A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Motions

Shortcuts

This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Requests for enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Toa Nidhiki05

Toa Nidhiki05 topic-banned from WP:CT/AP, Warrenmck formally warned for casting aspersions _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Toa Nidhiki05

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Warrenmck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

@Liz: I think it’s not really reasonable to call this a content dispute. I don’t edit AP2 articles, generally, so this isn’t exactly a long running topic I’m involved with. I think plenty of us are willing to reasonably discuss the content of the article, but if Toa was then they’d be putting forward evidence for the status quo they claim is rock solid and we wouldn’t be able to point to them repeatedly asking for evidence they don’t actually appear to want, which is identical to the complaint at the last WP:AE. It can’t be a content dispute if one editor simply refuses to discuss it, citing imagined prior consensus and straight up disregarding that sources have been provided, while showing up at an ANI and AE saying the place to hash that out is on the relevant talk page.

@Nableezy: set a standard for evaluating the accusations here I think is completely fair. If there are any diffs I am missing to back up statements I made (or counter ones from Toa) please let me know. However, this:

Warrenmck is lying about the source verification - you can literally go to the talk page right now and find discussions I’m engaging in about the sources

is the exact behaviour from when I accused him of not honestly engaging above. I provided a link showing that Toa not once substantively responded to a discussion about one of his sources failing verification, but instead WP:POINT added a bunch of failed verification tags then started a new thread about that while accusing me of lying about their engagement. This is, to put it mildly, absurd. link to the discussion they’re taking umbrage in, and link to the actual discussion where they ignored the substance of the discussion entirely.

It is likely worth mentioning since twice now I've been accused of trying to adjudicate a content dispute that I don't think is going my way here, that I do actually believe the RfC is going my way and, for the most part, have wholly stepped out of even touching these pages since the ANI. I would hope my long history of editing on contentious topics would indicate that I don't abuse administrative processes in content disputes, but only in behavioural disputes. I think a lot of claims of wrongdoing are being thrown around in here which likely need some supporting diffs. One reason I responded so much in both the ANI and RfC is repeated here: I get constantly accused of wrongdoing without diffs or context. For example, in the ANI I was accused by Toa (diff) of threatening to unilaterally add in far right to the infobox. This is true. It also leaves out the context that both Toa and Springee kept citing prior consensus that it couldn't be included while abjectly refusing to provide any evidence of said prior consensus (diff). It's not unreasonable to treat an editor objecting to the inclusion of something on completely arbitrary grounds they won't back up as not actually having a substantive objection worth weighting over Wikipedia's policies for inclusion. There isn't an opening for discussion on the talk page in response to "There's prior consensus. This edit isn't happening. No you may not see the prior consensus, and this discussion is over and we should have a moratorium on the topic."

I'm not going to respond to further accusations from involved editors, but I want to make it extremely clear to the admins here I'm fully willing to have my own actions scrutinized and I would just like to say that it's quite hard to engage with a firehose of diff-less accusations which seem to weaponize their exclusion of context without talking too much, which sort of feels like the point of the rapid fire accusations. Couple that with administrators taking claims at face value and you have a recipe for responding too much. Like I said, I'll stop replying here unless directly asked to support one of my statements or counter another's.

I would greatly appreciate if anyone saying "this appears to be a content dispute" could actually provide a diff of Toa showing where the local consensus they're relying on was established is (the closest they got was this diff, which contained three links that did not show a local consensus). Or perhaps a diff of them responding to the sources they themselves asked for (diff).

To respond to @Rosguill:, I think the characterization of my behaviour with regards to bludgeoning is fair, it wasn't my intent but it absolutely did cross the line. I would hope Toa's description of other discussions that they link to here are generally misleading. is factored in to consider why I kept responding, but bludgeoning is bludgeoning. It wasn't my intent to misrepresent the prior AE and if that occurred, then it was out of line from me and the sanction is also reasonable, and apologies to Toa for that. My read of it was possibly insufficiently nuanced and focused on the quoted section above.

Question: In all honesty, can I respond directly to the bludgeoning thing? I'm not trying to bludgeon further and can recognize and accept there's sanction-warranting behaviour on my part, but I feel there's something substantial being overlooked. If "no" I'll leave it.

I think neither Toa nor I realized replies counted against the word count. The original word count of my filing was in the ~490s, as evidence. I was warned against bludgeoning and mostly disengaged entirely after that (diff) but accept a sanction is warranted given there and here. But we have a situation where an editor was routinely casting aspersions and misrepresenting their engagement in a very civil way in discussions, and people were taking that at face value. While I responded too much, I was routinely being directly accused of refusing to accept prior consensus, refusing to listen to other editors, and lying in accusations which have now been found to be untrue. It took until this AE for readers to actually verify the context.

I strongly disagree that misrepresenting consensus for a CPUSH and bludgeoning with the above context warrant identical levels of sanctioning. One isn’t bad faith.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Toa Nidhiki05

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

Statement by Toa Nidhiki05

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

Fundamentally, Warrenmck is not being honest. Many uninvolved editors (see here and here) in the thread were confused or bewildered by the report, and numerous other editors (see here, here, here) said it is a clear content dispute that should be closed and resolved on the page. There was no consensus for an AE report - although Warrenmck repeatedly floated the idea, the thread expired due to inactivity. Warrenmck is lying about the page consensus; the talk page, and numerous other editors, have confirmed it to them. Warrenmck is lying about the source verification - you can literally go to the talk page right now and find discussions I’m engaging in about the sources, including replacement sources to back up the claims in question.

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

Previous comments redacted due to word count limit

Just as a quick response: the claim Simonmn repeatedly presented me with sources and I personally rejected them is not accurate. In fact, you can find an example of the opposite here, where Simonmn made a claim (Mitt Romney is center-right) and refused to provide sourcing for it when I asked because "that's a WP:SKYBLUE statement".

As far as I can tell, Simonmn presented sources twice on the talk page twice, based on the diffs they gave in this AE report (see: here and [1]). You can clearly see that, in neither situation did they tag me, direct the comment at me, or respond to something I said; the first was their !vote, and the second was part of a discussion with Springee, not me, and both were part of a very, very large RfC. If either were directed at me - I genuinely did not notice. If the complaint is I didn't respond to them here - I was already told that I was violating word count, and Simonm didn't initially link to either here. Toa Nidhiki05

I'd like to respond to the diff Simonm cited in their response. The diff is actually in response to a separate, later debate over including "center-right" in the infobox. The citations Simonm provided in the RfC (which as I said above, were not a response to me, nor was I tagged in) were regarding including "far-right" in the infobox, and were in an entirely separate, earlier discussion. The fact remains that Simonm did not link me to these sources.

Compare that to this discussion, where Simonm directly presented sources to me in relation to a content dispute. I not only responded to them, but I gave reasoning for my thoughts on them, and suggested that we should use one of them (the second one) on the page. Toa Nidhiki05 17:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only on Wikipedia can you be topic banned for behavior that a majority of admins have said, in this thread, probably doesn't warrant a topic ban. Just get it over with already. Toa Nidhiki05 13:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

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

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

It's deeply tedious that I needed to get to the point of putting diffs into an AE case just for Toa Nidhiki05 to acknowledge that these sources were presented. Here's where the sources are: [2] [3]. I also want to comment on what Springee said below. Yes, TN05 has, for the most part, except for in their comportment toward Warrenmck, been generally civil. That's what the C in WP:CPUSH stands for. However WP:OWN issues, vague gestures toward prior consensus, calls for moratoria mid-RFC, claims of having "won" the RFC in order to divert attention from complaints regarding their behavioural issues, these are all stalling tactics in order to effectively says, "consensus cannot exist unless I allow it." And I should note that TN05 is rather unique in these behavioural issues. Note that I am not complaining about CPUSH behaviour from Springee who has generally held the same opinions as TN05. Regardless of the statements to the contrary, if this were an attempt to adjust the result of an RFC on the basis of AE action then it is a remarkably badly planned one since, as TN05 has been quick to point out, their position of continuing to call the Republicans principally center-right has a numerical advantage in the RfC and TN05 has not contributed anything significant enough that their !vote would be missed so long as Springee were still counted. And, as I've had to remind TN05 more than once, RFCs are not decided by a vote. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I directly responded to TN05 here advising them that I'd provided reliable sources. When they ignored this statement I brought it up several more times at the article talk page. Regarding the Romney incident the reason why I was initially reticent to provide sources supporting the WP:SKYBLUE statement that he is a center-right (or farther right) politician was because I was feeling quite ignored for those sources I had provided. I then provided an WP:ABOUTSELF source of Romney claiming to be right-wing himself. TN05 rejected this as being too dated to be reliable (the source was from 2012). TN05, however, did not present any sources supporting calling Romney a centrist even after they were asked. The demand for sources on Romney was, by the way, something TN05 requested as a method of refuting this relatively bromine statement [4]. I replied first by asking for reliable sources that disputed my characterization of Romney [5] but none were provided. Then we got the bit above regarding WP:ABOUTSELF not being good enough. TN05 then complained that the aside, that they'd initiated by disputing my characterization of Romney, was getting too forumy. [6]. Frankly these are all core examples of what I am talking about with CPUSH. The requests, taken in isolation, are reasonable enough. But serially they are disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

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

Statement by Springee

This is a place holder statement as I am drafting a longer reply with links. This is an attempt to use the ANI/ARE process to win a content dispute. Warren and a few other editor's own behaviors have contributed to this issue. Ultimately the problem here is a combination of Warren PUSHing for changes that simply don't have consensus (see the current status of the far-right RfC on the page) as well as some rapid fire, sometimes questionable edits made by Warren and others around the time the ANI was opened. Additionally, the long lists of claimed references that "prove" something only to fall short when examined in detail, also have raised frustration levels. Warren and a few others are certain they have been correct but have failed on several fronts. Warren never reached out to TN to discuss any issues off line (an obvious first step to dealing with perceived editor behavior issues). Warren and others engaged in a pattern of edit first then get frustrated when things were reverted (with a bit of tag teaming mixed in) rather than take the more cautious approach of proposing changes first. When Warren and others were unable to convince TN (and a few others, myself included) the answer was ANI rather than using things like RfCs to answer their other topic disputes. Even in the case where Warren did open a RfC they replied 36 times to many editors in their own RfC. If TN's actions suggest they are frustrated, I don't blame them. This is a case of a few like minded editors PUSHing some changes without taking it slow and ensuring there is a clear talk page consensus first. Having failed on the talk page Warren took things to ANI. Having failed at ANI they are coming here. Springee (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two more comments, while Simonm233 is correct that a RfC is decided by weight of argument, not just numbers, it should be clear at this point that the arguments presented (including Warren's 36 replies) haven't swayed a number of editors. Also, through out the process Warren has noted that TN has been civil (comments from the ANI). It seems to me if an editor is civil and making sound arguments during a rapid fire discussion where the other side has made a number of disputed edits, we aren't dealing with a problematic editor. Instead we are dealing with editors failing to effectively persuade others and show consensus for the changes. The BURDEN to get the consensus isn't on TN. Coming here after failing to "win" at ANI isn't the correct way to solve a content dispute. Springee (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, I haven't had a chance to post the links I feel would support my claims but I would like to offer an alternative to any sort of topic ban. I think TN is a net positive for the topic by balancing editors who are pushing for changes. Also I think some of the rapid fire edits and flood of talk page replies can result in an editor replying too quickly without fully considering their reply (for example dismissing a source without a detailed reply even though they may have a legitimate reason in their mind). Rapid fire discussions and feeling a bit attacked by a group of editors can sometimes make an otherwise good faith, civil editor trip up. In other cases where an editor is viewed as civil but to quick to reply a simple talk page reply limit has been successful. It allows the person to make their case but prevents bludgeoning. Looking at the Far right RfC on the page I see a number of editors who oppose it but aren't interested in engaging in the long back and forth.

Since sourcing had been mentioned, I will note that TN had put effort into looking at sources that have been used and making reasoned arguments why some otherwise RS fail WP:V. That takes effort. It also illustrates that TN rejecting sources may not be goal posts shifting but instead careful review of sources in context. Springee (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For admins considering a topic ban, would an edit limit be an acceptable alternative? Something like a 1RR limit + a reasonable talk page reply limit. This would allow TN to both voice views on changes and do things like evaluate sources that may fail WP:V in context. It also slows/stops rapid fire replies that can sometimes lead to other editors feeling goal posts are shifting. With only a limited number of replies per day an editor would wait and consider their words rather that quickly replying to every other comment. Net result they would tend limit their replies only to their strongest points. In TN's case I think even there objectors would agree TN does make some good points/observations and it would hurt articles overall if that part of their contribution was lost. Springee (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, I wasn't thinking of a word limit, rather a number of replies. Thus a long, detailed reply is fine. A short reply is also ok but somewhat discouraged because a short, "you are wrong" also ticks off one of the allowed replies for the day. A reply limit prevents flooding of the discussion. As an aside, I also think it would be good if the article had a custody required to restore a recent change. That was an issue with some of the recent content disputes where a questionable edit was made, it was reverted then another editor would restore the change vs follow BTD. Springee (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the closing admins, can I once again suggest an alternative that doesn't result in editors "winning" a content dispute via getting an opposing editor kicked off the island. This isn't a civility issue, only one of responding too fast, too much. I suggest a 1RR Ap2 limit combined with a daily talk page reply limit of say 3 replies (raising a wholly unrelated talk point is not a reply, but otherwise replies include direct replies as well as comments in a discussion). This would slow the rapid fire replies yet would still allow TN to do good work like review the shotgunning of sources that we saw in the discussions in question (many of those sources, while RS, failed V for the specific claim in question). This should be the smallest negative impact in order to achieve the goal here. Springee (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

Perhaps, it would be best to wait for the result of that related-RFC? GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested closure of the aforementioned RFC at the US Republican Party article. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jessintime

From my observations, it appears Toa has a much looser definition of what counts as a reliable source when it comes to topics that might make the left wing look bad. For example, he reinserted text attributed to Napolitan.org at Killing of Brian Thompson that an editor had removed for being biased [7]. If you're unfamiliar with Napolitan.org like I was, their about us page states their "mission is to magnify and amplify the true voice of the American people. A project of the Napolitan Institute, Napolitan News Service focuses on releasing daily data focused on the thoughts and desires of everyday Americans. Through our groundbreaking Counterpolling, we're asking questions that no one else is asking, and giving leaders and organizations the data they need to break free from the misleading messaging of out of touch Elites." He doubled down on the source being reliable in a subsequent RFC [8] [9] at one point telling someone else to "Please do some research" [10].

At the same time this was going on, Tao removed statements from the same article sourced to the likes of the BBC and Newsweek [11] and Wired and The Hill [12].

~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am not attempting to re-litigate a content dispute as I have never edited that article in question or its talk page. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darkfrog24

I skimmed the Republican Party talk page. Upon that cursory examination, this does look like a content matter, not a conduct matter. I will add that it also seems like Toa and Warren have different thresholds for what counts as a good source and what counts as a sufficiently neutrally worded RfC, which isn't misconduct on either editor's part. If Toa really is wrong or not sufficiently sourced, then there are RfCs and other longstanding protocols that can be used to overrule them. This does feel like it could be an attempt to use the disciplinary system to control content in that way, specifically that the complaint is not about disruption caused by a formerly topic banned editor failing to follow the rules but rather about bad feelings because that editor has not changed their mind or pretended to change their mind about content. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JayBeeEll

The behavior described by Simonm223 is very reminiscent of behavior from Toa Nidhiki05 that was common pre-topic ban (as well as the casual aspersions noted by Nableezy). But the only relevant evidence I would have to present is stuff from several years ago (2019--2022, say), before the topic ban. Admins, is that a thing that would be helpful here? (I feel like one issue discussed at WP:ARBPIA5, although perhaps not in the final decision, was that it's bad when you can tell that editors apply different standards depending on whether a source says something they agree with or not; that was an issue with TN05 in my experience, but again that's several years ago, so I don't know if anyone wants to see it. I haven't observed any of TN05's more recent editing.) [I am not watching this page, please ping.] --JBL (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Toa Nidhiki05

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

The division of discussion across various forums makes it a bit difficult to ascertain that I've read through all of the relevant arguments. Toa Nidhiki05, could you please point me to a summary of the bibliography you believe establishes the majority of academic sources refer to the party as either center-right or right-wing, as well as brief comments regarding the bibliography compiled by Simonm223 and how they figure into your overall assessment of the literature? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, reviewing all of the relevant evidence presented by Warrenmck and Toa Nidhiki05 I note that:
- The allegations leveled in the initial case filing are two counts of tendentiously misrepresenting the state of consensus, one count of failure to comply with verifiability policy despite challenge, and one count of failing to engage with other editors in good faith.
  - Setting aside the consensus and good faith issues momentarily, as those require a fuller reading of the discussion as a whole to assess, I don't see any acknowledgment or response to the count of failing to comply with verifiability policy with respect to the addition of Keckler--in fact, it's even made it into their bibliography of sources supporting "center right" here. However, we construct an anatomy of the American center-right, which identifies them as incipient factions within the conservative movement and its political instrument, the Republican Party is not a statement that supports the claim that the Republicans are a center-right party--it supports the claim that they are a "conservative" party that includes a center-right faction. The paper as a whole further documents the fights between "moderate" conservatives in the party (and broader movement) and other factions. This is not to say that this rules out "center right" as a possible valid outcome to the discussion, but Toa has failed to do their homework in their presentation of sources to support their claims, and instead seems to be relying on sources that do not solidly support their position upon investigation, and has not engaged with the complaints about this specific source. In a similar vein, examples in the "right wing" set given here, even based solely on the quotes listed can also be taken as supporting designators further to the right e.g. ...Republican Party, or at least the dominant wing, which supports or tolerates Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda have become a proto-typical populist radical right-wing party (PRRP).
- Warrenmck's assertion that this is the same pattern of behavior as the last AE that saw Toa topic-banned is inaccurate. That last report was way, way, way worse, and the pattern of problematic behaviors cannot be said to be the same, although there may be some overlap (admins last time basically looked at the case from arm's reach, each separately identified distinct, hugely problematic features with Toa Nidhiki05's behavior--which most flagrantly included personal attacks and edit warring but was not limited to that--and collectively agreed that the behavior was problematic enough that it warranted a topic-ban rather even without getting into the weeds of exactly what went wrong where)
- Toa's description of other discussions that they link to here are generally misleading.
  - It is highly misleading to summarize this discussion as agreed that the initial consensus didn’t actually look at sources--the discussion establishes that the prior discussion's closer did not vet each source individually or determine that each individual source is WP:DUE for inclusion; the participants in the prior discussion did discuss the sources and their general support for the statements for which consensus was found. It bears saying that this is normal process for discussion closure--closers are not generally expected to do their own separate close readings of the sources being discussed, just to assess what others have stated about them.
  - Similarly, the [13] discussion which is summarized as a later discussion found that reliable sources also say the party is center-right, and that this should be included as well shows extensive disagreement as to whether center-right belongs in the article. I would not describe this discussion as evincing any clear consensus, although among all the options "right wing" seems to be the frontrunner among participants.
  - The diff given [14] to support Warrenck, who did not participate in any of these to be clear, insists this never happened, despite being directed to it numerous times, does not demonstrate evidence of Warrenmck doing anything in particular.
  - To Toa Nidhiki05's credit, their description of the ANI thread prior to this case is essentially accurate. Most other responses did dismiss the issue as relitigating the content dispute. Warrenmck's comments there do cross into WP:BLUDGEON territory. It is also pretty evident, however, that most of the respondents (other than the two official parties here) did not analyze the relevant discussions thoroughly, so this finding doesn't preclude examining the case at AE.
- Having read through the discussions necessary to assess the above, I find merit in the accusation that Toa Nidhiki05 has misrepresented consensus in their discussions with other editors, prior to coming here. While misrepresentations of consensus can sometimes be good-faith errors, when taken together with the comments here, there is a consistent pattern of self-serving readings of discussions that crosses the line into tendentious behavior.
- Regarding the accusation that Toa Nidhiki05 has not engaged in good faith with sources presented by other editors, while it's fine to continue to disagree with other editors' positions it is hard to see how they can assert so confidently that the majority of academic sources refer to the party as either center-right or right-wing. The course of discussion generally demonstrates that a) there are a lot more academic sources on this specific topic out there that no one has evaluated one way or another b) among those that have been evaluated, there are a range of positions without clear majority for anything in particular c) several of the sources identified by Toa Nidhiki05 as supporting their position appear to give equal or greater support to other positions.
- In the course of the discussions at Talk:Republican Party (United States), Toa Nidhiki05 made repeated tit-for-tat arguments about labeling the Democratic Party as "far-left", using exclusively non-peer-reviewed sources. This is evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, as the question of what RS say about the DP is not relevant to the discussion about how to describe the Republican Party. If this had been a brief tangent it would have been a non-issue, but Toa went three-comments-deep on this thread.
  - Refusing to engage substantively with the sources provided by Simonm223 is not sanctionable on its own. However, taken together with the other issues identified here, and the continued general participation in proceeding discussion, it is very bad form and a missed opportunity for Toa Nidhiki05 to demonstrate good faith editing.
- I note that throughout these discussions, while Toa has made a large number of comments, but does not appear to have at any point brought their own peer-reviewed sources for consideration--the sources cited here appear to have largely been provided by other editors. Again, this isn't sanctionable behavior by itself, but it is another missed opportunity to engage constructively. ~~Warrenmck has not brought any peer-reviewed sources either,~~ ( struck: they have brought to my attention that they did present a peer reviewed source in Special:Diff/26008348 _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC) ) but at least they're not the one insisting that that is the standard they are operating on.[reply]
- Toa Nidhiki05 and Warrenmck are also way over the word limit here. With respect to Toa Nidhiki05, initially I was going to turn a blind eye to that (I did after all request for a specific response, even if I didn't authorize an extension for it), but we've now gone waaaaay past that and Toa Nidhiki05 continues to respond to other editors.
- My overall assessment is that at a minimum, Toa Nidhiki05 merits a logged warning for misrepresenting prior discussions, not doing due diligence with respect to sources, and casting aspersions with insufficient evidence. The rap sheet is long enough, and there is an element of recidivism (because even if the exact behavior from the past AE case wasn't repeated in toto, we're still talking about persistent, tendentious behavior in defense of a consistent POV), that I think a topic ban should be seriously considered, either from the American politics CTOP or more narrowly from the Republican party.
- Separately, Warrenmck merits a logged warning for casting aspersions (specifically, in the misrepresentation of the prior AE case as identical behavior) and bludgeoning.
_signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the unnecessary aspersions which I'm guessing have arisen as a result of how long this dispute has lingered, this does seem like a content disagreement that is currently being discussed. I haven't read through the entire ANI complaint but reading comments here, it seems like this dispute over the labeling of a political party is a subject that should be determined by our editors, not a small group of admins who visit this noticeboard.

And as an aside, I think it's important to not just look for sources that confirm what content you want to add but look over a variety of sources that represent the broadness of mainstream consensus. And if there is no agreement among scholars on how to label a political party, then THAT is what you put in an article. Political parties change over time and if this is a time of transition, then one identification shouldn't be forced. But, again, that is an opinion on a content dispute, not on editor behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to reinstating the topic ban due to the aspersions. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill's two logged warnings would be acceptable -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to really dive into this report, but I want to put one thing out there as I spend some time on this since I don't see anyone pushing back on it (besides Nableezy's reasonable request for diffs) and it being seemingly supported by Rosguill's summary: I take quite seriously Simonm223's point about Toa requesting certain kinds of sources and then ignoring them when presented. This seems qualitatively different than anything Warrenmck seemingly has done as a form of BATTLEGROUND/civil POVPUSHING. What am I missing or do I have this right and if so am I the only one who finds this a bigger issue than what Warrenmck has done? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: you're already at close to 1500 words. Presuming you can explain in less than 150 new words I'd be interested in what you have to say about Bludgeoning. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now read through things. I am on board with the logged warning for Warrenmck and am glad he even acknowledges the bludgeoning (given that I would have also been OK with an informal warning, but logged is fine for me). For Toa, I continue to find the conduct worse than Warrenmck after reading everything. There is, to me, clear WP:CPUSH happening. To answer a question Toa Nidhiki05 asked above, this is different than the conduct of others because of the way he initially used the lack of academic sources as justification for his position (which was then copied by others) and then when academic sources were presented there was no attempt to re-examine what the right outcome was in light of new sourcing. And to the extent that this is true of others, that can be examined in other AE reports but I do find Toa's participation in those discussion to be different than others. Despite all this, examining this report in a vacuum, I can understand why people were suggesting closing with the same sanction (logged warning) despite the level of culpability being different. But Toa Nidhiki05 was topic banned from American Politics until September of last year when the topic ban was loosened. Now here we are less then 6 months later with new conduct issues. I feel the correct outcome for Toa is to reinstate the full topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Springee I will take a look in a little bit into the AE thread that got them topic banned and their successful appeal to see if my opinion changes because my suggestion of a topic ban is definitely based on past ArbCom guidance around recidivism rather than just conduct in the most recent content dispute. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Springee I did review the two threads last week and my mind wasn't changed so I didn't write anything. I appreciate your efforts to find an alternative than a topic ban. In general I'm not a huge fan of "sanction lifted, disruption resume, new lesser sanction imposed" but in this case I could see some sort of lesser sanction having been appropriate in the first place. But there would have to be something about the talk page participation and that gets tricky fast - I don't think it would be fair to give Toa a word limit that is reasonable and is across the board rather than for each discussion because even what is a "discussion" can vary based on when threads are continued versus started anew (see the recent discussion of this by ArbCom where a word limit can work on a topic basis or in the category of "formal discussion"). We can at AE impose just about any sanction we can think of by rough consensus so if there was something I thought could address the talk page side of things I'd be open to it but I am unaware of anything I think could work. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following a request on my user talk, I retroactively grant Simonm223 an extension to 700 words. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the two logged warnings. As an admin who participated in the AE discussion that levied the TBAN, I agree that it isn't fair to say Toa's behavior is identical, but also that there have been places where it has strayed from the straight and narrow into gatekeeping and misrepresenting previous discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We really ought to remember to enforce the "Only the filer and respondent are allowed to comment unless an exception is granted" rule; this kind of sprawling mess is the exact thing that rule was meant to curtail. That aside, I do not see a warning as being sufficient. Having been previously banned and granted an appeal is the warning. If Toa Nidhiki05 has engaged in further misconduct after the ban was lifted (and having read through the above, I believe they have), then we need to reinstate it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: That limitation is on the number of parties (that is, persons whose conduct is within the scope of review), not the number of commenters. SilverLocust 💬 11:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, maybe I'm an idiot then. Not the first nor likely the last time, though would that it were so. In any case, the rest stands though—Toa Nidhiki05 has already been banned and had the ban lifted; a warning at that point is more or less hot air. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(FWIW I made the exact same mistake when I read the ARBCOM case) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're fairly evenly divided in terms of outcomes. It seems that Rosguill, Vanamonde93, and Guerillero are in favor of a logged warning for both, Seraphimblade and I are in favor of a topic ban for Toa + logged warning for Warrnmck, and Liz not having expressed a preference for outcome (or maybe in favor of no sanction for either?) Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of a tban for Toa Nidhiki as well as the warning for Warrenmck, and Guerrillero seems to also be open to this outcome. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be an acceptable outcome -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, you have raised valid concerns about whether ARBCOM members should even be participating at AE so I'd like to limit my involvement to occasional comments rather than recommendations over sanctions. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is an asymmetry here, and that Toa has failed to substantively engage with some of the presented sources. My hesitation about reinstating the TBAN is a concern about fairness - so much of the talk page discussion about the Republican party is in forum territory, quite divorced from any discussion of the source material. In that context I don't see much separating Toa's behavior from the crowd. That doesn't make it acceptable, but that is the circumstance in which a logged warning feels appropriate to me. I won't stand in the way of a TBAN if everyone else favors one, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I supported a topic ban here not because Toa Nidhiki05 did anything particularly egregious in this instance, but rather because of the recidivism issue, with just having a similar sanction in the area lifted. Still, we certainly ought to bring this to some resolution, so if the consensus is for warnings all around, I'll go with that if need be. I just don't see the point in warning someone who's just recently been topic banned from the area; one might think that's warning enough if anything would be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should move to a close here. Vanamonde93, as the only administrator out of five here opposed to the topic ban for Toa outcome, do you want to further plead your case or can this be closed as such? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should close with a TBAN. I don't feel the conduct rises to the level of a TBAN but I do feel there has been misconduct, and as such this isn't a hill I will die on. Even if I felt otherwise, we only require rough consensus here, not unanimity, so you would be justified in closing over my objections if I had more. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edax Mendacium

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

Request concerning Edax Mendacium

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Novem Linguae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Edax Mendacium (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

AMPOL
BLP

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

2025-02-12 A revert (edit warring) after receiving AMPOL user talk alert. This is after receiving an edit summary from me of partial revert of the two paragraphs objected to on the talk page. please see WP:BRD. leaving the third paragraph about DEI for now. Edax Mendacium's wording changes are objected to by Alenoach on the talk page, in the section Talk:Sundar Pichai#Political positions. Edax Mendacium is ignoring the objections on the talk page and making the changes anyway.
2025-02-12 A revert (edit warring) after receiving BLP user talk alert. This is after receiving an edit summary from me of please get consensus for your controversial edit on the talk page

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

I've had bad luck at the edit warring noticeboard before, and this is a CTOP area which requires more careful editing than normal, so starting here.
Edax Mendacium, the root problem is that you made your edit a couple weeks ago, were reverted, started a talk page discussion, the talk page discussion didn't go your way (received an objection). Then today you tried to reinstate your edit, I reverted it, you tried again, I reverted it, you tried again. From my point of view, you are well beyond WP:BRD here. You are at BRDBRBRB. In an area as sensitive as a CTOP, you need to be more careful about getting consensus for controversial edits. It feels to me like you are the one doing the bullying by trying to push through your edits over other's objections.
Also please stop calling other people's edits WP:VANDALISM, as you did here. Disagreements about editorial content are not vandalism.
Finally, your edits don't really add much new content. The "old edits" still talk about Project Nimbus and the inauguration. Your edits change the wording/tone, and that is what I believe is being objected to on the talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I do not want to edit war, the objected-to revision is still the top revision. I think self-reverting and apologizing would be enough to close this report with no sanction. And of course the objected-to revision can be put back if a consensus is gained on the talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed pblock below sounds good to me. Sends a message but isn't too harsh. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user restored their controversial edit today [15], in my opinion continuing the edit war. Instead they should have waited for a consensus on the talk page, in my opinion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk diff

Discussion concerning Edax Mendacium

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

Statement by Edax Mendacium

As you can see I am not a power user like you are. I can see that you're ignoring the things I am writing and attempting to bully me and bury me in jargon and maneuvers which I don't understand.

I* am the one who is being ignored. Both you and Alenoach ignored my contributions to the talk page.

I made an edit, which was removed without sufficient information. In good faith I engaged on the talk page, which this admin chose to ignore, instead engaging in an edit war by repeatedly removing my edit.

The edits are notable and easy to justify as they are well-sourced, notable, and relevant. Removing them is not, nor has any coherent argument been made to the contrary.

Consensus should be required in the other direction (removing up to date information about pinchai), as everything in the edit is well-sourced and notable. Aside from conforming to the formats of many similar pages of prominent businesspeople who engage in politics.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Edax Mendacium

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

Edax Mendacium is a very new editor who clearly does not yet understand that the Neutral point of view is a core content policy and that complying with it is mandatory for all editors. They do not yet understand that pushing a political point of view in article space is not permitted, especially in a biography of a living person. I happen to share aspects of their point of view which I am happy to discuss in detail off-Wikipedia but not on Wikipedia. This editor must learn that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy of any kind, no matter how righteous they may feel. So, the question arises: how to deal with this new editor? In a sense, this is up to Edax Mendacium. The editor can acknowledge the policies and guidelines that are being explained to them and promise to comply. On the other hand, they might choose to dig in their heels and continue argue their own righteousness. In that case, we should consider a topic ban on biographies of living people and a topic ban on post-1992 politics of the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If, instead, Edax Mendacium absents themselves from further discussion as they are currently doing, perhaps a p-block from the article in question is an adequate solution. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, are you proposing a block from the article only, or talk as well? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant just the article, as the evidence here primarily concerns edit war edits to the mainspace article. I have not inspected the quality of discussion on the talk page in detail. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems quite reasonable to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Edax Mendacium has continued edit warring even while this request is open, I have implemented the partial block from Sundar Pichai as an interim measure to put a stop to that. I do see that Cullen328 also proposed a topic ban, so I'll leave this thread open at this time in case anyone wants to discuss the need for that, or whether the partial block is sufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given Special:Diff/1277052415, I am now leaning toward a topic ban, although I'm uncertain about the appropriate scope. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I first commented here about ten days ago, I was hoping that Edax Mendacium would take on board the feedback they have received, familiarize themself with the applicable policies and guidelines, and moderate their approach. Instead, they have doubled down, declined to moderate their approach, and engaged in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior on their talk page, claiming that it is all unfair. I think that it is time for an indefinite topic ban on post-1992 politics of the United States, and on biographies of living people. Cullen328 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the BLP ban necessary? It seems like the BLP disruption is only occurring on articles relating to the AP2 area, so an AP2 ban would already take care of that. Or perhaps a ban on AP2 and a logged warning concerning BLPs, so that this aspect is clearly part of the record? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aganon77

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

Request concerning Aganon77

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I did not know how to create this request. Aganon77 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Aganon77 (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/Pseudoscience

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

14:35, 13 February 2025 Edit warring against consensus
14:17, 13 February 2025 Ditto above
19:07, 12 February 2025 Ditto above

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

Notice of Pseudoscience DS given at 20:42, 10 February 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It's clear that Aganon77 thinks that because he perceives himself to be right, he can edit war against other editors in violation of the apparent consensus at the talk page against him, and that he is unable to drop the stick and walk away from the issue. I therefore think some kind of sanction is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~This is possible block evading sockpuppetry [16], I've opened up a SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aganon77.~~ Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a raxy joe job. My apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Given 14:45, 13 February 2025

Discussion concerning Aganon77

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

Statement by Aganon77

The editors are bulk reverting contributions that expand on existing citations of the article. For example, a critique that found statistically significant results but concluded against their results only included the conclusion.

A false statement regarding people who conduct these experiments and metaanalysis as parapsychologists when several experiments and meta analysis had been conducted by skeptics.

An omission of the history of development of the method by skeptics.

All the edits references above used existing references in the article, yet they were reverted.

Finally I added the results of a recent registered report, a scientific publication that is conducted in two phases and is peer-reviewed and it is also deleted.

I also added a note for disputed citation regarding a lack of replication of an experiment that has been conducted 78 times, mostly with similar results.

See edits here

Statement by MrOllie

Noting here that I was opening a Edit warring report at the same time this was being opened, more edit warring diffs can be found here.

I support Hemiauchenia's comments.

To be clear, the issue here are edits at Ganzfeld experiment which seek to suggest that such experiments are replicable and have demonstrated the existence of ESP.

Aganon77's response to talk page discussion has been to dismiss anyone who will not conduct WP:OR/WP:NOTFORUMish debates about 'methodological rigor', calling opposition 'gatekeeping' ([17]). They seem to reject the idea that we would consider the publisher, as expected by WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LuckyLouie

User edit warring at Ganzfeld experiment with massive citation bombing [18] seeking to have Wikipedia state that experiments have demonstrated the existence of ESP. Talk page discussions include multiple experienced editors advising the user that WP:FRINGE parapsychology journals are not considered independent sources that can be used to overturn the scientific consensus regarding the existence of ESP, Psi, the paranormal, etc. however edit warring continues, hence the need for an administrative solution to mitigate the disruption. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Aganon77

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

Just acknowledging here that Aganon77 was blocked today for 1 week for edit-warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page comments make me think the week block isn't sufficient to limit disruption --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but Aganon77 is attempting to make an extraordinary claim using poor quality fringe sources, and engaging in edit warring and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Although only an essay, I think that Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans sheds some light on this situation. I think that either an indefinite sitewide block or a topic ban on paranormal phenomenon broadly construed ought to be the outcome. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The combination of IDHT, verbosity, and edit warring is unequivocally disruptive, and Aganon77's response doubles down rather than make any sort of commitment to working towards a consensus. I agree with Cullen328's remedies. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aganon77, I've probably told many people the same thing: You don't have to agree with a consensus or believe it's right, but you do have to follow it until or unless it changes, and there does come a time to shrug, realize you can't win 'em all, and walk away. There are some I've disagreed with, and still do, but I still follow them, because that is how editing here works if you want to continue doing it. So, your decision is: Would you be willing to abide by a topic ban from topics like this while you learn to edit more collaboratively on less contentious articles, or is this the end of the line? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request page restrictions for Genocide & Talk:Genocide

Increased page protection declined. SilverLocust 💬 12:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I recently came across the Genocide article and noticed that users were discussing content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict on the talk page (see Talk:Genocide#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_26_October_2024). At this point, the article Genocide does relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the same active arbitration remedies that apply to List of genocides (which does have the active arbitration remedies warning on its talk page) should also apply to the Genocide article.

For that reason, I am requesting that the Genocide and Talk:Genocide pages be restricted per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#Definition_of_the_"area_of_conflict".

User involvement disclosure: I am an extendedconfirmed editor that has been involved in editing articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, specifically Gaza genocide. I also participated with an edit to the Talk:Genocide page. JasonMacker (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the wrong place for this. Check Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page can be used to request page restrictions as contentious topics sanctions. I don't see recent disruption to justify increased page protection for a talk page or non-primary article (under the WP:PIA#General sanctions upon related content and WP:ARBECR point B), but I'll place a notice on the talk page. Unless another admin sees a need for protection, I'll just mark this as

Not done and collapse it later. SilverLocust 💬 23:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverLocust WP:PIA5 recently concluded with a provision that all ARBPIA articles are to be placed under extended-confirmed protection by default, without requiring recent disruption. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an ARBPIA article. Unfortunately, there is currently no way to control access to page sections or specific content within an article that is not primarily related to the Arab-Israeli conflict i.e. articles that contain "relatedcontent". It's all or nothing. Pages with relatedcontent can be tagged (e.g. with ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes or the newer Contentious topics/talk notice|a-i|section=yes templates) but ARBECR enforcement has to be done by people rather than the server. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have the technical ability to "protect" part of an article via edit filter, and this is explicitly allowed in WP:ARBECR. I'm not sure if it's ever been done, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would each filter end up having to be page specific in practice? Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it could be implemented with like, one filter that makes it so a certain string can only be added or removed by admins, like  and a matching closing comment, and another filter that makes it so any text between those two tags can only be edited by extended confirmed users. Then that would work on an arbitrarily large number of pages. To be clear, no comment on whether this should be done in this case, just answering in the abstract as one of the resident ECR geeks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes wonder what Wikipedia would be like if policy compliant sentences (products of RfCs for example) could be promoted to be objects with properties (including restrictions), reusable components, like in a headless content management system. It's possible that there is a downside to playing with Lego too much as a kid. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip: This makes it clear it applies only to primary content, i.e. articles that are wholly about Arab-Israeli conflict topics (such as Operation Accountability or Nova music festival massacre). ArbCom made a distinction back in PIA4 between articles on conflict-related topics and those where the conflict is a smaller part of the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randomstaplers

Randomstaplers blocked indefinitely from Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic and its talk page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Randomstaplers

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also editing as Randomsalt - the use of two accounts is properly disclosed and not a factor here, although both accounts have participated in the dispute.

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious topic designation

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

Edit warring at Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic

1 February 2025 Adds a maintenance tag
7 February 2025 First revert
11 February 2025 Second revert
17 February 2025 Threatens to make a third revert

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

Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a long-term pattern of WP:BLUDGEONing of Talk:Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic#NIOSH's 1992 method for determining the effectiveness of resporators as a "public health exposure control method", edit warring against three or four other editors, and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK dating back to at least September. I've only included the most recent flare up in the diffs above, but you can see the history for more.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randomstaplers&diff=prev&oldid=1276249790

Discussion concerning Randomstaplers

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

Statement by Randomstaplers

I don't know why I've ended up here right away.

~~I wasn't even taken to ANI first~~, and I've tried participating in which closed with @Robert McClenon, who asked for through discussion before returning.

Recent readings, namely this NIOSH document made me feel the need to start a discussion. I've also read [19]. I don't know why this content dispute is being brought forth here this quickly.

On my talk page, my confusion wasn't thoroughly explained, so I thought there would be no objections to my comments.

Additional comments on Bon Courage's talk page - "I don't think it was inflammatory" (sic)

Also, you objected. I get it. I've followed Roberts DRN guidelines while it was up.——Randomstapler's alt 20:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz - I've logged into my main account. 22:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC) ⸺(Random)staplers 22:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to bring this up... but two uninvolved editors added themselves to the DRN, without being involved on the article talk page. I don't know if it impacted the outcome of this dispute, but I feel it's worth mentioning. ⸺(Random)staplers 06:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Seraphimblade - I'm still wondering why no one warned me properly to stop.

I knew about the annoying "dead pixel" phenomenon that was plaguing my mind, and was trying to present new information I'd found while I'd been editing other articles.

Maybe a mentorship and a logged warning would be more helpful. I... may have gotten a bit drunk looking at sources all day. And... this is my first offense. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, if it needs to be said... I promise to refrain from editing the article.

I've already made enough of a fuss, I know others can take over from here. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill - Yeah, I was prepared to give up and talk to another admin to get clarification, but I managed to communicate well with the last editor, which I thought was progress, but was clearly mistaken in my judgement. Most of my edits to CTOP were from 2024, and I clearly need more experience editing in noncontroversial areas. I apologize for my behavior, and won't be this nonchalant again. ⸺(Random)staplers 02:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've said all I needed to say here. In the meantime, I've been trying to think of ways of trying to tame my behavior, and will also be drastically slowing down my editing too, to be extra safe. ⸺(Random)staplers 02:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I am not entirely sure why I was pinged by User:Randomstaplers concerning the dispute that I tried to mediate three months ago. I did not take part in any discussion or dispute about face masks after I closed the dispute at DRN three months ago, and so do not have an opinion at this time about the edits in question. If they are asking me to say that they cooperated at DRN, I won't exactly do that for two reasons. First, their conduct three and four months ago is not the same as their conduct in the more recent past. Second, more seriously, I found them to be a difficult editor to try to work with. I spent most of the exchanges asking them to specify exactly what they wanted to change in the article that another editor wanted to leave the same, or what they wanted to leave the same that another editor wanted to change, and then asking them whether they were questioning the reliability of a source. I found them to be a long-winded editor who was not concise. I wish the uninvolved administrators here well in analyzing the issues here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other editors at DRN did not cause the DRN to be, in the words of Bon Courage, "lengthy and ultimately abortive", which was primarily due to Randomstaplers giving long answers that didn't answer the questions of the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

This editor has been editing Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic for several months, lately using two similarly named accounts to do so and edit warring over tags. There was a lengthy and ultimately abortive DRN process at the end of last year. Insofar as it's possible to divine this editor's intent, it seems they want to insert their own private thoughts and/or WP:SYNTH to undercut the published science on this topic, which they believe is wrong, and will not be deterred by consensus against them. A topic ban or page block would bring some relief from the timesink this has evidently become.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Randomstaplers

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

Thanks for logging into your primary account, Randomstaplers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing a long period of tendentious editing from Randomstaplers on this article, of which edit warring over the maintenance tag over the objection of multiple other editors is only the latest instance. At minimum, I think Randomstaplers needs to be restricted from further participation on this article, via either partial block (including from discussion) or topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Seraphimblade's observations. Regarding Randomstaplers' comment that no one warned me properly to stop.: Pppery's comments on the article talk page on Feb 15 explain quite clearly that the continued reverts were a problem and why. As an editor with more than 5 years and 6,000 edits of experience, I don't think it's reasonable to consider Randomstaplers insufficiently aware of Wikipedia's policies and norms such that they would require a talk page edit-warring notice in addition to having been plainly told to stop by other editors. In a CTOP, you should be erring on the side of caution and stopping well short of what you even think would earn you a warning. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given Randomstaplers' replies, which appear to lay out a sincere acknowledgement of the issue and plans to deescalate, I think that a p-block from the Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic and its talk page would be sufficient. I thought about even recommending that this be reduced to a warning, but I think the length of time over which the prior issues were identified, and the unobtrusiveness of a p-block to the editor in light of their general stated plan of action, makes the software-enforced break a more appropriate outcome. Seraphimblade, thoughts? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BePrepared1907

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

Request concerning BePrepared1907

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: BePrepared1907 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA / WP:EC / WP:GAMING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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 2024-09-28 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note that this is not a request for an SPI, I included that information for context, but that investigation is already happening over on that corner of the site. This is for AE regarding ARBPIA/EC/GAMING, and a separate issue. I could open a new SPI as well/in lieu if that's what you recommend? (cc @Liz) Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff of notification

Discussion concerning BePrepared1907

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

Statement by BePrepared1907

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

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

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BePrepared1907

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

AE is to investigate possible violations of arbitration case guidelines. If you have suspicions about possible sockpuppetry, please file a case at WP:SPI. All editors and most admins who would respond here do not have the privileges enabled to investigate sockpuppetry claims. Plus, it just belongs at SPI especially if it relates to an existing case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Smallangryplanet, my concerns with sockpuppetry claims on any noticeboard is that at times they can be brought up to disparage an editor in a way that regular admins on the project can't verify to indicate that they are accurate. That's why filers are directed to go to SPI if they have these concerns. This is just my point of view, but I think it's best to only bring up claims and charges that can be supported by diffs so editors and admins can see the argument that is being made. Raising issues that can't be verified, here, can just serve to prejudice other editors against the accused editor. I'm not accusing you of doing this, you just posed the question to me about SPIs and this is my general response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't have a problem with sockpuppetry allegations being made outside of SPI, as long as it's in the pursuit of an administrative remedy and not a mere aspersion. Bringing this up at AE has the disadvantage of potentially fewer sockpuppetry-oriented admins, but the advantage that we can also consider whether edits are sanctionable under CTOP. (I mean, we can do that at SPI, and occasionally do, but it's not our mandate.) On the socking front, I hope to be able to post thoughts in this space within the next 24 hours, but I need to talk a bit more with a few other admins who are familiar with relevant SPIs. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on some information I can't post on-wiki, I'm pretty confident that the same person is in control of the account as when it made its first edit to hewiki 19 years ago, which rules out being an Icewhiz/Galamore sock. What's harder to say is whether any meatpuppetry or tag-team editing is going on. The evidence above paints a concerning picture in that regard. It occurs to me that this, a case of an editor whose edits until a few months ago were almost exclusively about global scouting, and whose edits since are almost exclusively about the Arab–Israeli conflict, is the exact sort of person who the new BER would make sense on. Note that that remedy explicitly says it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive. I think this is such a case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to a BER but would suggest that it be narrowed it to the current conflict rather than all of PIA (as a rough consensus administrators are not bound to the standard set of restrictions there is nothing stopping us from modifying BER in this way) given this user's past editing. On the socking front, with additional behavioral evidence I see now I agree 100% with Tamzin's assertion that I think this is the same person behind the keyboard as it was in the past and if I'd had been aware of that behavioral evidence when I was doing the CU I'd have probably labeled it Unlikely. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: A BER for anything other than the full topic area would be significantly harder to track, since the rate of in-area edits is meant to be tracked by 1339, meaning that BePrepared would have to manually calculate his percentage rather than relying on n-ninety-five, and so would any admin checking compliance. Plus if we're talking about, like, a page on a Zionist youth movement like Young Judaea, I don't think most of those are ECP'd to begin with (and thus don't count toward the BER dividend); and even if they were, the BER wouldn't stop him from editing them, just limit his rate. Now, since a BER includes a namespace-specific TBAN, I'd be fine with something like "is subject to a balanced editing restriction, except that the topic ban in WP:BER's second bullet point shall not apply to content that a) relates to youth movements and b) does not relate to the Gaza war (2023–present)". I'd be fine with the same exception if there's consensus to TBAN rather than impose BER. But I'll reserve judgment until BP (who often goes weeks between edits) responds. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taken individually many of those edits may be justifiable or excusable. Taken together I am seeing a pattern of reflexive reverting and insufficient engagement with contentious edits in both edit-summaries and talk-page engagement. I also find the tag-team evidence concerning: there are far too many instances of a first edit being to revert in support of a blocked editor, or to revert a perceived opponent. I support a BER at the bare minimum, and would strongly prefer we include a logged warning. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ymerazu

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

Request concerning Ymerazu

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBCOVID-19

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

00:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC) In response to a question from them asking if a suggested change was implemented and then me responding that why would it be when there is no consensus, they wrote "If you have a peanut gallery of people who think the lab leak is a conspiracy theory and they monitor every single change and comment in this talk page then yes you get that appearance. A few users throwing a tantrum does not mean the material does not belong in the article".
01:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC) I left a suggestion on their user talk that they strike the comment in the diff above as it was "not following the behavioural best practice which is expected in a contentious topic area".
09:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC) WP:GASLIGHT another editor when they respond to them with "Thankfully, editor consensus does not agree with you. Unfortunately for our readers, the page does not reflect consensus".

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 01:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editors statistics indicate that at the time of this filling they had 39 edits, 38 of their edits were at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory and one of their edits were in their sandbox. After their comment to me on 14 February I quickly messaged them to give them the opportunity to follow the behavioural best practice which is expected in CTOPS and strike their comment. At present they have not done so and have taken to arguing that consensus is something other than what it clearly is. The editor is clearly a WP:SPA and this should be nipped in the bud before further disruption occurs.

Notably, as at the time of my writing this, the comment at Special:PermanentLink/1276539360#Request to restore text on public hearings and Congressional positions which calls other editors part of a "peanut gallery" and stating that they are "throwing a tantrum" has still not been striked despite Ymerazu's "mea culpa".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Ymerazu

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

Statement by Ymerazu

Hello!

Mea culpa for the snarkiness and characterizing people who disagreed as throwing a tantrum in that comment, I'll be mindful in the future. When I started editing I was doing a better job at keeping civility and I slipped up somewhere along the way.

In my reply to Bon Courage I could have built up my point better. They are expressing a view that is (as I argued in the comment) not the consensus of other editors when this went to RFC (see the first item in the consensus box at the top of the page). That is, they are saying the lab leak is purely a conspiracy theory when they say "Legitimate views about SCV2 origin are at Origin of SARS-CoV-2, not here". This implies that other views are illegitimate. My reply was that "editor consensus does not agree" which if you read the RFC is the case (the RFC concluded that there is no consensus that the broad lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory vs a minority scientific view). It's not useful to engage further so I think honestly my best path to peace here is to focus on positive changes. I will not be arguing with users or doing back-and-forths and I know these don't tend to lead to positive changes to the article.

As far as being a single purpose account, I don't think I'm in a great position to defend against this and it was a concern of mine when I started participating in the talk page. To my credit, I did read the WP:SPA policy shortly after joining and have tried to comply with it by not being overly partisan. I am not editing with the purpose of supporting the lab leak theory. My legitimate hope is that the article follows the spirit of Wikipedia and best practices. While this topic did get me interested in editing, I am not intending to only participate on this topic, but it is the one I am motivated to participate in at present. Ymerazu (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

Wikipedia is really not aided by this kind of WP:SPA lab leak trutherism (or maybe, WP:SOCK?). A page block or topic ban would provide some relief. Bon courage (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ymerazu

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

This isn't really the right area for a new editor with a pov to learn how to edit according to our consensus driven and npov approach. @Ymerazu: you really need to practise before you will have the skills to work collegiately on this article. Without those skills your contributions will be disruptive and won't grip on the article. Do you have the disciple to do that yourself or would you be assisted by a pageban? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantine123

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

Request concerning Adamantine123

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Adamantine123 (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:ARBPAK

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

22 February - Came back after 3 days of inactivity to jump on a thread about his distressed opponent (Ratnahastin), and is trying to turn the entire issue (involving some legal difficulties) into a discussion about unrelated caste feuds. Adamantine123 is designating his opponent to have been motivated to make edits because "Marathas are considered as formidable enemy of Rajputs". Adamantine123 is doing this, despite having been almost topic banned and warned against similar violations of WP:ASPERSIONS in the earlier ANI thread. Not to mention the unexplained claims of "selective disruption", and WP:CANVASSING to demand "at least a topic ban" without any basis.

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): [20]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I filed the report here because that ANI thread is all set to close without any action as already demanded by one admin.[21]

Rosguill has also commented on this message from Admantine123.[22]

Adamantine123 was already warned for this battleground attitude,[23] and he himself acknowledged it[24], however, he still recklessly jumped to abide by the same disruptive attitude that got him into trouble last time. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [25]

Discussion concerning Adamantine123

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

Statement by Adamantine123

Statement by Vanamonde

I was pinged in the diff above but was too busy to respond. In isolation it may not warrant sanctions, but it shows an battleground attitude of astonishing proportions. The thread had nothing to do with caste-related POV-pushing, and even the proposed block was on the grounds that Ratnahastin was under duress, not for misconduct as such. Noting for the record that I have previously had sharp disagreements with both Adamantine and Ratnahastin. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

Not 100% sure whether I should comment here or in the result section...I stand by my comment in response to Adamantine123's initial pinging of me and other admins (which Capitals00 notes in their report). Anecdotally Adamantine123's comment at ANI is a contender for most brazen, opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND statement I've yet seen from an editor with more than 1,000 edits. The only mitigating factor that I can see is that at least this happened at ANI, and not at an article talk page where it would interfere with consensus formation. Now that this has been brought to AE, I think a logged warning for battleground attitude is appropriate at minimum. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Adamantine123

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

RevolutionaryPatriot

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

Request concerning RevolutionaryPatriot

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: RevolutionaryPatriot (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:ARBPAK

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

22 February - Reduced prominence of a soldier by depicting him as a mere assassin.
21 February - Removes "cn" tag by citing his understanding in edit summary (see WP:OR). The information is not mentioned anywhere on the article, let alone having it sourced.
18 - 19 February: Edit warring on Balochistan to change infobox image without gaining consensus.[26][27][28]
20 February - Using self-published source "Symist".[29]
18 February - Replaced portrait of Humayun with a misleading image.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [30]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Initially, I thought of warning him but found that even after having been blocked 2 times in the last year,[31] including a month-long block from mainspace articles, he hasn't learned.

His edits outside this area are also problematic as we can see here where he is imposing the use of "Islamic laws" to suppress the image on Eve. He was told to rectify this mistake on his talk page,[32] however, he made no response. Capitals00 (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [33]

Discussion concerning RevolutionaryPatriot

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

Statement by RevolutionaryPatriot

Statement by (username)

Result concerning RevolutionaryPatriot

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

These all look like content issues to me. If there is evidence that RP has been ignoring concerns about content issues, that is something we may be able to action, but so far no such evidence has been presented (except with the Eve edit, but that's beyond AE's scope—it is, I will note, restoration of an edit by LTA PakistanHistorian, on a range I've just reblocked, but I did a deep dive into edit summaries and I don't think RP is a PH sock). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, User:Capitals00, that edit on Eve was made by an IP editor, User:2407:D000:F:8B29:B1CB:117F:E830:CEA3, but they did restore it after the edit was reverted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]