Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive351

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

The Kip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Super ninja2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA topic ban, per conditions of unblock from indef (see here) in January 2024.

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

1. Not a singular diff, but User:Super ninja2/sandbox/palestine was created just this past November and has been continuously edited since (as recently as last week), as a fairly flagrant TBAN violation (see WP:TBAN -this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article [Article/subject], but also everything else that has to do with [Article/subject], such as... discussions or suggestions about [Article/subject]-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia... including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes).).
2. 23:20, 7 March 2025 - Adds a section to 2024 United States presidential election on the Muslim and Arab-American vote, extensively discussing the impacts of the Gaza war and support for Israel. Edit summary acknowledges TBAN, but claims WP:BEBOLD and WP:AGF overrule it. This was subsequently edited several more times over the following days.
3. 21:02, 21 January 2025 - Edits a caption of a photo directly dealing with a pro-Palestinian protest.
4. A variety of other less consequential/blatant edits that the user openly acknowledges still violate the TBAN, such as here, here, here, and here.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

As linked above, user was previously indeffed for disruptive conduct at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, and was later indefinitely TBANned from ARBPIA as a condition of the unblock from their indef. They appealed the TBAN in July 2024, but withdrew it after myself and bradv pointed out they'd recently violated their TBAN at that time, too.

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

Here. Additionally, as already stated, user has an existing TBAN from the ARBPIA area.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I will freely admit it was myself that filed the initial report that got them indeffed. Since then they've been branded in my mind as a problematic user of sorts; after stumbling across their recent RfC at Talk: The Holocaust (the premise of/motivation behind which itself unsettled me, given their prior contribs/issues), I decided to do a spot check as a result, which is how I noticed the recent and semi-recent TBAN violations. I know some of these were from a few weeks/months ago, but it’s been a while since I’ve come across their contribs, so I don’t feel that time should be a factor here.

I’m not one to call for an indef lightly, but seeing as these instances aren’t remotely close to the first time they’ve violated their TBAN, and they’ve openly acknowledged that they’re doing so on multiple occasions dating back to last July, I tend to think the user simply doesn’t get it at this point. They were unblocked on the condition of a TBAN, and they’ve repeatedly and knowingly ignored that TBAN since. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done.

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

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

• Based on Daniel's unblock comment and the lack of an entry in WP:AELOG/2024/A-I, this actually isn't an ARBPIA TBAN, just an unblock condition. In light of Daniel's comments thatyou are on a pretty tight piece of rope here, and any further disruptive behaviours will result in the block being re-instated, and the evidence that Super ninja has been violating the ban not just accidentally but willfully, I will be reinstating the indefinite block as a regular admin action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mr.Hanes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

ImperialAficionado (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

1. 20 January 2025 - Reverted an edit, claiming "Whitewashing" by contesting users, later editors are dumb-founded and somewhat frustrated that source nowhere supports Imperial's revert [1], an instance of blatant POV-pushing.
2. 23 January 2025 - Reverting another user who rightly removed their unsourced part from the conviction parameter [2] but as usually, Imperial reverted [3] their constructive removal without actually going through the sources.
3. 24 January 2025 - Adding the same unsourced inflammatory part without verifying from the source, ironically the edit summary was:Removal of sourced info.
4. 24 January 2025 - Giving summary ofThe white washing POV editors are really a trouble, after doing the exact same thing.
5. 18 February 2025 - Yet another instance of WP:IDHT & WP:POV WARRIOR.

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

[4]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Passing this report (which was Initially made by HerakliosJulianus) from ANI [5] but for some reason it was closed by Liz suggesting to take it on AE.

The user in question has been deliberately pushing a certain POV as evident from above diffs. Not only that, the page he's authored & heavily contributed to -- Execution of Sambhaji -- which recently sparked controversy along with the Sambhaji page, looks like it was almost entirely written by an AI [6] and gives only a probability of 25% human written (To be more specific this old revision contains probability of 14% human generated contents). To think that such a sensitive, highly contentious topic could be written by an LLM is egregious.

What is even more worrying is their battleground mentality, which can be seen by falsely accusing [7] an editor of WP:HOUNDING just for taking their articles to AfD and then calling them a "troll" [8]. Given their blatant PoV pushing,WP:CIR and using LLM in hotly contentious TA, a Tban from IPA seems justifiable. Mr.Hanes Talk 20:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill @Valereee, I just wanted to ask if Imperial is actually facing any backlash from the Maharashtra government. I haven't seen any mentions of it in news reports. If he's not, then I don't think there's a need to give them any intermediary status of a week -- maybe 3–4 days of waiting response would be sufficient. Mr.Hanes Talk 20:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, Understandable. Thanks for clarifying. Mr.Hanes Talk 20:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, the source he has cited, i.e., The Mughal Empire, nowhere prescribesRape, torture, and robbery during the Sacking of Burhanpur (1681) as such, which ultimately led to the situation becoming inflammatory in Indian politics. Please see this discussion for further context: [9] Mr.Hanes Talk 20:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your later additions in your comment: @Rosguill, then a topic-ban would be an even better approach, not only to prevent their PoV pushing from IPA articles but also for their own safety. Mr.Hanes Talk 20:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think enough time has passed -- it's already the ninth day since this report was filed, and we've been waiting for their unlikely response. Please take the appropriate action. Mr.Hanes Talk 15:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @ImperialAficionado Accepting a self imposed "chaos" sanction on yourself is completely different from being procedurally sanctioned for the issues raised here, I don't think it's about: "as I've mentioned in a discussion on my talk page, I would accept any kind of block/ban against me. You're neither accepting nor denying problematic edits. Also, I wanted to ask if you're taking breaks for your college exams or due to any legal issues? Mr.Hanes Talk 20:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[10]

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

I am so sorry for not being here. I was unaware about this discussion. Anyways, I do have objections against the claims raised against me here. Unfortunately, not spending my time again here in this platform to prove it. I am really sorry, and as I've mentioned in a discussion on my talk page, I would accept any kind of block/ban against me, as I won't create "chaos" again. Retiring from Wikipedia due to personal reasons (actually, was thinking about it for a while). Please don't think any of us are the reason for this. Thank you.--Imperial^[AFCND] 18:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill @Valereee, I'm sorry but I'd like to add something here. The user in question has always been aggressive and waging edit wars in the entirety of the Indian topic area, so I don't understand why anyone should sympathize with them just because they maybe facing any legal troubles.

• 04:01, 17 February 2025: Reverting unsourced quotes
• 05:00, 17 February 2025: Removed infobox after realising that it's making mess more than any productive info, but later waged an edit war for its inclusion [11].
• Misinterpreting the sources, just to push their "Ghurid victory" pov [12][13] later reverted [14] then later waging an edit war[15].
• 05:03, 17 February 2025: seems to me like they were on a spree of removing infoboxes.
• 08:32, 24 January 2025: Falsely Templating another user who tried to remove their unsourced material, they don't even bother to respond back but just quick to gain points [16].
• [17]: Wikilawyering in an AfD in order to prevent newcomers from joining the discussion. Not the first time they have done this, they did it here too [18],[19] and [20].

• 07:34, 18 January 2025: Outright removing sourced info of 10,000 cavalry The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760 p. 33 without even bothering to verify it once.
• Another removal of sourced content [21]

Given these editing behaviours I do not think they should be given an exemption for an IPA ban. AlvaKedak (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 06:44, 7 August 2024: Bluntly moving pages [22] without giving an adequate explanation as to how it contains OR content.
• 16:55, 6 August 2024: Yet another removal of sourced content.
• 08:11, 17 June 2024: Removing results with a vague edit summary.
• Here, I do not know why they were attacking the editor just because the article mentions "Muslims" which could be supported by sources.
• 16:43, 7 May 2024: Another mass removal of sourced contents.

These are just some more CIR containing issues. I don't think this user genuinely wants to contribute here through a neutral pov. Please take these issues into consideration. AlvaKedak (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Extorc, I would like to ask as to how you actually ended up here in AE? From what I can see, the evidence was likely gathered from the EIU tool to create the SPI report, not from their edit history. While the OP is blocked, this hardly changes anything. I have presented more diffs and statements in the report, and the initial report was made by another user, HerakliosJulianus. Since many editors are already involved, it makes little sense to close this without action. AlvaKedak (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, @Rosguill I do not find a reason for logged warning regression from Indian politics/history T-ban. Mr. Hanes may have made the initial report by importing other users' initial complaints on ANI but the diffs presented by me are the reason why Rosguill is opined for a T-ban. It is concerning that we are about to give so much sympathy towards an editor who just recently made controversial moves to the extent that readers (especially pro Sambhaji readers) and the government prejudice that -- Wikipedia has bias -- . What if I make another report providing more diffs showing their problematic behaviour? Would that make us all ultimately conclude that Imperial would be T-banned? I really don't get the regression from T-ban to logged warning. AlvaKedak (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, let's suppose I file a report on another user or let's just say a user files AE report on me, so if I just say "I'm retiring permanently" on my user page then will I get a "get out from jail" card? This is a loophole and any problematic user can do the same in future, I'm not sure if he'd get a waiver or not like we see with Imperial. AlvaKedak (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, Valereee, and Seraphimblade: The OP is now blocked as a sock. While Girth Summit had started to undo the damage the sock did so far, he has yet to do a lot more right now. I would personally recommend closing this report without action. >>> Extorc.talk 06:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think my thinking in that discussion closing is that since the OP was seeking a topic ban from IPA, that AE would be a more appropriate forum for this discussion. The other issues, such as possible AI use, could be discussed on the article talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like in a subsequent edit, here, ImperialAficionado cited a source. What POV are you arguing they are pushing? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification, Mr.Hanes, from your own reading of sources. In contentious areas of the project, I frequently see accusations of POV-pushing but it isn't always clear to me what POV it is that is being pushed. It often seems like simple disagreement over content. Accusations of "POV-pushing" are sometimes sanctioned while content disagreements are usually not. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to see a response from ImperialAficionado, while recognizing that there is a nonzero chance that they will not be editing for a long time, or possibly ever, given the retaliation they have faced from the government of India. Mr.Hanes's complaints of POV-pushing and edit warring to include unverified material have merit, but I also want to have realistic and humane expectations of ImperialAficionado's ability and willingness to respond given that they have apparently already faced sanctions much more arbitrary and powerful than what is within our purview here. I would propose that we allow a week for response, after which if there is no response we impose a tban on Indian politics and history open to immediate appeal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems reasonable. Valereee (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rosguill, since Mr.Hanes is getting impatient with the process and would like to see some sort of closure, I'm actually wondering if a p-block from article/article talk space, maybe even as an individual action, might be a better solution in the case of an editor who may have been scared away by their legal troubles? What I'd hate to see is a basically well-intentioned editor who may have a POV issue be tbanned from their main editing area and not actually even realize it. I could totally see this editor coming back in months from now and make some innocuous edit somewhere around the history of India and get indeffed. A pblock from article/talk would force them to at least realize there was a problem and give them an opportunity to investigate. It's not like they're currently editing and causing trouble. We can close this and discuss at their talk if/when they file an unblock. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems reasonable, although I think we should also be very clear to ImperialAficionado in a talk page comment following the block explaining that any further BATTLEGROUND behavior in relation to Indian history prior to appealing the block will be treated as recidivism and sanctioned. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Completely agree. If they want to edit in Indian history, they either need to control their POV or stay away from anything controversial. Valereee (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Valereee Having reviewed AlvaKedak's additional evidence here...I was already essentially on the fence between your limited proposal and the tban I initially suggested, and was more sympathetic to your proposal partly because only Sambhaji-related disruption had been identified thus far. I think that AlvaKedak's diffs here are scattershot: on their own they do not make a compelling case for much, and some of the evidence is a total miss (e.g. the claim that calling on closers to be mindful of sock/meatpuppetry at AfD iswikilawyering), but there's enough potentially-problematic behavior (e.g. lots of reverts over contentious infobox content for non-Sambhaji South Asian military history) that push me back toward my original "tban from Indian history and politics with opportunity of immediate appeal" even if the new diffs do not on their own present a case establishing a clear pattern of tendentious editing beyond a shadow of a doubt. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rosguill, I don't disagree with your assessment. My concern is primarily that we're going to give a restriction not only without hearing any sort of defense but also without being sure the person getting the restriction will even know they have one. I could totally see this turning into IA's making an edit that violates their topic ban before they even realize they have one and someone blocking them as an AE enforcement -- possibly appealable only to ARCA -- which means no admin can even come along, discuss, and offer a conditional unblock, and they have to mount their appeal via proxy, which I think is generally awful. For me a p-block from article/talk space will prevent that while still protecting the encyclopedia from damage/disruption. Valereee (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I follow the "they won't be aware"--we'd place a talk page notice that will certainly leave them aware, this isn't a total newbie who doesn't know they have a user talk page. Otherwise, I see what you're saying about AE appeal--is it within our discretion to have the tban be appealable to any admin, with a note in the AELOG concerning the extenuating circumstances surrounding this original AE case? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm. I suspect that would be a novel use. Which I'm not averse to, but it would be best to get more opinions. Seraphimblade, ScottishFinnishRadish, Vanamonde93? Valereee (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking for myself, I think that would be fine with a consensus at AE to implement, especially considering the concerns around this situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr.Hanes, it's not uncommon for AE requests to sit open for much longer than a week, so I don't think this is an unreasonable extent of time to wait. We know that ImperialAficionado's final edits as of this time state directlyfacing legal issues and undo edits that they had made prior, so I think it's reasonable to conclude that ImperialAficionado at least has been, and possibly still is, under duress with relation to their activity on Wikipedia. Even if they have faced no charge to date, statements made by Indian authorities and also on social media give reason to believe that it would be prudent for their own safety for them to refrain from editing Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Mr.Hanes, editors are trusted to make their own decisions about their personal safety. Concern trolling is not appreciated, as it is battleground behavior. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• AlvaKedak, please post comments, once, in your own area. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sera, Vanamonde, SFR. I think Vanamonde's addition of appeal by email is a good one. Liz, do you have any objection to Rosguill's suggestion of a tban from Indian history and politics with opportunity of immediate appeal to any admin, including via email? Valereee (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection as the editor has retired from the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I think this plan we’re cohering around is still appropriate in light of ImperialAficionado’s not-quite-no-contest statement of intent to stop editing indefinitely. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Were we thinking Indian political/military history? That works for me. Valereee (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing archiving. Valereee (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to all for not being able to follow up on this in a timely fashion this past week. Do we have any further new opinion given that Mr. Hanes has been blocked as a sock of an account first blocked in April 2024? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually have any objection to just letting this archive unactioned, as IA seems to be making good on their intention to stop editing. I suppose we could log a warning for disruption at Indian political/military history so that if they ever return to editing and the issue comes up again, it'll be easy to find. Valereee (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think at minimum we do need a logged warning, because there was prima facie merit to the case's complaints. I don't have a strong opinion between that and the previously suggested topic-ban-open-to-immediate-appeal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to go with either. Valereee (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• AlvaKedak, sanctions are not punishment. They are to prevent future damage. If IA comes back and starts editing problematically in a CTOP, a simple ping to me and/or to Rosguill will likely suffice. We can levy a topic ban or a block unilaterally in CTOPs, no need to even file a case here, and in the case of someone who said they were retiring and then came back in problematically in the same CTOP, I'd t-ban instantly and I'm sure Rosguill would too. And if in the meantime we've both been hit by a bus, a logged warning makes it a simple notification at ANI. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) AlvaKedak, methinks you doth protest too much, and you're over the word limit (something I've had to warn you about recently). But to correct your misperception: the partial clemency here is primarily due to 1) the cloud of offline legal harassment surrounding Sambhaji-related editing and 2) the case being revelead as fruit of the poisonous tree, as Mr. Hanes was revealed to not have been an editor in good standing. If it weren't for (1), we wouldn't be giving any credence to the defendant's statements of intent to retire. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

Closetside came back from a 9 month break and in the course of only a couple of days they amassed more than 200 edits, which is not against any policy, but disruptive or tendentious editing certainly is.

Nuseirat rescue and massacre

One of their first actions was moving Nuseirat rescue and massacre toNuseirat raid (diff). The name was decided after multiple discussions over the course of many months. They then proceeded to remove large sections of the article to accommodate this undiscussed move, since it changed the scope of the article The edit summary said “Mentioned in ARBPIA5 as a fiasco”. When questioned further, they failed to provide a quote that would attribute this to ARBCOM as they had claimed previously. They kept arguing that the updated lede (reflecting the change of scope and ergo inconsistent with the article title) should be kept since the consensus was for the name and not the lede. After being reverted by multiple editors, they reverted back to their version.

12 February 2024 Rafah strikes

Transformed the page into a redirect against consensus; there was a merge proposal less than a year ago which failed. When reverted by M.Bitton – explaining that this was against consensus – they reverted M.Bitton immediately, without providing a reason. They then proceeded to remove large sections from 2024 Rafah hostage raid, excising mentions of the undiscussed merged page and, when reverted, reverted back citing “DONTLIKEIT filibustering”.

Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre

Again, they moved the page (to Shadia Abu Ghazala School corpses) without any kind of discussion, and tweaked the content to reflect the new name. After the original version of the article was restored, they reverted those changes again (but self-reverted eventually).

Wadi Gaza and Besor Stream

Another undiscussed move followed by large removals of content to accommodate to the new scope. When reverted, they moved the page again. When M.Bitton contacted them on their talk page they accused him of harassment, arguing that bold move edits against established consensus shouldn’t be reverted without an appropriate reason, as if the WP:ONUS isn’t on the person doing the bold change, something that was explained to them. They refused to self revert, and reverted back to their first version.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2025-03-09 blocked for a week from List of military engagements during the Gaza war for edit warring

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 2025-03-09 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2025-03-05 and 2023-09-10 (see the system log linked to above).
• Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 2023-09-24.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There may also be some relevant diffs in the American politics post-1992 CTOP; will need admin approval to go over the 20 diff limit, however - let me know if you'd like me to do that. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that Closetside tends to argue for less weight to be given to sources they consider to have a "pro-Palestinian bias", or for dismissing them altogether, cataloguing them as hyper-partisan and dubious. They have called the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor an "an anti-Israel NGO" and put their status as a human rights organisation into question because of that perceived bias, even alluding to them being a "Hamas front". For this editor sources seem to be either insanely pro-Palestinian or neutral. I don't think this black and white mindset is good for someone to have in this CTOP. I can provide relevant diffs but again would need admin approval to go over the 20 diff limit. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the substance or subject of the case and hopefully nothing will come of it but just in case we see extra attention on this case I should note that it was screenshot and shared on twitter link archive. Again, very much not saying that this has any connection with the editor in question, only adding this note in case we see an uptick in attention here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 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.

Yeah; I messed up. I will revert those edits accordingly. Closetside (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I feel that @M.Bitton didn't give a non-WP:DONTLIKEIT reason, I should have waited until I got consensus to rewrite articles. My apologies. Closetside (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I self-reverted those changes and I will not reinstate them until there is consensus. Closetside (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned my lesson. I will not move a page without consensus nor reinstate a reverted bold change until I achieve consensus. Closetside (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did those reinstatements because I erroneously thought that if an editor is blocked for a significant amount of time, like @M.Bitton is, that would negate their viewpoint from the perspective of determining consensus. However, this is not the case, so I self-reverted those bad edits. Closetside (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smallangryplanet’s last quip is ripe for WP:BOOMERANG. Smallangryplanet does not understand NPOV, which calls for placing less weight on biased sources for neutral characterizations. I never categorized pro-Israel sources like Arutz Sheva, The Jerusalem Post or the Times of Israel as neutral- that was a cast aspersion. Furthermore, EuroMed’s bias is obvious - it does not report on Palestinian human rights violations against Israelis. If this editor cannot recognize that, maybe they shouldn’t edit in PIA.

Finally, this editor is repeatedly guilty of quote mining sources to support a proposition, when the source either doesn’t state that proposition or states the opposite proposition. When another editor pointed this out on the active RfC Talk:Gaza genocide, they falsely accused them of casting aspersions. Additional evidence is on the RM for Talk:Shadia Abu Ghazala school massacre. Raskolnikov.Rev is guilty of this offence as well per the above RM, although let’s limit this discussion to two parties.Closetside (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It looks like Closetside has relatively well recognized that they need to stop both edit warring, and unilaterally changing article titles when it can reasonably be presumed that such a change will be controversial. So long as that behavior actually does stop (and I will note to Closetside that they are quite correct, it does need to stop), I don't see a need for any additional action here, and apparently over the course no one else has either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support closing with that informal warning. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Extorc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

AlvaKedak (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

After getting pinged by this editor above,[23] I found this editor to have been engaging in battleground mentality throughout this noticeboard, and as such, I am filing this report.

1. 13:59, 5 March 2025 - Files a frivolous report against another editor, thus misusing this noticeboard to get rid of his opponent.
2. 16:19, 5 March 2025 - Justifying his frivolous report even after he was told that it is frivolous
3. 17:31, 7 March 2025 - Even after realizing that his report will result in no action, he is throwing more personal attacks against another editor by degrading him; "user is not here to build Wikipedia by collaborating with other users but for a specific cause to push their "anti-Indian" pov or should I say trolling and IDHT in a contentious topic area".
4. 14:20, 13 March 2025 - After all of the above false accusations failed, he came up with a new baseless accusation; "This user is involved in WP:COI".
5. 20:45, 8 March 2025 - 20:45, 8 March 2025 ] - Jumped on an AE report against an editor with whom he never interacted, and cited months old diffs.
6. 11:28, 24 March 2025 - Not assuming good faith, and asking me "how you actually ended up here in AE?" when in fact I am editing this noticeboard for years.[24] He is still tying to get the editor sanctioned even after knowing that the reported editor is a blocked sock.
7. 16:27, 24 March 2025 - Trying to get the editor sanctioned by giving credence to the baseless concerns of an increasingly oppressive regime, even after knowing that it is apparently out to punish the reported editor.[25]
8. 18:08, 24 March 2025 - Still making efforts to get the editor sanctioned even when the admins are not convinced.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

[26]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

One can see the high frequency of WP:NPA and WP: BATTLEGROUND mentality from this editor, and that too when he is reporting others. I find this editor to be unfit to edit in this area. >>> Extorc.talk 17:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27]

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.

Uhhh... First an SPI and now this?

I found this editor to have been engaging in battleground mentality throughout this noticeboard

Complete misunderstanding. I have been involved in so far 3 AE reports out of which 1 was outrightly sanctioned [28] two above are unactionable due to legal issue and Sock OP (ImperialAficionado), and other because of the fauxopology and assurance to Velereee that they won't be doing any further damage [29] (Hu741f4). So I must ask which battleground mentality are you arguing about?

For the interaction part with IA you must have missed the part where I was involved in their initial ANI report [30] (EIU may not be always helpful). For my question regarding your AE comment, I'd naturally assume that if you're using EIU to file SPI report on WhitereaperPM then it makes zero chances for you to end up here. Last time you were here was in 2022, so as long as the AE noticeboard was not on your watchlist, I still find it hard to believe that you brought yourself here through EIU tool, that's all I meant.

This doesn't mention IA or any other editor, like some reports mentions Ratnahastin. I suppose I have explained the diffs accusations, if there is something I missed or if you need more explanation then please ask. AlvaKedak (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, I only wanted to bring problematic users here. If I don’t, then who will? Nevermind, I will back off from any reporting noticeboard—CTOPs are indeed a terrible place.[31]. Nevertheless, I can still edit elsewhere for now, so I can learn more about these topics in depth. AlvaKedak (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Very meta. Do we need to discuss behavior in other sections here in a new section when we're currently discussing it in the sections where it happened? Valereee (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @AlvaKedak, re: Uhhh... First an SPI and now this?: this is one of the reasons we recommend newer editors not jump straight into CTOPs. CTOPs is a terrible place to be making beginner errors. I highly, highly recommend once this is over, even if you emerge free to edit wherever you like, you go edit somewhere else while you learn more about WP:P&G. There must be something else you're interested in. Food? Movies? Video games? Books? Your hometown? Valereee (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh for Pete's sake. Are we really doing this? Reporting people to AE for their behaviour at AE? Specifically, filing a frivolous report at AE alleging the filing of frivolous reports at AE? Good grief. -- asilvering (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm thinking close unactioned unless another admin objects? Valereee (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good. -- asilvering (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 26 February - Reverted a long-standing lead. This happened when there was no consensus to accept his edits per discussion last year.
2. 26 February - Removed sourced content by misrepresenting the sources
3. 26 February - Removed sourced content even after knowing the lead has been discussed a big time
4. 26 February - Edit warring. Believes that the information can be discarded if the cited sources are "couple decades old".
5. 26 February - "these are blatant lies", see WP:NPA.
7. 27 February - Edit warring to retain his version without consensus.
8. 27 February - Making false claims such as "version you restored includes irrelevant points like 'the revival by Phule', that are hardly mentioned in the body of the article", when the version does include enough details about how Phule revived the legacy of Shivaji.
9. 27 February - Repeating himself and not understanding that he is using unreliable source. See WP:IDHT.
10. 27 February - "no excuse why you lied over there", see WP:NPA.
11. 27 February - Falsely claiming that the lead violates "MOS:INTRO", and is eager to "correct it according to WP:WEIGHT", instead of gaining consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

[32]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

While there are a number of behavioral, and competence issues with Akshaypatill, what I find bothersome is, that Akshaypatill came back after not editing for 23 days to wage edit war on multiple articles.[33]

He never edited the article on Sambhaji before.[34] The edits which he disputed here were added by several editors, but also by Ratnahastin.[35] On Shivaji, the lead was overhauled by Ratnahastin,[36] but Akshaypatill never made any objections to it when he was reverting there weeks ago.[37] Akshaypatill stopped editing after he responded to a report made by Ratnahastin at the beginning of this month.[38]

It becomes clear that Akshaypatill is becoming active only after Ratnahastin has stopped editing. It does not look good because he is exactly disputing the edits of Ratnahastin, thinking he is not around, and as such it might be easier to revert his edits now. This appears to be a clear case of WP:TE and WP:GRAVEDANCING. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rosguill: You are wrong on several points here. I am not failing to assume good faith or casting aspersions anywhere. The problems highlighted here are long-term with Akshaypatill, and he is committing them even after the warning. [39] Since you topic banned GA over a single misrepresentation on talk page (which he already acknowledged before the sanction) then you should think of a broad topic ban for Akshaypatill. Sources are analysed as per WP:RS. For example, the books from Sanjeev Sanyal and Vikram Sampath also have good reviews but we don't use them for sourcing. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Akshaypatill is now goading another editor by pointing out why how he is "new here, I would suggest you to get familiar with the policies and how we accord weight to content and how we decide whether to keep the content in question or not", without having been provoked by the next editor at all. Having already seen him doing that against GA last time on Talk:Sambhaji he is absolutely not learning how to edit on an already heated subject. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rosguill: This is the right place to discuss the conduct of other editors, as such, people should not face sanctions for proving evident Hindutva-based civil POV pushing from Akshaypatill. HowAkshaypatill's acknowledgment of the edit warring can be treated as authentic? He was reported initially for edit warring and other violations, for which he said "may look like edit warring, but it is not intentional [...] I promise I will be more mindful in my edits",[40] and then went back to restoring some of his reverts.[41][42] One cannot say that there was an "acknowledgement" of edit warring because if there was any, then Akshaypatill wouldn't have made the reverts again. These actions of Akshaypatill have only verified the credibility of this report. On both, Sambhaji and Shivaji, he is the only person (see WP:1AM) who is disputing reliably sourced content. Nobody else has restored his edits in either article. If you are going to describe my comments as a part of the failure of AGF, then you should review these examples. Most of these haven't been mentioned above:

• The removal of highly particular content on Sambhaji article,[43][44] with misleading edit summaries, that was first objected to by the Hindu nationalist government of India, the BJP. To justify his edits, Akshaypatill then cited a dubious source[45] who demanded not only the withdrawal of the concerning Oxford University Press-published book (a common tactic employed by Hindutva supporters to attack the scholars), but has also served the BJP's government over the subject of Shivaji.[46]
• Unnecessarily requested deletion of Nandini Sundar,[47] a critic of the BJP.[48]
• Edit warring and POV pushing on Muhammad Ghor,[49][50][51] which was later discussed on an ANI thread.[52] On talk page, he was pushing the same Hindutva POV;I hold that Islamic iconoclasm always has both a political and a religious dimension, that it was far more widespread than he allows, and that it is not just a phenomenon of the political frontier.[53] This is a revisionist Hindutva view of the Muslim history about which you can read at Persecution of Hindus#Historiography and distortion.
• Warned for edit warring, personal attacks, failure of AGF and wikihounding by Bishonen.[54][55]
• Removed references that were speaking about political propaganda being spread by the BJP with this movie.
• Added an unreliable source on Subhas Chandra Bose (appropriated by Hindutva supporters) to waterdown the lead[56] and then made multiple reverts to retain it.[57][58] He also filed a pointless DRN.[59] These actions of his were exhausting patience of other editors. Later on, he expressed his displeasure with the lead of this subject, though without any basis.[60] After he started to get responses from the interested editors, he would falsely accuse one to have been motivated to "disrupt the discussion".[61]
• Just like Bose, Shivaji is also appropriated by Hindutva supporters.[62] It has been observed for years by other editors, such as Fowler&Fowler,[63] Vanamonde93,[64], and others that Akshaypatill has been glorifying Shivaji. This type of addition only speaks of Hindutva-based POV pushing. Also see this outright whitewashing. That time too, he edit warred to retain his glorification of the subject.[65][66] Even after getting reverted by a total of 3-4 editors,[67] he would make a comeback after 1 month to restore his glorification of the subject.[68]

Nobody would doubt at this stage there is a prolonged pattern of Hindutva-based civil POV pushing from this editor. It will not benefit the encyclopedia that we are talking about warning this editor again and again (past warnings[69][70][71]) over the same editing pattern. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rosguill and Valereee: In the last few days, Akshaypatill wrongly added "failed verification"[72] tag to a sentence which he removed in the cited reverts before, despite the source completely verifies the information. After this report was archived, Akshaypatill went ahead to argue on Talk:Rajput, where I am having an ongoing dispute, despite having no previous history on this page.[73][74] On the talk page, he is using Lulu.com,[75] a well-known self-publisher, as a source. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Rosguill and Valereee: I would dispute that. The diffs I cited include edit warring (continued even after this report), falsification of sources, Hindutva POV pushing, use of self-published sources, and more. Such edits count as violations. Page blocks or topic ban was also proposed in the light of those diffs.[76] That said, warning me for filing this report does not make sense. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[77]

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.

@Valereee You are right. I crossed the lines there. I should be more careful with the choice of words and I will.

@Rosguill I always try to adhere to the policies. And I always start conversation on the talk page when there are some disputes. I agree, my edits on Shivaji, for especially the lead may look like edit warring, but it is not intentional. The lead is not according to the WP:LEAD at all. For example, there is a whole paragraph in the lead regarding the "Shivaji's service to the Mughal emperor". But it was actually a brief period between around 1667 and there is nothing notable happened in this period. A whole paragraph on it is WP:UNDUE. Almost 70% part of the whole body of the article is about Shivaji's struggle with the Mughal emperor and other powers, while the lead gives an impression that Shivaji was working for them. You also saw it with Phule part. It is also WP:UNDUE.

This [[78]] is the version of lead I was talking about, which was written mostly by MatthewVanitas which aptly summarizes the body of the article. It was in place since 2016 till a few months ago when someone changed it. The article was also contested for Good Article review back then.

Anyways, I promise I will be more mindful in my edits and my choice of words. Also, I apologize to the @GenuineArts for the 'blatant lie' comment. Thanks.

@Valereee Just to clarify about the Capitals00's latest comment, I have no idea what Capitals00 is referring to. There could be some misunderstanding, as none of those edits on B. R. Ambedkar are mine. Honestly, I don't even remember participating in discussion on talk page of B. R. Ambedkar ever. I have been making time out of my busy schedule to contribute on Wiki and none of my edits are without reliable source or a valid policy based argument. The accusation of taking advantage of absence of Ratnahastin is really upsetting and disheartening for me.

This actually should be discussed on the talk page, but I think I should clear my stand. Whether Shivaji was illiterate or not is a debatable topic and Historians have varying opinions. Moreover, the Capitals00 hasn't established the notability of the letter, because the letter is not historically significant at all. It's just a man thanking another, which We have already mentioned in the previous sentence in the article. We have thousands of letter regarding Shivaji, if we decide to allow them, the article will be in a mess. The quote from the letter is clearly a WP:UNDUE. And I am not making the 'claim', it's a reliable source that says that this letter is written by Udiraj Munshi and Udiraj Munshi wasn't serving Shivaji. If Shivaji wanted to write a letter, he would have asked his own people and not one from the people which were at war with him recently. I would request Capitals00 to continue this on the talk page of the article rather than here, as it just wastes time of the Admins.

@Rosguill Let me explain as there are many misunderstandings here. At Sambhaji, I was bringing attention to the new research by scholars like Dr. Pawar and Mehendale that is in contrasts with the older views. I never have said anywhere that older sources are not reliable. Instead I was asking more emphasis on Mehendele and Pawar because they goes deeper into the matter, unlike the other sources, which are mostly passing remarks on the matter. Also, about the quotes in Shivaji, what you are missing is context. The other quote, which I had supported, was in section of Shivaji's 'Religious Policy'. The letter provided glimpse into the secular nature of Shivaji's policies and how he urged Aurangzeb to treat everyone equal irrespective of the subject's religion. As Gordon say's, Shivaji didn't wanted to create a Hindu nation as believed by propagators of Hindutva. His policies were secular. The current letter which Capitals00 want to include does not provide any such insight. It is just plain thanking letter. For that Sarcar's quote, the book is not available on Google Books to preview. I have scanned copy of it and I can provide you with it, if you want to have a look. Also, Gordon haven't quoted the letter in his book as you have cited. Moreover, you again wrong when you say I am deemphasizing the Shivaji's correspondence with Aurangzeb, while a good chunk of that part of body is written by me using the Gordon's book and some other scholarly work as the source. Without any intention to disrespect you, I would say, most of this is content related and you not being much familiar with the subjects, I am afraid, your judgement is being affected by it. Also, regarding the OpIndia's diff, check out Valereee's comment below. Thanks. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill Pinging again, because I think I made a mistake in pinging in the above comment. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill Okay. Let me explain it again. First, most of the 'Religious Section' in the article body is written by me and I have given more weight to Stewart N. Gordon because he has went deep into the matter and he is expert of Maratha history. Moreover, the book is published by a reputed publication like Cambridge University. But that quote was already there, it was not added by me. You can see it here- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shivaji&oldid=1007855347#Religious_policy. It was there before I actively started editing the article. When I rewrote that section using Gordon as the source, I did not remove it, because it was complementing Gordon's views and gave glimpse into the secular religious policies of Shivaji as opposed to the Hindutva ideologist who want to portray Shivaji as symbol of Hindutva, while the truth is, it was just coincidence that all the opponent rulers at the Shivaji's time were Muslims. Shivaji didn't oppose them because they were Muslims, but because he wanted self rule. I would suggest reading that quote from the link above, it will help you understand my argument. It's all about context. Now the letter which Capitals00's want to include has nothing of such significance. It is simply a thanking letter from Shivaji to Aurangzeb and I would argue it is being added out of context. Now, regarding the 'recent source that states this side-by-side', I think you are again misunderstanding. The book you cited above is written by Gordon and I am certainly sure that he doesn't have quoted the letter. Now about the lead. You are misunderstanding it here too. The struggle between Shivaji and Aurangzeb was going on for a long time. In between this long period, for a brief amount of time Shivaji accepted vassalage of Aurangzeb due to adversity. But most of the other time, they were fighting against each other. Now if you read the lead, the lead only focuses on that short period of vassalage while ignoring the long period where they were fighting each other.

I wouldn't argue on the edit warring part as I think I may have crossed lines a few times, but I can confidently say that all of them were to make the articles better and more reliable and not in some ill intentions. Thanks. Akshaypatill (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, Valereee This is regarding the accusation of POV pushing by Koshuri Sultan. Let me explain. As you can see in the article itself[[79]], Shivaji signed Treaty of Purandar on 11 June 1665 and accepted vassalage of Mughals. on 12 May 1666, Shivaji was made to stand at court alongside low-ranking nobles, whome he had already defeated, so he revolted in open court of Aurangzeb and was put in jail soon. On 17 August 1666 he escaped from the jail and went in hiding.[[80]]. So, there was really a brief duration for which he actually worked under Mughals. Two years later, in 1668 Aurengzeb restored some of Shivaji's rights and his son's rank. Soon again, the peace broke down again in the fall of 1669 and Shivaji launched rapid attacks to recover the lost forts in his claimed territories. Now compare this brief period of time with the length of the Shivaji's career. So, basically, the event itself is definitely significant, but the weight which is being given to the matter is clearly WP:UNDUE. Also, there in no weight given to the aftermath of the event, like how Shivaji took back his forts soon in the lead. (For example, we have a dedicated section of this reconquest[[81]], but there is no mention of such in the lead.) Meanwhile, even the thanking letters of that vassalage periods are being quoted as is in the body of the article, which aren't even significant. There is a lot of WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION problems in the article.

@Rosguill, Valereee Pinging again. Not sure, but I guess I again made a mistake while pinging in the above comment (forgot to sign the comment). Akshaypatill (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding the Koshuri Sultan's latest comment that says the 'Shivaji worked for the Mughals even before the battle of Purandar', for which they doesn't provide any source or reference. And I believe they are wrong here. As Mehta put it - Prince Aurangzeb, then the Mughal viceroy of the Deccan, was at war with Bijapur in 1657. Shivaji took his first jump into the national politics by offering his assistance to the Mughals against Bijapur in return for the recognition of his integrity as the legal ruler of the Bijapuri territories under his control. On the receipt of an evasive reply from Aurangzeb, Shivaji lost no time in taking up cudgels on behalf of Bijapur. He put Aurangzeb to embarrassment by organizing a raid on the southwestern border of the Mughal Deccan.

First, there is difference between 'working under/for someone' and 'offering assistance to someone'. And most important factor here, in this case, the offered assistance didn't even materialized into a ally due to Aurangzeb's evasive response. Akshaypatill (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, @Valereee, I would like to bring your attention to few instances involving Abhishek0831996. I hadn't interacted with Abhishek0831996 before this, so I thought these instances to be normal, but after reading Fowler&fowler's comment about Abhishek0831996 and how some editors tries to get others blocked[82], now I guess they are more than that.

1) They accused me of taking advantage of Ratnahastin's absence [83], which is not true, as I was their due to the recent controversy.

2) They tried to frame me for goading, when all I was doing was guiding the new user and encouraging him to read Wiki policies- [84] You already have seen that.

3) They tried to involve another admin by providing them with some 3 years old mention.[85] Actually, back then, the matter was cleared by the very admin as not problematic - ...the involved editors do seem to be discussing mostly sources and content and (again at a quick glance) appear to be open to compromise. [86]

Also some recent editing related behaviors-

1) Abhishek0831996 made a claim[87], which was incorrect, so I asked for a source[[88], but they never replied with a source. They came back a few days later, only to make more claims, most of which are again incorrect or misinterpretations. [89]

2) Now the latest. I had added 'verification failed' tag because the source doesn't say the claimed sentence the way it is written, it is very vague/ambiguous at best and I am pretty confident that the interpretation is incorrect. But Abhishek0831996 reverted it without addressing the issues.[90] I have cited multiple sources that confirms that Shivaji was independent since long time. The body mentions exactly when he became a vassalage, that is after the treaty. But he still adamnat on that vague lines and still interpreting it incorrectly.

Now, I believe I am being tried under the same methodology, as mentioned by Fowler&fowler. And it's not just the issue of WP:AGF, but the way they are dealing with my edits and their talk page responses and the way they are trying to get me banned, it all feels like total harassments at this point. Akshaypatill (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin, which 'preferred' lead exactly? It's totally written by another editor Mohammad Umar Ali, which is really good summary of the body, though there are problems but they can be corrected. There isn't anything "preferred". The disputed content is still there, and even this editor has acknowledged the problem Koshari and Abhishek had been ignoring. I think, I should be the one who should be complaining about preferred versions, which contains twisted text from sources like changing "could claim" to "claimed" and the WP:UNDUE weight given to the Rajput Jai Singh's period. Akshaypatill (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnhastin, you exactly said I restored a 'preferred' version, which is not true at all. I know the body of the article and the lead written by Mohammad Umar Ali was really good summary of it. There wasn't anything preferred. He hadn't removed the disputed content, he just added new content from the body, which was very much due. And I would suggest you to read WP:AGF. I didn't realise the copyvio (actually, now when I see it, it wasn't blatant copy paste, but he could have done it a lot better), else I would have removed it myself. Did you say I purposefully allowed a copyvio despite knowing it? Akshaypatill (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user was warned with a topic ban about 3 years ago for failing to abide by the consensus process.[91] In 2023, I had thought of reporting him over his edit warring to whitewash the page of fake news OpIndia.[92][93] Even after making reverts, he made no presence on talk page.[94] What is happening today is simply a continuation of the long-term Hindutva POV pushing from this user. Capitals00 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Let me provide you more insights. There was no ongoing dispute on Shivaji when Akshaypatill began to remove sourced content. In the last 10 days, nobody else appears to have edit warred on Sambhaji except Akshaypatill.[95] There do appear to be cases where editors are taking advantage of the apparent disappearance of Ratnahastin. See this one more recent example, despite the multiple discussions over the same sentence between this editor and Ratnahastin,[96][97] from more than 1 month ago. Capitals00 (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this warning "indicates "long-term" problems is from over three years ago, and that's three years in which the editor made fewer than 100 edits, the vast majority of them in the past few weeks at either Shivaji or Sambhaji or their talks," however, it is also clear that Akshaypatill has not provided enough indications to prove any change in his approach. During that period we also saw indefensible edits like this and this. Capitals00 (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Check again. The source does mention Opindia.com to have embraced the form of "trolling and fake news".[98] The entire article version of that time also described how OpIndia is spreading fake news. The fact that Akshaypatill is still defending his edit above shows there are indeed long-term issues with his editing. Capitals00 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill and Valereee: Even after making apologetic statements following this report, Akshaypatill is now continuing the edit war by removing the same quote over which he had already made 2 reverts on 26 - 27 February.[99][100] His explanation that "as the admin clarifies here [[101]], We don't include lengthy quotes in Wikipedia articles."[102] is not making sense because the comment, he is citing as the basis, actually concerned a quote which is more than 210 words, while the one he is removing is just 74 words.

On the talk page, he claims that the letter was also removed because it "was actually written by Udiraj Munshi".[103] First of all, Shivaji was illiterate, and that's why he couldn't write any letters. Secondly, if Akshaypatill wants to maintain the standard that "did not write = no responsibility," then I wonder why was he restoring this letter, by ignoring this discussion, when it was also not written by Shivaji himself.

His another recent removal is reflecting his other 2 reverts. He removed a source by describing it as "unreliable", when it is not unreliable, and the publisher has no particular political motivation. It has been cited by dozens of scholarly sources,[104][105], and the information is not even controversial but is already backed with more reliable sources.

His recent message above completely falsifies what I said. It confirms there are more WP:CIR issues. I was only saying there are cases where editors are targeting the edits of Ratnahastin after his apparent disappearance. I did not say they are all one person, contrary to what Akshaypatill is claiming. I also did not say Akshaypatil edited Talk:B. R. Ambedkar.

I am sure this rampant falsification and edit warring from Akshaypatill leave no doubt regarding this AE report. Capitals00 (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After having watched the talk page discussion for days, I would say AkshayPatill appears to be engaging in POV pushing to remove the letter that portrays Shivaji as subservient to the Mughals [106] This follows their earlier removal of content from the lead that showed Shivaji's service to the Mughals [107]. In both cases, they are either stonewalling or finding any reason to get that part removed by calling it not notable despite the letter being relevant to the preceding passage, and the fact that Shivaji was serving Mughals [108] even before the Battle of Purandar. Koshuri ^(グ) 06:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AkshayPatill has ignored my argument where Shivaji worked for the Mughals even before the battle of Purandar. He was the one who provided Aurangzeb (viceroy of Deccan at the time) with passage to invade the sultanate of Bijapur, he provided his service there and when Aurangzeb left to fight for the throne, Shivaji conquered territories in the name of Mughals. AkshayPatill is completely ignoring the early career of Shivaji, which was mostly serving the Mughal rulers. The Mughal emperor regarded Shivaji as a rebel zamindar because he was not very loyal as proven by the fact that he would engage in hostilities from time to time. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done anything wrong by simply bringing the diffs that show concerning behaviour of Akshaypatill. Valereee is correct that Akshaypatill is engaging in sealioning which is becoming difficult for other editors. Now after these findings, it seems that he has been repeating the same misbehavior for years, even after warnings. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill The last AE was filed over his edit war on Shivaji, and this report is filed over one of those reasons, but now with additional evidence, one can see this is going on for a longer period. None of that had to happen given he edit warred on Shivaji for years, and had sufficient inputs even over his use of Gajanan Mehendale as a source, where experienced editors including admin RegentsPark told him not to use this source.[109][110][111] Yet he is using this source  even today.[112] I cannot think of any justification for that. Last year,[113] he was raking up his dispute over the lead, and apparently misrepresented Vanamonde93. 

Ideologically motivated editing is simply not  compatible with the standards of Wikipedia. Akshaypatill has been doing it for years regarding articles that are highly prone to ideologically motivated Hindutva editing, and is still not listening to the inputs and warnings he had until now. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other than some inadvertent mistakes (example "lying", which may be unintentional miscommunication - they may have meant that source was incorrect), mostly looks like a content dispute. I think the editors should continue discussion of the content on the talk page. Don't understand why the content is being discussed here. Just my 2 cents.LukeEmily (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed my name mentioned here in some previous context involving Askhaypatill. I don't remember the context and only vaguely remember Akshaypatill causing heartache.

I want to say, though, that WP:Civil POV pushing has become quite the norm in South Asia-related topics. Editors who engage in it are careful not to cross the lines themselves but keep tabs on other editors. When these others become impatient with what would have been called (Civil) meatpuppetry in the old days, they quickly report them to the powers-that-be. Unfortunately, I have found the reporting editor Abhishek0831996 very much in such a group. Their editing history at Indian National Army and Mahatma Gandhi gave me pause for thought, as did that of Capital00 on Gandhi and Azuredivay (who is not here) on the INA (where eventually I had to ask folks at RS/N to help out). I thought at first they were part of a cohort in high school or colleagues in an office doing this for hijinks, but I could not find a theme of dogma or bias. These editors report other editors for what are often superficial but easily punishable forms of offense, but they get away with bias or collusion that prove harder to identify and slippery for punishing. I'm not saying that Abhishek* or Capital00 are in the wrong, but admins should perhaps consider how often these editors report others at AE or ANI. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After having been reported for 1RR violation earlier, and continued edit warring even during this report, Akshaypatill is still reverting to his preferred version of lead without gaining consensus. This time, he did not just reject the request to self-revert,[114] but restored a version so carelessly that he did not even check that it has close paraphrasing issues.[115] Ratnahastin (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Akshaypatill: This board is for behavioral issues, not about those related to content. Yes it has been written by another editor who ended up making a copyvio that required revdeletion, but by restoring it you have taken responsibility for it. It is problematic that you are not taking responsibility for your edits. Your continued edit warring in spite of this report and the previous one is problematic on an article with 1RR remedy, especially when the content you restored has copyright issues, the issue you have about "glorified and WP:UNDUE" content is not a behavioural issue, work towards a consensus on talkpage for that. Ratnahastin (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have yet to review the provided diffs in detail, but I will note off the bat that accusing an editor who has about 2,500 edits over the course of 7 years of tendentious behavior because they didn't edit for 21 days seems like a stretch. Taking a break after getting hauled to AE seems like an understandable human thing to do, and it's worth noting that Akshaypatill's response to that AE thread was exemplary, to such a degree that Ratnahastin actually withdrew the complaint. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Assessment of evidence in initial complaint:

1. Akshaypatil's edit at Shivaji seems poorly-justified; I can't even identify which prior revision they reverted to. The material removed was attested in the body, so their edit summary doesn't really justify their change, nor does the state of the talk page at the time of the edit justify it Special:Permalink/1277173260.
2. This edit seems like it's in a gray area. Both of the cited sources appear to refer to the sack of Goa in 1688, which is the basis of Akshaypatill's argument that this is "one incident". The quoted text from the sources suggests that rape by Sambhaji's forces was widespread at the sack of Goa, which complicates but does not entirely refute the "one incident" claim. Unhelpfully for us, the second cited source suggests that this behavior was typical of Maratha forces--on the one hand, this suggests that this was not an isolated incident; on the other, it suggests that this behavior was not unique to Sambhaji, raising WP:DUE questions and undermining some of the other claims in the article at the time.
3. Another borderline edit. There's some merit in arguing that Akshaypatill should have expected pushback and not made that edit at that time. That having been said, they made arguments clearly justifying the edit on the talk page 2 hours prior.
4. Very similar to the above, although in this case both the repetition and the timing cross over into more clearly unacceptable edit warring. Edit warring against a bad argument is still edit warring.
5. I dislike it when editors accuse each other of lying outright, but in this case GenuineArt did pretty severely misrepresent the source that they brought to the table. I would have been willing to assume ignorance or haste on their part, but they doubled down when I asked them about it, and I issued a topic-ban as a result because yeah, they were tendentiously misrepresenting information to a point that "blatant lies" is not much of an exaggeration. I would generally expect editors to do a better job of assuming good faith than Akshaypatill did in that comment, but GenuineArt went on to clearly demonstrate that they were not, in fact, here in good faith.
6. This is edit warring. The status quo is muddled, as at this point in the fight both sides have invokedlast good without clearly identifying what they're referring to. Akshaypatill is more active in the edit war than their opponents at this point in time, so that further makes them look bad.
7. This argument seems to be within editorial discretion. Phule is mentioned in the article body, but briefly, so it's fair game to argue that this isn't WP:DUE for the lead.
8. Akshaypatill's arguments here are valid: the Oxford Bibliographies endorsement is a strong argument in favor of citing Mehandale, arguably the strongest presented in defense of any source in the bibliography thus far. The counterargument at this time is limited to relatively weak sources asserting that Mehandale is favored by Hindutva ideologues/activists/publications, without reference to academic sources or to any response to the Oxford Bibliographies review; not a particularly compelling argument. The accusation here borders on tendentiousness.
9. Again thelying, but in this case GenuineArt was in an even deeper hole and trying to argue that they were not aware of CTOPs despite clearly being aware of them.
10. I'm not seeing any problem here other than the assertionSo I am going to correct it..., which would be edit warring at this point in time. However, no subsequent edits to Shivaji have been made, so there was no continuation of the edit war. Otherwise, Akshaypatill's arguments are within the realm of editorial discretion for a discussion of what goes in the lead.

I think I need some time to think over what remedies are appropriate in light of the above. Akshaypatill has engaged in some edit warring, but the attempts to demonstrate tendentiousness and civility breaches beyond that fall flat, and in a few cases themselves cross into the realm of tendentiousness. I would appreciate further admin input on sanctions; very tentatively, I think that perhaps either a 1RR or at most a temporary pageblock (but not talk page block) restriction from Shivaji and Sambhaji might be warranted for Akshaypatill, and a logged warning for failing to assume good faith and casting aspersions for Abhishek0831996. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the additional diffs provided by Capitals00 demonstrate concerning behavior by Akshaypatill. In particular, the double standard regarding the two letters from Shivaji seems like POV-pushing to emphasize Shivaji's anti-Mughal actions and de-emphasize his collaboration with the same. There's still some wiggle room provided by Akshaypatill's argument that the provenance of the letter is clarified by J. Sarkar's House of Shivaji: Studies and documents of Maratha History, but this argumentation leaves much to be desired: the argument does not provide a clear quote from that piece supporting their claims, nor does it note that the Sarkar book is from 1955 whereas sources supporting mention of the letter are more recent, such as Gordon 1993, and does not engage with the coverage in the more recent source to explain why the direct mention of Shivaji's correspondence with Aurangzeb is insufficient for establishing a due mention. This omission is further galling when we remember that at Talk:Sambhaji, Akshaypatill has been arguing that even sources published 20-30 years ago are outdated and worth discarding entirely in favor of more recent scholarship. I don't think these are CIR issues--this looks like civil POV-pushing, and on that basis I'm now thinking that a topic-ban from Indian politics and history is warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akshaypatill, I'm realizing I misunderstood part of the situation concerning the inclusion of the letter text, as I had focused on the edits to the lead here and didn't realize that there were also edits to various sections, and had not read the quote text. I think that the question of including block quotes of the letters is within editorial discretion. I'm still troubled by the edit warring and the argument that Shivaji didn't write a letter without engaging with the recent source that states this side-by-side with the other arguments in favor of including letters by Shivaji, which seems to motivate questions of inclusion/exclusion of details in the lead. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akshaypatill, I think you partially misread my comment--I meant to impart that the argument that Shivaji didn't personally write a letter was deployed side by side with supporting the inclusion of another letter attributed to Shivaji, not that the source mentions these things side by side. But the clarification that this discussion was purely about the inclusion of a quote in the body, and not also weight in the lead, means that the argument isn't tendentious, so my concern regarding that argument has been addressed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996, what exactly do you think was inappropriate about thegoading diff? Akshaypatill seems to be giving accurate advice to an editor who is in fact new, and who does not appear to have been providing sources to back their claims, and who frankly has a username that makes it rather hard to assume entirely good faith in the current broader context of fights over Sambhaji. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally unimpressed by the evidence brought against Akshaypatill that simply provide examples of edits that align with a purported view. This is not enough to justify a sanction. To justify sanctions here, it must be demonstrated that the edits are consistently in violation of policies, guidelines, and/or blatantly disrespectful of other editors they are working with. Other than the edit warring, which Akshaypatill has already apologized for, I'm not seeing such evidence. Given that the quality of evidence brought against Akshaypatill seems to be diminishing at this point, I think we should bring this to a close. My current thoughts are that, with Akshaypatill's acknowledgment of the edit warring, we're either in logged warning or 1RR territory for Akshaypatill, and warnings for Capitals00, Abhishek0831996 and Koshuri Sultan regarding AGF and the standard of evidence expected to justify editing sanctions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just been thinking the other editors need to adjust, too.

I am sympathetic to issues of wp:sealioning, and it's possible that's what's going on with Akshaypatill's editing. But between the walls of text here, the throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks, and the not-very-compelling diffs, I'm just not seeing it. At least not clearly/yet.

I do understand how frustrating it is that sealioning is difficult to prove and tedious to assess. I would like to at least warn Akshaypatill that this seems to be what the editors you're working with at these articles think they're seeing, and if it does become clear that's happening, for me that's an automatic indefinite partial block from a particular article and its talk. Valereee (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996, you've gone significantly over the word limit with your most recent comments. At a glance, you don't seem to have taken on board the criticism that you need to demonstrate how the edits are tendentious in Wikipedia terms: it is not enough to present a handful of diffs that can be construed to align with a viewpoint, you must demonstrate how such edits were undermining/ignoring/disrespecting existing consensus and other editing best practices. To a point, I think you're putting the cart before the horse with arguments likeTo justify his edits, Akshaypatill then cited a dubious source [Mehendale]--the jury is still out on whether Mehendale is a reliable source in this context. If, after further discussion, there is a resounding consensus that Mehendale is totally beyond the pale and Akshaypatill refused to acknowledge that this was a consensus view then it would be problematic argumentation and edits on their part. Your arguments that Mehendale is not reliable belong on the article talk page and/or other content discussion forums, not here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koshuri Sultan, this goes for you too. Pointing at a diff that contains a dozen of scattershot allegations with varying degrees of evidence and sayingNow after these findings, it seems that he has been repeating the same misbehavior for years, even after I identified that the diff in question is both out of process and not particularly solid argumentation, is tendentious. All of you need to drop this shotgun approach to AE and limit yourselves to calling out examples of misbehavior that are unambiguous. Your failure to differentiate between edits you simply disagree with and edits that actually violate Wikipedia policy is a problem that scuttles your complaints here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koshuri Sultan, your latest comment is more of the same. "Disagreeing with Tranga Bellam [or other experienced editor] on a source's reliability" is not a sanctionable offense. The diff from Regents Park further expresses ambiguity as to when and where Mehendale may be appropriate to cite. TB's arguments raised against Mehendale are valid for you or other editors to raise on a talk page in opposition to Akshaypatill's arguments in favor, but they are not a clear and established consensus that is tendentious to ignore (much less several years after the fact). It may be that Mehendale's work is overdue for discussion at RSN or an RfC so that we can establish such a consensus, but this remains to be done.

The diff regardingapparently misrepresented Vanamonde93 doesn't seem to show Akshaypatill misrepresenting Vanamonde93--Vanamonde93 appears to have made a vague statement, whose interpretation Akshaypatill and Padfoot disagreed on, but both readings seem plausible. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Akshaypatill, saying another editor is lying is not okay. It is okay to say "That is not correct" or "That is not true" or "That is not what the sources say". You cannot say, "That is a lie." Do you understand the difference? I'm happy to explain further if this just sounds like semantics, but there is a very real difference and you do need to understand it. Valereee (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, @Rosguill, I find it not unreasonable that GA, who has only 2400 edits over ten years and in 2024 didn't edit at all, could possibly completely forget something they did five years ago which wasn't even called the same thing back then. It's such a silly thing to intentionally lie about -- so easy to disprove -- that I'm inclined to accept that explanation. (Which, btw, Akshaypatill, is one of the reasons we don't call people liars for saying something that isn't true: it's possible they're simply mistaken.) Valereee (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that that part is plausible, but the way that they have tried to wikilawyer over it (as well as other aspects of the issue) and their continued inability to admit fault or drop the stick of attacking their perceived opponents put them deep into “AGF is not a suicide pact” territory. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't disagree. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Akshaypatill, we don't actually deal with content disputes here, only behavior. Unless another editor is incorrectly interpreting a source intentionally or from lack of competence, which are behavior issues, it probably isn't relevant here. The two of you may disagree over things like whether "there is difference between 'working under/for someone' and 'offering assistance to someone'", but the place to discuss that is somewhere along the WP:Dispute resolution process. Valereee (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Abhishek0831996, you appear to be doubling down on the accusations of bad faith regarding the timing of their edits somehow rising to the level of some sort of stalking of Ratna or of gravedancing, etc. Half of India has showed up at Sambhaji in the last two weeks, and almost none of them had ever edited it before. And this is an editor who regularly goes weeks or months between edits, and that warning you're referencing in your most recent reply that indicates "long-term" problems is from over three years ago, and that's three years in which the editor made fewer than 100 edits, the vast majority of them in the past few weeks at either Shivaji or Sambhaji or their talks. Valereee (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Abhishek0831996, that didn't feel like goading to me. It's a brand new editor in a CTOP. Valereee (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Capitals00, we don't generally get into content here, but to address the behavioral aspect of the issue in the context of your description of a particular content removal being "indefensible": to me the removal of "Fake news" from an infobox parameter "type of media" doesn't look "indefensible". If I were editing an article about a media provider I'd want to see multiple RS saying the equivalent of "X is a fake news website" to use that in the infobox. Using such a categorization in an infobox is an extremely strong statement in Wikivoice that to me intends to convey something along the lines of "The majority of experts agree X publishes almost exclusively fake news." There's a single source cited for that inclusion in the infobox, and that source doesn't even quote what that source said. Valereee (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Capitals00, again, not getting into content, just behavior: the fact a source says a site includes "trolling and fake news", while valid for including that content in the article, it does not necessarily support inclusion in an infobox that a site is a fake news website. Those are two different things. Which means removing that from the infobox is not necessarily a behavioral issue. Valereee (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fowler&fowler, noted. I am very interested in sealioning, and I do see the issue from both sides. Please keep us updated. Valereee (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valereee and Rosguill: This was archived by the bot without a closure. Can this be hatted as no action? (I haven't read it all.) - JensonSL (SilverLocust) 06:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ugh, sorry...that would have been an oversight, although I'm not sure either of us was sure what was happening. F&F's characterising the interactions among multiple editors as sealioning is credible. I'm wondering about maybe a logged warning for what looks like sealioning for Ashkaypatill, but honestly I'm not sure they all aren't doing the same thing, and I feel like the next time any of these editors shows up here, they should do it with zero diffs that are not compelling and strictly enforced 500 words for all, exceptions granted only for the accused. So maybe we need to unarchive and close it that way? Valereee (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Akshaypatill needs a logged warning for edit warring, and that Capitals00, Abhishek0831996 and Koshuri Sultan need logged warnings for failing to assume good faith. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I've unarchived this case, which had been archived unclosed, so Akshaypatill, @Abhishek0831996, @Koshuri Sultan, @Capitals00 are aware. Valereee (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Fowler&fowler, LukeEmily also commented. Valereee (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My impression of Abhishek's most recent complaints is that they once again fail to rise to the level of evidence of disruption necessary to warrant sanctions. The failed verification concern has been further discussed on the talk page and seems to be a matter within editorial discretion: the cited statementThe exact status of these lands was ambiguous because of the abrupt departure of Aurangzeb for the north. Bijapur, by the peace treaty of 1657, had ceded to the Mughals all territory it had conquered from Ahmadnagar. This included the northern half of the Konkan coast; there was no time, however, to set up an administration. Shivaji could, therefore, claim that he was seizing the territory in the name of the Mughals, on the basis of his offer to serve them does not unambiguously translate toShivaji conquered territories ceded by Bijapur in the name of the Mughals. The current article text that Akshaypatill disputed erases ambiguity that is contained in the cited source; perhaps the current text is still appropriate and can be supported by additional RS, but it is within editorial discretion for Akshaypatill to argue that this phrasing fails verification. The argument at Rajput seems underdeveloped, but it seems thatDr. Sanjeevkumar Tandle is being presented by Akshaypatill as a relevant expert; perhaps that's poorly supported and can be disputed in discussion (I don't see any Google Scholar evidence immediately supporting that they are an influential scholar), but that is a content question that must be decisively resolved before it can be determined that merely citing Tandle is tendentious. Once again, you have put the cart before the horse andfailed to differentiate between edits you simply disagree with and edits that actually violate Wikipedia policy. I am extremely close to recommending further sanctions for this battlegrounding waste of time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a logged warning along the lines of 'Abhishek0831996 is warned against bringing inappropriate diffs to AE'? My feeling is that at 7K edits they should understand the relevant policy, or they shouldn't be presenting evidence at AE. Valereee (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would phrase it as frivolous complaints (and/or "battleground behavior" if we want to be less juridical and more wikipedian) rather than "inappropriate diffs", since there's nothing wrong with the diffs per se, they just do not comprise in themselves evidence of foul play. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was what I was trying to get at, 'frivolous complaints' is much better! Valereee (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, @Valereee, reminder ping about this before it slides off the board again. -- asilvering (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JayCubby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Qhairun (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/Palestine-Israel_articles_5#Balanced_editing_restriction

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

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greece%E2%80%93Palestine_relations&oldid=1155950993 21 May 2023] First edit to PIA as far as I can tell, the previous ones were to non-PIA articles such as nipple stimulation, Timeline of the Cold War, and Malaysian politicians.
2. As of late, Qhairun is mostly (almost exclusively in fact) editing in A/I areas, and the rate of edits is increasing per Xtools.

• 31 March of this year: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kidnapping_of_Mia_Schem&diff=prev&oldid=1283240038 -- cites Israeli site of unknown reliablility and Mia Schem, and Al Bawaba, which doesn't appear to be terribly reliable. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_355#CounterPunch_and_Al_Bawaba.
• Use of deprecated Iranian source, 8 March: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Israel%E2%80%93Lebanon_ceasefire_agreement&diff=prev&oldid=1279530072

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 8 November P-blocked 24 hours from page moves for move-warring

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 the same day, 8 November 2024, by @Isabelle Belato:
• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct (in this case, misleading edit summaries, in the area of conflict several times 21-22 February by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict,
  • YYes on 8 November 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• n/a, I think all I've needed to say has been said. JayCubby 01:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • Doing... JayCubby 14:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the ping. Should have more time to respond tomorrow, but I assure you gaming is not at all my intention. JayCubby 03:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qhairun&diff=prev&oldid=1283361989

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.

My apologies, sorry took a long time to respond. Honestly, I’ll take responsibility for my mistakes. I’m sorry that the sources that I edited on were unreliable and I’m sorry for the misunderstanding of the term “added links” previously. Qhairun (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC) moving to correct section Valereee (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think any sanctions are not required because the filer did not provide enough evidences or explain how sanctions are necessary.

1. First provided diff is two years old.

2. Editing in A/I areas, or the rate of increasing edits, is not an issue or grant any sanctions.

3. 3rd diff is accurate, as the added source is unreliable, which was discussed at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_355. I think Qhairun might not be aware of this discussion or about the unreliability of the source.

The only issues I can see with the contributions of Qhairun are that he doesn't use accurate edit summaries; he was twice warned for using misleading edit summaries.

He violated WP:3RR at November 2024 Amsterdam riots.

The Main problem I've found is that user don't like to answer any talk page discussions; he might not be interested in answering or has a language barrier. IAmAtHome (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @JayCubby: You have not presented any evidence of misconduct. While the BER does have a lower evidentiary standard than other sanctions, merely observing that an editor is increasingly active in the area is not grounds for sanction. The standard isa finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive. Please present evidence of disruptive or at least conflict-prone editing, or this request will be summarily closed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with Tamzin here. All of these examples are stale. If there isn't a relevant case presented in two days, I think this complaint should be closed as being baseless. Also, JayCubby, please keep your comments in your own section. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @JayCubby: Is that it?? Adding a statement cited to two sources that might not be that reliable? No evidence that this is part of a pattern of behavior, no evidence that they were warned and doubled down. Given the 60 hours it took you to post this after commenting "Doing...", it's hard to escape the impression that, after being told you needed evidence when you take someone to AE, you then went digging until you could find something a little bad—which would be sanctionable gamesmanship if true. So I would like you to explain, please, what exactly it is that made you think admin intervention is needed regarding this user's edits. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Another promise to explain why this completely evidence-less AE thread was brought, and another day gone by with no such explanation. I am always patient with editors who simply don't log on every day or are busy, but JayCubby has been actively editing throughout all this, including 20 edits since his most recent message here. @JayCubby: This is the last chance I'm going to give you: If you continue to edit without answering the question I posed above, I will be closing this with a logged warning against you for misuse of AE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• JayCubby, you need to get the case together before you open a case. If you're busy IRL, wait until you have time to get your diffs together. Very little at AE is urgent. Qhairun, I see you have never responded to a single concern expressed on your user talk. Responding to concerns is necessary, and especially when you're working in contentious topics. Valereee (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Johnadams11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Smallangryplanet (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

1. Edits the lead of the 10/7 Hamas Attack Article to delete language that had been in the Article for more than six months. His edit comment provides no justification for the removal and employs language that is highly suggestive of bias.

2. In an RfC concerned with how the Gaza bombing is compared to WWII bombings, he provides links to several sources and statesthe content in the article and the cited sources refers to the level of destruction of the WW2 bombings, not their casualties. However in two of these sources [116][117],the comparison is made specifically to emphasize the importance of the casualty count -- essentially the opposite of what was represented.

3. In a debate with another editor about “war crimes” being classified as an “attack type," he claims that articles on the My Lai Massacre, 2002 Mombasa Attacks, and Armenian Genocide, havehave multiple items, some of them not, under the strictest of definitions, an "attack type". However, of the nine attack types across those articles, one one (“genocide”) was not inarguably an attack type.

4. Updates the total Gaza casualty count to 70K, using a Lancet estimate that is seldom or never presented in the absence of the number published by Gaza Health Ministry. The Lancet number is therefore inconsistent with the primary numbers in the Gaza War Article, The Gaza Casualty article, and the Gaza Casualties Template. Later, while engaged in a conversation about the inconsistency of these very numbers, he again edits the first Article, and leaves his misleading data in place.

5. Updates the casualty count in the Gaza Casualties Template, saying he is doing thissadly. reflective of emotional bias.

6. Removes a statement regarding the spread of anti-semitism in China, commenting thatBetter source needed than VOA which is US state media, a self-declared adversary of China. However the content he removed was supported by TWO citations, only one of which was VOA. Curiously, just three days prior he had assured another editor that he doesn'tgo around removing every reference to (VOA).

7. In an AE request, he alleges that another editor had sought to "redefine" children, when the clear basis of the referenced discussion was that the article contained NO definition. In that same AE request, he falsely represents that an Article which prior to 3/6 had not been edited in eleven days except for a single link addition, wasactively being worked on.

8. In an AE Request, he frames as an indictment the idea that another editor isdownplaying Palestinian suffering. This reflects an editorial standard that precludes any justification for a less forceful depiction of suffering — an approach that is clearly at odds with the principle of neutrality.

9. Manufactures a notion – “demand for condemnation” – which simply does not exist in his citation. The edit history shows he progressively iterated towards this version after rejecting more accurate edits.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Diff on notification on User Talk Page.

He has also filed four AE requests this year.
-Johnadams11
-Closetside
-BePrepared1907
-שלומית ליר

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Tamzin I'd really like to engage with your read of my Request, but before I do, I'd like to know whether 1) You are interested in hearing what I've got to say, and 2) Whether we should wait until SAP responds. Thanks. Johnadams11 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My intention on point five was merely to raise the subject of the probable bias of an editor who lacks the ability to prevent his own sadness from permeating his work. I made no comment about sadness generally. Johnadams11 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notice on Talk page.

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.

Per Tamzin's request, I'll respond to points 4 and 9.

4: As Johnadams11 points out, I was discussing this issue in a conversation they (John) were involved in – on a different article – and consensus in that conversation was to use the 70,000 figure. My edit to the casualty count article remains in place. If Johnadams11 has an issue with using the Lancet study, why take it to AE and not the talk page for that article? Regarding disagreement between primary sources: there are none that contest the Lancet study's figures, which have been reported on in many RS (i.e. the BBC). There is no alternative figure except for the Gaza Health Ministry one, which is the one the Lancet study investigated and concluded was an underestimate. That's why there was consensus to use that figure. I will also point out that the second edit of mine he mentions is a JWB copyedit with no material change to the article's content, deliberately, as I often do 'wikignome' or recent changes patrol things during downtime at work.

9: This one is interesting because that diff shows me reverting my own potentially NPOV edit (wholly disconnected from the past...) with one far more in line with the article topic itself. While my change is no longer on the page, I believe what I was trying to do was summarise the paragraph beginningBut comparisons between Hamas and ISIS abound in part because they can be politically useful... in the Time reference. It's true that that paragraph doesn't use the word "condemn" – if the text was still on the page, I think it would make sense to modify it to say "often in combination with outreach attempting to convince Western allies that Hamas is a threat to their own nations." or similar. I could/should also have added "subject matter expert Monica Marks, writes that..." to denote it as being sourced from an opinion piece. (I've added it to the current version of the paragraph.)

Please let me know if there are any additional questions, thank you for your time! Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee can you clarify what you mean byLancet isn't a primary source, but the source they're using is ? In the edit in question I'm only using Lancet. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. @Valereee: thank you for clarifying! Two things I want to note in response. The Gaza MoH data is not disputed by any RS. There have been some WP:FRINGE claims that the data is inaccurate – see our page on this – exactly because experts and the consensus in RS is that these claims were false. Every RS cites this data. There was a dispute in June 2024 that we include on the MoH page (see here) regarding the percent of women/children casualties, but that was also addressed in RS and so resolved shortly thereafter as confirmed by RS. Secondly, and most importantly, the Lancet study does not rely solely on MoH data. That's why it was seen as authoritative by RS. They went beyond that data by utilising other data and methods, and in fact established that the MoH undercounts casualties. Without getting into the content disputes themselves, I think it's risky to create a precedent that the existence, anywhere, of contradictory opinions, throws a well regarded source into disrepute. It would be one thing if RS disputed the study's conclusions, but to my knowledge that's not the case here. So it's unclear to me how I am violating Wikipedia RS standards. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: @Tamzin: Hi both, sorry for the ping, just wanted to ask if there was anything else I could clarify above. I think I've answered your questions w/r/t points 4 and 9, please let me know if there are any other issues etc I can expand on or explain. Thanks! Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Hi Tamzin, happy to take the informal warning per your description (...the purposes of an informal warning, the point of which is just to remind an editor of current best practices, not find them at fault in a specific way...); but again just want to reiterate that the Lancet study did not rely solely on the Gaza Health Ministry figure(s) and in fact based on their own analysis contested them as an underestimate. Regardless there has been no RS disputing of the GHM figures, only fringe sources as described on the misinformation in... page. That being said for the purposes of the informal warning being a reminder (and to get this resolved) I'm more than happy to leave it at that! Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at a couple of the points Johnadams11 made:

• 1. "Edits the lead of the 10/7 Hamas Attack Article to delete language that had been in the Article for more than six months. His edit comment provides no justification for the removal and employs language that is highly suggestive of bias."

• • Smallangryplanet (=Sap) rm the sentence "The attacks initiated the ongoing Israel–Hamas war" with the edit-line "The conflict between Israel and Hamas did not begin on 7 October 2023"
    • My comment: seriously, does anyone think that the Israel–Hamas conflict started on 7 October 2023? I don't think so.

• 5. "Updates the casualty count in the Gaza Casualties Template, saying he is doing thissadly. reflective of emotional bias."
  • • My comment: Who isn't sad about updating causality figures in any conflict? What is called "emotional bias" I would call "normal human feelings",

Huldra (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #4. The Lancet has published (at least) two groundbreaking studies on Gaza war casualties:

• Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential: estimating >186,000 indirect deaths in Gaza.
• Traumatic injury mortality in the Gaza Strip from Oct 7, 2023, to June 30, 2024: a capture–recapture analysis: estimated >70,000 deaths in Gaza due to traumatic injuries as of Oct 2024.

The Counting the dead in Gaza study was somewhat controversial, although there seems to be consensus (here) that it was reliable enough to use. But SAP cites the Traumatic injury mortality in the Gaza Strip study, and I haven't seen any significant criticism of that particular study. I would consider the Lancet study a secondary source, as it synthesizes data from several WP:PRIMARY sources: the Gaza Health Ministry, social media etc. The study has already been cited 14 times by academic sources, and also by Guardian, AFP, Reuters, NYT etc. Therefore I think it was, at the time, reasonable to use this instead of GHM casualties. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin, @Valereee, can you clarify if you consider the Lancet publication to be a primary source? And what do you suggest SAP should have done here? Used another RS that quotes this study, like this? Or something different? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring attention to SAP's second comment in their recently closed AE case against me and my response within that case.

In summary, they falsely accused me of having a false dichotomy of pro-Palestine and neutral sources, when I acknowledged the existence pro-Israel sources in an RM before their report. Furthermore, they doubted Euro-Med's bias by labeling my assessment as "[Closetside]'s percieved bias" despite the HRM not reporting on Palestinian war crimes against Israelis, a clear bias for a self-styled human rights monitor. Lastly, they have cherry-picked sources through arguing that because a source describes a witness calling an event a massacre implies the source describes it as a massacre even though it doesn't do so explicitly. Closetside (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Prior to filing this request, Johnadams essentially admitted that it is retaliation against SAP for filing the above request against him. Johnadams' evidence includes, among other things:
  • The fact that SAP has filed four AE requests. JA doesn't argue that any were abuse of process; the only one yet closed resulted in a warning.
  • SAP's participation in PIA5, even though the evidence JA is complaining about was cited in ArbCom's final decision
  • Most shockingly, an objection to SAP saying it is sad that 50,000 people have died in Gaza
• That last bit is the one that really gets me. I don't know what can better signal a battleground mentality than having a problem with someone describing themself as "sad[ ]" that 50,000 people—undisputedly mostly civilians, and for what it's worth including almost 2,000 Israelis—have died. If someone is really in so deep to the echo chamber on one side of a conflict that they see it as partisan to not want civilians on the other side to die, and they're bringing that viewpoint into conflicts on-wiki, they need to be removed from that topic area on Wikipedia. And before someone goes there, yes, I would absolutely be as outraged about someone who objects to calling October 7 sad.
  This isn't to say SAP has done nothing wrong. I will reserve judgment on that aspect for now. But my immediate reaction to this is that JA needs to be TBANned at a minimum. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I would tend to agree with Tamzin. Of course it is sad when people die during a conflict anywhere, and I really don't trust the judgment of anyone who would criticize someone for saying so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, now taking the time to look closer at the case against SAP:
  1. Pure content question. As to the edit summary, I don't see how that shows bias; it's objectively true.
  2. The cited sources in the article (oldid) do not include the two that JA is referencing; SAP mentioned those in their talkpage comment to show that prominent figures have made the comparison. You can agree or disagree with their logic, but it's not bad-faith.
  3. Pure content question
  4. Editors in this topic area need to be extremely cautious about how they present primary sources. Asserting that one primary source' findings are objective fact, even when other primary sources disagree, borders on misrepresentation. I find this diff troubling for that reason.
  5. The "sadly" diff, covered above.
  6. If I'm reading this correctly, the only source removed other than VoA was Newsweek, which is of questionable reliability in this context. Even if it was a valid source, there's no reason to assume bad faith about its removal.
  7. Whether these are valid arguments can be decided in that AE thread, which is still open. Neither strikes me as clearly bad-faith, though.
  8. Cited as evidence by ArbCom, as noted above. While ArbCom didn't cite the exact words at issue, at a minimum it would be double jeopardy for AE to sanction someone for a comment made in arbspace that ArbCom did not take issue with.
  9. Also somewhat troubling. I would like to hear from SAP where in [118] they get the condemnation line, and why they think an opinion piece was appropriate to cite in this circumstance.
• Reading through this also makes me realize how often in their report JA is referring to themself in the third person without being clear about that. They are the initiator of the discussions in 2 and 4 and the "another editor" in 7.
  Anyways, in summation, that's #s 4 and 9 that read as credible complaints, which I'd like SAP to respond to. The rest of my analysis only strengthens my already-very-strong inclination toward a TBAN or indef for JA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the retaliatory nature of this filing and the concerns in the request about JA, I'm on board for a topic ban. Not quite so ready for an indef, but I haven't had time to look at JAs editing outside this topic area. The retaliatory filing definitely makes it clear that they are in full battleground editing mode for this topic area at least. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Re: My intention on point five was merely to raise the subject of the probable bias of an editor who lacks the ability to prevent his own sadness from permeating his work seems like completely a nonissue for any normal person. Let's just let that one go, JA11. Valereee (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I closed JA's thread a few days ago with a TBAN. Back to the matter at hand, I do have some concerns about 4 and 9, as I said, but there's no evidence that this is a pervasive issue or one persisting past attempts at correction. So I suggest we close with an informal warning to be more careful when using primary and opinion-based sources. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine by me. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• VR, no, Lancet isn't a primary source, but the source they're using is, and in a CTOPs that needs to be handled with care if other sources are disagreeing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 14:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Every work has some primary attributes, if only the date of publication. Personally, I would consider "Traumatic injury mortality in the Gaza Strip from Oct 7, 2023, to June 30, 2024: a capture–recapture analysis" primary to the extent that it presents a new total figure based on novel analysis, for the same reason that investigative reporting is often considered primary (keeping in mind WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). But that distinction doesn't hugely matter for the purposes of an informal warning, the point of which is just to remind an editor of current best practices, not find them at fault in a specific way. So why don't we just say "primary, opinion-based, and recently-published" sources? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  SAP: sorry for the lack of clarity: Lancet isn't a primary source, but those disputing the numbers seem to be arguing that the source the Lancet is using is. The content dispute -- which I am not going to get into here -- seems to be that primary sources other than the Gaza Health Ministry are coming up with different numbers, which would mean Wikipedia we need to use caution in our summarization of what the Lancet is reporting. Valereee (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smallangryplanet: I think this has been stalled since it's not clear if we have consensus that there was a warnable issue with primary sources. If you don't object to a close as "has been informally warned" (which is objectively true regardless of whether you agree with the warning), I can go ahead and do that. Otherwise, we'll have to await another admin to weigh in. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BMWF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/GG, WP:CT/YA

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

1. 21 March 2025 FMSky changes "Marketing and release" to "Delays and controversies"
2. 03:35, 21 March 2025 FMSky reinstates change.
3. 05:51, 21 March 2025 FMSky deletes the header entirely after being reverted by Truthnope (disruptive editing)
4. 06:06, 21 March 2025 FMSky addswhose portrayal drew controversy concerning Yasuke
5. 06:43, 21 March 2025 FMSky reverts.
6. 22:28, 21 March 2025 FMSky reverts.
7. 22:49, 21 March 2025 FMSky reverts.
8. 22:28, 21 March 2025 FMSky, after failing to obtain consensus, insults 4 other editors without any provocationSeems like people's aim here is to pointlessly bury facts and run from reality
9. 22:49, 21 March 2025 FMSky leaves a discriminatory comment and then says he is done editingAfter having looked at the participating user's wiki pages I have now concluded this wont lead anywhere so Im out for now. Notably, the participants at the time included someone with LGBTQ support on their user page, and two who identify as "she/her".
10. 03:29, 22 March 2025 FMSky returns and vandalizes the lead with an unexplained removal.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 00:30, 30 November 2021 Edit warring block
2. 10:14, 3 October 2023 One year topic ban from GENSEX by community consensus for behavior on What is a Woman? (discussion).
3. 06:43, 30 September 2023 Indefinite topic ban from two pages in American Politics

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

[119][120][121][122][123][124]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Behavior since his edit warring block and two topic bans appears to have gotten worse over time.

• Removal of negative information on various political figures[125]
• Admin reprimand to be civil in contentious topics[126][127]
• Other admin reprimands[128][129][130]
• Violations of his GENSEX topic ban[131][132]
• 3RR violation on Sweet Baby (GENSEX)[133][134]
• Violation of contentious topic enforced BRD restriction at Donald Trump[135]
• Bizarrely hostileoNlY tO mAkE cOmMenTs a mOnTh lAtEr, write this garbage on your twitter feed comment at user[136]
• Removing information related to sexual assaults[137][138][139]

Edit war warnings in the last year only: [140] [141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[150]

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.

What is this exactly? My topic ban in the past (that wasn't GENSEX like you claimed) expired in October 2024. And the diffs you posted are mostly years old. Completely ridiculous. The comments towards the user pages was meant to say that it's hard to have a neutral discussion when users have biases (though I have since retracted that statement and acknowledged that I should not have casted aspersions 1.) -- FMSky (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(link) I find it incredible that this report is coming from a user that has no other talk page entries other than edit-warring warnings and dispute resolution notices. This page isn't your personal battleground. Work on improving articles instead like I try with every edit I make.---FMSky (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: why a topic ban for Yasuke, i have never edited that article once in my life and don't plan on either. Don't even know who this guy is, he was just part of the controversy section in the assassin's creed article I edited

Edit2. Bro what is this I just want to improve articles 😭

• Yeah I moved the controversy about him to a separate section. I only know he was a black samurai and that that's the reason for the mayor controversy in the game FMSky (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you all of a sudden FMSky (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC) as explained I only heard about him I the context of assassin's creed moving to correct section Valereee (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit3: I acknowledge that I made a mistake and it was clearly wrong to comment on and assume the potential motives of others (it was especially stupid since, in hindsight, most seemed to agree with them and I was in the minority) and I won't do it ever again. I just got too emotional too quickly (maybe because I've had some run-ins with the user BMWF in the past, idk, but to be fair I also quickly retracted my initial comment). I will also not edit any articles related to Yasuko and Assassin's Creed Shadows for the next 6 months and afterwards will abide by a 1RR. --FMSky (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit: I'm extremely overwhelmed rn and not feeling too well, I dont even know what to say. I never called anyone the "F" word, what the hell? I cant do anything right now other than see how this plays out. Note that Summerfell1978 is a user that has had 3 blocks since registering this January, including a month long one. Im just gonna say every edit I ever made on this website was meant to improve articles --FMSky (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update on user BMWF (who has not once commented here since making this thread): They are now edit warring with admins (1, 2) on the page Assassin's Creed to try to get controversial content removed. I also want to add that this thread is the weirdest internet experience I've had in my entire life. --FMSky (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to maintain good faith in FMs answers when they say they doesn't know who Yasuke is [[151]], but recently made edits to mainspace about Yasuke [[152]] 12.75.41.118 (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same person I've always been? What sort of question is this? Are you really new to the concept of IP users after 4 years? You should move your comments to your own section 12.75.41.118 (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For assistance, here is FM yelling with caps [153].

12.75.41.51 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, FM has decided to be disingenuous. I warned him for his attempts to canvas someone to the conversation [155], but he immediately called me a sock, ran to NMTs talk page, and continued personal attacks against me. I asked him to strike his aspersions, but he came here to say NMT admitted to socking? C'mon. Stop digging. The diffs are all visible to everyone. 12.75.41.51 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had FMSky's talk page on my watchlist from having notified the user of my AN request regarding their edits (perhaps notably in relation to the opening statement here, on the AN page, one user described FMSky's comment aimed at me as casting aspersions). Though FMSky is usually very quick to remove things from their talk page, which makes it harder to locate the prior edit conflicts or warnings, there indeed seems to be a pattern of making contested edits to reduce or remove information related to sexual assault: 1, 2, 3. I think there is other activity on the part of FMSky that is not neutral in nature, but those topics related to politics and culture wars in the context of gaming are possibly broader than the scope of two contentions topics or the indefinite topic ban. Daisy Blue (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborating on the diffs in response to Tamzin. The edit summary of 1 was WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, however, the removed content also included information supported by multiple Variety sources. For 2, which consists of multiple edits, FMSky provided misleading edit summaries like "ce" and "rm emotional note" that did more than what the summary states. The latter removed not only the hidden "emotional" comment but also information on a petition related to the rape conviction. 3 is arguably the least problematic of the diffs and was included here in the context of the others. The template added by FMSky asks for the section to be trimmed, but FMSky offers no reason for the template placement. In each case, FMSky's edits were reverted by opposing users, who then took to FMSky's page. Each affected article still contains information on the sexual abuse allegations and the rape conviction. Daisy Blue (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across this user removing negative medical content from articles about (what might be called) "heterodox" right-wing figures on social media, in a way which might savour of whitewashing. Given the conjunctions of multiple WP:CTOPS it is especially concerning when this is done using less-than-accurate edit summaries like "ce" for substantive changes, e.g.[156] Bon courage (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find this complaint hard to follow. I do see some issues where editors should be going to talk pages to discuss issues. I'm not sure I understand the editor bias comments. I generally think it's best to avoid making any comments about editor motives but I also don't think it's unreasonable for an editor to presume a bias based on things an editor posts on their user pages. I think we would all presume different biases when it comes to say firearms if someone has an NRA For Ever box vs a "This user feels guns are never the answer". I do find it concerning that two of the editors here haven't reached EC status. The editor filing the complaint has just over 200 edits, the IP editor shows 4. While an IP editors in article space might make good points but it also would allow an individual to evade scrutiny since it's harder to associate their other actions with their comments here. Perhaps it's due to the way I took a long time to learn the ropes, when an editor who has just over 200 edits files an ARE I have to wonder how did they learn this? Did they have a previous account? I will note I have no other evidence and I'm not going to dig for it but this is just a general concern I have.

My suggestion to FMSky, a while back an admin suggested (while holding a stick) that I adopt the same self imposed 1RR that they used. They argued, and I found this to be true, that slowing down and going to the talk page often results in the same end point while avoiding giving anyone any evidence to suggest you are acting imprudently. I also suggest strictly avoiding suggesting motives for the edits of others. There are many editors whom I suspect are extremely biased and are here to RGW or POVPUSH. However, I also know what it's like to be accused of such things. It doesn't make reaching any consensus easier. It's easy to look at user pages and get an impression that may or may not be true to their editing. However, it's best to just avoid it. Note that commenting on how the edits might look to a third party reader is OK. Saying "You are whitewashing..." isn't OK but saying that edit will read like the article is whitewashing is OK.

I don't understand how this is a GENSEX related issue as it has nothing to do with gender or sexuality. I believe GENSEX was born from gamergate but I don't see how all complaints about editors in game related areas would be GENSEX.

For what it's worth I don't see anything bright line actionable but I would suggest FMSky slow down and start a RfC if you feel your version is correct. I have been involved in cases where I felt my edits were correct but a local consensus of perhaps 3 other editors disagreed. After the RfC the consensus for what I had suggested was clear. Other times the consensus was clearly against me... because everyone else was wrong :D Springee (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron, How is this a GENSEX issue? Complaint item 9 seems to be the only one that makes any connection and even then it seems speculating about the motive vs based on any factual evidence. Perhaps a tban from video games makes more sense? Springee (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: I think Tamzin already answered that question well enough – a prior year-long GENSEX TBAN for conduct fairly similar to what we're seeing here merits extending that TBAN to indef. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since I began to use Wikipedia (few months), I feel threatened by FMSky. He has followed me on various pages repeatedly, and reverted edits. A few days ago he lashed out and used the F word, which I found odd for someone who has 200,000 edits and experience with all Wiki laws. I find his editing to also be incredibly biased towards far-right ideologies. It makes me feel unwelcome to Wikipedia, and that I have no influence in making the encyclopedia a better read, which is why I try to stick to medical and scientific articles because those pages aren't the focus for politically biased editors or bullies who are trying to make all articles written in a way that they want, rather than what should be objectively. I apologize if this goes against Wiki rules but I am adding my input as the voice of a novice and brand new editor. -Summerfell1978, 20:08, March 23, 2025

• FMSky threatened me a few days ago by using a clap emoji between every word, using all caps, and saying the F word. I don't believe it's his first time to use eye-catching formatting. Just bringing it to your attention. I will not bow down to bullies and stay quiet in fear of retaliation. Summerfell1978 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC) moving to correct section. Summerfell1978, please comment only in your own section. Valereee (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2:

diff1

Supporting my earlier claim that he has been following and harassing me on several pages, making me feel threatened that I can't participate on Wikipedia. He literally just did it again 2 seconds ago.

diff2

diff3

Here they are with brand new patronizing comments again making me feel unwelcome. Also insulted me by making me feel inadequate or useless. I've spent serious time contributing to medical articles and he calls me a troll? Feels like I'm walking on eggshells. And that I literally can't post or talk without bothering him or involving him, when he has been following me around on Wikipedia all month like some strange obsession to shush me. I've been here for a month, give me a break. I'm learning the ropes. You have 250,000 edits. Summerfell1978 (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: FMSky's reply @FMSky you said you never used the F word but you did to me just a day or two ago. Second of all, being overwhelmed and not feeling well is a cop-out. Every criminal who faces a judge says this. It's not an excuse. Third, hard to agree that "every edit made on this website was meant to improve articles", even a new user like me who just hopped on Wikipedia to look at the past posts found that you tried to mock "anti-transgender" by making fun of transgender rights saying "anti-transglutaminase". --> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1178387997#Proposal:_1-year_transgender_topic_ban

Edit3: Responding to Tamzin because xe requested that I provide a diff to xem regarding the incident mentioned. I'm new to wikipedia, it took me some time to even find it. I apologize in advance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Curtis_Yarvin#c-FMSky-20250320233800-Summerfell1978-20250320205100

Edit4: FMSky is contacting Wikipedia editors to leave positive comments about him and to "put in a good word" because this is discussion is a plot to cancel him. The reason for me bringing this to the attention of the public is to act as a paper trail in case there is an uptick in odd or inauthentic responses in a short span of time. [[158]]

Edit5: FMSky has began to accuse a user of being a an owner of another account because both those accounts have used the English word "retaliatory" before. He has also taken action against the user, which prompted said user to call his action's "retaliatory" for beginning an arbitration investigation. FMSky needs to promptly be dealt with, as it seems that he is taking this situation as some sort of joke. In evidence in diff listed above, he believes this is an attempt to cancel him, and mentioned that this arbitration is the weirdest experience in his entire life. [[159]]

Edit6: FMSky has a clear anti-trans bias, and since he has been reprimanded before regarding gender, he should know better, especially considering his 250,000 edit experience. I found this exchange between FMSky and other users to be inexcusable. There is an odd obsession with not letting trans people identify as a specific gender, or targeting transgender pages to edit their page and decide how their description should be based on FMSky's interpretation of what is and what isn't allowed to be documented. [[160]]

I have come across similar issues with FMSky but did not realize that they were so widespread. See for example Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 11#This page has a bunch of lies and this edit[161] in that context. Another one disputing RS right/far right characterizations[162]. This edit is also in that same vein[163], just mean spirited and derogatory of the project overall. As for "Removal of negative information on various political figures" well yeah theres plenty of that [164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171]. Not in any way meant to be exhaustive, this is literally just off the top of my head. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This SPI case is plainly retaliatory. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should be wary of the weaponisation of these avenues to get rid of opposing POVs. Their previous topic ban from GENSEX seems harsh (I despair a bit when topic bans are imposed by "community consensus" when it's often just a group of people with similar POVs, but not saying that's what happened there). I don't think it's absurd to look at someone's edit history, see they have pronouns in their bios, and assume they have liberal POVs, while far from ideal behaviour, that shouldn't warrant a TBAN from an area unrelated to the articles this is about. Think we'd do better to have constructive dialogue with FMSky to address said issues Kowal2701 (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my first interaction with FMSky was when a POV pusher he was dealing with came to my talk page asking for my help and I enabled them, they were later banned User talk:Kowal2701/Archive 1#Hello, just in case anyone takes my comment in the context a war of POVs Kowal2701 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RelmC feel free to elaborate Kowal2701 (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that was regardingliberal POVs? I couldn’t think of a term to describe the gender identity POV, think it���s quite clear what I meant. One of my first edits on this site was adding "far-right" to Melanie Philips lol Kowal2701 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I provided FMsky the substantive CTOP notice here: [172]

Admin Valereee mentioned that FMsky had not been made aware until after the edit warring. Amongst the diffs not provided are many posts on the mainspace article after being notified on their talk page of the CTOP, continuing to edit war for many hours after: [173] [174][175][176]. I originally saw the notification of a new section and was curious if it was in relation to the RFC conducted on the page a few months ago. I saw some claims from FMsky which did not match my understanding, and I in good faith asked them if they could cite their source. They provided two sources which did not say their claim [177] (7 mins past midnight my time) and instead of responding to myself and masem pointing this out, they started casting aspersions [178] (17 mins past midnight) and then made the comment about our user pages [179] (29 mins past midnight). I asked them to clarify why they believed this since a quick look at the relevant user pages showed nothing of note at all - except mine which just says I'm queer - and they refused to answer the question repeatedly, just casting more aspersions of bad faith, and collapsed the reply chain rather than answer what about our user pages they were referring to [180][181] [182] [183]. Since this arbcom started the User has opened a retaliatory SPI against Nutmeg by using Springee's comment as evidence, and then another user accused me of being Nutmeg's sockmaster, which FMsky replied to by saying: "based on the whole coffee and assassin's creed thing (which is quite a weird coincidence) it looks likely indeed" [184] and "I'm also now quite sure that user REAL_MOUSE_IRL is another account of Relm." [185]. I was content to just let this case play out without saying anything but this is ridiculous levels of retaliation when I was not even involved in this aside from FMsky attacking me on the basis of my user page for a reason that have still yet to identify. --Relm (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked FMsky's recent edits and is it allowed when an arbcom case is opened to go requesting people come to back you up with good comments? [187] Relm (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations:

1. FMSky is attempting to game arbitration enforcement in response to this report.[188] He is also laughing at and making fun of this board and the administrators here with the crying emojis and the "pretend its a joke" thing (see his prior history of facetious trolling)

I feel the comment by User:12.75.41.118 about Yasuke may be overstated. I don't think moving a paragraph that contains a mention of Yasuke requires any knowledge of the subject. Given what else is documented, the whole Yasuke issue may be a diversion and a red herring. I'd suggest focussing on the rest of it. Nfitz (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's from a year back, this reminds me of issues I ran into with FMSky on Sweet Baby Inc. - an article that was in a very similar situation in terms of being the focus of a WP:GENSEX + videogame-related controversy from roughly the same corners of the internet. In that dispute, FMSky created a section on talk focused on accusing a specific employee of the organization of harassment (albeit not by name), kept trying to add it using sources that were obviously not usable for something so BLP-sensitive ([190] summarizes it) - they also tried to edit-war the relevant material into the article ([191][192], then [193]. During the dispute they also edit warred elsewhere in the article ([194][195][196]) including a 3RR breach which they denied was edit-warring when I pointed it out to them because they "suggested multiple different versions."

And they've engaged in continuous WP:ASPERSIONS and hostile / battlefield conduct:

• Can i ask you why you want this information surppressed so badly?[197]
• any attempts to further stonewall this article will be considered disruptive[198]
• most of the users here aren't interested in improving this article. They want to push a certain narrative[199]
• The only people who are still in favor of supressing the information are basically Sideswipe9th and Aquillion[200]
• I also find it a bit concerning that Sideswipe9th seems to want to silence every user not agreeing with their viewpoint[201].
• I expected nothing else from a WP:ACTIVIST like you [202] - they immediately self-reverted the struck part, but what's left is still uncivil!

Their general attitude was exemplifed here or in the edit summary here or by the WP:BATTLEFIELD framing here.

This accusation that people are trying to bury the truth (also covered in the main complaint above) is a recurring issue for them on political / culture-war articles; see eg. [203].

And note that this older dispute happened while they were already under a transgender-related topic-ban, when you'd expect them to be trying to be on their best behavior. All of this was, again, from a year ago, but it shows that they have a persistent problem with these specific GENSEX / Gamergate-adjacent videogame culture-war issues in general. --Aquillion (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Also note that the "personal attack that they quickly self-reverted" thing mentioned below happened there, too; I left it out because they self-reverted, but if it's a pattern I figure I ought to mention it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting FMSky's history of edit-warring...

• 14:58, 13 June (3RR)
• 14:17, 13 June
• 12:04, 13 June
• 18:35, 11 June (4RR)
• 18:33, 11 June
• 17:01, 11 June
• 23:39, 10 June
• 17:39, 5 June
• 10:53, 2 June
• 12:38, 30 May

Eventually it was necessary to have a second RfC confirming the prior RfC that FMSky was violating with the additions listed above. To his credit, FMSky stopped editwarring after I added these diffs to his TP (despite deleting the list within two minutes). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Diff #9 is pretty bad, and FMSky is still justifying it by saying that the users "have biases". In a literal sense this is true, since no one is without bias, but in this context it is presumably intended to mean an unreasonable or close-minded bias. Let's look at the user pages involved:
  • Truthnope's simply explains his username.
  • NutmegCoffeeTea's says she is a PhD student with she/her pronouns.
  • RelmC's says she takes she/her pronouns; is LGBTQ+; is Goth; supports trans right; drinks coffee; designs clothes; is an expert in history; is interested in East Asian culture and Chinese culture in particular; participates in the LGBTQ+ studies, Women in Red, China, Chinese history, and Singapore wikiprojects; and has varying levels of proficiency in English, Chinese, Japanese, and ancient Greek.
  • Masem's says that he has a blog and an Xfire account; uses or used Google, Gmail, iTunes, Kopete, GIMP, Firefox, Windows, macOS, Debian GNU/Linux, the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection, and XBOX Live; is a professional gamer, particularly of Japanese and retro games, without console preference; likes video game music; likes (or is implied to like) Katamari Damacy, Portal, MST3K, Doctor Who, Adult Swim, The Amazing Race, Survivor, and anime; participates in wikiprojects Video games and Television and the CVU; has a number of GAs/FAs/FLs, most/all in the aforementioned topic areas; and is a Wikipedia administrator.
• I do not think it is a failure of AGF to assume that, rather than referencing Truthnope's pro-username-explanation bias or Masem's pro–Amazing Race bias, FMSky was inferring a bias based on NutmegCoffeeTea stating her pronouns and RelmC being LGBTQ+, supporting trans rights, and also stating her pronouns. The penultimate of those is, in fact, a bias. The rest, however, are not biases, and regardless the talkpage discussion had nothing to do with trans rights.
  I can only take from this, then, that FMSky was trying to disqualify the perspectives of two other editors on the basis of their identity, and in one case also on the basis of unrelated political views, and that despite striking that he maintains convinced that these userboxen are evidence they are non-neutral on the topic of um... how a 16th-century African-born samurai is depicted in a video games. One thing I always try to look out for in CTOP cases is when someone is clearly locked in on a partisan battleground mentality, and this is a pretty glaring instance of it, alongside the edit-warring and previous sanctions. Not to mention it being a straightforward personal attack. I think the minimum appropriate sanction here is indefinite TBANs from GENSEX and YASUKE. A 3-month 1RR on Assassin's Creed Shadows also seems like a good idea.
  Disclaimer: I consider myself recused from parts of GENSEX that I have significantly edited in, or users I have had disputes with. To the best of my recollection, I have never been in an editorial dispute with FMSky, nor does this matter touch on anything related to content I have edited. Please correct me if I am wrong. Either way, I do not intend to be the one to close this.
  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting Special:Diff/1281876241—since overwritten, but continuing to accuse the users of bias without explanation or evidence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @FMSky:Don't even know who this guy [Yasuke] is ← Huh? You made a section within the article about the fictional version of him, calling his portrayal "the main talking point about the game", and then started a section on talk about that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @FMSky: For the second time, please stop editing your comments after people have replied to them. I've reverted you. If you want to say more things, make a new comment. That's fine so long as you stay under the word limit. And, per WP:YELLING, please stop using eye-catching formatting like <big>...</big> and {{red}}. Your words should be able to stand on their own without needing a larger font size or brighter color than others'. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to hear what other admins have to say, but I'll just add briefly that I hold a very high bar for faulting edits that removed potential BLP violations. I'm not presupposing either way, but I'd need to see more than just some diffs of removals; I'd need to see an argument for why these diffs are not just invalid BLP enforcement, but not even something that could reasonably be mistaken for valid BLP enforcement. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FMSky received a CTOPs alert on Yasuke after this happened, but definitely this is edit warring (unless I'm missing where FMSky is claiming a 3RR exemption for BLP?) FMSky, please respond in your own section, including when responding directly to other people. This together with the 500 word limit is intended to prevent trivial quibbling such as "Who are you all of a sudden" and to keep parties on point. Valereee (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify, my comment about BLP violations is about the sexual assault–related removals. Good point on Yasuke though. I'd be fine with leaving that as a logged warning (maybe a final warning for culture-wars-related disruption in general?). Something needs to be done about the continuous GENSEX disruption, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, agreed on being very tolerant of overcorrecting for BLP vios, although FMSky, if that's what you're doing, you need to make that clear in your edit summaries in order to claim an exemption. Logged warning for Yasuke fine by me since they weren't made aware.

  GENSEX in general...FMSky, I'm concerned that you seem to have a point of view that you aren't able to neutrally edit past, and frankly an editor with your experience is expected to not get too emotional too quickly in CTOPs. If you can't control it, don't edit in CTOPs. Period. Serious as a heart attack, here. Why should I not recommend a tban from GENSEX? Valereee (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Springee: To your question, GENSEX comes into play because FMSky is imputing bias based on users' genders and stances on gender issues. Your gun control comparison doesn't really work because the userboxen have no relevance to the content dispute; it's pure innuendo. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Summerfell1978: You need to include diffs of misconduct you allege here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Summerfell1978: First off, I'm just going to ask you and @FMSky to leave each other alone (outside of this page) while this case is pending. That's not a formal IBAN, but it could become one of it needs to be. Secondly, Summerfell, please immediately provide diffs of the misconduct you are alleging from a few days ago, or strike the allegations. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, yeah, that's not a great diff. I don't care about the "fucking" part, but the all-caps hand-clapping schtick is obnoxious. That said, Summerfell, it's in response to you attempting to insert BLP violations based on OR, so I'm inclined to call that aspect of things a wash. Y'all are both very close to serious sanctions, and need to just leave each other alone and stop editing about politics and culture-war stuff. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FMSky, the clapping is over the top. I understand the frustration with new editors leaping right into CTOPs, but walk away from the keyboard.

  Summerfell1978, I am going to give you the advice I give all new editors leap right into WP:CTOPs before they have even a basic enough grasp on Wikipedia policy/guidelines to realize there's a lot they don't know: Contentious topics are a really, really bad place to learn to edit. Other editors at CTOPs typically don't have the energy or patience to help you learn. You should consider editing in other places while you learn, because frankly this in response to this, along with this literally yesterday, are making me wonder if you're cut out to work in a collaborative environment at all, much less at CTOPs. Valereee (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, FMSky, I'm sorry that you are finding the AE process overwhelming and stressful. But please do not resort to casting aspersions on participants here or canvassing editors like you did here. Just explain your edits when editors have questions about them and be patient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• General warning. I am going to block the next person who casts aspersions in this thread. That includes any more comments by FMSky accusing people of socking without evidence. (No, IP 12.75 replying to your accusations against NCT is not NCT "admitting" it.) That includes any more comments by User:NutmegCoffeeTea and IP 12.75 implying without evidence that FMSky editing about white supremacists makes him a white supremacist. Everyone needs to chill out, and if you can't edit this noticeboard without violating WP:NPA, please do not edit it at all. (Also, Rsjaffe, I think your protection of User talk:FMSky may give the mistaken impression of endorsing FMSky's unsubstantiated sockpuppetry accusations against 12.75. While they shouldn't have been continuing to comment there after being asked not to, I'm not sure protection is the appropriate response.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was basing the protection partly on the prior history of protection on that page, showing a history of issues. I was unaware of the context here, and I am correcting my error by removing protection. Thank you for pinging me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. To be clear, IP 12.75, this is not an invitation to go post on that page. If any of y'all continue posting on one another's talkpages after being asked not to, that may be the basis for a block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking this back over by the cold light of day, I've gone and hatted a number of comments that were aspersions and/or violated AE's new rule limiting threads to the subject and filer. If people have further concerns about third parties' conduct outside this thread, please start a new thread. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Re Summerfell1978: This in response to this, mentioned by Valereee above, is amazing. I have blocked S for two weeks, and IMO the next attack or other nonsense from them should be immediately followed by an indef. Bishonen | tålk 10:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• This comment to this thread from FMSky is unnacceptable. I don't care that it was self-reverted (13 minutes later). FMSky had already been warned multiple times for their conduct in and surrounding this thread, and had already done the personal-attack + self-revert thing once before. I am blocking him from this noticeboard as a CTOP action under GENSEX (since a GENSEX enforcement thread inherently falls under that jurisdiction), set for two weeks but liftable by any admin once this thread is closed. Further behavior of this sort with this thread's parties on other pages will result in an immediate siteblock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like the current suggestion on the board is a GENSEX TBAN and a YASUKE logged warning. Looking at the evidence, that seems about right to me; if there aren't any objections in the next 24 hours, I'm going to go ahead and close this. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]