Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive352

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

Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Chaialhurriya (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:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict

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

1. Created Killing of Rifat Radwan
2. Created Killing of Khaled Nabhan.
3. Made edits to Killing of Shaban al-Dalou
4. And so on, that's all that stood out from a quick glance

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Previously blocked for exactly this, and unblocked only with a promise that has not been respected.

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

What prompted me to file this was the creation of Killing of Rifat Radwan, which was only yesterday. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

The page you are referring to "Killing of Rifet Radwan" and that someone has now deleted was simply stating facts that have been reported on in numerous news outlets with video evidence of the situation. I would not consider this a contentious issue - it is obvious facts that this man and his colleagues were killed - this isn't about the Arab-Israeli conflict anymore it is about a human being that has been killed - many Wikipedia editors refuse to recognize this humanity of these individuals and would rather leave these scenarios undocumented due to them being "contentious" or more plainly because it discusses individuals who were killed and also happened to be Palestinian, nowhere in the page did I debate Israel-Palestine, I stated what happened - so if the page was about a medic who was killed and was not Palestinian I would have been allowed to write my page??!

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

• Most of these edits are pretty stale, dating from months ago. They do not appear to be a very active editor. Do you have any evidence of recent disruption? I just wondered what prompted you to file this complaint now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Their most recent extant edit, Special:Diff/1284201177, is from yesterday, and obviously falls within the topic area. Since they've already been blocked and unblocked for this before, this seems pretty clear-cut? Don't we normally handle this sort of thing as an individual admin action? -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but I think Pppery filed this instead because he avoids blocking users. JensonSL (SilverLocust) 07:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chaialhurriya: a page about IDF soldiers killing a man in the Gaza Strip in the course of an Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (per the article) absolutely and unambiguously relates to the Arab–Israeli conflict. If that's not a line you're able to parse, I'm not sure you should continue to edit here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:57, 9 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

Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dev0745 (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

Below diffs show his recent violations of his topic ban from politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan.

1. 26 March - Talking about the hypothesis involving Indian languages while significantly expanding Harappan language article. This is a clear-cut topic ban violation.

1. 27 March - Peopling of India is a heated subject when it comes to culture, religion and politics of Pakistan and India
2. 5 April 2025 - Same as above.
3. 6 April 2025. Violating his topic ban by editing about the hypothesis of Indian languages.

The last one came even after he warned for his topic ban violations just yesterday.[1] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2023 by Tamzin.[2]
2. Blocked for violating topic ban by Bishonen in the same year.[3]
3. Topic ban changed to politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan in January 2025.[4]

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

Redundant

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[5]

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 thought article Peopling of India, Harappan language is related to History and not related to religion, politics and culture, I edit that. As for languages, I thought language is not related to culture. Dev0745 (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Going to quote my comment at Dev's unsuccessful AN appeal in February:To be clear, Dev, 'politics, religion, and culture' covers most human activity. The only reason I didn't word your ban as 'human activity in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan,' was I didn't want to prevent you from discussing human impact or conservation efforts in the zoology articles you edit. But yeah, most things humans do are politics, religion, or culture. The "I didn't know my topic-ban covered X" thing is something you can only get away with once. And Vanamonde93's warning to Dev shows that this isn't just a one-off either. In January, I asked Bishonen and RegentsPark whether the appropriate response to Dev's violations of the original TBAN was to indef or to relax the TBAN, accepting the existing violations as a fait accompli. I don't regret that we concluded to take the latter approach, but at this point I think it's clear that's failed, and the only thing I see left on the table is an indef. Topic bans as a system rely on editors being able to self-police, and if an editor will not or cannot, a block is necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Tamzin, it is now clear that the user either will not or cannot self-police. "I thought language is not related to culture" is just ridiculous, plus they have edited stuff related to politics, plus they were amply warned about it. Only an indef is left. Bishonen | tålk 09:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• I have to agree, though I always find that sad. The editor seems overall well-intentioned, but misrepresentation of sources in IPA plus inability to follow a tban from IPA is just pretty much a disqualifier for editing. Dev, you might try editing at Simple English wikipedia as if you were subject to this narrowed topic ban from IPA there. Just focus on zoology, limit discussion of anything to do with humans in India/Pakistan/Afghanistan to human impact on a species or conservation efforts; no other mention of human beings/human activity in IPA. Come back in a year with an active, productive, unproblematic history of editing there but not in IPA and appeal. I'm going to stress this once again: not in IPA. This is intended to give you the opportunity to show us you have learned how to adhere to a topic ban. There will absolutely be people looking for evidence that you made problematic edits in IPA at Simple English to decide whether they're going to support or oppose your appeal. Do not take the risk of them being able to find something problematic with regard to IPA.

I'd like to specify this can be appealed only to ARCA where mob mentality is less likely. Are we allowed to do that if we can get consensus? Valereee (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments, we can ban AE/AN appeals for up to one year, which in effect is the same as saying "appeal only to ARCA" for one year (although I'm not sure that was what the enacting arbs envisioned this clause would be used for). After that, an indef would become a regular-admin block regardless, appealable through {{unblock}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Memory says that we did consider it. Izno (talk) 22:12, 9 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

Chess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA5

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

1. 2025-04-02 Source misrepresentation:

The context of this is that GeoColdWater started a requested move to move 2025 Gaza Strip anti-Hamas protests to 2025 Gaza protests citingMany sources indicate that these protests against Hamas are part of wider protests against the Gaza war and Gaza genocide:, and are therefore not "anti-Hamas". GeoColdWater misrepresents sources in pursuit of this:

• GeoColdWater quotes this New York Times article as (emphasis theirs):
  • However, the headline of the article isIn Rare Protest, Gazans Voice Frustration With Hamas and the first paragraph (immediately prior to the one GeoColdWater quoted) saysPalestinians protested in Gaza on Tuesday in a rare show of dissent against Hamas, with some chanting slogans critical of the armed group’s grip on the territory after more than a year of devastating war with Israel.
• GeoColdWater quotes this New Arab article as saying (emphasis theirs):
  • However, the article has a headline sayingGaza: Hundreds of Palestinians protest against deadly war, Hamas governance and the first paragraph of the article saysHundreds of Palestinians have protested in northern Gaza to demand an end to war and chanting "Hamas out," social media posts showed, in a rare public show of opposition to the group which has governed the enclave since 2007.

Both of those articles clearly describe the protests as being protests against Hamas in their headlines and summary paragraphs. However, GeoColdWater selectively quotes from the sources to argue that these articles imply the opposite. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User was formerly known as "GeometryCrown". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: I notified MaskedSinger because they said that GeoColdWater misrepresented the Associated Press story. I don't think that's as clear-cut, which is why I didn't mention it here, but they might disagree with me.

Since you raise the point that I should nominate all participants, I've added a link to this WP:AE thread at that talk page.[6] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoColdWater: OK, but that's not what you said at that requested move. You say here thatAs I say myself, there were anti-Hamas protestors in Gaza, I am just claiming that these were not the only protestors involved. In other words, that the protestors were not exclusively anti-Hamas. But at that discussion, you said Many sources also refer to these protests as being anti-war with some protestors also being against Hamas, rather than being exclusively anti-Hamas protests Or, in other words, the anti-Hamas protestors were a minority element and not a focus of the protests.

The New York Times piece explicitly says that the protests were a "show of dissent against Hamas" and the New Arab article says they're "a rare public show of opposition".

The quotes you're presenting right now conflate the general opinion of Gazans with those of the protestors. You are sayingit states that Gazans publicly tend to blame Israel with elements among them blaming Hamas. That does not imply that the majority of the protestors blame Israel, it is a broader statement about Gazan opinions.

You also could've made your arguments without resorting to distorting those two pieces as well. The Deutsche Welle article does support your viewpoint and I can see a WP:POVNAME argument that the protests being anti-Hamas is disputed. I dislike misrepresentation of sourcing, since those two articles do not say what you want them to say. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland: I think it's a fair argument to make and I just !voted a weak support at the move. I don't think we should endorse a specific view if there is a dispute in the sourcing, and GeoColdWater does provide a few sources that demonstrates there's a dispute about how to describe the protests.

The problem I have is that GeoColdWater is claiming that the New York Times piece and the New Arab sources treat the "anti-Hamas" angle as disputed. This isn't true, both of those pieces clearly describe the protests, as a whole, as anti-Hamas. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, what are the factors to weigh in distinguishing source distortion from differing interpretations? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2024-03-08

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Only recently hit WP:500/30. It's concerning to see source distortion immediately after getting the WP:extended confirmed right.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

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 was originally going to respond to the claims of deliberate source misrepresentation on Talk:2025 Gaza Strip anti-Hamas protests later as I am currently busy irl at the moment, but considering how I've been reported here, I'll make a quick response considering the urgency.

Both claims of "misrepresentation" here are not misrepresentation at all. As I say myself, there were anti-Hamas protestors in Gaza, I am just claiming that these were not the only protestors involved.

The articles show something similar, the New Arab article says the protests were against "deadly war" as well as Hamas in the headline. I do not see how I am misrepresenting this source, it indicates, as I stated, that there were protestors against Hamas, but that these were part of wider protests against the war.

The New York Times article, while it does only talk about the anti-Hamas elements in the protests, this seems to simply because it would be surprising to the NYT's target audience that there would be any protestors against Hamas in Gaza. However, the article itself indicates that these are part of wider protests against the Gaza war, stating "Gazans, at least publicly, tend to blame Israel for much of the death, destruction and hunger the war has brought. But at least some hold Hamas responsible, as well, for starting the conflict by leading the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, abducting 251 people to Gaza and continuing to fight rather than giving up its power in exchange for a cease-fire." Here, it states that Gazans publicly tend to blame Israel with elements among them blaming Hamas.

I do not see how I have misrepresented any of the sources given. Geo (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Chess notified another editor involved in the discussion at Talk:2025 Gaza Strip anti-Hamas protests#Requested move 29 March 2025 of this discussion at Special:Diff/1283680224. Chess does not appear to have notified any other editors involved in that discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 01:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess, since you provided a notification directly to that editor's talk page, if you were not to appear to be selective in your notifications I would expect notifications to the talk pages of all editors involved in the discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 02:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but I agree with Tamzin. The 'to...imply the opposite' in the statement 'GeoColdWater selectively quotes from the sources to argue that these articles imply the opposite' doesn't seem like a valid conclusion to me. Wouldn't the opposite be to argue that they were pro-Hamas protests? It seems more like a normal dispute about how to compress the information sampled from the sources, how much complexity to preserve. Deciding that A (anti-Hamas) is the signal and B (anti-war) is the noise, or vice versa, on a binary basis could both be considered forms of 'misrepresentation' using selective sampling to POV push to different observers. Disputes about due weight and how to summarize sources are healthy in PIA aren't they, compared to edit warring anyway. Maybe I missed something. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to be pinged over this. To elaborate further, I just think the shorter title makes more sense. It's like if 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre were to be named "1989 Tiananmen Square anti-communist protests" when the movement wasn't wholly against the ruling CCP but also the participants airing various other grievances with the reforms. I also don't think it's a misinterpretation given sources also stated there are those also protesting against Israel. I'm saying this even as someone who sympathise with both Israel and the Palestinian people.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is about the protests against Hamas so why shouldn't the headline reflect this? As I commented on the discussion, to change the name would be misleading. Gaza war protests is a separate article that already exists. That there were elements of the protests that were against other things doesn't diminish the notability of their being protests against Hamas especially in the light of what happened to Oday Nasser Al Rabay MaskedSinger (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This reads like a content dispute. If a source says "A, but also B", both "This is about A because it's the focus of the piece" and "This is about A+B because that's the broader topic" are reasonable interpretations. Which one to use is something for the talk page to decide -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree this seems like a content dispute. I don't see evidence of intentional misrepresentation, just of different interpretations. Valereee (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chess, re: For future reference, what are the factors to weigh in distinguishing source distortion from differing interpretations? If a reasonable person could argue either interpretation from a particular source, it's IMO a content dispute. If only someone with a strong specific/particular point of view could interpret it in a certain way, arguing that interpretation, especially at length when others aren't agreeing, might be a behavior issue. JMO. Valereee (talk) 18:15, 4 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

Dan Murphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mikewem (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/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

1. [8] The Mikewem account (at the time of this writing all of 192 edits to its name) removed a comment I made at Talk:Zionism. I was responding to a non-ecr IP account that claimed association with a pro-Israel advocacy group. I wrote the group shouldn't have input to the page, citing the group in question's efforts to have lapel pins with Palestinian flags on them serve as evidence of support for "antisemitism" and "rape and murder." Mikewem claimed my comments were a "personal attack."
2. [9] After I restored my comment the Mikewem account again removed it.
3. [10] The Mikewem account also wrote, in response to my expression of disagreement with two other non-ecr accounts about a proposed change to the Zionism article, requesting I be ignored because of my alleged earlier "personal attack."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [11] 24 hour block from the Zionism talk page.
2. [12] Indefinite block from Wikipedia following Mikewem's escalation around the Zionism block. The account was unblocked a few weeks later.
3. [13] First CTOP warning for Israel-Palestine, last October.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't care whose sock it is. But it is all very blech.Dan Murphy (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14]

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.

In my view, the things at question here are

1. Whether or not Dan Murphy’s statement to a user that they should be denied access to WP due to personal association was a personal attack

2. Whether or not the policy that “any editor may remove a personal attack against another editor” extends to non-ecr editors.

3. Whether or not my edit had anything whatsoever to do with any I/P content, broadly construed. My view is that my edit did not concern any I/P content whatsoever, and therefore neither ecr nor arbpia necessarily apply here, per my understanding.

I am not asking that any sanction be applied against Dan Murphy at this time, but I’m kindly requesting that he considers making fewer personal attacks in the future.

I asked an administrator User:Chetsford that Dan’s input be “de-weighted”, not ignored. Again, my comment did not address or discuss any content related to the I/P dispute. My edit and note to an admin was solely focused on WP regulations on civility, completely divorced from any topic area.

Accusing me of being a sock puppet is another personal attack, respectfully Mikewem (talk) 00:23, 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.

• Mikewem, you are not allowed to edit at PIA until you have 500 edits. Valereee (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Since this is the third time Mikewem has wound up in trouble over the scope of the ECR's limited exception for edit requests, I propose simplifying things by imposing a TBAN that will expire when they reach EC. I also support an informal warning to Dan Murphy to focus on content rather than contributor (cf. [15]) and not to accuse editors of sockpuppetry without evidence (as in this thread). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1. Valereee (talk) 16:20, 15 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

Malik-Al-Hind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

• 12:26, 26 March 2025: Dympies falsely accuses the editor for bludgeoning: [16] who's currently appealing for topic ban [17], When I cross-checked their given evidence: [18][19], I found no grounds in their accusation but gives a clue for dympies unnecessarily troubling the OP and WP:GRAVEDANCING at best.
• 11:35, 28 March 2025 / 14:09, 28 March 2025: Wikilawyering over their poor evidence: [20][21] and then runs from the discussion after failing to prove how these evidence [22] (a clear miss) [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-TianHao1225-20250129044800-Allahabad_should_be_a_synonym_not_a_former_name] (helpful for discussion) contains "bludgeoning".
• 28 Match 2025: Claiming "Provides an intriguing reference" is editorializing, while the content is backed by reliable sources (see Prayagraj#Gupta Empire).
• 10:12, 30 March 2025: Removed a WP:RS with misleading edit summary (original research)
• Removal of sourced 31.6% figure without once verifying: [23]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 19 June 2023: Indefinitely topic-banned from Rajput
2. 20 December 2023: Topic-banned from IPA
3. 2 December 2024: AN3 block.

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

[24]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think a separate report on AE would be appropriate to deal with this issue. A broader topic ban from IPA should be in consideration, given their continuous battleground and IDHT behaviour. The user clearly doesn't improve his way of dealing with CTOPs discussion and continues to poison the well: [25]. Note that the editor has a history of getting sanctioned for pov pushing [26] and later the sanction was expanded [27] throughout IPA. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So Dympies has cleverly ommited the RM evidence which he has presented on AN, and refrains from acknowledging that he was wrong with this. The "23 comment" RfC was proved to be helpful for editors: @ExclusiveEditor: [28], @Mithilanchalputra7: [29], @Nemov: [30]. CX Zoom [31] realised that Abo Yemen was acting all the way in the battleground mentality [32][33][34]. In fact it's clear that a user was needed to counter them in order to make them familiar with WP:P&G & WP:FORUM. Dympies claim - I'm not familiar with WP:BLUD, while refusing to talk about this, and if "Provides an intriguing reference" is a content issue then what purpose it had to be used against the OP? Moreover it's an "opinion" of a scholar. This is not dishonest to bring an issue which was corrected shortly before this report. In case they don't know - Attacking a topic-banned editor by falsely accusing them for bludgeoning is indeed WP:GRAVEDANCING.

(Note: Dympies has chosen to distance themselves with the issues regarding "RM bludgeoning" and the "RS removal"). @Voorts I'm sorry, the edit summary may not be misleading but removing a source which references Gurbilases was not a good idea either, the chronicles of Ferishta & Rajtarangini are also considered as fakery and exaggeration of facts but we shouldn't be removing sources referencing it. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[35]

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.

1. There is in fact bludgeoning, Garudam has made 23 comments in the RfC[36][37], most of them replying to @Abo Yemen:, if one reviews the RfC, one can easily see how problematic the sheer badgering by Garudam is, I also see that Abo Yemen felt harassed by Garudam's conduct there. [38]. The filer's accusations of grave dancing are not backed by the diffs and appear to be aspersions.
2. I have clarified what i meant when i said Garudam was bludgeoning, with a link to the RfC and wrote about 23 comments made there, it would be inappropriate to expect me to cite all 23 diffs of Garudam's replies, I can if that is what is needed. I think the filer does not understand what bludgeoning means and is asking for evidence of something that is so obvious to the naked eye.
3. "Provides an intriguing reference" is indeed editorializing, it is kind of irrelevant to say that it is backed by the sources because even if it is, we are supposed to mention facts in a bland language, "intriguing" is an opinion, and anyway this is a content issue, not behavioural.
4. It is dishonest to cite this diff here, I restored the content[39] when I realised that the page number was not 50 as cited but 56.

In short, this report is frivolous and misleading. I think we need to take the filer's own conduct into account as well such as their problematic defence of Garudam's appeal at AN. Dympies (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: That's not right because the filer has been blocked as a sock. Half of it is about content issues that are already resolved, suffice to say that report is misleading and an WP:LTA filing.

As for Ekdalian, his remarks mostly pertain to past period before getting Tban which was successfully appealed long ago. All recent diffs show content disputes and nothing else. Ekdalian has a history of filing reports against me, and was still seeking sanctions against me elsewhere very recently[40] even after getting formally warned against such battleground behavior by AE admins.[41] I don't think he should be allowed to use this LTA's filing for WP:FORUMSHOPPING with the same claims that were already dealt with by admin Abecedare very recently.[42] Dympies (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush had begun to allege me of pov editing ever since I declined to accept their opinion at Talk:Rajput two days back. Then, they expressed their disagreements with me in other thread and hinted twice that I am affiliated to Rajput caste.[43][44] Despite making strong allegations, they didn't care to discuss sources which support my "alleged pov". Such behaviour violates WP:AGF, WP:COI and WP:OR. Their allegations here should be seen in context of our ongoing content dispute only. Dympies (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LeónGonsalvesofGoa, firstly this forum is for behavioural issues rather than content disputes, your diffs are of little help. About diffs a,b,c,

d, e, it was purely your opinion that the content is not NPOV. In an RfC, editors are supposed to express their opinions like "support" or "oppose" and its completely their discretion whether to respond to each comment or not. Talking too much in RfC apart from main comment is likely to be considered WP:BLUDGEONING. Btw, its dishonest on your part to say that I didn't respond to your questions.[45][46][47] About f, again, is there any compulsion on me to respond to every comment from you or LukeEmily? I expressed my opinion in a poll ie "Support Tban and overturn all closures" and LukeEmily expressed his by commenting on my vote. I repeat, I am not fond of bludgeoning. Responding to him didn't make any sense as it wasn't the right forum for that. About g, Abecedare had imposed the "consensus required" restriction" on Rajput page which was to replace the existing WP:BRD. I expressed my concern about it and, as visible in diff, Abecedare understood my concern and gave a partial exemption to me and LukeEmily (two long time editors of page). In all, I found your concerns unsubstantial, inaccurate and irrelevant. Dympies (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush, your observation that I don't edit aspects other than varna in the Rajput page is totally incorrect. See my edits which are unrelated to varna.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] Dympies (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LeónGonsalvesofGoa, about b,c,d,e, bludeoning means to repeat the same thing again and again. If you sincerely see this RfC, the one who was actually bludeoning was LukeEmily who continued to ask the same questions despite getting convincing responses from my side. Same questions often get the same responses. It is to be noted that they had "strongly opposed" the proposal. They commented on almost every user who had supported the proposl (against their opinion) and their comments in the RfC number 39! About edit warring sanction f, I had received a small two week block from editing a single page ie 2019 Balakot airstrike. In that incident, I was already engaging on talk page and admin must have taken this into account when they released me from sanction well before its expiry. About g, me and other users had been following WP:BRD which sometimes resulted in minor incidents of edit warring. Abecedare had imposed a "consensus required" restriction and I was expressing my disagreement with that. It should be seen in that context only. One can't single out me and question by editing behavior on Rajput page as edit wars cannot be seen as one-sided. I had been using talk page whenever need arose. Dympies (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IAmAtHome, making baseless accusations of being "caste warrior" can drive you into trouble. My edits in the area are based on WP:RS rather than WP:OR. Your observation that most of my edits are in Rajput or Kshatriya pages is wrong as my contribs are vastly diversified. Your remarks on diff A is completely misleading. In case of B, Adamantine123 was proposing a new page which had already been deleted by community. In case of C, Ekdalian had reported me at ANI on grounds of past sanction and their WP:OR. These events heated me a bit. While former user was later permanently blocked on grounds of promoting caste hatred and personal attacks, logged warning was issued later to latter for making personal attacks. This shows the kind of behaviour I was subjected to. Dympies (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, in Dec 2023, my existing Rajput ban was replaced with IPA ban. As far as Rajput editing is concerned, after successfully appealing by Tban, I found that there were some aspects of Rajputs which hadn't been covered. I added some content citing high quality sources. But my editing often contradicted WP:OR of some users. I got used to listen from them a rant that I was promoting Rajput caste and I had previously been sanctioned in same area[56][57][58][59], but they failed to prove how my present editing was disruptive. A sock filed this malicious report and they found this as an opportunity to knock me out. Had there been any real issues with my edits at Rajput page, some diff must have been presented by now. Another thing which is being sensationalised is initiation of an Rfc by me. How can proposing some sourced content in RfC amount to disruption? Users should put their opinions in RfCs rather than casting doubts on an editor's integrity. Thanks. Dympies (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@admins, if you permit I would like to respond to diff I (regarding WP:MULTIPLE) and H (regarding my edit counts) raised by IamAtHome. Dympies (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the evidence presented and didn't see any case to take action. Anyone who is dominating an RfC does meet the definition of WP:BLUD and besides this, this ARE report feels very meta. The only diffs from the article space appear to be either (1) resolved well before the complaint was filed (2) purely a content issue. NXcrypto Message 07:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just received a ping from Malik Al Hind stating:Upon reconsideration, I believe this report is not appropriate and will not be productive. As per @NXcrypto:, I think it would be best to withdraw it. I sincerely apologize to the Wikipedia community for any inconvenience caused by this filing. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[60]. Since Malik has now been a sock, the best course of action is to close this report. NXcrypto Message 05:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dympies has a history of agressive POV pushing on the contentious caste article, Rajput. In fact, Dympies has been persistently pushing their POV (caste promotion) in the article on Rajput even after they were topic banned for the same (after the TBAN was lifted)! While enforcing the topic ban on Rajput and related articles, admin Abecedare had provided a detailed explanation of how Dympies has engaged in slow edit warring and successfully achieved their goal of POV pushing! I shall not provide older diffs which resulted in the block by Abecedare. Coming to the current scenario, they have shown extraordinary efforts in order to prove that Rajput is the most successful claimant of Kshatriya; please refer Talk:Kshatriya and the RfC related to the same. Let me provide some diffs which prove my point: 1. Recent statement by admin Abecedare replying to Dympies, please see 1; 2. Enforcement of Consensus Required on the same article, please see Talk:Rajput#"Consensus required" page restriction; 3. Recent statement by possibly the most experienced editor on caste articles, Sitush, please see 3; 4. Another statement by Sitush, please see 4; 5. Again, another statement by Sitush, please see 5. I believe these diffs are enough to re-impose the TBAN for persistent and agressive POV pushing. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dympies, you sayAll recent diffs show content disputes and nothing else regarding those supplied by Ekdalian. It is also POV-pushing, in my opinion. I know nothing of your history but I have plenty of experience of how slow-burn caste warriors do their stuff and my various comments on Talk:Rajput in the last 3 or so days reflect my concern that you are engaged in the practice. You will see it also in my comments which Ekdalian hasn't diff'd and to which you mostly responded. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering - just pinging because I think our edits crossed/conflicted. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dympies, I didn't get a ping for your response to me. The response is basically to repeat your dodgy assertion that these are mere content disputes, which is precisely what I addressed in my opening statement. Thus, as at Talk:Rajput, you are just repeating an assertion while ignoring the concern (eg: your repeated claim there that a few caste articles have dedicated sections for varna, whilst ignoring the arguments that hundreds of others do not have such sections). You seem tonhave a fixation with promoting the Rajput claim to Kshatriya status there and at the Kshatriya article but don't seem to have much interest in other aspects of that caste or of varna itself - that is historically a red flag for caste warrior-ship. I'd provide diffs but it's really hard work when using the app. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dympies Please retract your statement regarding me thatyour observation that I don't edit aspects other than varna in the Rajput page is totally incorrect. That is not what I said, which makes your subsequent remarks somewhat moot. I said that you appear to have a fixation with varna there. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since January 2025, I would be remiss not to mention the user's consistent WP:NOTHERE behaviour on caste-related articles.

In the Kshatriya RfC referenced above, the user repeatedly fails to address the question raised by myself and others about why reliably sourced content merits inclusion if it violates NPOV: a b c d e

When the RfC was appropriately closed as "no consensus," the user sought to overturn it without good reason and never answered LukeEmily's question. f

When the "consensus required" sanction was enacted, the user reflected on how edit warring with edit summaries suffice for addressing contentious discussions and described the RfC as having "slowed down everything." g

Taken together, I believe this behaviour risks further harm to the encyclopaedia if left unchecked. 04:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk)

Dympies Your reply confirms the problem here. Where you see content, I see a behavioural issue. Back in August 2024, you appealed on two conditions z.

"Before adding any content, I will give more care to WP:DUE."

WP:BLUDGEONING reads, "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions." The Kshatriya RfC is a prime example. Even after the RfC was overturned on 12 March, you continue to assert the reliability of sources without acknowledging undue weight b c d and disregarding contradictory evidence e provided by others.

"I will try my level best to avoid edit warring."

You already got sanctioned for edit warring in December 2024 f.

Four months later, you state, "Though we do engage in edit wars, but very often, we are able to convey ourselves better through edit summaries. At some point, we stop edit wars showing mutual respect and turn to talk page." g

Eight months later, your actions speak louder than words. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted Dympies attempt to strike the OP. I don't understand why he is striking him when Izno had already familiarised us with Malik being a sock. It's not that we do the same in the above report of ImperialAficionado. Heraklios 16:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted again [61] after this Dympies, we aren't on any !voting discussion like AfD or RM so WP:SOCKSTRIKE doesn't apply here to begin with, if you think you were not wrong in bludgeoning or other raised issues then it's unreasonable to bother striking the OP. Heraklios 17:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being uninvolved and as I do patrol W:AE and W:AN when I'm not editing, that's the reason I landed here. I took a look at Dympies's contributions; he seems like a 'caste warrior'. His main contributions are limited to Rajput,Talk:Rajput or Kshatriya where, on Rajput he was T.Banned in 2023; unfortunately he hasn't learned from his T.Banned or from the 2-weeks block for edit warring.

His POV pushing (caste promotion) and idea of adding Rajputs as "most successful claimants of Kshatriya status (varna)?" To a caste-neutral article were clearly not per WP:DUE when scholars differ on claims of various castes or Rajput being Kshatriya . Dympies was engaged in slow edit wars on Rajput and Kshatriya that he admitted on Abecedare's talk page.(A)

His nature of making personal attacks rather than discussing content disputes is also concerning.(B) Earlier he was warned for this behavior but still not changed.(C)

Comments in unblock appeal show his aggressive behavior of clearly not here. Like when he said in an unblock appeal after a block. "...I don't want to be bullied like this in future" (He considered the 2-weeks block as bullying).(D) And considering his 4.5 years-old account as privileged. His aggressive behavior was also shown when he assumed filer's behavior was bullying. When he was asked to complain at Administrator noticeboard he said "I am well aware how seriously reports against admins are taken at ANI" which also indicates he has trust issues regarding all admins conduct at ANI or maybe on all admins noticeboards.(E) I believe that enforcing strict sanctions is necessary by reinstating a ban, block, or ban in ARBIPA. IAmAtHome (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is misleading. It hasn't addressed my questions. You were advised by Assilvering ("focus on content, not contributors"). This comment, "Baseless accusations of being "caste warrior" can drive you into trouble." It reflects you paid no attention to advise ignoring that this report is only about your conduct. You took AE in your hands & still showed your behavior of edit war.(F)(G) (read WP:HOLES)

You are incorrect. Your contributions are limited to Rajput (303 edits), Talk:Rajput (102), Chitpavan Brahmins(58), talk:Kshatriya(50) then others.(H) Your contributions not concerned but POV (caste promotion on Rajput, Kshatriya).

Once you accused an admin & said "But I remember you engaged in an argument over the same content with my alternate account previously. So, I can understand your involvement here." You were asked to disclose alternative accounts but, you didn't yet.(I) You should disclose per WP:MULTIPLE.

ANI report heated you a bit? You were warned (October 2024). Later again you personally attacked an editor.(J) Your history of personal attacks are concerning. Again In your answer you accused Ekdalian-Adamantine123 (read WP:FOC).

Dympies has not answered my questions uncovering or accepting his mistakes. Valereee, Tamzin, enforcing strict sanctions is necessary by reinstating a T.Ban, block, or Ban in WP:CASTE. For not addressing raised concerns, POV (caste promotion), history of edit wars still showed at AE, history of personal attacks, aggressive nature of focusing on users not the content & behavior of not learning from his past T.Ban, or 2-weeks block. IAmAtHome (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee:, I am in complete agreement with Sitush. There is behavior evidence too. I can provide some diffs in a day or two. The comment by F&F about WP:SEALION also is relevant related to some editors and this is causing a burnout to other editors.LukeEmily (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, Voorts, and Tamzin: This report filed by a sock is tainting the credibility of some of the comments that were correctly raised about the edits of Dympies. I have some evidence to offer but this sock report is making it impossible to file an easy-to-understand report about Dympies. Can you consider closing this report? I promise I will file a new report with proper diffs in 24 hours. Capitals00 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• For convenience, the link to the August 2024 lifting of that IPA TBAN: Special:Diff/1241568664. -- asilvering (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Dympies: bludgeoning is not equivalent to contributing X number of comments to a discussion. In that discussion, many of Garudam's responses were to a couple of different threads, and Garudam successfully deescalated things. Additionally, asking other editors to explain their reasoning, stop making irrelevant arguments, or provide evidence is not bludgeoning. RE #3, this edit summary is not misleading. The quotation in the ref attributes the referenced fact to the Gurbilases. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I have blocked the filer as a sock, separate to this filing. Izno (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that block is for suspected. Not sure whether that means we should still consider this? Valereee (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a sock filing a report deprives us of jurisdiction in our role as an adjunct of ArbCom, particularly since an editor in good standing has made additional complaints. We could close this and ask Ekdalian to refile, but that seems needlessly bureaucratic. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dympies: I'm not speaking to the merits of Ekdalian's complaint, just about whether we can review it here. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the diffs in Ekdalian's complaint, I think we should close this. Dympies is correct that the diffs show content disputes, not overt conduct disputes. This may well be pov-pushing, but the talk page diffs (and related conversations) provided don't show it clearly enough that I think this is at all likely to result in sanctions. If there's to be an investigation into whether Dympies is persistently caste-pushing after their tban was lifted, or has otherwise returned to the behaviour that prompted that ban in the first place, I think that's better being handled as its own separate complaint. -- asilvering (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I am still concerned about the improper accusations of bludgeoning, but I don't think a formal sanction is warranted for that. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at this point we're getting a pretty good demonstration of bludgeoning in the other direction... Dympies, you're north of 900 words already. -- asilvering (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dympies, while we're here, reminder to focus on content, not contributors. Things like "you didn't read what I said" can be rephrased as "that's not what I meant". Avoid giving anyone space to start the personal argument and you'll be safer from being drawn into one. -- asilvering (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Dympies and HerakliosJulianus: I don't really care about whether the comment has a strikethrough going through it, but anyone who continues edit-warring over it is going to get blocked from this noticeboard at a minimum. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1. Edit-warring at AE is not a good look, for either of you. And over who gets to decide how an AE case should be clerked, just plain silliness. And please, all of you, stop replying to each other, every exchange with someone besides an admin makes the admins' jobs harder. Dympies, if an admin working here needs you explain a diff someone besides the other party has posted, they'll ask for that explanation. The most you need to offer before that is "I can explain every diff posted by Editor X, if I can have a few more words". Valereee (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dympies, Back in August when you appealed your IPA tban -- which had been imposed because you'd violated your tban on Rajput -- you said For last seven months, I edited pages which are unrelated to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I made 325+ edits including creation of 6 articles. My editing in the duration was quite peaceful and I didn't receive further sanctions. I'm going to suggest that Rajput does appear to be a place where you have a hard time keeping out of trouble. And in fact I'm not sure that lifting the TBAN on IPA should have meant also lifting the original TBAN on Rajput. You can have 200 words to respond. Valereee (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  IAmAtHome, Dympies doesn't actually have to answer your questions, and while it's generally encouraged to fully disclose alternate accounts, that's also not mandatory either. Dympies, I'm not actually even clear on what point is being made with (H). (I) shows only that you seemed to have a chip on your shoulder and at least at the time didn't understand that you have no right to make three reverts. Neither of these seem (to me at least, maybe others working here have a different take) very relevant to this discussion. Valereee (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Prevent archiving unactioned. Valereee (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm open to closing unactioned in anticipation of a better filing by Capitals00. Valereee (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Happy to second that, since it seems better for all involved than having this one continue to stick around. -- asilvering (talk) 19:17, 19 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

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Boutboul (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/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

1. 10:27, 28 March 2025 Changed text from "over 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled" to "over 700,000 Arabs fled or were expelled", even though this text is wikilinked to 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Edit summary of: "Anachronism: Palestinians were called Arabs at that time." - This is nonsense, as we obviously use the terminology that the best reliable sources use and not the terminology that may have been used at the time. Though this was explained to Boutboul on the talk page and their edit was reverted, they nonetheless restored their change [62] (no edit summary). They've argued repeatedly on the talk page that "most historians [...] refer to these individuals as Arab refugees." and "Most historians refer to the people involved in this event as 'Arabs' rather than 'Palestinians'." This is simply a misrepresentation of the sources.
2. 10:41 22 March 2025 In an RFC about the reliability of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, Boutboul alleged that EMHRM "has repeatedly published false and misleading statements as fact", with no sources provided to support this. In response to a user stating "No one has as of yet pointed out a pattern of falsehoods from Euro-Med HRM as determined by RS", Boutboul responded saying "Here Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians. This is just one example." Yet they only cite the EMHRM article itself and do not cite any source suggesting this article contains any false information. When challenged on this, Boutboul stated that "None of the other media outlets (BBC, The Guardian, etc.) reported that the IDF used police dogs to rape Palestinian civilians. EMHRM has never retracted this accusation, which raises serious concerns about its reliability as a source." Of course, the idea that a source should retract its reporting when it has not been refuted is irrational.
3. (No diff found since comment not signed properly) In the same RfC as above, alleging a "link between the founder Ramy Abdu and a terrorist organization", citing NGO Monitor, a source categorized as generally unreliable per WP:RSP: "There is a consensus that NGO Monitor is not reliable for facts. Editors agree that, despite attempts to portray itself otherwise, it is an advocacy organization whose primary goal is to attack organizations that disagree with it or with the Israeli government regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." When further challenged as to "What is the evidence of any connection [between EMHRM] to Hamas", they stated "The picture where you can see the founder of EMHRM with Ismael Hanyeh, former Hamas leader. This is not sufficient?"[63] When another user responded saying "How does this picture link EMHRM with Hamas? [...] It seems like WP:SYNTH to suggest that this picture alone is evidence of a COI between the EMHRM and Hamas." Boutboul replied "Such public proximity to a political leader of Hamas [...] can be perceived as political alignment or, at the very least, a serious breach of the fundamental principles of neutrality and reliability to be used on Wikipedia."[64]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. No previous sanctions that I'm aware of.

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

[65]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'd like to request a 150 word extension to present another example and to clarify which policies I'm alleging this user has violated. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC) Edited 11:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS: Extension granted. Please put that here in "Additional comments". JensonSL (SilverLocust) 18:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Principles I allege Boutboul violated:

1. WP:BRD, by "restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account"
2. WP:CIR, by lacking "the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles."
3. WP:TE, per "there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources", & "judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint."
4. WP:IDHT, added "1948 Arab-Israeli War" as alternate name of 1948 Palestine war.[66] Despite being repeatedly corrected [67][68][69][70] they continue to insist on this.[71][72][73][74]
5. Source misrepresentation ("Arabs" vs "Palestinians") [75][76] & [77][78] + WP:IDHT [79]

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin, nothing in this report has been addressed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This report is still not being addressed. I did not report this user for pointiness. No comment on the source misrepresentation for instance @Tamzin @Valereee? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, the second example is more clear and I believe clarifies what Boutboul meant. ([80] & [81]) IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, regarding "If someone said, "Khalidi uses Arabs more often than Palestinians", that would be misrepresenting the source." This is exactly what Boutboul is saying: "When describing the events of 1947–1948—specifically the departure or expulsion of the Arab population—many leading historians, including Khalidi and Morris, carefully use the term “Arabs” or “Palestinian Arabs," reflecting the language and framing used during that time. Later in their narratives, especially when discussing developments after 1948, they often shift to “Palestinians,” which mirrors the evolution of identity and terminology."[82]

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the sources, especially of Khalidi. Boutboul cites Khalidi's Iron Cage and yet in that work they use Palestinians more commonly by far throughout, including "When describing the events of 1947–1948—specifically the departure or expulsion of the Arab population" - Ex. "the expulsion or flight of between a quarter million and 350,000 Palestinians" & "set hundreds of thousands of Palestinians on the road to exile." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I have to push back on this, @Valereee, @Tamzin.

Boutboul's words have not been ambigious, and this is not a matter of minutiae. My comment above very clearly shows source misrepresentation and I'm not understanding how it can be seen otherwise.

Even in Boutboul's initial statement here they've said "several academic sources use the term "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians" when referring to the events of 1948", citing Khalidi's Iron Cage as an example. In that work Khalidi uses the word Palestinians much, much more often than Arabs or Palestinian Arabs, including when talking about 1948. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, I'm saying that Khalidi's Iron Cage is not an example of an academic source which "use[s] the term "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians" when referring to the events of 1948." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Valereee. The point is Khalidi does not use "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians" when referring to 1948. Perhaps reread my above comment from 19:18, 18 April. Also note that a significant number of Khalidi's uses of the word "Arabs" does not refer to Palestinians. (Examples: "unhappiness with American policy among Arabs and Muslims", "various British and allied pledges to Arabs, supported the Palestinian claims.") Of course Palestinians are Arabs so Khalidi does say things like "More than half of the country’s [Palestine's] Arab majority, probably over 750,000 people, were expelled [...]" but he by far most commonly refers to Palestinians as Palestinians, even when referring to 1948, and it is false Boutboul's statement that "after 1948, they often shift to “Palestinians,” which mirrors the evolution of identity and terminology."

Perhaps this instance is more clear, where Boutboul says "What stands out is Khalidi’s careful precision: he uses the term “Arabs” when referring to the moment of departure, and then shifts to “Palestinians” when describing those who remained or were displaced in the longer term. [...] I believe we should apply the same level of precision and nuance when writing on Wikipedia."[83] I repeat myself but this is blatantly wrong and I gave two quotes of Khalidi above that contradict this ("the expulsion or flight of between a quarter million and 350,000 Palestinians" & "set hundreds of thousands of Palestinians on the road to exile.") IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[84]

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.

First, I try to contribute to Wikipedia in a respectful and collegial manner. If any of my edits were perceived otherwise, I sincerely apologize.

Regarding the topics raised in the RfC about EMHRM, I only did what is expected in such a process: I stated my opinion and supported it with sources and arguments. I believe my position is fair and have nothing to add beyond what FortunateSons already expressed below.

As for the issue of using "Palestinians" versus "Arabs", that discussion had only just begun on the article's talk page, and I would have preferred it to continue there. However, since it's been brought up here, I’ll simply note that several academic sources use the term "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians" when referring to the events of 1948:

• Enemies and Neighbours: Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel - Ian Black: "The refugees who were driven out, fled, and dispersed in the Nakba (catastrophe) were widely referred to as ‘Arabs’ in the 1950s and 1960s. [...] Usage began to change gradually after the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964, and the Arab recognition of the PLO as the ‘sole legitimate representative’ of the Palestinian people in 1974 further reinforced that shift."

• The Iron Cage - Rashid Khalidi: "More than half of the country’s Arab majority, probably over 750,000 people, were expelled from or forced to flee the areas that became part of the state of Israel.

• Encyclopedia Britannica: Estimates of the number of Arabs displaced from their original homes, villages, and neighborhoods during the period from December 1947 to January 1949 range from about 520,000 to about 1,000,000; there is general consensus, however, that the actual number was more than 600,000 and likely exceeded 700,000.

• International Law and the Arab–Israeli Conflict: "The Arab population of Palestine regard the war as a catastrophe, al Nakba, that caused the exodus of some 750, 000 Arabs.

• A History of the First Arab-Israeli War - Benny Moris: "About 700,000 Arabs [...] fled or were ejected from the areas that became the Jewish state".

Of course, one can also find scholarly sources that use the term "Palestinians" to describe those displaced in 1948. However, it is important to acknowledge that a very significant portion of the academic literature refers to them as "Arabs", and that this was the accepted terminology at the time (as explain by Ian Black) — used by all parties involved in 1948.

@Valereeeif you can't convince them after a reasonable attempt, you have to walk away. Thank you for the recommendation. Sorry if I pushed too hard, but in the end, I let it go.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor boutboul

Following the additional comments from IOHANNVSVERVS, I would like to request a 150-word extension in order to provide an adequate response--Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boutboul: Extension granted. Please put that here in "Additional comments". JensonSL (SilverLocust) 06:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 to 3 of additonal comments: these are vague allegations without any specific examples. Furthermore, the pages cited (WP:BRD, WP:CIR, WP:TE) are very interesting explanatory essays, not policies or guidelines.

Point 4: Yes, I maintain that "1948 Arab-Israeli War" and "1948 Palestine war" refer to the same historical event. Therefore, I proposed that the former be listed as an alternative name for the latter. It is clearly supported by reliable secondary scholarship, notably Benny Morris:

"The 1948 War—called by the Arab world the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-Nakba (the disaster), ..."

I believe this constitutes a good-faith and well-sourced contribution. To date, no contradictory reliable source has been presented—only references to Wikipedia pages.

I note that the edit in question was reverted without an inline counter-source: [85]. My intent has been to improve accuracy and reflect scholarship—not to promote a particular narrative.

Point 5 - already addressed--Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ValereeeI don't think @Boutboul has acknowledged the concern I expressed about avoiding pointiness when editing at CTOPs.

I’m truly sorry, but I didn’t see your concern about me using a sharp tone (pointiness). I may have missed something — could you point out where my tone came across that way? Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, further to @FortunateSons clarification (sorry for the misunderstanding).

From what I’ve seen, the term Arab (or Palestinian Arabs) is used predominantly in the body of the article, and there doesn’t appear to be a clear consensus on whether Arab or Palestinian should be preferred. Usually, the lead reflects the terminology used in the body.

When I began researching the 1948 flight or expulsion specifically, Arab was by far the more common term in the sources I encountered, and it seemed the more logical choice to me.

Both terms appear in recent scholarship without being tied to a particular narrative. For example, Anita Shapira, often described as a neo-Zionist historian, uses Palestinians: “the loss of Palestine as a state and the exile of some 700,000 Palestinians” (Shapira, Israel: A History, p. 157). Meanwhile, the Palestinian-American historian Rashid Khalidi uses both terms, but in this particular sentence opts for Arabs: “More than half of the country’s Arab majority, probably over 750,000 people.”

I chose Arab because it seemed more appropriate for the period, less anachronistic, and not because it was intended to support any particular narrative. I hope it clarifies why I changed the word Palestinian to Arab in one particular sentence of the lead. Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, On second thought, I think you meant to write “pointless” rather than “pointiness” (a word I couldn’t find a clear definition for). In that case, I can confirm that when I changed “Palestinian” to “Arab”, I did so thinking the term was more appropriate — I should have checked more sources and not relied on the number of occurrences in the article body to avoid a change that, in hindsight, seems pointless.

Does this better address your concerns? Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee Thanks for the clarification — in that case, does my previous response address your concern? I did not try to make a point. Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee Thank you for your very thoughtful message — I’ll certainly reflect on it, though at first glance I tend to disagree. When discussing historical events, it’s generally standard practice to use the terminology that was in use at the time, rather than applying modern names retroactively. For example, we don’t refer to “Turkey” for events that occurred in the 16th century, or to “France” instead of “Gaul” for events from antiquity, or to “Israel” when describing events from the Middle Ages, and so on. By the way, I don’t have strong feelings about it, but I do value accuracy. In my opinion, the problem comes from people who don’t accept those standard practices. It seems to me that we should avoid using anachronistic terms for historical contexts — unless, of course, secondary sources themselves consistently do so.

Would you consider the matter resolved, or have the new points raised by SmallAngryPlanet brought up further concerns on your end? Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, thanks for the advice, I agree it is a minefield. I’ll be more cautious. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee and @Tamzin, I was clearly wrong to use the word “consistently” — I should have been more precise, and I realize it led to a misunderstanding. I’d really appreciate any guidance or advice to help me avoid this kind of issue in the future. Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS You’re right — several of the words I used were ambiguous, particularly “consistently” and “1948 events.” Regarding the latter, I was specifically referring to this particular sentence, which I’ve quoted several times from multiple sources, and that I modified in the lead. Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereeeso willing to not address concerns expressed by workers here?

It’s not that we don’t want to address workers’ concerns — I just assumed, as Tamzin mentioned, that this was more of an ‘informal warning’ or a kind of final statement that didn’t call for a response. I’m sorry for coming across as impolite by not replying.

If clarification is needed, might I suggest adding a question mark next time to make that clearer? Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is significant to note that historically (as in: pre-1948), Palestinians referred to both Jews and Arabs living in the region, and many of the official Israeli documents still refer to Arab Israelis. I don’t think that the average reader would really be confused by this, but also don’t think that referring to Arab Palestinians - as is done in the target article - would have been particularly unreasonable. The rest is, at least in my opinion, a content dispute, though I think that IOHANNVSVERVS is right on the merits, with the reference to Arabs being in the clear minority.
2. This is a content dispute. As WP:ORdoes not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards., the rest seems to be a content question and not sanctionable. I think that Boutboul is right on this one, as this is an outrageous claim that has not been corroborated, largely in line with the Organ harvesting discussion. But again, being right isn’t relevant here.
3. Our own article about him refers describes him asAbdu was the assistant director and Palestine Office Manager for Council for European Palestinian Relations, an organisation described by The Independent as "a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government." The Independent goes even further, referring to him asIsrael’s Shin Bet security services said that the CEPR was recently declared an illegal organisation “in light of the fact that it is Hamas’ leading organisation in Europe, which carries out its activity under cover of being a pro-Palestinian organisation”, adding that “the organisation is headed by senior Hamas activists, including Arafat Shoukri and Rami Abdo,” Haaretz reported. No matter what one thinks of the allegation, questioning ties between an organization now considered terrorists by most of the so-called ‘Western world’ and someone posing for a picture with their political leadership is at least not sufficiently unreasonable to be worthy of sanction. FortunateSons (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Also, while optional, a discussion on the user talk is generally preferable to jumping straight into AE. FortunateSons (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   @Boutboul, I believe this is a misunderstanding. @Valereee is asking you to address concerns of you violating WP:POINT, right? FortunateSons (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   @Smallangryplanet, can you elaborate on the specific issue with the diff1? It looks fine to me, and the question would be WP:DUE, which seems like a content dispute; at first glance, he's right on the first and you being clearly right on the second, but both below the line of policy violation. The Euro-Med discussion is still a content dispute: even if WP:HEADLINES excludes their citation, I don't think that using the (original) headline as a method of article interpretation is per se unreasonable, particularly if the substantial change isn't noted in the article. FortunateSons (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   @Smallangryplanet,Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. is not the right policy for deciding the weight between different undisputed events, but for example, might be used to establish whether or not a certain event qualifies as a crime under international law. With mutual violence, it is generally best practice to cover the most significant acts of violence from both sides, even if one of those acts are worse than the other (though it should obviously start in the body first), and the appropriate weight coverage is established through analysis of sources, where a wide range of interpretations is generally permissible if supported by RS, which is the case here afaik. Euro-Med is about which specific factors lead to a source being considered unreliable, which is how a source for content should be evaluated; even if it’s not a content dispute in the strictest interpretation, it also nevertheless doesn’t meet the requirements for a conduct violation. FortunateSons (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 1948 Palestine war article, there are other instances where Boutboul did not adhere to a couple of policies, namely WP:FALSEBALANCE (diff1) and WP:POVPUSH (diff2).

For the Euro Med discussion, he has also been misrepresenting sources, insisting that Euro Med asserted the IDF wassystematically using dogs to rape Palestinians. The article he cited makes no such claim - it says Israel uses dogs to attack Palestinians, shares one witness testimony detailing one rape, and calls for a proper investigation. This has also been covered by other RS. When confronted with this, Boutbol continued insisting that the title of the article makes his assertion valid, ignoring WP:HEADLINES, and to support this claim, shared an archived version of the article that was subsequently updated. I don't know if this was done with the intention to mislead, but it seems weird to look for a specific archive when the article is still live with the updated headline, and most of the available archives show the updated headline.

As a side comment, Boutbol got his EC removed last year for EC gaming, and applied 3 times to get it back. He finally got it at the end of February, and was explicitly advised to be cautious. For someone so eager to participate in this CTOP, engaging in edit wars barely a month after having EC restored suggests that this may not be the best place for him to contribute. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons: The main issue with diff1 is that it is trying to give WP:FALSEBALANCE between two different "campaigns of massacres." If you want to talk about if it's WP:DUE or not, then it fails that test too, since we already cover that massacres happenedby and against both sides, and the Nakba (by our own definition!) is not a series of one-off tragic events. (It also violates how we're supposed to handle an article's lead, because it introduces some content to the led that isn't in the article itself.)

The Euro-Med thing is not a content dispute simply because there's no content being disputed; we're trying to determine if the resource is reliable or not. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Boutboul, changing Palestinians to Arabs because they were generally called that back then seems like it might be in service of making a point, in which case that's a behavioral issue. If there is a consensus at an article that a particular modern term be used, you can try to form new consensus, but if you can't, you just have to walk away. If you can't do that, that's also a behavioral issue.

We don't get into content here, but fwiw, if sources are using both and one is more precise for a particular usage, then consensus often does develop to use the more precise term, especially if the trend is toward that term. And if the argument you're making is just However, it is important to acknowledge that a very significant portion of the academic literature refers to them as "Arabs", you have to be able to convince people of why that's important at that article. And again, if you can't convince them after a reasonable attempt, you have to walk away. Valereee (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone object to closing this as "Has acknowledged an informal warning that sometimes one must accept a consensus one disagrees with"? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS: The Arab/Palestinian issue appears to be resolved per above. The two other diffs you presented don't seem to be to be so unreasonable as to cross over the content/conduct barrier. (Another way to put that is, even if Boutboul is wrong, merely being wrong isn't sanctionable.) I don't feel strongly about this, and if another admin thinks that they do cross that line, I wouldn't stand in the way of sanctions or a logged warning. But this has been open for two weeks and no admin has taken that stance yet, so at a certain point one has to assume no one is moved in that direction. I'll leave this open another 48 hours, though, and I'll toss in a ping to @Valereee in case she has any thoughts in addition to what she's said already. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think @Boutboul has acknowledged the concern I expressed about avoiding pointiness when editing at CTOPs.

As an aside on that, and this isn't just Boutboul, but why are so many people so focussed on responding at length to other commenters when workers here haven't even expressed concerns about those commenters' contributions, and so willing to not address concerns expressed by workers here? Valereee (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boutboul, no, not a sharp tone or pointless. I mean pointiness, as in making an edit in order to make a WP:POINT. What I said was changing Palestinians to Arabs because they were generally called that back then seems like it might be in service of making a point. Valereee (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boutboul Yes, that addresses it. I'd advise caution with this kind of thing. This exact kind of change is often made for pointy reasons, and if those reasons align with your own apparent point of view about a situation, you are likely to be perceived as pushing a point of view. When an edit you make could be seen as an edit made to make the article closer to your own point of view, and someone objects, it's best to consider the possibility you may not be able to edit 100% neutrally because you have strong feelings on a subject, and that you may be subconsciously grasping at rationales. "Anachronistic" is used a lot this way. We've got an IP at Borscht trying to change Kyiv to Kiev in a sentence about a journalist writing about the dish because at the time he was writing, Kiev was the accepted International spelling, making the use of Kyiv anachronistic. Maybe you can see how pointy that sounds when it's a subject you aren't passionate about? Valereee (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied that you've acknowledged the warning, even if you don't agree. That's what's really important to me. I like to make sure people know they're walking through a minefield so that next time I'm not thinking, "Well, it's plausible that they didn't understand this." Your thinking is outside of consensus, and if you keep arguing "We have to call them Arabs because: anachronism", you are quite likely to end up here again, and I'll be pretty sympathetic to someone who is calling that POVpushing. Valereee (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS, I looked at one of your "misrepresentation of sources" diffs at random, and it was you saying:

They do not "consistently" use the term "Arabs". Of course they do use that term, but they also use the term "Palestinians". You cite Khalidi's Iron Cage, but a search of that text shows 307 results for "Palestinians" and only 96 results for "Arabs". You need to stop misrepresenting the sources. That didn't look like a misrepresentation of sources to me, just like two different interpretations of what "consistently" means. According to you, that source does use Arab a lot, but uses Palestinian ~three times as often. Unless you're arguing that Boutboul by "consistently" was intending to argue that the source "uses Arabs more often that it uses Palestinians", I'm not sure this is more than two people misunderstanding one another. Did you ask Boutboul whether that's what they intended to argue? Valereee (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @IOHANNVSVERVS, but that doesn't make it clearer. That again looks like differences in interpretation and expression. If someone said, "Khalidi uses Arabs more often than Palestinians", that would be misrepresenting the source.

@Boutboul, I will advise that you be more careful in how you phrase your arguments. You can see how IO has interpreted you saying a source "consistently" uses the term Arabs: to mean they use it all/almost all the time, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, and that editor will likely never trust you to represent sources in a way that is clear to them again, which is not the reputation you want to get. You need to be a lot more careful in how you phrase your arguments, or you're going to end up back here again. By the time an editor has 1500 edits, we expect them to be getting a clue, and I'm not sure you are. Valereee (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin (or any other worker here) , could you take a look at my last few exchanges with IO and see if you agree with them about misrepresentation of sources? We've gone back and forth several times, and the complaint about misrepresentation of sources seems to be their primary concern. Valereee (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your analysis. Boutboul's word choice was ambiguous, but not per se inaccurate, and I don't see evidence that the ambiguity was intentional. If anything, I see this as just more reason for the warning about yielding to consensus: The longer a dispute goes, the more minute things get, and sooner or later editors are arguing not over what the sources say but over the minutiae of each other's words, which is rarely helpful. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS, are you saying several academic sources use the term "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians" when referring to the events of 1948 is a misrepresentation because fewer than (several = ~three) academic sources use the term Arabs rather than Palestinians in this context? Valereee (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IOHANNVSVERVS, you're saying Khalidi's Iron Cage is not an example of an academic source which "use[s] the term "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians" when referring to the events of 1948. but previously you said You cite Khalidi's Iron Cage, but a search of that text shows 307 results for "Palestinians" and only 96 results for "Arabs" I am still having a hard time seeing this as intentional misrepresentation by Bb. You're arguing this as possible intentional obtuseness, possible reading of sources to find what they're looking for -- some support for calling the use of Arab w/re: Palestinians "anachronistic" when referring to the events of 1948? I've already warned Bb about arguing "anachronistic" in these types of cases often being POVpushing, and warned them a second time that whether or not they disagree with me on that, I'll be pretty sympathetic to anyone complaining if they continue to do it. If you see them clearly doing that again, ping me to it the talk page. This is an area where a single admin can place a tban. Realize that if you ping me and the complaint is frivolous, I'm unlikely to spend a ton of time investigating the next such complaint. But I do understand that we're getting into possible sealioning territory, which is something I'm very sympathetic to, especially at PIA. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS, look how many exchanges it's requiring for you and me to recast our language to provide emphasis for clarity, even here. I just think at this point, we've given Bb fair warning that playing fast and loose with sources is something they're going to need to scrupulously avoid. I can see you want something more than a warning, but I don't feel comfortable not giving them a chance to correct their approach moving forward. Valereee (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin, I'm satisfied, any objection to closing with informal warnings for accepting consensus and being cautious with POVpushing arguments in CTOPs? Valereee (talk) 16:29, 18 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

Manyareasexpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

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

1. 12 March 2025 allegedly "atrocity denial and whitewashing of Nazi crimes"
2. 3 April 2025 allegedly "Holocaust denial".

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)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Related ANI discussions: 1, 2

First, we should attend an overwhelming support (except maybe @Tristario), expressed at ANI for "whitewashing of Nazi crimes" and "Holocaust denial" aspersions.

Let’s face it: we were discussing subjects engaged in, or connected to, atrocities. The thing is, people (including me) are naturally against atrocities. The reason being, among others, simple survival. The atrocities are bad for people. The atrocities are terrible so much that when people read about something related to, or connected with, atrocities, and they encounter somebody supposedly insisting on not including something "bad" into the article, making the subject a bit "not-that-evil", people feel that their natural rejection of atrocities is endangered. They perceive this editor endangers their rejection of atrocities, is trying to hide atrocities, and is essentially wrong. Regardless of if editor’s arguments are simple denial, or they are based on reliable sources and Wikipedia rules.

With that, Russia-relater articles are a contentious topic, with personal attacks not allowed. In related recent arbitration cases, even the editors with serious proof of violation of Wikipedia rules were not treated to similar accusations by the Arbcom. Instead, the editor who made "Holocaust denial" aspersions was investigated and sanctioned. As the arbitrator has said, "it is fine to argue that you think someone is POV-pushing, but implications of Holocaust denialism are very serious and hurtful and should not be made without extremely compelling evidence".

I call the admins to apply the same or higher standards of investigation to this case as well. No, a talkpage response with the quote from a book by a historian is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to sources is not "Holocaust denial". To argue that "collaboration" and "alliance" are not the same thing, pointing to WP:OR (contested by @Rosguill), is a legitimate discussion and is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". The OUN wasn't "nazi"! (although, had some links to).

With that, I’m not sure if the community can overcome (or even agree with) the issue described in the first paragraphs. There are and there will be editors willing to walk an extra mile and equate "collaboration" to "alliance", "nazi links" to "nazi", and so on, and many, as evident, are against MAE expressing arguments opposing that. As was apparent from ANI requests above, this approach is to prevail, and MAE will remain outcasted. Who would enjoy being called atrocities supporter for their volunteer work, after all. Still, the correct investigation of all the parties should be carried, evidence collected, and correct measures applied.

MAE's contributions to the topic area should be considered. Most of my edits ( [86] [87] [88] [89] , lead fix, issue raised and fixed by others ) have been accepted within the contesting community of topic area editors. Some, however, are seeing UN reports and academic books getting replaced with WP:RIANOVOSTI banned in Ruwiki, WP:TASS and the like.

@TurboSuperA+'s usage of accusations to leverage the discussion should be considered. [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] editors reminding the editor to stop accusing other editors. Did you just accuse another editor of protecting pedophiles?

@Carlp941's previous accusations of "wikihounding" and more which they had to withdraw should be considered. -ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth, thank you for your response. Well, my conduct was supposedly so much in the wrong, that it deserves the designations used above. With that, it is my conduct which needs to be investigated and sanctioned. The defence regarding designations (and some conduct examples and considerations) was presented above. Thank you! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, the subject area in question is related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe, a contentious topic, so the idea was that it's the right place: Please use this page only to: ..., or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against a previously alerted editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or ... . Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While more organized style of discussion offered by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement would be appreciated, I moved the request above to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Breakdown of BRD and potential Holocaust Revisionism at Roman Shukhevych at The Bushranger's request, thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

• I have no idea what the heck this is supposed to be - are you appealing a sanction on yourself? Or are you requesting sanctions against another editor? Ealdgyth (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This board does not do that sort of investigation. It appears that you were partial-blocked from article space as a result of [discussion]. You need to follow the directions on the notice on your talk page. This page is for asking for sanctions on editors under arbitration remedies - you were blocked from an WP:ANI discussion by one admin under their admin discretion. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor advised to return conversation to WP:ANI#Breakdown of BRD and potential Holocaust Revisionism at Roman Shukhevych; they're trying to stop the clock on further sanctions given by @The Bushranger: and did so a half day late, so this should be closed as forum shopping. Nathannah • 📮 20:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad request. This isn't anything to do with AE restrictions being imposed or requested, this has to do with user conduct as discussed in an ANI thread (the second linked above). The above is honestly hard to parse and the repeated referring-to-themselves-in-the-third-person even more so, but either they need to appeal the pblock on their user page or unarchive the ANI thread and reply there. Which y'know it's really interesting that the user, who had been regularly editing virtually every day for several months, utterly vanished just after this conduct was questioned on ANI - and returns within the day after the thread questioning that conduct on ANI was finally archived. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want, @Manyareasexpert:, I can unarchive the ANI thread for you and you can reply there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They already did so, but I assume that moving it out to the current ANI page and deleting it from the archive isn't advised usually. Nathannah • 📮 21:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • They should have asked for it to be done, but it's done, Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 21 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

Lf8u2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Shadow-Fighter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

ARBPIA

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

1. The Shadow-Fighter (SF) violated 1RR in Mohammed Deif in December 2024 ([95] [96] [97]), and as a result was first warned ([98]) and then blocked for a week ([99]).
2. After that block SF refrained from editing in the area until February, with editing in Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Gaza war. After making a single comment on an edit request in that page ([100]) SF proceeded to engage in WP:CANVASSING, more specifically WP:VOTESTACKING, by selectively notifying @Alaexis: to back their position on said discussion. A section titled “Meet me at the "Sexual violence on 10/7" talk page” was made askingWould you be interested in showing your support for this guy and his argument over on the talk page?. SF then proceeded to make another comment there asking for support:I’m not sure I like this current version andDo you have anything to add to his retort to your statement? ([101])

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[102]

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

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

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

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

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

• The Shadow-Fighter, the problem isn'treaching out to a fellow editor regarding a topic both deeply cared about as much as it is selecting that person based on having mademade very similar changes to myself on the article in question – it heavily comes across as though you chose that person based on their viewpoint, which is inappropriate in a consensus-building discussion. You might want to reread the canvassing guideline if you haven't already. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The Shadow-Fighter, it is a bit dismaying that an editor with nearly 10K edits going back 17 years isn't aware of our policies on canvassing. And this is a major problem: in response to an edit summary of Reverting edit(s) by The Shadow-Fighter (talk) to rev. 1263470422 by Skitash: Remedy 1RR violation. This is an arbitration enforcement action -- an edit summary you were pinged to -- you reverted again with the edit summary you guys just don’t know when to quit do you? I’m not stopping. You have not provided any reason whatsoever for why this redundant statement is necessary. Can you please explain what in the world you were thinking when you continued edit warring in a contentious topic after having been notified you'd been reverted as an arb enforcement, and then threatened to continue edit warring? Valereee (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Aight. I'm going to tell you that you get ONE of these temper tantrums, at most. And we don't care if people weren't responding the way you wanted them to. I do understand what you're explaining about your thinking at the time, but edit summaries are not where we discuss contentious edits. We discuss contentious edits at talk pages. If you can't edit at a CTOP without letting it get under your skin, you shouldn't edit at a CTOP. Period.

  In the recent past, there have been many editors who have come into PIA after years of unproblematic editing at unrelated subjects, and they're like newbies who don't understand basic policy: they don't understand CTOPs policy. You should consider reading at this CTOP for a while. It is, as you can imagine, the most contentious topic on the site right now. There is a lot to understand. There are a lot of well-intentioned editors with whom you may vehemently disagree; that doesn't mean you can edit war or otherwise edit disruptively. Do you think you can and are willing to understand this? Valereee (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, @TSF, meant to ping. Valereee (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it is certainly true that The Shadow-Fighter has rarely engaged in talk page conversations before - nearly 92% of their edits through their whole career are to mainspace. But I note that they also barely ever use edit summaries. And when edit summaries are used, it's mostly to further an argument. The Shadow-Fighter, when you feel the urge to write an edit summary, it looks like that's a very good sign you ought to be on the article talk page instead. Not to mention that you should be using them rather more often in general. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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