totalling of L1 and L2 figures. I have since observed that pages like English language and Spanish language do include such totals, and I have not removed the figures again, though the primary concern still remains somewhat valid. PadFoot (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had initially changed Northern India to the contemporary name of the northern subcontinent, i.e., Aryavarta in the location parameter, but that was only temporary, as I later changed it to a more precise location which is the current version.
The "unsourced additions" were, in fact, perfectly sourced to scholarly sources, and I provided all references and quotations in subsequent edits.
(For #10) The additions did not align with the sources added, and we discussed the issue on the talk page as well. PadFoot (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The statement by Kowal2701, is pure gobbledygook. How in the world does WP:SEALION applies to me. Also, nowhere in this two year old thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#PadFoot2008 - LTA RGW editing, was I accused of 'anti-India POV' by anyone, it's likely that Kowal didn't even bother properly reading the entire thing and was just looking for material to put here. PadFoot (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Rosguill,
- (For #4) For the Pratihara coinage, I sourced it from this site (see fourth listing), I've now added the same to the commons page as well.
- (For #10) Maglorbd had contacted me on my user talk page as well, that's where the discussion took place: User talk:PadFoot2008/Archive 4#Regarding Tripartite Struggle.
PadFoot (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill, the source added by me, though backing the vassalage, was indeed lacking the exact year and emperor. There's this source which does back it though. The new lead too is more or less fine by me. PadFoot (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Asilvering, the author is Jaswant Lal Mehta. This thread, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 419#Reliability of Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, concludes that it's a reliable source. The source is also present in Scholar. PadFoot (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new claim by Shakakarta is frivolous and dishonest. The full sentence in the lead is: Marathas from the time of Shahu recognised the Mughal emperor as their nominal suzerain, similar to other contemporary Indian entities, though in practice, imperial politics at Delhi were largely influenced by the Marathas between 1737 and 1803. Thus, it clearly mentions (1) that emperor was the nominal suzerain, and (2) that the actual control or influence was in the Maratha hands. PadFoot (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill, I intended to create separate articles for the dynasty and the kingdom it ruled, which is the structure present in the European history space. I understand now that the Kannauj one had WP:SYNTH issues, as I had checked different sources which mentioned a particular dynasty as ruling the 'kingdom of Kannauj'. But the others didn't have SYNTH issues? The others were only seen as problematic because it was seen unnecessary by other editors as having two separate articles for the dynasty and the kingdom. PadFoot (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kowal2701, indeed, you're correct, and I had, during that period, attempted to create distinct separate articles for the kingdoms and their respective ruling dynasties (one or many), and had unknowingly created SYNTH issues on Kingdom of Kannauj. Some former country articles like Vijayanagara Empire too cover multiple dynasties that ruled the polity, which have their own separate articles as well. PadFoot (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The new statement by Shrimant Roshan is pretty muddled up. I didn't synthesise two citations that say that this kingdom extended from A to B and another source saying extended from B to C, I've only provided one citation per kingdom that mentioned that particular kingdom's territorial extent and another citation that mentioned the kingdom's feudatories. And anyways, the issue has been resolved and a new map has been added which is perfectly sourced to a map in a reference. As for his argument for (#7), I had added "Kannauj" as one of the locations, and linked to "Kingdom of Kannauj", but it's accurate nonetheless if it refers to the city. PadFoot (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While my earlier maps had been based on written descriptions in sources, which I perceive to be an issue, I have sourced all the maps since the new Tripartite Struggle one (such as the Aibak one) to visual maps from scholarly sources. PadFoot (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kowal2701

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

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

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

Statement by Shakakarta

The user has some serious issues when it comes to falsely interpreting the source and citing an outdated source authored by British administrators in India. I thought bringing such issues here would be appropriate. Padfoot cites the wrong volume [84] of The Cambridge History of India which falls under WP:RAJ. I don't know why anyone would cite such a weak source to back Vassal of the Mughal Empire. Then again they tried to wash off this mistake by citing a source which nowhere backs their claims: recognised by Emperor Bahadur Shah I as a tributary state in 1707 following a prolonged rebellion. that too in the lead, while the quote says: The Marathas went on to become the leading political force in eighteenth century India, powerfully shaping the process by which British power emerged. But their growth took place as a vassal of the Mughal empire. It's clearly WP:OR, the source never backs their claims of vassalage after 1707 by Bahadur Shah I. This repeated behaviour should not be unnoticed. Shakakarta (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

He's again restoring his version, which is full of original research [85]. The article says: Marathas from the time of Shahu recognised the Mughal emperor as their nominal suzerain. But the quote from the source actually says:

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

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

References

^ Mehta, Jaswant Lal (2005-01-01). Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 978-1-932705-54-6.

Statement by Dympies

Padfoot engaged in a disruptive behaviour for a long time, much of which largely went unnoticed. No doubt they lost their page mover hat due to their pov pushing page moves. Padfoot made statements such as: "You're completely right. I too agree with you on the opinion that this article is full of misinformation and Anti-Hindu Propaganda. I've also been noting that many Wikipedia articles present an anti-BJP Propaganda. This article must be unlocked and be available to all editors rather than only anti-nationalists and anti-Hinduists." [86], these things went unnoticed.

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Gujarat:

- Chaulukya dynasty POV fork without discussion
- Vaghela dynasty POV fork without discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Daśapura:

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

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

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

Statement by AlvaKedak

(responding to ping) Yes, I have noticed their addition of unsourced maps as well, and am concerned about it too. In fact, I have tried to reached out to them about this matter more than once [87] [88], but aside from a a few replies that only addressed the Tripartite Struggle map situation, I have not received any response since. Regards, AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning PadFoot2008

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

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

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

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

My evaluation of the evidence

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

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

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

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

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

PadFoot2008, that source you've offered in response to Shakakarta's comments doesn't look very promising - do you know anything about the press or the author? Neither press website (given on pg ii) works, I can't find any evidence either publisher still exists in a quick google search, and the only J L Mehta that comes up in a similarly quick check is Jarava Lal Mehta, a philosopher. Do you know anything more about this book? -- asilvering (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shakakarta, this new one looks to me to be fully in the realm of "content dispute". "recognised the Mughal emperor as their nominal suzerain" is an accurate paraphrase of the quoted sentences, and nothing in the wording there suggests that the arrangement ceased after Shahu. There may be perfectly good editorial reasons to say or not say Marathas from the time of Shahu recognised the Mughal emperor as their nominal suzerain., but on the face of it here there's no evidence I can see of source misuse, deliberate or otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DaltonCastle

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

Request concerning DaltonCastle

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tamzin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

AMPOL AE block in 2016, appeal declined

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

[89]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

@Just10A: I didn't say I'm a political moderate. (I have somewhat esoteric political views that don't map neatly onto any camp.) I said I hold moderate views on most trans issues, because I do; and that there is no reasonable basis to assume that I don't, because there isn't. Someone inferring such a bias based merely on my opposition to Donald Trump (currently the position of a majority of Americans, including plenty of transphobes) would be betraying a battleground mentality even deeper than one that leads to inference based on identity. I get that some people on this site sometimes pull the "Well you can't prove I have XYZ bias" schtick, and it's obnoxious when they do, but I'm not saying "You can't prove it"; I'm saying it's not true. My actual POV on trans issues is not a secret [90] [91] [92] [93] [94]. I think going any further into that would be off-topic for this 'board, but feel free to inquire on my talkpage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [95]

Discussion concerning DaltonCastle

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

Statement by DaltonCastle

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

Statement by Generalrelative

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

Statement by Just10A

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

Also, the statement "The only thing I can think of that would give DaltonCastle the impression that I am partisan is that I am nonbinary" is a little presumptive. Tamzin, you are aware that there is legitimately outside reliable source coverage of your politcal views, correct? We don't need to hold a referendum on those views. Wikipedia editors are allowed to hold almost any views they wish, but those views are not particularly moderate. There are plenty of ways DaltonCastle could have come to that conclusion beyond identity politics. Your views are public knowledge, and he could have come to that conclusion through the media coverage or even just by interacting with you on this site. However, we can't just say: "He said I was partisan, and I'm trans, so therefore he must harbor some sort of deepseated anti-LGBT agenda and deserves a GENSEX sanction." That's a huge leap in logic. Also note that he's been similarly rude (which, again, I do not endorse) to editors with no such gender statements on their page [96]. This isn't a GENSEX issue, he's just being a jerk and needs to be more civil.

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

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

Result concerning DaltonCastle

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

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

Dympies

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

Request concerning Dympies

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBIPA

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

I am filing this report after seeing the concerns raised by Bishonen with this user,[97] because the recent edits by this user are creating problems well across WP:ARBIPA.

27 April - Misrepresents the statement of Sitush by using strawman fallacy. Sitush never opposed the proposal of Dympies "without even looking at sources".
27 April - Instead of addressing his misrepresentations of sources, he is accusing another editor of not knowing the meaning of the words like "synonymous" or "interchangeable", and tells them to look them up "in a dictionary".
27 April - Continuing his attacks on the participants; "A group of editors are not allowing well-sourced content. They are giving prevalence to their pov over RS."
26 April - Attacks the participants by lamenting "entire talk page is suffering from "trust me bro" syndrome."
26 April - Claims "sources indeed have a good amount of coverage", but inside his "Source assessment table" he gives not more than a single source for significant coverage.
25 April - Telling another editor to be "cautious" while falsely claiming that the content he is reverting was "recently added in the lead by PadFoot", contrary to the fact the content existed since 2024.[98]
24 April - Supports an inappropriate AfD of a highly notable topic by falsely claiming that the article is "largely unsourced", when most of the statements of the article are sourced.
23 April - Used a Islamophobic pro-Hindutva outlet myind.net" for source. A broader issue with his edits was raised on talk page but it saw no response from him.
16 April - Claiming on Talk:Shivaji that this image was contemporary. This is contrary to the fact that it is a reproduction of a contemporary painting by Valentyn painted by V.S Bendrey.
6 April - Created List of Chitpavan Brahmins, where the source was misrepresented for the names like Chintaman Ganesh Kolhatkar.
1 April - Falsely accused Sitush of violation of "WP:AGF, WP:COI and WP:OR", just because he posted this. The violation of WP:NPA was beyond the pale there.

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): See above
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [99]

Discussion concerning Dympies

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

Statement by Dympies

Capitals00 became hostile towards me ever since I supported a move proposal (on 19 April) which they had opposed at Talk:Maratha Confederacy. On the same day, Capitals00 made a comment in the previous AE report against me (archived two days back) promising admins of providing good diffs within 24 hours [100]. They must have tried finding some strong diffs. But, upon failing, they filed a frivolous SPI against me [101]. Now they are here again to harass me with some weak diffs. I wish to respond to the diffs one after one :

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

2. Koshuri Sultan had been repeatedly expressing their disagreement with my representation of sources [102][103][104]. At last, I reminded him of the basic meaning of "synonymous" and "interchangeable" as I thought it was necessary.

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

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

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

6. The content was indeed added by PadFoot around 8 to 10 months ago [105][106][107], and was backed by poor sources. You have falsely linked the wrong version in order to portray me in a negative light.

7. I have nothing to say if you think that the crux of the page i. e. Anglo-Mughal war (1686–1690)#Events is well sourced.[108]

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

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

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

11. The accusations weren't false. Sitush literally said twice that there may be COI involved in my editing at Rajput page as if I am affiliated to Rajputs [109][110]. Such behavior violates WP:AGF and WP:COI. As far as WP:OR is concerned, see Sitush's comments at Talk: Rajput. In a comment, he makes an exaggerating claim that there are hundreds of sources to counter the proposed content[111], but could not produce a single one in a one month period. Despite using strong words like "nonsense" for my proposed content,[112] he didn't care to discuss sources but heavily relied on his original research. However, considering his seniority, I later struck WP:COI and WP:OR from my AE comment out of respect[113], but Capitals didn't mention that! Dympies (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlvaKedak

This report is beyond frivolous and almost vexatious, especially coming right after an ill-considered SPI filed by the same user. I would refer admins to these comments by Ivanvector [114] [115], which express concern over the conduct of Capitals00. Most of the issues raised here are content-related and fall well within the realm of editorial discretion and some are outright disingenuous. Given this pattern, I request that AE admins consider placing a restriction on Capitals00 from filing further AE reports. Considering they have already received a logged warning [116] for failing to assume good faith, I believe an IPA ban or perhaps an indefinite block should be considered. AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector (re: Dympies)

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dympies

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

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

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

[3] Keay, John (2000). India: A History. Grove Publication. p. 198. ISBN 0802137970.

[4] Mehta, Jaswant Lal (2005-01-01). Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 978-1-932705-54-6.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[1]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards