Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive358

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Orientls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history#AlvaKedak indefinite topic ban

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

1. 18:18, 25 July 2025 - Ironically, lectures another user about the Arbcom sanctions on this Indian historical empire while violating the topic ban on himself imposed by Arbcom.
2. 04:45, 26 July 2025 - Another topic ban violation as he is editing article about a historical Indian empire.
3. 19:17, 26 July 2025 - Violating the topic ban by sharing his knowledge about Indian military history
4. 19:20, 26 July 2025 - No different than above violation
5. 19:23, 26 July 2025 - Another violation

These violations came after he was already cautioned about his earlier topic ban violations. Orientls (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

"AlvaKedak (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed."

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

Not required here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Tamzin: I disagree that "if ArbCom had wanted to say "Indian history", it could have", because then it would mean AlvaKedak cannot edit even about topics like Aryabhata which is irrelevant to caste and military. He is topic banned from Indian military and caste history that means he cannot even edit about B. R. Ambedkar or Reginald Dyer, let alone editing about these empires like Hoysala Kingdom, Gajapati Empire and more that are all about Indian military history. To be very clear, he is not allowed to edit about any empires but he is doing it even after warning. Orientls (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: See WP:BROADLY. What you are saying is like saying Aryabhatta should not fall under a "topic ban from Indian astronomy history". Weren't these all these Indian empires sustained by militaries? Didn't they come and fade as part of military campaigns? AlvaKedak also edited Gajapati military two times on 24 July 2025. This is absolutely in line with your interpretation. Orientls (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Since you are acknowledging that he was warned and he acknowledged it, then why do you want to simply warn him for the latest topic ban violation (you agreed on at least 1 diff)? You haven't addressed how any of these empires are irrelevant to Indian military history when they are all about Indian military history. If "we TBAN someone from American politics" then they cannot edit about Donald Rumsfeld even though he was not involved in American politics throughout his entire adult life but was notable all because of it. Same way these empires are notable all because of their relevance in Indian military history, that's why editing their articles is a violation of Indian military history topic ban. Orientls (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Voorts and Tamzin: While we are evaluating this report, AlvaKedak has again violated his topic ban right here by changing "King Tipu had vowed never to use it until he completely defeated the British Army. After King Tipu Sultan martyred, the British dismantled the throne" to "Tipu had vowed never to use it until he completely defeated the British Army. After Tipu Sultan, the British dismantled the throne". Orientls (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Tamzin: You are misreading the diff. Alvakedak did not remove "multiple instances of a word" but removed multiple words like "king", "martyred" and is directly talking about the content that is all about a historical battle, i.e. Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (which is also mentioned there). This is a clear-cut violation of his topic ban. Orientls (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Ealdgyth: You haven't addressed AlvaKedak changing "After King Tipu Sultan martyred, the British dismantled the throne" to "After Tipu Sultan, the British dismantled the throne". Can you tell the name of the event where Tipu Sultan "martyred" in the hands of the British? Tamzin is also yet to address that. If you are going to say that talking about a historical military death has nothing to do with military history, then that would make no sense. Orientls (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

I have to agree with my colleagues below: editing about an empire is not in and of itself a part of military history, as that would cover far too much of the history of the subcontinent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

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

• I'm inclined to issue a one week block. AlvaKedak, do you understand what the broadly construed aspect of your TBAN means or do you need a broader TBAN from all Indian history to clarify things? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  I've changed my mind. I agree with Tamzin. An informal warning is fine here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• I partly disagree. Diff 1 is a violation, although I appreciate that it might not be obvious to someone that enforcing the ECR is itself covered by the TBAN, so I'd only give an informal warning for that. The other diffs don't seem within the scope of the TBAN to my eye. If ArbCom had wanted to say "Indian history", it could have. While these polities had militaries, the edits didn't concern those, unless I'm missing something. That said, I can't say I recommend editing this close to the boundary of the topic ban. It's best to stay far afield, even especially in the early days of a TBAN. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 15:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC), ed. 19:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Orientls: I simply disagree. A historical Indian empire is not inherently within the topic area of Indian military history. Many aspects of it may be, but not the entire topic. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 16:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Orientls: I am quite familiar with WP:BROADLY. Aryabhatta would fall under an Indian astronomy history TBAN because he was an astronomer; everything about his article is subsidiary to the topic of astronomy. BROADLY doesn't work in the other direction, though. When we TBAN someone from American politics, we don't say they cannot edit about the United States at all. Therefore when we TBAN someone from Indian military history, we are not saying they cannot edit about any Indian entity that has ever had a military. Again, if ArbCom had wanted to do that, it would have said so. Now, I wouldn't say it's a good idea to make such edits, since it's close to the line, but it's not across it.

  You are right that the two Gajapati diffs were violations, but AK was already warned about that and acknowledged fault, which you link to in your filing. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 16:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Orientls: I don't know how to be more clear. TBANs apply to things that are subsidiary to the topic, but not to things that are broader in scope. Donald Rumsfeld is part of US politics. The US is not part of US politics; rather, US politics is part of the US.

  Why do I just want to warn? Because the first two edits read like an honest mistake, and this reads like an honest mistake. Traditionally, an editor gets one or two warnings' worth of leeway for honest mistakes when they get topic-banned, before we start blocking. That said, I wouldn't object to making this warning logged rather than informal.

  In addition, I don't know how else to say this, but please try to sound less... bloodthirsty?... about this. You've made your case. Admins are listening, and I am but one admin. Collectively, we will agree with you or we won't. But whatever we do, it will be what we think is most likely to steer this editor back in the direction of constructive edits. The goal here is not to eliminate someone for Breaking the Rules. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Orientls: This is bordering on tendentious. He removed multiple instances of a word in an article on architecture, and one of those instances happened to be in a sentence mentioning the British Army in India. This is, again, not something I would consider a good idea to edit about while under an Indian military history topic ban; but it is, again, not a topic ban violation (or only is in a de minimis sense); and you are, again, grasping at straws here. Please go find something to do other than policing a fellow editor's contributions. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• I agree with Tamzin, quite emphatically. Just because an Indian empire has a military does not mean a topic ban from "Indian military history" disallows editing about the empire, as long as the edits are not about the military of that empire. Informal warning is fine. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  I do not see that AK changed anything in that newest diff that relates to military history. They arguably greatly improved the prose, making it actually readable, without discussing anything related to a battle. Yes, it's probably close to the edge, and if I were them, I might have avoided it, but that's a personal choice. If they'd changed "had vowed never to use it until he completely defeated the British Army" to "had vowed never to use it until he completely destroyed the British Army" or "had vowed never to use it until he drove the British from India", then, yes, it'd be a violation, but merely editing something in an article near a mention of a military event in that same article is not "broadly construed"... it is "grasping at straws" as Tamzin points out above. I might suggest that you do not try "third time is the charm" on this report as it could lead to a boomerang ban on you making reports here. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I would disagree, I think Orientls is correct in characterizing the removal of the word "martyred" as infringing on the topic ban. Tipu Sultan died in battle against the British during the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War, which is stated quite plainly in the lead of Tipu Sultan's Summer Palace. The use of "martyred" was both ungrammatical (it should have been was martyred to be grammatically correct) and likely not warranted per neutrality policy (was killed being clearer and less value-laden), but this is very much touching on a military action (and it's worth noting that the resulting text is also ungrammatical--it should not be After Tipu Sultan,..., it should be After Tipu Sultan's death...). Now, this infringement is perhaps still covered by Tamzin's assertion of de minimis non curat lex (to which I'm tempted to respond, de locutiones latinam non curat Wikipedium et broadly construed significat broadly construed) so this probably warrants a warning or slap on the wrist at most, but I think it's wrong to assert that such edits are fair game. More broadly, I don't think it's possible to edit topics pertaining to regime or border change without touching upon military questions--these topics are inherently linked. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) "martyred" is terrifically biased language and should not be used without incredibly strong sourcing - removing it in this instance is a great service, because not only was it biased/loaded language, it made no sense "After King Tipu Sultan martyred" is gibberish, frankly. Please stop assuming that Tamzin and I did not actually look at the context of the diff you are reporting. I did indeed open up the diff and read the whole edit. Pinging me back to pick at this again is not helping your case. I disagree with Rosguill that removing "martyred" was inherently related to military history, if the previous bit had been "After King Tipu Sultan's death in battle" ... then by a hugely terrific stretch, it could be argued that this was a topic ban violation. I could see an informal warning to AK to be scrupulous about utterly avoiding pushing the boundaries, but I remain more unimpressed with the filer's behavior here than the edits made that (if we squint REALLY hard) could possibly brush up against the topic ban. (I also disgree that "After Tipu Sultan, the British dismantled" is wrong per se, but that's a stylistic choice that isn't part of this CTOP, thankfully (stares at Capitalization matters in horror)) Ealdgyth (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I think Rosguill makes a fair point that the "martyred" change is just over the line. @Rosguill @Ealdgyth: Combined with three other just-over-the-lines, how would we feel about this?

  AlvaKedak is given a logged warning for four breaches, albeit minor, of their topic ban. They are advised that editors proceed at their own peril when they operate in topic areas closely related to an area one is banned from, and that especially in the early days of a topic ban it is a good idea to avoid these; repeated violations, even if accidental, may lead to blocks. Orientls is informally cautioned to spend less time policing the TBAN compliance of others.

  (Also, just a procedural note for the closer if it isn't me: As I understand this, any sanction here gets logged as a case-level warning under Indian military history in WP:AELOG/2025 § Other cases, not as CT/SA.) -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 12:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm okay with that, but I'd also like an informal warning or at least an acknowledgement from the filer that going directly to AE with such a minor issue was bordering on battleground behavior - the better option (and one, ironically, we see more often in Israel-Palestine) is to approach the person making offending edit(s) first to see if they will self-revert or at least realize that such an edit is a breach. I see that CharlesWain did such with AK on the 25th and got a reply from AK that they would stop editing about forts. Generally, approaching the editor first in a low-key, collaborative manner is the approach that should be followed, not immediately dragging someone off to AE - ESPECIALLY when that same low-key approach that worked reasonably well is the immediately previous section to the one where the filer notified AK. I again point out that AK should probably try to avoid the edges of the topic, but I gotta admit that "military history" is a VERY broad topic and there are a lot of places it can trip you up. The Platonic ideal of what CTOP rules are for is to teach editors how to edit collaboratively so that the CTOP rules can eventually go away (I know, Pollyanna moment here for Ealdgyth, but it does occasionally happen more often than pigs fly!) so the ideal here would be for the filer to at least attempt to communicate the problem outside of AE. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with this proposal, and Ealdgyth’s informal warning suggestion seems appropriate too. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  I do have an informal warning as the last sentence of the proposal. I should have made it its own paragraph but yeah. @Ealdgyth: Does that work for you, appended with "and that the first recourse for a minor violation should usually be asking the editor to self-revert"? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 13:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Works fine. And thanks for the wordsmithing ... you're much better at the AE-legalease-stuff than I am. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Looks good. Thanks for drafting. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear Administrator, I am writing to respectfully request a review of the topic ban placed on me approximately two years ago, which restricts me from editing the page titled "Aryan Valley"

l This topic ban has also made me ineligible to access The Wikipedia Library, which I would now like to use for learning and research.

At the time of the ban, I was still learning how Wikipedia works, and I didn’t fully understand the consequences of my actions. Since then, I have taken time to reflect and better understand Wikipedia’s guidelines. I have also contributed positively to the encyclopedia, including by creating new articles.

I am now sincerely requesting that the topic ban b reviewed or reconsidered, so I may regain access to The Wikipedia Library. I am willing to accept any reasonable conditions or oversight the community deems appropriate.

Notably, I reached out to Daniel Case, who replied on 31 July 2025 stating that, since the block was imposed under CTOPS, he would feel more comfortable acting if the request were brought to AE and a consensus supported it. Therefore, I am making this formal request here, in good faith.

I assure the community of my full commitment to editing constructively and respectfully, and I deeply appreciate your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Sincerely, – (Minaro123 (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC))

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Stix1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Stix1776 (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

I was given a topic ban of on circumcision.

Administrator imposing the sanction

The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

sorry it's late, my job keeps me very busy

Since the ban, the other editor in the conflict has has a litany of blocks, topics bans, and finally a indefinite ban for sockpuppetry. I understand Wikipedia needs to be careful of outing, but this user was almost certainly creating a fake profile on Reddit to claim that the other side was "canvasing", something he often does to edit war.

It should be noted that the previous Outing policy in April 2022 did not include a mention to external sites. This was fixed in January of last year. I was not the only editor to find this confusing. Before the topic ban process started, I was genuinely surprised yet apologetic. I am sorry that I did an outing, but this situation is quite confusing.

Since my topic ban, the other contentious account and their socks had multiple blocks for edit warring, something I tried very hard to explain in my AE defense. Since the ban, I've had zero behavioral issues, and the other editor and his socks have had 10+. It's almost comical comparing this user's behavioral history and his socks and more socks and more socks and more socks after I was topic banned. Stix1776 (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

– Edit: may I add that an admin decision was made on my topic ban BEFORE I had a chance to post a response. As other editors have noted, most of the complains in the AE report were for things BEFORE I got warned for DS. Reading the original AE report, most of the "personal attacks" that I was blamed for, including accusations of sockpuppetry and a future block for edit warring, in hindsight are fully correct.Stix1776 (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Replies to The Blade of the Northern Lights

Jesus hell. So we're not allowed to argue, with a preponderance of evidence, that the topic ban was a massive mistake? How about that KlayCax and his socks have edited 20% of the page?

As noted, this admin has been a lock em up and throw away the key judge, literally making a decision before I even responded to the AE post. This is shameful.Stix1776 (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Also KlayCax wasn't the filer, he was the one I was blamed for for "complaining".Stix1776 (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Replies to Pppery

I literally apologized several times throughout this process.Stix1776 (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

This was rushed as hell.Stix1776 (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to note I'm aware of this, I don't think I'll have a lot to say but I know whatever I do say will probably be tomorrow, RL today has been absolutely relentless. Admins (and anyone else who has input), feel free to weigh in before any statement of mine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

To the extent I have anything to say, I note this appeal almost entirely focuses on the conduct of the filer at the time. Stix1776 hasn't picked up any other additional sanctions, and KlayCax has engaged in subsequent misconduct, and still nothing about this appeal is stating what the benefit would be for Stix1776 to be allowed to edit this topic area again. If there's a followup statement forthcoming I'm open to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

• Decline this entire appeal per WP:NOTTHEM. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• As much as my sympathies would normally be on Stix's side, their last few edits to this page suggest that lifting the topic ban at this time might be unwise. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Stix, if you want this to end in your favour, some advice: back up. Way up. Start again, from the beginning. Explain the circumstances that led to your tban in a way that would make sense to someone who is reading about you for the very first time. Explain why you think the ban is no longer necessary. Focus on your own conduct, not that of others. If you think your conduct was perfectly fine and AE admins erred previously, go ahead and make that case - but focus on your conduct, not someone else's. Promise not to repeat whatever led to the tban, even if you think that's kind of stupid. And restrict yourself to one edit to this page every 24 hours. -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Stix1776, please put any comments and replies only in your own section. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• As the blocking admin for KlayCax, I'm pretty open to this appeal, and I don't like the idea of declining an appeal merely for having a bad attitude int he appeal itself, but I agree with asilvering that Stix needs to back up and restart. Frankly I'd be fine with them just collapsing what they've written so far and starting the appeal fresh. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 11:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Agree re: collapsing. And I know I beat the "for Pete's sake, 500 words!!" drum around here a lot, but I would happily ignore all of the words written thus far and not consider them in any count. -- asilvering (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

CoffeeCrumbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Bhaskar sunsari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/SA

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

1. 15:12, 27 July 2025 Addition of material to a caste group in Nepal, inappropriate attack on others in edit summary please don't remove any sourced data doing fake edits here in Wikipedia won't change your status in society
2. 15:25, 27 July 2025 Addition of material to a caste group in Nepal, in appropriate warning to members of a caste Removed manipulated content added by yadav editors like prominent
3. 01:47, 31 July 2025 Removal of section related to an ethnic group on Nepal, borderline personal attack on editor editor should learn editing first

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 14:27, 31 March 2025 Blocked two weeks for persistent disruption and addition of unsourced content
2. 10:26, 22 April 2025 Blocked for two months and 29 days for persistent distruption and addition of unsourced content
3. 17:17, 22 April 2025 Talk page access removed during block due to making personal attacks on talk page
4. 09:17, 22 July 2025 Extended-confirmed status removed.

• Notified editor on talk page in plain text that they no longer had extended-confirmed access and provided a link to WP:CT/SA. Editor at least acknowledged that this was read and gave no indication that anything was misunderstood.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I notified this editor last week in the hopes that they would stay out of an extremely sensitive area until they had their extended confirmed rights restored. This was ignored, and given that these edits in this area have inappropriate edit summaries, I didn't think another warning was inappropriate. Given the attacks on people who are members of a caste that they appear to have a poor opinion of, and the relevant block history, I would have filed this even if the editor did have extended confirmed access. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

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

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

• That's pretty clearly a violation. Given the past history, I'm inclined to a topic ban and/or block ... two months blocked doesn't seem to have gotten the point across, not sure a topic ban would be better. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with Ealdgyth. Pending a response, I'm leaning on a TBAN + AE indef at the moment. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues. This is a straightforward case. AE indef + GSCASTE TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Merline303 (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/Indian military history#Final decision

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

1. 4 August 2025 Creation of a page with unreviewed and hallucinated AI-generated references, such as:
   • Gombrich, Richard & Obeyesekere, Gananath (1988). Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in Sri Lanka. Princeton University Press. pp. 39–42., which is used to cite a paragraph on British colonial policy but the relevant pages concern Buddhist spiritual doctrine
   • Roberts, Michael (1994). Exploring Confrontation: Sri Lanka—Politics, Culture and History. Routledge. pp. 42–45., which is used to cite a paragraph on the aftermath of the Uva Rebellion but the relevant pages are unrelated
   • Pfaffenberger, Bryan (1994). “The Sri Lankan Tamils.” In: Spencer, J. (ed.) Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict. Routledge. pp. 148–150., which is a chapter that does not exist in a book that does.
2. 1 August 2025 Creation of a page with unreviewed and hallucinated AI-generated references:
   • Wijeyaratne, U.; de Silva, N. (2011). "Forest Use and Poaching under Conflict Conditions". Environmental Conflict Review. 6.
   • Vithursha, K. (2019). "Impact of Indian Trawler Poaching on Northern Sri Lanka". Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences.
   • Jayathilaka, R.; Maldeniya, R. (2017). "Status of sea turtle nesting in Sri Lanka". IOSEA Marine Turtle MoU.
   • de Silva, Rohan (2009). "Ivory Trafficking and War Economies: The LTTE Case". Sri Lanka Wildlife Review.
3. 25 July 2025 Creation of a page with unreviewed and hallucinated AI-generated references:
   • Richardson, John M. (1979). "Socialist Experiment in Sri Lanka". Asian Survey. 19 (6): 547–564.
   • Fernando, Ralph (1982). "The State and the Media in Sri Lanka". Media Asia. 9 (4).
   • Perera, L. A. (1982). "Religious Education and the Takeover of Schools in Ceylon". Ceylon Journal of Historical and Social Studies.

And so on and so forth across 19 articles created in the past two months and goodness knows how many others edited. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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 18 April 2025 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Thought AE would be simpler than ANI. Suggest an immediate block, draftification of all their article creations (or CSD if you want to anticipate the RfC that looks close to a SNOW close), and reversions, as far as possible, of their other edits. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Voorts, and for the RfC close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

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

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

I've blocked Merline as a regular admin action. The block is without prejudice to a consensus of admins at AE taking further action, but I don't see another admin unblocking this editor unless they demonstrate an understanding of how to edit without using LLM-hallucinated garbage. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:PIA

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

1. Zionism: 27-July-2025 they restored their changes while making a claim about copyvio and commenting about some unrelated minor changes.
2. Zionism: 27-July-2025 they admitted that they are violating the rule that says "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page", though their explanation for doing so is baseless (as you shall see in the additional comments section).
3. Zionism: 14-July-2025 they removed the section about the Haredi (while falsely claiming that it's not about “anti-Zionism”).
4. Zionism: 27-July-2025 they removed part of the Haredi section (this time claiming that it's fringe).
5. Non Jewish victims of Nazi Germany: in two successive edits, they removed the estimate death toll of the non Jewish civilians (while claiming that it's the "Most common description") and then, they removed more content (while claiming that "Modern scholarship says not to focus on this kind of numerical total"). A few days later, they removed the sources and the content about the death toll of non-Jewish civilians.
6. Double standard: 27-July-2025 they restored unsourced content while falsely claiming that "lots of sources call colonialism". This is an editor who doesn't hesitate to remove what they think is FRINGE (as evidenced by this edit on the Zionism article). Struck as withdrawn. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. User_talk:Mikewem#October_2024_2 blocked for edit warring on the Zionism article.
2. User_talk:Mikewem#October_2024_3 indeffed for WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and clear intent to ignore WP:PIA. Their unblock appeal was accepted by ScottishFinnishRadish and Rosguill.
3. User_talk:Mikewem#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction they were subject to an arbitrary enforcement sanction because of their edits on the Zionism article (again).

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

Regarding diffs 1 and 2: after an IP left a comment on the Zionism talk page about a possible grammar error, Mikewem took the opportunity to completely change the paragraph (while claiming to address the raised issue). I reverted their edit, addressed one of the issues that was raised by the IP and left an explanation on the talk page. Mikewem restored their edit while making a baseless claim about copyvio (something that even if true, wouldn't justify all the changes). When challenged to prove their claim (I was very specific), they gave a non answer. When I insisted, they made a completely baseless claim about copyvio and ignored the rest of my comment. When I asked them (again) to self-revert, they provided this reply (which ignores what I said). The rule of not restoring challenged material (mentioned at the top of the article's talk page) has served us well and kept the disruption to a minimum, so for them to deliberately ignore it is disruptive at best.

diffs 3 and 4 are more or less about the same rule that they obviously have no respect for.

The other diffs are self-explanatory. M.Bitton (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Mikewem: ignore 5 and 6 (per SilverLocust). M.Bitton (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Contrary to what Mikewem is now falsely claiming (after avoiding the report for weeks), they DID NOT self-revert (even when given all the chances to respect the rules). The rest of their comment doesn't deserve a reply. M.Bitton (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

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

I’m not sure I can give an initial response before receiving more clarification. I don’t understand how diffs 5 and 6 relate to PIA enforcement, so I feel like I must be misunderstanding some important aspect of this report or of PIA. I’m sorry for asking @M.Bitton:, but would you be willing to provide a more detailed explanation for your inclusion of 5 and 6? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewem (talk • contribs) 22:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It wasn’t a violation of consensus required because there was no identifiable challenge made to my changes at the time of reversion, and because once M.Bitton finally identified what part of the edit they were actually challenging, I immediately self-reverted that part.

This report was two thirds groundless at the time it was filed. It is now half groundless. The banner at the top defines groundless reports as disruptive. Mikewem (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The reason I said I thought it was a copyright violation is that I thought it was a copyright violation. The exact content at question appears in a different part of the article with slightly different wording (sense of being a nation), and with lower case divine providence. Zionism#National self-determination In contrast to the Zionist notion of nationhood, the Judaic sense of being a nation was rooted in religious beliefs of unique chosenness and divine providence, rather than in ethnicity. Mikewem (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

If saying Mikewem is now falsely claiming in the face of a provided diff that unambiguously shows a partial self-revert is not casting aspersions, I don’t know what is.

The thread is at Talk:Zionism/Archive 37#Blatant Grammar Error/Sentence Fragment/Subtitling Issue. Their chief complaint appeared to be that I “reshuffled the paragraph”. Even though they didn’t provide a reason of why they objected to swapping the order of two adjacent sentences, in the name of collaboration, I undid the “reshuffling”. Mikewem (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

If any third opinion has weighed in on whether or not it was a copyright violation, I would have immediately self-reverted that part of the edit. The first third opinion was give here , about 6 hours after this report was filed. I didn’t argue or push back at all. Mikewem (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

As I have looked into and commented on a couple of the edits identified here, I’ll add what I found for the recod.

On the claim of copyvio, Mikewem argues that the phrase "notion of being a nation" is a copyvio of the lyric "notion of a nation" from the song "Non-stop" from the musical Hamilton. If we do a quick Google Scholar search for the exact lyric, we find it appearing in 1,270 results prior to 2012, which is prior to the first public showing of what was then the Hamilton Mixtape in 2013. Or if we want to go prior to 2009, when Miranda has stated he started working initially on Hamilton, the results are 1,010. This should be more than enough to show that the exact lyric is a common enough phrase in academic discussions of things like nationhood to not be a copyvio of a musical that came about after the scholarly sources looked at. We can then move on to how "notion of being a nation" is a different phrase to the lyric "notion of a nation". To put it bluntly, I very much believe any claim of copyvio is fallacious and is being used to justify the removal of a sentence that Mikewem doesn't like.

Secondly on "lots of sources call colonialism", they later added a reference to support the claim, which was a single unpublished paper, that was written by Craig S. Wright, a person who only has degrees in computer science, works in financial technology, has no history of publication in relevant topic areas, and was found by UK courts to lie about what he has done/achieved. This is a potential indicator of a poor ability to assess the validity and references of sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Mikewem also involved by changing short description for The Holocaust to include dates as it fail WP:SDDATES, this was frequently discussed on Talk:The Holocaust#Short description. But I attempt to change this short description before it was changed or reverted by Mikewem (1, 2, 3). Absolutiva 01:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

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

• On diffs 1 and 2, that looks like a clear consensus-required violation. The "affirmative consensus on the talk page" requirement does need to be via discussion on the talk page – not merely citing (implicitly) things like the WP:COPYVIO policy, MOS:CAPS guidelines, or the WP:UCR essay. (And the asserted copyright violation is not remotely a copyright violation.)
  On diffs 5 and 6, I think Mikewem is correct that those edits are not within WP:PIA. The subjects of victims of Nazi Germany and early Muslim conquests are not generally within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Absolutiva: Likewise, those edits regarding the Holocaust are not in the WP:PIA topic area. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  Until this thread is resolved, I have now temporarily topic banned Mikewem (limited to articles/article talk pages). On 4 August, they said on their talk page that they would respond. No response has been forthcoming, even as Mikewem has continued editing at Zionism/Talk:Zionism. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Mikewem: Today you violated the topic ban I imposed a week ago. Editing Jewish supremacy (and in particular editing the intro sentence that says "arises in some discourse about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict") is a an edit "relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed". ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 18:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  I did not see PIA in the first sentence that I removed. I can see how even an edit that just bolds the title words in the 2nd sentence violates the ban. Self-reverting now. Mikewem (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• I am having a lot of trouble assuming good faith on the copyright removals. A four-word phrase from an unrelated work, not even identical to the five-word phrase used on-wiki? Seriously? Editors do get weird ideas sometimes about how copyright works (partly because our copyright-related policies intentionally exceed, and also sometimes unintentionally misstate, copyright law, I say with a cough in the direction of WP:COPYLINK), but there's only so much AGF I'm willing to extend given the history of sanctions here. The minimum outcome I can see here is a balanced editing restriction (noting that per N95 Mikewem is currently at 74% PIA edits in the past 30 days), but at this moment I lean more toward a full TBAN. We do not need editors in this topic area weaponizing policies to gain the upper hand. As with most PIA sanctions, I favor making this thread's outcome, whatever it is, appealable only to ARCA. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 04:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Nothing in the 3 weeks since I wrote the above comment gives me the impression that Mikewem has any interest in complying with the expectations in this topic area. Support an indefinite topic ban, appealable to ARCA. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 08:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not totally sold on a full TBAN here, depending on further replies from Mikewem, but I agree that the first two diffs appear to violate the consensus required requirement. (That's a ... weird mouthful). And I find the "alleged" copyright violation to be so much of a reach that I'm having trouble assuming good faith on Mikewem's part for putting it forward. The fact that Mikewem was already indeffed but unblocked less than a year ago is not exactly encouraging. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry for dropping the thread here - was busy with stuff outside wiki. I don't see that Mikewem's replied here although they have made some edits. Are we thinking solidifying the TBAN or do others have thoughts? Ealdgyth (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

GENSEX, BLP

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

1. 2019/10/08 17:24 - BLP vio; earliest diff of this
2. 2019/12/02 02:41 - BLP vio (The edit before this one was also a BLP violation but not relevant to this case)
3. 2020/08/07 05:55 - BLP vio
4. 2020/12/27 18:23 - BLP vio
5. 2022/12/13 22:48 - Good-faith insertion of contested BLP material (Editor would edit this paragraph over the next few edits, including to add a questionable source)
6. 2023/01/29 21:27 - Good-faith restoration of contested BLP material
7. 2023/01/29 21:35 - Good-faith restoration of contested BLP material
8. 2023/04/12 00:35 - BLP vio
9. 2023/11/08 13:26 - BLP vio
10. 2025/07/25 03:02 - Bad-faith insertion of contested BLP material

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A, seeking page-level sanctions

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

N/A, seeking page-level sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I apologise for the very nonstandard request again, and the situation is the same as it was back then. (Seriously, we need an ArbEnf template for articles, not just users.)

I'm here to seek an indefinite semi-protection on Keith Thomas (record producer) under the GS and BLP CTOPs due to what appears to be a long-term campaign to draw undue attention to a lawsuit filed (and then apparently quickly settled) against him as part of #MeToo that has been ongoing ever since the lawsuit was filed in late 2019. Someone claiming to be the article's subject complained about it on the Help Desk, which prompted me to do some digging. I can't find any sources about the lawsuit that aren't strictly about its filing (hence my hedge above), and this content seems to frequently find its way into the lede courtesy of unregistered users. I am bringing it here rather than WP:RFPP/I because this is a situation where I would rather have a consensus to protect the page rather than a unilateral action that could easily be challenged after a year. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: GS is being invoked because the allegations are connected to #MeToo, which is unambiguously in that topic area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

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

SEMI is generally for high-traffic pages. PCP makes more sense here. Given that this is a BLP and the allegations are extremely serious, I would be in favor of indefinite PCP under BLP. I don't think "broadly construed" can be stretched far enough for this to be covered by GENSEX; the IP editors are adding this to portray the article subject in a particular way, not comment on gender/sexuality. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The fact that a lawsuit was filed during the MeToo era does not make it fall under GENSEX. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

PC is a poor solution for BLPs as it allows the disruptive content to be viewed in the history. For articles subject to serious BLP concerns (as opposed to occasional drive by vandalism) semi-protection should be used. It's better to protect the subjects of our articles than to kowtow to the ideal of '"the encyclopedia that anyone can edit".-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The page history cat is already out of the bag, no? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that matters. We don't allow BLP violations to continue just because there have been BLP violations in the past. PC is an ok tool for dealing with articles hit with periodic vandalism or unsourced content but a piss poor tool for protecting BLP subjects. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This is an article being hit with periodic vandalsim, and WP:PCPP says it should be used for BLP violations, which is why I suggested it. SEMI seems like overkill for an article that's edited every few years. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sybercracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Anpanman11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/SA — WP:ARBIMH

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

1. Copyright violations over two articles. even after warnings copyrighted content still exists as 70.9%.
2. After the previous violation of the 3rr rule, still edit warring against default sorting.
3. Calling good-faith collaborative edits as disruption.
4. For creating new articles he merely provides quotes, page numbers from the sources.(Here, Here, Here) And mostly using outdated primary sources.
5. For removing or adding content, he merely provides any edit-summaries.
6. Battle ground mentally and with false allegations hoax fillings.

I believe this user has a competence issue he doesn't know how to cite sources properly with pages quotes per WP:V, basic policies like Copyvio, Edit war, 3rr, and what is not vandalism/disruption. Sybercracker (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see User talk:Anpanman11#Introduction to contentious topics)

• User_talk:Anpanman11#c-Rosguill-20250714185600-Introduction_to_contentious_topics

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Anpanman11 These are not the answers to the issues raised here; you have violated copyright on multiple occasions, violated 3RR, still edit warning, and still have sourcing issues (you often cite sources without providing pages, quotes & outdated/unreliable sources). After doing this, all you're not accepting these mistakes showing negligence.

1. Even after Copyright violation on Muslim-Gujars you created article "Fazal Ali Khan" and directly copy-pasted content from the sources when Lovkal tagged page for revdel you removed tagged adding further new copyrighted content then he restored the tag again. But now copyright content still exist as 22.5% It clearly show your competence issue.
2. There is also another issue of WP: Owning on many occasions you said I created this page and why 'Syber' or other editors are editing this page? You're also not aware that on Wikipedia any page or content is not your personal property.
3. No, you don't have to revert other's edits violating 3RR rule and edit war. You violated 3RR on Muslim Gujars then still you're edit waring on Yahya Khan (Lahore) against improvements. British census reports are outdated and unreliable for ethnic/caste claims in the Indian subcontinent.
4. I believe edit summaries are mandatory for removing content & sources from pages or replacing pre-existing content with new content that you were doing.
5. I didn't accuse you of sockpuppetry. I raised a concern that the page, Yahya Khan Bahadur was created 2-3 times by socks and deleted under G5 then the reviewing admin said the content is different from the previous sock's versions. Sybercracker (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

1. @Anpanman11 All issues mentioned in this report were also of concern to an admin. He said there were sourcing & copyright issues and you need to provide pages, and quotes from the sources. Other editors also gave you warnings for disruption. You're not accepting your mistakes when you know you committed them, and you're not in the mood to listen to anyone. I think you'll repeat all these mistakes purposely If you'll be allowed to go unsanctioned.
2. In your comment you said "I'm not your father...?" I believe It is WP:UNCIVIL.
3. There was a clear copyright violation. Sybercracker (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

   @Tamzin: @CoffeeCrumbs: After ECR reminder Indian military history social group. Sybercracker (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User_talk:Anpanman11#c-Sybercracker-20250727220400-Notice

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.

Moved into own section in reply to filer. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

1. I already discussed the matter with @Diannaa and she restored my edit

2. I had to revert your edit as it cited wrong figures with unreliable sources claiming here are 33 million Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan. British census data put the number of Gujjars at around 2m only.

3. Those were unnecessary edits on a page you knew nothing about. You added nothing to the page itself. You merely used it to increase the number of your edits.

4. Unlike you, I always quote authoritative and contemporary or semi-contemporary sources. The fact you're calling these "outdated" tells a lot about your knowledge about how historical sources work.

5. Edit summaries aren't mandatory.

6. You're the one who accused me of being a sockpuppet. You're the one who came up with false allegations.

Also, it's impressive that you've learned how to launch discussions, complaints, accuse someone of being a sockpuppet etc. all within a month of joining Wikipedia. Anpanman11 (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Just recently you mentioned Abdullah Khan Alakozai (a page I created) as a Mughal subahdar. Had you read the very first line of the article you would've known he was an Afghan and had nothing to do with the Mughals. It seems you're the one who has basic reading competence issues. Anpanman11 (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Moved into own section again: I believe this one is a reply to Sybercracker (below). Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Don't teach me what sources to use, I know better. You have reading issues and you're trying to teach me my expertise.

1. There was no copyright violation on Muslim Gujjars, that's why my edits were restored.

2. I know it's not my personal property, just as I'm not your father that you have to follow me.

3. Sorry, your edits don't add anything to Yahya Khan (governor).

4. That's your opinion, which doesn't matter.

5. You launched Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anpanman11 a week before the page Yahya Khan (governor) was created. Anpanman11 (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Moved from Sybercracker's section, again. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 07:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

1. I edited that page & copyright went from 75 to 22%. Will still edit more if required.

2. Irrelevant

3. If there was a clear copyright violation in your opinion why did the extended editor restored my edits after a discussion? Copyright of old books (1920s) is expired so it can't be a copyright violation. Anyways, you should discuss this with the editor who restored my edit instead of wasting my time. I'm explaining it for the third time now. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Moved from CoffeeCrumbs' section. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 07:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such thing. The pages are not locked. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Moved from admins' section. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 07:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

i think you should elaborate. I don't see Shams Khan page locked. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

why are they protected now? What else can I edit? This was my expertise. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

CoffeeCrumbs, "India" historically referred to a broad and vaguely defined region. The people of Hazara are different from Indians and don't consider themselves Indians. In fact they'd feel insulted being lebelled as such. They have a separate identity, a different language, values, culture, and code of conduct. India usually referred to the lands beyond the Indus, and Amb being to its West is excluded. Anpanman11 (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Amb was an independent state. It wasn't part of the Sikh Empire. NWFP was just one of the many administrative units created by the British in South Asia just as Burma for example. Both aren't part of India. Anpanman11 (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

In fact I didn't in this case. All the territories west of the Indus river weren't part of India. This region is historically called Hazara or Pakhli, and it was part of Pakhtunkhwa, Roh, or Afghanistan. The British included it in India just as they did with Burma and other regions. Both are racially, civilizationally, culturally, ethnically, morally, and linguistically distinct regions from India. Anpanman11 (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Just want to note that Anpanman is continuing to edit the area covered in the recent Indian military history case . I'm not sure how aware they are, though, of the consequences of the very recent arbitration case that placed this area under ECP protection. Anpanman11, can you confirm whether or not you are aware that editing Indian military history topics now requires an editor to have WP:ECP status? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin, I think my biggest concern is that Anpanman11 has stopped engaging about this, and in fact, their response to others making it clear what extended-confirmed protection meant was to continue making those edits, with no acknowledgement they understand what the problem is. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Aaaaand he's back and editing in the same area , , , . CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hazara region is not in India. It's Afghanistan/Pakistan. Anpanman11 (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

No, "Indian military history" does not mean simply things that happen within the post-1947 India borders, nor did the case focus on that. This is an absurd level of Wikilawyering to edit in areas you're not supposed to be editing. And for the millionth time, reply to things in your own section not in those of others. This rapidly becoming an instance of WP:IDHT. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

asilvering, just to note, the Sikh empire some of the edits were talking about encompassed parts of the Maratha empire, which was one of the focal points of the arbitration case. I fear that if "Indian military history" just means "the modern state of India, only within the post-1947 borders of India" it's going to be a mess. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

In addition, the very first sentence of Mir Jehandad Khan explicitly notes that this was in British India. I don't think it's a stretch to call a military leader fighting the Sikh Empire in British India something related to military history. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Anpanman11 Yes, a broad and vaguely defined region, which you may not edit the military history of while you're not extended confirmed. Frankly, while it seemed a stern warning to stay out of this area until you are extended confirmed was appropriate two weeks ago, given that you do not respond to warnings or even a temporary block, I think a topic ban from South Asian military history, broadly construed, is appropriate, and would urge the administrators evaluating the case to consider that action. I do not believe that you take this community's policies and guidelines or the community's concerns about your behavior seriously. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Anpanman11, the restriction is not to military history only specifically "called" India within the modern borders of the state of India. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that a battle in Canada during the American Revolution is not part of American military history. In any case, I believe that administrators have more than sufficient evidence to form a decision, so I have nothing more to add. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Now, the editor has edited:

- A Punjabi military figure.

- A military general who "led the military conquests of the eastern Indian regions of Bengali and parts of Bihar."

As I said above, I don't think this editor has any intention to abide by WP:ECR. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I just closed a dispute at DRN between Anpanman11 and Sybercracker that appears to have been related to this dispute, but I have a question. Sybercracker is concerned that there may continue to be a content dispute with Anpanman11. Is Anpanman11 permitted to edit in this topic area? Exactly what articles within the South Asia contentious topic are subject to extended-confirmed restriction? If I should ask this question somewhere else, please let me know where to ask it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The filer has been blocked as a sock puppet. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 04:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

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

• Without commenting on any of the more specific allegations here, @Anpanman11, you have to understand that Indian military history and South Asian social groups are now under an extended confirmed restriction. This means that until you have made 500 edits, you cannot create or edit articles like Shamas Khan, Yahya Khan (governor), or Abdullah Khan Alkozai, as these people are primarily known for their military roles. I've draftified the latter two articles as an arbitration enforcement action. Going forward, do you understand this rule? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Anpanman11: Please read WP:ECR. You may not edit about any topic covered by an ECR, whether or not there is a page protection in place. If a page is all about Indian military history, you cannot edit it at all. If parts of a page are about Indian military history, you cannot edit those parts. Also, please only reply in your own section. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 07:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I've blocked Anpanman11 for 72h as ECR enforcement over Special:Diff/1303999381 and various borderline violations. Is this sufficient for now, or do others feel something beyond that is necessary? FWIW I do also spot another copyvio here (cf. ), although it's not egregious. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 11:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  @CoffeeCrumbs: My philosophy on ECR enforcement for people who seem to truly be ignoring the ECR as if it doesn't exist at all, is that the first block is an AE tempblock and the second is a non-AE indef for DE/CIR. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 16:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding CIR, the fact that various people have had to move Anpanman11's submissions into the correct section five times suggests that they aren't exactly showing competence or reading ability at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  They're now editing on Pakistan milhist, which... -- asilvering (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

  @CoffeeCrumbs yeah, I'm aware. @Anpanman11, please meditate on the words "broadly construed". -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Tamzin, I'm taking you up on this. -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• You have reading issues and you're trying to teach me my expertise. 1. There was no copyright violation on Muslim Gujjars, that's why my edits were restored. Yeesh. In view of the attitude over the copyvio and this kind of mindset, I'm not sure about their compatibility on the site overall. Copyright indefs kick in at 5 clear instances; you can have a minor instance if the rest are egregious. 3/5 of the way there is not great. When this 72h block ends I'm not optimisitc about further actions being unnecessary. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Bump to prevent archival. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Voorts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Feline Frame-Up (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision

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

1. Special:Diff/1307011669; Special:Diff/1307000040/1307009291; Special:Diff/1307008623; Special:Diff/1307010482: WP:OR about a living person accused of a crime, after another editor explained why their point is not evidence of the claim they're making. They've also posted the same assertion several times in an ongoing deletion discussion (see below).
2. Special:Diff/1306849852 He got his commercial driver's license from a sanctuary state that doesn't care about these kinds of safety laws. Very big deal. Very notable subject.

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

Special:Diff/1306860600

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor is engaged in POV-pushing over the alleged dangers of letting undocumented immigrants drive trucks in the U.S. and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. They created 2025 Florida Turnpike crash, which is about a truck accident in Florida where the driver (who is an undocumented immigrant with a commercial driver's license) made an illegal U-turn. I initially moved the article to draft, but this editor insisted on moving it back to mainspace for an AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Florida Turnpike crash), where they are currently the only person opposing deletion for reasons that have no grounds in the notability guidelines. After the deletion discussion was opened, the editor copy-pasted the material from that article into Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in the United States, where they are continuing to defend inclusion without addressing relevant policies and guidelines, despite being pointed to them several times.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1307017628

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

I never mentioned the driver's name. I did cite multiple reliable sources that verified all of my claims. What I said is true, and backed up by reliable sources. I never mentioned the driver's name. All I did was write the truth, with reliable sources to back it up. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

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

• As far as I can tell, the entirety of this editor's contributions have been to transparently push a political agenda regarding this one car crash, with the exception of this edit adding an unreliably-sourced GENSEX claim to a BLP and this edit which, fair enough, looks fine. One constructive contribution out of 139 is not a great batting average, and I'm inclined to just indef as NOTHERE. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 09:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Please do, Tamzin. Bishonen | tålk 09:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC).

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gianni888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia#GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction

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

1. 10 August 2025 turns an article on a surname into a clan in violation of ECR
2. 1-7 August 2025: Created Draft:List_of_Kamboj_Personalities_and_Families

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 1 August 2025 by Agent VII (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1195#User:Kambojahistory is engaged in disruption only which discussed Gianni tangentially. I've already ECP-ed Sagoo as an AE action since it's been subject to a long, long history of hijackings of that sort, bringing this here to discuss sanctions for Gianni888, which is an area I prefer to stay out of as an admin (and promised I would in my RfA). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

In response to SilverLocust, at least the edits to Sagoo were disruptive on their own merits (unilaterally attempting to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagoo) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Bump to prevent this from being archived unanswered. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sorry if i broke any laws of wikipedia but i was just trying to associate the saggu/sagoo page with caste identity because my grandmother is a saggu/sagoo and to find out her history ask my father and therefore i thought that it would be useful to show that Saggu/Saggoo Lineage belongs to Jat and Ramgharia

And for the Draft:List_of_Kamboj_Personalities_and_Families, my fathers lineage is Kamboj and whenever i meet a Kamboj they never know anything about the history of the Kamboj community so i thought it would be a bright idea to show people and my family the notable Kamboj/Kambohs of history

the main reason i origninally created my wiki account was to edit the Kamboj page

Sorry if i broke any rules on Wikipedia

Sincerely Gianni888

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

• Since Gianni888 apparently had not been specifically told about WP:ARBECR before this, I wouldn't sanction them merely for violating ECR (beyond a warning). The alert templates {{subst:Alert|topic=sa}} and {{subst:Alert/first|topic=sa}} have since been updated to include ECR information. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tiny Particle (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:GENSEX

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

1. 15 August 2025 Copies text from likely-to-be-deleted article Dutch Protocol to four other articles
2. 15 August 2025 Reverts change with edit summary including text You are actively trying to salt the Dutch Protocol, so the depth is needed here.
3. 17 August 2025 Makes strange comment linking to all the new articles at an ArbCom case.
4. 17 August 2025 Another strange comment linking to comments made by several of the article subjects.
5. 17 August 2025 Yet another strange accusatory comment, this time implying he's doing this for anti-trans POV-pushing reasons.
6. 17 August 2025 When the above comments predictably get one of the people at the Dutch Protocol AfD to notice and bring the new articles to AfD also, accuses her of meatpuppetry for notifying the Dutch Protocol AfD of the other AfDs. (Update: this diff has been struck at the urging of other editors.)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16 February 2025 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On 12 August 2025 an AfD was opened for the article Dutch Protocol, which Tiny Particle was largely responsible for writing based on the Dutch wiki's version. The issue, as pointed out by the opener, was that the article largely served as a WP:POVFORK to puberty blockers. As an apparent attempt to circumvent the AfD, Tiny Particle then created a bunch of other POVFORK articles about all the names mentioned in the Dutch Protocol article, explicitly copying text from Dutch Protocol to do so. When challenged on some of this new text they admit that they're doing it as a reaction to the AfD.

Then, a few days later, they made a series of strange comments at an ArbCom case they're not a party to. In these comments they linked all the new articles and made a bunch of weird comments seeming to assert that being trans is a mental illness (against an explicit community consensus to the contrary). They also linked to several articles on a trans activist site saying the subjects of the new articles are anti-trans or gatekeepers, though they did so in apparent approval of the article subjects' (alleged) gatekeepiness. Another comment of theirs supportively quoted Wes Streeting saying that trans women are not women, which suggests to me they're doing all this for anti-trans POV-pushy reasons.

Shortly after, probably because of the attention that these comments drew to the new articles, those were listed at AfD as well. In reaction to a notification of this new AfD on the original Dutch Protocol AfD, Tiny Particle accused the lister of meatpuppetry (which isn't even the right policy, I think they mean WP:CANVASSING).

Basically I think this person is showing huge WP:OWNership behavior and is generally trying to circumvent AfD to push a POV through a bunch of POVFORKs.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

1. 15 August 2025 Created Four articles, each one of which is WP:Notable so "building the encyclopedia"

1. 17 August 2025 This is a Arbcom workshop Comment by others: which I am perfectly entitled to make

I was asked a question. The OP post was in three parts and contained a question directly addressed to me

1. 17 August 2025 I address point 3
2. 17 August 2025 I address point 1&2

The remaining diffs presented:

1. 15 August 2025 I believe the Reverts follow WP:BRD
2. 17 August 2025 The accusation of meatpuppetry is due to blatant WP:Canvass Here

It is nonsense that the dutch protocol is a WP:POVFORK/duplicate article to puberty blockers. I have never read or commented on the Puberty Blockers. The links I added were by means of CtrlF. Also the administration of PBs is just one disipline in the multi-displinary dutch protocol. Problems which don't require deletion, including articles needing improvement, duplicate articles, or POV problems. The Dutch protocol AFD is malformed claiming that the dutch author is banned. I believe this is untrue.

Yes I am not party to the current ArbCom case which is why I left my comment at Comment by others: I believe I clearly made the point that, no matter what the consensus, You can't have your cake and eat it. If there is no illness then there will be no (free) medical care as it is not needed by definition.

Addressing YFNS below I asked AI how to do an author-link3 I also asked for a reliable source link for Peggy C-K's dob to start the article. I find AI to be too verbose and inaccurate to be much use for a content writer. I copy alot from other articles because there is so much overlap. If someone has already written a sentence about say a football/soccer match there are potentialy 11x2=22 articles where that article could be incrementally improved.

That you have a Phd does not change the fact that "Medication is a drug used to diagnose, cure, treat, or prevent disease" Your document mentions "Non-Surgical Interventions". Per wiki Intervention (disambiguation): Medical intervention, therapy to treat health problems.

They are WP:Notable by the sheer influence they have had outside their own country.

I can see one editor blocked for 9 months. By repeating an error it becomes a lie

@Asilvering::I commented above I asked AI how to do an author-link3 I also asked for a reliable source link for Peggy C-K's dob to start the article. I find AI to be too verbose and inaccurate to be much use for a content writer. I am not aware of the elsewhere that you mention?

I raised issues with Tiny Particle's editing on their talk page which they never replied to Some particular issues include:

• Using the "A Wider Lens" podcast by pro-conversion therapy group Genspect as a source despite being told repeatedly that's not good
  • TP knew this was a bad source - at Dutch Protocol I removed poor sourcing, TP reverted and asked me to do it source by source, which I did, particularly noting the AWS podcast. After that, TP makes an edit just to add the AWS podcast to a BLP, redirects the podcast name to it's host so knows who created it, and then adds the source to another BLP

• Really weird / POV redirects (improperly redirecting terms about populations to medical articles)...
  • Redirects transgender children from transgender youth to gender dysphoria in children
  • Redirects transgender and gender diverse to Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People

Further, I want to flag the use of AI, these articles where apparently written using ChatGPT as the UTM codes for chatGPT where present in the citations

Regarding what TP has said here:

• They are not WP:Notable, I explicitly said as much, noting the articles are written almost entirely based on OR of things the subjects wrote with little to no independent coverage
• The comment left at ARBCOM was espouse a FRINGE view that the community has found MEDRS don't support
  • Moreover, they claim the NHS endorsed this view. I quote the NHS saying the opposite, Loki notes they're getting the definition of gender dysphoria backward
  • They claim Yes there is "Gender dysphoria with mental illness comorbidity" - we have a patient for treatment. "Gender dysphoria without mental illness comorbidity" - no taxpayer funded treatment necessary. - this seems like an LLM hallucination? I've written about trans healthcare for half a decade now, and am getting a PhD in it, I have no clue what this means.
  • They then claim that an unelected health minister is the one we should look to, and accuses me of removing evidence The UK Health Minister has said those who used to argue “trans women are women” should have the “humility” to admit they were not right. He changed his mind when presented with evidence. The evidence is out there but YFNS likes to remove from this encyclopedia.
  • Bizarelly, accuses a number of BLP's of pathologizing trans people because their studies used the term "gender identity disorder". I need to point out, when those studies where written, that was the name of the diagnosis (which was pathologizing, but was a field-wide issue addressed a decade ago).

Regarding the article of the NLWiki Dutch Protocol being written by a banned editor, it absolutely was. No other editor has disputed that. TP keeps arguing they're not in a way that borders on sealioning

• Here is the AE case that resulted in a near-instant NOTHERE block for that editor, which links to the NLWiki cases resulting in blocks. If you ask me to dig it up, I can find account blocks and IP blocks across multiple wikis and globally for that user.

Their behavior has been really weird. I don't have better words than that for it. I'd support a TBAN for wasting other editors time. I originally thought it wasn't necessary and tried explaining issues to them directly, but was ignored, so now we're here I guess. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Re LLM hallucination: The NHS only gives hormones when there aren't comorbities. So another false claim. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't really planning to involve myself, but I ended up Warning this user pretty harshly just prior to their first escapade into arbcom because by then a visit to AE was already pretty much unavoidable. Safe to say they haven't listened.. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering (just pinging you in case you forgot about this, which seems to me to be the case) --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

A lot of this looks like an overconfident editor acting like a bull in a china shop, which is normally just grounds for a warning to dial it back a bit, but diffs 5 and 6 are different and more concerning. Those cross the line into unfounded accusations and personal attacks. The use of LLMs is also concerning as LLMs are very good at (intentionally or otherwise) making bad content that looks superficially plausible. Finally, the doubling down when problems are pointed out is definitely not encouraging. I think some sanction is required. I'm not sure how severe it should be but their statement above does not give me much hope that Tiny Particle will be able to edit constructively in this topic area. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

As a note on potential LLM content, the phrase highlighted by YFNS, Yes there is "Gender dysphoria with mental illness comorbidity" - we have a patient for treatment. "Gender dysphoria without mental illness comorbidity" - no taxpayer funded treatment necessary., I would argue isn't generated by an LLM, the structure is much more akin to human written shorthand. While I haven't done a deep dive through Tiny Particle's contributions, having a peruse of their comments around articles highlighted as evidence, there doesn't seem to be anything that causes me concern on LLM usage. I would honestly put down any concerns on the logic of the arguments down to poor reasoning and arguments. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

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

• Diff 6 is obviously inappropriate; YFNS's edit to the AfD was in no way WP:CANVASSing, but that post on the arb case might be. -- asilvering (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Tiny Particle, a number of editors have raised concerns about your use of LLMs, here and elsewhere. Would you comment on that, please? -- asilvering (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Tiny Particle, if you want to ping someone, you need to sign your post.

  As for the rest, well, the text copied into various articles from Dutch Protocol was also clearly an attempt to get around the ongoing AfD, transparently stated as such in the edit summaries. And if we're not looking at LLM hallucinations, we're looking at either pov-pushing or WP:OR indistinguishable from pov-pushing, the most striking example of which came in after this case was filed: . Accordingly, unless another admin jumps in to object in the next 24 hours or so, I will tban from "transgender healthcare, broadly construed". Narrower than GENSEX, but appears to be sufficient in this case. -- asilvering (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks @Licks-rocks, I sure did (at least twice). Closing now. -- asilvering (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Moved from WT:AC/N § Request: Add article to Arab-Israeli conflict sanction

Apologies if this is not the right venue for the request, but I would like to request that List of The New York Times controversies be added to the Arab–Israeli conflict sanctioned articles, as there has been a clear revert war on content related to this topic -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC) You may request arbitration enforcement at WP:AE. Izno (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

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.

• Sameboat, a page is only added to the arbitration enforcement log when a contentious topic page restriction is applied to that page. There are no active page restrictions on the article List of The New York Times controversies, so the article does not need to be logged at this time. The arbitration remedies within the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic (including the extended confirmed restriction and one-revert rule) already apply to edits related to the area of conflict that are made to any article, including List of The New York Times controversies, without needing the article to be logged. Because only a small part of List of The New York Times controversies (most prominently, the Coverage of Israel and Palestine section) is within the topic area, the article is not automatically extended confirmed protected by default.
  If you would like to request for a particular page restriction to be applied to the article, this page (the arbitration enforcement noticeboard) is the correct venue to do so. However, if you would like to request page protection as an arbitration enforcement action, I recommend posting the request on the page protection noticeboard instead, where you are likely to receive a faster response. The recent editing history of the article does not appear to be particularly disruptive, and there have been no recent violations of the extended confirmed restriction on the article page, so I would not apply page protection at this time. — Newslinger talk 17:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Edited to fix link. — Newslinger talk 21:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

1. 11 Aug 2025 POV pushing and BLP violation at the article Anas al-Sharif, a Palestinian journalist recently killed by the Israeli military. Alaexis changed a sentence from "Since October 2023, Al-Sharif became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza, refusing to evacuate the north despite repeated Israeli orders and direct threats to his life." to "Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks and became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza, ". The only source they added for this claim is an unverified primary source, supposedly an "archived link to a post he made on Telegram".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Long time editor in the topic area.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a long time editor in the topic area who is fully aware of our policies regarding NPOV and BLP. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@SilverLocust, I wasn't aware of WP:BLPSPS. The editor who reverted Alaexis' edit cited WP:BLPPRIMARY. Having now read BLPSPS I'm not sure I understand how these two policies don't contradict each other.

Also I didn't rush here seeking sanctions, I first emailed an admin about my concerns and asked how to proceed and was told "I would agree it violates NPOV (specifically DUE) and BLP, as well as OR since it goes beyond straightforward paraphrase. I would suggest bringing the matter to AE." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Swatjester, don't you think there's a big difference between Alaexis' edit stating as a fact that "Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks", compared to how The Times reported it using phrases such as "an Israeli journalist has claimed" and "allegedly"?

Another article in The Times reports it as "Eitan Fischberger, an Israeli journalist and former IDF soldier, also published an archived Telegram post which purported to show Sharif celebrating the Hamas-led attacks on Israel of October 7, 2023, in which 1,200 Israelis died." and +972 Magazine reports it as "The message, which appears completely inconsistent with Al-Sharif’s posting history on or after the events of October 7, was deleted soon after it was published. Many of Al-Sharif’s news updates on that day were copied and re-posted from other groups, chat rooms, or news sites. This means that the statement could have been an accidental post that he deleted as soon as he was made aware of it." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Vanamonde that an important element of this is that the claim was "not presented as an isolated statement about his views, but as a negative veneer for his career". What kind of sentence is "Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks and became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza "? This is not how RS describe Al-Sharif. RS speak of him how Wikipedia did/does as ~" Al-Sharif became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/User_talk:Alaexis#Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion

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.

Just saw that there is a complaint against me. I understand that the problem was with using primary sources for a BLP topic (WP:BLPPRIMARY). I did exercise caution in using a primary source: I checked that this comes from the same account that was listed in the article about Al Sharif and looked at other content in that channel. We have RS that cite the same channel without any caveats.

Another issue noted below was with my wording: I wrote that Al Sharif "celebrated" the attacks whereas he wrote heroes are still roaming the country, killing and capturing... Oh God, how great you are. I'm not sure it counts as an interpretation but if this were the main problem then the right way to fix it would've been to replace it with text that follows the source more closely.

I believe that I could've been more careful with sourcing and I'll definitely be more careful with BLP topics from now on.

The contentious content was removed from the article some time ago, and I would have been open to discussing these concerns at the talk page to reach consensus on proper sourcing. Alaexis_¿question? 19:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved editor who stumbled across this filing, I'd like to point out that in addition to the problems Tamzin pointed out with step 6, there are also problems with steps 2 and 5:

The issue with step 2 is that, just like how Alaexis did not cite an interpretation of that Telegraph post, he also didn't cite a source saying that that is in fact the subject's Telegraph account. Now, reliable sources agree it is, but for a similar reason to why interpreting the post himself is bad, not giving a source that proves this account is the subject's account is a BLP violation, and a separate one to the OR interpretation of the post. It's not like it's impossible to impersonate someone on social media: if you want to cite someone's social media for a controversial statement you do in fact have to have some kind of evidence that it's actually them saying that.

The issue with step 5 is IMO much more clear: WP:NONENG says directly that Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people, and this is clearly both, so relying on Google Translate is definitely inappropriate. Now, there's actually no reason necessarily to believe that Alaexis did this: Alaexis used the Arabic directly as the source (which is separately problematic for a BLP since it's hard to verify but that's neither here nor there). But I think that AE very clearly should not use machine translation to support any interpretation of that Telegraph post, positive or negative. We don't know if al-Sharif called anyone "heroes". We know Google Translate says he did, but Google Translate is itself not a reliable source and very easily could have mistranslated a word or missed nuances of language like sarcasm. Loki (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Incidentally, the statement is a Quranic allusion and partly a direct quote (Q17:5).

If this ends up in the article, then +972's report that it was soon removed and contradicts his other posts should also be there. We don't know the story behind it and shouldn't pretend that we do. A possibility is that he praised it as a battle but removed the post on learning that it was more of a massacre. Zero^talk 03:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

While I'm not familiar with Alaexis's edits in this topic area, they recently made this edit within WP:RUSUKR creating a section about ″energy infrastructure″ on the Russian invasion of Ukraine consisting mostly of content about Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure or Ukrainians being arrested for sabotage. I think this was a pretty plain violation of WP:NPOV, albeit in a different CTOP, given the fixation on Ukraine being the main culprit of attacks on energy infrastructure despite Russia being widely covered in WP:RS targeting Ukrainian infrastructure, particularly during winter times, their edit mostly focused on attacks damaging Russian energy incomes. TylerBurden (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

• @IOHANNVSVERVS: Which of the following steps, if any, do you disagree with/object to (enough to merit sanctions)?
  1. WP:BLPSPS allows use of social network posts by the subject as sources of material about himself.
  2. Seemingly nobody has contested that https://t.me/anas1020304050 is his Telegram account.
  3. The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine is the web archive most frequently used on Wikipedia (and any evidence that one of its archives has ever been faked would be of great interest).
  4. The archived text on "Oct 7" is "9 ساعات ولا زال الأبطال يجوسون خلال الديار يقتلون ويأسرون.. الله الله ما أعظمكم 💚💚💚."
  5. Google Translate's translation of that is "9 hours and the heroes are still roaming the country, killing and capturing... Oh God, how great you are."
  6. Alaexis wrote, citing that post, that "Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks".
  ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think the difference between celebrated the October 7 attacks versus referred to October 7 attack participants as "heroes" "killing and capturing" is so significant as to require a sanction. (What IOHANNVSVERVS questioned on Alaexis's talk page was just the authenticity of the post, not anything about there being another way to interpret it.)

  It's certainly fair to respond that it should just quote precisely what he said (to avoid interpretation) or that available secondary sources should be included alongside the post (and separately from the refs not related to the post). All I'd support is an informal reminder to do those things. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  Though I said informal reminder, I'm also fine with a warning. Regarding the comments about the +972 piece's (mistaken) assertion that it was deleted soon after, the post was archived 50 days later and then again earlier this year, so the deletion was sometime between this April and August. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The edits in question, about Sharif's telegram account and his celebration of October 7 appear to have been previously in the article here where they were cited to The Times, a reliable source. "Anas Al-Sharif celebrated the protagonists of the October 7 terrorist attacks as “heroes” while the pogrom was under way, an Israeli journalist has claimed." The same The Times source also reiterates many of the same claims found in the Times of Israel source which details the IDF's claims and evidence of Sharif's status as an actively-paid Hamas rocket-launching team commander -- claims which have been scrubbed from the article in the past two weeks. So, I'm struggling to see how this is UNDUE, insignificant, or not published by a reliable source. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  @IOHANNVSVERVS: Quibbling over the exact wordsmithing is one thing, but that didn't happen here, did it? From what I can tell the edits were reverted wholesale, at least twice. If the content would have been acceptable with some better variation of including the word "alleged" and noting that the Times is reiterating another journalist, that raises the natural follow-up question of "why that didn't happen and why this was escalated to AE instead." ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, this is a conduct noticeboard; but this is not a conduct dispute. This is a content dispute in which very little attempt has been made to seriously justify any claims of misconduct nor do there appear to have been significant attempts to resolve this directly with the user in question. We don't get to have it both ways -- either this is not subject matter for this forum in the first place (in which case it should be summarily closed), or it is and the substance of the edits in question are relevant to the dispute. The WP:PRIMARY argument holds zero weight with me when there had been pre-existing attempts to include the same information sourced to perennially reliable secondary sources, and it was summarily removed. Come on, we're supposed to be better than that kind of procedural nitpicking, something that resembles the Committee's recent finding that "Highly tendentious disputes over objectively minor issues hurt the Wikipedia project. They hurt the project by reducing editor co-operation, and can drive editors away from working in the areas of the encyclopedia in which they occur. The fact that something may contradict Wikipedia policies or guidelines is not enough to justify disruption that exceeds the harm caused by the underlying issue. Editors are expected to maintain proper perspective about the issues under discussion, and act to further the greater good of the encyclopedia." Do you think that sanctioning Alaexis for this on the basis of WP:PRIMARY demonstrates the degree of perspective that satisfies the greater good of the encyclopedia when we *know* that non-primary sources use the exact wording in question and the only underlying issue is around categorizing it as an allegation? I certainly don't. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  A serious BLP violation doesn't stop being a serious BLP violation just because there's a way to make a similar edit that wouldn't be a BLP violation. If there weren't the case, we'd never be able to sanction anyone who overstates the extent of a felon's crimes or pushes some gossipy stuff that happens to be true. That's not procedural nitpicking or objectively minor. That is a major aspect of BLP enforcement. There's two questions for us to answer here: 1) Did Alaexis introduce policy-violating content to an article? 2) Is a sanction necessary to prevent them from doing that again? On (1), the answer is straightforwardly yes. On (2), I reserve judgment pending response from Alaexis. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 08:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  Except the subject is dead, and was confirmed dead by reliable sources at the time the edit was made, and this is a further reason why WP:BPD is bad policy, because it states a general rule that Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. but then goes on to state that The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. So how long does it extend here and where/when was that decided vis-a-vis this article? An indefinite, indeterminate period providing zero guidance as to how that period should be calculated as an exception to a general rule that it would not apply, is too vague to reasonably be grounds to sanction an editor IMO.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  You're welcome to start another RfC on the wording of BDP; I closed the most recent one, which restored the current wording after a previous undiscussed weakening of the rule. But just as it isn't AE's place to decide whether Alaexis is on the right side of the content dispute, it isn't AE's place to rewrite policy. There is no ambiguity as to whether BDP, as currently written, extends BLP to Anas Al-Sharif, who had been dead for all of a day at the time the edit was made. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 10:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• I was the one who suggested that Iohannvs file here. In my view, the answer to SilverLocust's question is point 6: It's an editorialization—a plausible editorialization, perhaps, but still an editorialization—and thus violates WP:PRIMARY (Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.) and WP:BLPSOURCES. Pace Swatjester, it makes no difference to me whether other sources exist that would support including that sentence, because Alaexis didn't cite those sources. This is a conduct noticeboard, not a content noticeboard, and if Alaexis does not understanding the issue with saying a recently deceased person celebrated the October 7 attacks sourced only to their own analysis of a social media post he made, that is a matter that needs to be addressed. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
• We require editors writing about BLPs to rely on secondary sources to characterize them, not on their own analyses of the subject's own words. If secondary sources attribute a position to this person, add that by all means, but OR from a telegram channel? This is basic stuff: I would call this a more clear-cut NPOV violation than is usually brought to this board. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Swatjester and SilverLocust: The subject's recent death is secondary. Interpreting a person's own words to paint them in a negative light in a lead sentence that was about their career, not their views, is a violation of NOR and NPOV. We've been over this many times with other subjects with a penchant for controversial soundbytes. Secondary sources are required for interpretive statements, and I'm surprised admins think otherwise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that the BLP policy applies. I'm not aware of an alternative reading of those words having been offered by any source or editor (saying those words do not celebrate participants (i.e., "extol or honour"), namely as الأبطال (the heroes)), and another reading isn't obvious to me, which is why I don't see it as sanctionable interpretation absent reason one should have known that it wasn't permissible description but rather just one possible interpretation. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  It still requires editorial interpretation, no matter how obvious, and it was not presented as an isolated statement about his views, but as a negative veneer for his career, in the article's lead. It is a long-standing principle of NPOV that we do not interpret primary sources in this way. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• Alaexis' response here satisfies me that they understand the issues with their edit. I'd support closing this with a logged warning to be more careful when interacting with primary sources, especially regarding living or recently deceased people. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  I would support such a closure. The response misses some things: the key point here is not verifiability, it's neutrality and due weight. I don't think people realize how easy it would be to construct an unfavorable biography of anyone who's active by cherry picking their social media content. But it's sufficiently reflective and conciliatory that nothing further would be justified. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocidal intent of Hamas toward Israel: Crampcomes creates this article, which gets deleted as a clear POVFORK: deletion is at 15:11, 1 September 2025
2. Comparisons between Hamas and Nazi Germany: on 20:42, 1 September 2025, i.e. 5 hours after the deletion, Crampcomes creates this article, with the first line stating " Hamas, a Sunni Islamist group, has a genocidal intent towards Israel "; i.e. the exact same topic just deleted at AfD. A new Afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparisons between Hamas and Nazi Germany.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. They have been blocked last year for 1 week for edit warring in the Israel/Palestine CT area

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

• See above block, plus a further notice late last year

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm not really an AE regular, so if this post is wrong or belongs at another noticeboard, please let me know. But I don't think such a contentious area needs an editor who apparently can't take a clear AfD "NO" for an answer and immediately creates another doomed version of the same POV article. Fram (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

• I don't have time at the moment to fill out the paperwork, but pending objection from an uninvolved administrator I plan to circle back to this sometime in the next 12 hours to topic ban them. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ImaginesTigers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

GENSEX

A page-level request for word-count limits to be imposed on Kris (Deltarune) as part of an ongoing request for comment. Almost 18,000 readable words (+114,00 bytes) have been added as discussion, primarily by a small number of participants.

Over the past 150 versions, three editors have responsible for >70% of edits.

• Cukie Gherkin, who has added a significant percentage of this, has indicated they will no longer respond.
• Eldomtom2 is still contesting their posts, continuing the argument with another participant.

This RFC simply will otherwise not end. Please note I'm not seeking sanctions against individual editors, but believe their positions are very clear.

As I was uninvolved, I previously closed an earlier RFC for being structurally and semantically incoherent to uninvolved parties.

– ImaginesTigers 11:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Notice for User:Cukie Gherkin
• Notice for User:Eldomtom2

I believe these editors are discussing in good faith, but specifically request a page-level request to allow the RFC to run its course. I don't think other individual notices are required. – ImaginesTigers 11:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

this is admittedly a little pedantic and more than a little unimportant... but why only those two? according to the talk page's statistics, i added more (if across less edits) than cukie, and definitely did more to bludgeon the discussion consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 12:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I only added those two because they are responsible together for over 50% of RFC edits. Your statistics apply to the whole page, not just the RFC. I want the RFC's to close one day, not for 4 editors to litigate who bludgeoned more and get page blocked. That would benefit neither page nor project. – ImaginesTigers 12:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I was under the impression that by engaging in continued discussion I was not preventing the RfC from being closed. I apologise if I was mistaken.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

In my experience, the more discussion there is to come over, the more likely a no consensus result is, and I'd sooner throw a stick at a wasp's nest than have to redo the RfC. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

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

• I suggested that ImaginesTigers bring this here as a good test case for the new word limit restriction added to the standard set. I haven't looked in depth, but my initial impression based on the size of the discussion is that imposing word limits would be beneficial here. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 11:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Isn't the whole idea of the standard set that they don't need AE consensus? Barkeep49 (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, and they don't. Any admin can resolve this request by actioning it. I wasn't comfortable doing so based on an off-wiki inquiry from an involved party, though (not that ImaginesTigers asked me to, just that they asked my opinion on what to do), and also wasn't sure I had the time commitment to actually enforce the sanction if I imposed it, so I suggested filing here. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 04:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/A-I and WP:CT/IRP

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

I think Edard was just posted on the WP:AN/EW board by @AlexBobCharles: here , but looking back, issues are much more significant.

1. 17 July 2025, 18:35, 18 July, 7:45 Violation of the WP:1RR rule in the arab-israeli conflict area
2. 28 August 2025 17:08 30 August 22:01 31 August 2:28 edit warring and constant reversion to suggest Reza Pahlavi is "the current Leader of the Iranian Transitional Government since February 2025" in WP:LEDE. Some comments include incendiary comments about the sourcing and editors, "Wikipedia is not IRIB or IRGC propaganda tool", or "Three Pro Palestinian users co operating to play the system :) I will open a case soon"
3. 17 July 2025July 9 21:20 July 9 21:28 Aug 20 9:53 The edit warring and reversion to WP:OWN the article and push the POV in lead that Pahlavi is leader of a transitional government has been ongoing since at least July. first diff is to remove a POV tag someone added on, next few are to basically keep the lead Edard approves of.
4. July 17 18:32 July 18 7:45 more edit warring, refusal to listen to community consensus on Al Jazeera
5. 2:28 August 31 2025 deleted my comment on the talk page of article with no real edit info
6. 2:31 August 31, 2025 I know what you are doing and I will review the edits of all three of you users soon. This is not a place for Hamas advertising and propaganda.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. None, I think user is newly WP:XC

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

• Given an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 4:31 16 July 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Was gonna wait to give more WP:ROPE, but decided to just go ahead and do this after the WP:AN/EW section was created. Think this is the correct venue.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

The case of these three users is very extensive. They all support each other in Palestine-related articles. They are trying to remove me. Interestingly, I was not even the one who added that content and was just protecting the article. If I need to be more respectful of the discussion with these users, fine. But to the reviewer/admin: They are strangely adding their biased views to Palestine-related articles and I am sure I will soon discover their connection to each other. I'm sorry if you feel i ignored the Talkpage recently. I am willing to discuss the issue further now. Edard Socceryg (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

It appears edard is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me on pages I created and contributed significantly towards immediately after I started this. See and Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Didn’t notice but also seems like battleground response here. justifying editwaring by suggesting needing to protect Wikipedia from myself and continuing to call editors Hamas propagandists Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Icecold (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

GENSEX

Diffs:

Icecold has been just sort of, crashing out at people for the last month over what appears to be the Graham Linehan page, and making no other edits beyond that.

Jul 16 2025 Accuses other editors of being activist editors

Jul 16 2025 ditto

Jul 16 2025 Accuses editors of gaslighting because a consensus didn’t go his way

Jul 1 2025 Accuses editors of prioritizing their own feelings over “facts” because consensus didn’t go his way.

22 May 2025 Aspersions against pretty much every editor that disagreed with him in consensus, among other things accusing other editors of “stalking”

22 May 2025 Personal attacks

22 May 2025 ABF, personal attacks

22 May 2025 Personal attacks

22 May 2025 Aspersions

22 May 2025 Admits to using LLM for his text while attacking other editors

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

@Icecold: Do not make any further comments or edits in this thread (including in other users' sections or the admin section) without explicit permission from an administrator, or they will be reverted and you may be blocked. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I think everything has been well covered, thank you Snokalok for starting this thread- I was strongly considering starting one myself about Icecold's behaviour. I would only add

• this, where Icecold casts aspersions and personally attacks User:HandThatFeeds, describing them with " it's clear that handthatfee... is a biased editor who has made up their mind to shut down all debate. I've tried to hash it out with them on their talk page, but it's clear that no amount of reliable sources I could provide will change their mind as they're pushing their own viewpoint on Wikipedia, which I think is pretty shameful". This is on top of repeatedly casting aspersions about HandThatFeeds in the previous discussion, the diff for that is already linked I think.

My personal feeling is that Icecold isn't going to move on from their previous discussion on Talk:Graham Linehan not going their way, and they are now going to reply in every single discussion that begins on that talk page to complain about a conspiracy of activists silencing their viewpoint. In my opinion, this is disruptive.

(Editing to add a little to my comment) I would be in favour of a GENSEX topic ban for Icecold, as their desire to work against "activist editors" is not just limited to Linehan's page, they believe it's a conspiracy that extends to other GENSEX related articles. I believe they will start participating in discussions on other GENSEX related pages making the same comments about how the consensus there is all artificially created by biased editors. GraziePrego (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Adding to my comments based on what Icecold has said so far. I think the fact that they can look at this diff where they called my editing "moronic in the extreme", and said "You argue in bad faith", and Icecold looks at that diff and denies that they were making personal attacks and just commenting on editing? Seriously? I'm not seeing much understanding from Icecold that they was being highly personal with their comments. GraziePrego (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Icecold, which is a personal attack out of "your editing is moronic in the extreme" and pointing out that you were making an exhibition of yourself by:

• bludgeoning one discussion,
• going to remonstrate with those who disagreed with you on their talk page,
• restarting the discussion immediately when it didn't go your way,
• then going and remonstrating with the closer when that also didn't go your way,
• and then making a second post on their talk page attacking them when they closed your first attack on them,
• and then coming to my talk page to accuse me of stalking you?

To me, that is making an exhibition of yourself- and that entirely describes your *editing*, and is not an attack on you personally. I never accused you of behaving in bad faith- you made no secret of accusing everyone who disagreed with you of acting in bad faith, including me. GraziePrego (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I am unarchiving this thread as it rolled into the archives without any decision being taken- it seemed like there was mood for action to be taken. GraziePrego (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Snokalok as this is originally your thread :) GraziePrego (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir@Guerillero@Seraphimblade@Valereee@TarnishedPath@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist@Springee pinging previously involved in the discussion GraziePrego (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The allegation by @Icecold of forumshopping and gaming is clearly spurious. This thread was archived with *no outcome* by an automatic bot, not closed with a decision taken. The allegations only have weight if this discussion had concluded with no action being taken, and I had freaked out and just created a new thread. That's very different to what has actually happened. GraziePrego (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Icecold, while your account isn't new, I would suggest based on your limited recent edits you should be granted a bit of wp:ROPE that is frequently given to new users. The path you're on is clearly not working and at best it will result in a tban and possibly an outright block. I think at least an outright block could be avoided if you understand and agree to the following.

• Do not comment on users (unless the statement is clearly positive). Many online forums draw the line at actually insulting people (exp: Editor Patel is stupid). Wikipedia's CIVIL policy is stricter than that. Suggesting someone's motives are other than trying to improve the content of the encyclopedia is casting aspersions. This means you should not suggest someone is "clearly a conservative/liberal/right/left/up/down/etc". It is of course acceptable to argue an edit might make a reader think the article is biased or that a source is biased and that negatively impacts it's WEIGHT etc. But just don't comment on the other editors as a person. If in doubt I'm sure the admins below, if contacted on their talk page, would help you understand where the limits are if you aren't sure about a comment.
• Stick to the facts, not emotions. Yeah, sometimes it's naturel to think, "what the Belgium is that person thinking". However, sometimes it's just our own failure to understand their perspective that is the issue. Trying to reach out civilly on user talk pages may not always work but I've been pleased how often it does.
• Agree to stay away from the Graham Linehan page for a while. I would suggest 6 months or/and until you have say at least 1000 edits. The idea is to work on other parts of Wikipedia to show that you understand how to work with others. If you declare a self imposed tban, and stick with it, that will show that you are trying to avoid issues.

I think it you agree to the above and stick to it you should be able to avoid a formal tban and certainly an outright block. People around here can be quite forgiving if they see that an editor has understood and fixed a problem. Also, one more thing, don't reply in the admin space, just reply in your own section. Springee (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Icecold, unless the admins say you need to reply to the other editors, you don't. Also, it seems that the admins are open to the idea of you stepping away from the Linehan page. It's not clear they would accept a voluntary tban but if you feel you can stick to it I would offer it. Do make sure you understand what broadly construed means - don't edit content about Linehan on other pages. Even if you get an article/tban, it seems like they are otherwise giving you the benefit of the doubt and just a warning to not do the same things in the future. Again, no reason to reply to the other accusations unless admins ask. Springee (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Just want to note they were collaborating with and defending a user blocked for NOTHERE behavior and transphobic rants.WP:AE/Archive353/Gazumpedheit

In May 2025, IceCold went to User talk:Gazumpedheit to say (regarding Graham Linehan) , but it's clear that handthatfee... is a biased editor who has made up their mind to shut down all debate. I've tried to hash it out with them on their talk page, but it's clear that no amount of reliable sources I could provide will change their mind as they're pushing their own viewpoint on Wikipedia, which I think is pretty shameful. ... So I was reaching out to see if there's some way we can appeal in a way that doesn't allow them to shut down the discussion unilaterally, either through a RFC or DRN? While I would rather not lose the argument, if I feel like I've lost the argument fairly, by consensus, then I can take it, when it's artificially shut down by activist editors then I cannot take that lying down..

• When the response is Hi @Icecold, welcome to Wikipedia of 2025. I'm afraid I can't have much to offer rather than to ping Void if removed for their advice, as a person who has far greater knowledge of the mechanics of Wiki than I. I would wager that Hand That Feeds owes you an apology to be honest, for their unqualified dismissal of your valid point

• IC responded But yeah, it's very scary. In both the UK (due to the supreme court judgement) and the US (with Trumps exec order) the overton window is shifting to stopping the shutting down of gender critical viewpoints by calling them transphobic, but yet if you come onto wikipedia (or reddit), you're told that any criticism or worries raised is transphobic and bigoted. I've had gender critical accused of being the same as racism which is pure hyperbole. Wikipedia isn't representing society, and is clearly, on several contenious issues, just representing the opinions of a Wikipedia editors, like like how Reddit moderators enforce their opinions on their subreddits.

• Gazumhedit once again pinged in VIR
• IC responded I've just seen they've banned you without seemingly a chance for you to respond and then gloating about it on your talk page. Classy.

• Followed by arguing Gazumphedit's NOTHERE block was unfair since they couldn't defend themselves

Pretty plainly WP:NOTHERE and seeking to WP:RGW IMHO. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Icecold, you reached out to request help from a user who, it had been noted in the thread they replied to you in, made bigoted comments

An editor who'd made less than 20 edits (not a good idea to ask advice based on that alone) and who you reached out to as the only person who agreed with you. You insulted other editors on their talk page.

And WP supports no right to reply. If somebody came on insisting that the truth of Aryan supremacy would win over the next few years, they'd be blocked. Not given a chance to explain why they said it (because the answer is bigotry). Bigotry is a no-go here. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

IC accusing GP of stalking over Gazumpedheit's page is particularly nonsensical. GP edited the page before IC did so was presumably watching it, and gave IC a very neutral clear answer to their question about how blocks work. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion which YFNS referred to at User_talk:Gazumpedheit#Linehan page, indicates that IC is WP:NOTHERE. It appears that they are here to engage in culture war WP:BATTLE. I don't see that a ban from Graham Linehan or from GENSEX more broadly is going to cease the disruption as there is plenty more in Wikipedia that editors can engage in culture war battle over. TarnishedPath^talk 02:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
@Icecold, I can tell you for a fact that it is not uncommon for GP to visit my talk page. We have overlapping interests and I would make a bet that they have my talk on their watchlist as I do with them. TarnishedPath^talk 02:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@GraziePrego and @Icecold, please move your comments to your own sections. TarnishedPath^talk 11:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

If Graham Linehan is the 'only' article, that Icecold has been discussing, in relation to this report? Than as a preventative measure, I'd recommend a 1-month pageblock. This will give an editor enough time to cool off & reflect. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I am new to arbitration so not aware of what actions can be taken. The main issue with Icecold is that they use a passive-aggressive smokescreen of objectivity to try and reframe the debate around their own biases, claiming that neutrality lies around their own position, when it lies far from it. Their constant claims that other editors are "activist" constitute aspersions of bad faith, and use of performative victimhood such as accusations of stalking and cries of "leave me alone" in response to reasonable interactions are a continuation of this behaviour. The comments warning another user of a ban are inferring that the system is at fault rather than the behaviour.

The root does appear to be the Linehan page, but has spilled out onto user talk pages. Comments made in this arbitration and elsewhere on personal talk pages do not show someone who has accepted fault with their attitudes and behaviour with contrition, or who intends to take on board criticism in order to learn and grow.

I note a page block has been made, but am unclear as to whether this is sufficient, and given the nature of the behaviour, if anything beyond that can be done. Rankersbo (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The Graham Linehan page is blocked and taken care of, GoodDay's suggestion of a 1 month pageblock to allow matters to cool may be a suitable step forward, and perhaps also a two-way interaction ban between grazieprego and Icecold.Halbared (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

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

• So, as appearing in order:

  Diff 1 (), comment on content, not editors. You're certainly free to disagree with other editors, but trying to assign bad motives to them is unacceptable. In many cases, reasonable people can disagree.

  Diff 2 (), same as diff 1.

  Diff 3 (), same as diff 1, and the "laughing" face at the end even more so. While again you are free to disagree with other editors, ridiculing them is totally out of line.

  Diff 4 (), same as diff 1.

  Diff 5 (), expressing frustration in one's own userspace, and users are allowed pretty wide latitude in their own userspace. Not as concerned about this one.

  Diff 6 (), criticizing someone else for contributing a lot is completely inappropriate.

  Diff 7 (), casting aspersions. If Icecold genuinely felt like someone was inappropriately stalking them, they should have brought that up in the appropriate venue, with actual evidence, to request action on that. However, it is not uncommon for editors interested in the same topic area to run into one another at more than one article. While one can tell other editors not to post on their user talk page, one cannot demand that another editor eave me alone in general; that would effectively amount to a unilateral interaction ban.

  Diff 8 (), the nastiness and sarcasm is unacceptable and unnecessary.

  Diff 9 (), talk page discussions are open to participation by any interested editor; again, Icecold may not unilaterally decide that another editor should not participate. And, again, editors interested in the same area may have one another's talk page on their watchlist; that is neither uncommon nor inappropriate.

  Diff 10 (), while the use of LLMs is not strictly forbidden, disruptive behavior is, and in practice, LLM usage often leads to disruption. Icecold has committed to no longer doing this, so as long as they uphold that, this is again not as much of a current concern.

• All that said, I think Icecold needs, at minimum, to be removed from the subject of Graham Linehan, as they clearly don't have the appropriate temperament to edit on that topic. I'll give Icecold an additional 300 words to explain why that shouldn't just be a GENSEX topic ban overall; as they're relatively new, I'd prefer a narrower restriction if possible, but not if that just means the disruption will get moved elsewhere. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• They are not relatively new. The account is 19 years old. The problem is that of their 261 edits, 100 are from 2025 and 70% of those are on Talk:Graham Linehan. This user is being disruptive and at minimum a partial block from Graham Linehan is needed. I would argue, however, that this is beyond AE and just a case of NOTHERE. I see no evidence that the user is here to improve the encyclopedia. I only see WP:BATTLEGROUND. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm applying "relatively new" in terms of experience at editing, not account age. There's a lot of fighting going on, certainly, but there seems to be at least some concern for article quality and reliability in with that, so I'm reluctant to give up any hope. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Icecold, you are far over the word limit. Further responses from you will be removed unless you request and receive an extension (which at this point is unlikely), and there is no need for you to reply to everyone who comments here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• I'd support a p-block from Linehan, certainly. If the problem recurs in other GENSEX topics, a tban. Icecold, you say I'm not allowed to respond to every allegation about me, due to the word limit. That is incorrect. You have plenty of space if you write short. Spit it out on the page, then edit it down to what's necessary. I could edit out a third of your statement easily. Learning to write short is extremely valuable here. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  (I'd say learning to write concisely is a valuable skill in general, and on Wikipedia in general, not just for AE. Whether or not I'm always good at it is a separate question.) I was thinking as a topic ban from Graham Linehan enforced by p-block but also applying across the project, since a fair bit of the disruptive behavior was on user talk pages and the like related to that subject. I think Icecold needs to step away from that subject entirely until they've gained more editing experience elsewhere. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Icecold, a topic ban from Lineham means you cannot discuss him -- or anything closely related to him, such as his works -- anywhere on Wikipedia, including in talk pages. The only place you can even mention him is within an appeal of the topic ban. The reasoning behind a topic ban for a very inexperienced user is to prevent you from being disruptive while still giving you the opportunity to learn how to contribute productively by allowing you to edit in other topics.

  I (and most other experienced editors) would advise editing in noncontentious topics while you learn. Arguing about the appropriate use of "gender critical" vs. "anti-transgender" in a BLP is a minefield even for highly experienced editors. And accusing someone of stalking you because they appeared at the talk pages of other editors you both have interacted with is evidence of your lack of experience. That is completely normal. I do it literally every day, and it happens to me regularly. Valereee (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• I think a full topic ban from GENSEX would be preferable --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Icecold claims "I have voluntarily stayed away from editing controversial pages". Yet only minutes before this thread was unarchived (which is procedurally permissible, to be clear), Icecold posted in support of another user who made the same types of POV-pushing comments regarding Linehan. Above I see a clear consensus for some kind of sanction, with admins on the fence between a narrow or broad TBAN. Given that we now have evidence Icecold saw the need to return to this disruptive editing a month after getting off on a technicality, I'm satisfied that they are not currently able to be a constructive presence in this topic area, and think a GENSEX TBAN is the minimum viable solution. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 14:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• I've pblocked from Linehan and its talk as an individual admin action. No objection to anyone else deciding the make an AE tban from GENSEX, I just didn't see that yet, but felt the pblock was clearly indicated. Valereee (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• @GraziePrego: You are also over your word limit. Do not add anything further (or remove anything to get more words for replies) without permission from an administrator. (And in the future, please ask an administrator to reopen an archived arbitration enforcement thread, even if it was never closed.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
• There's been no movement here in over a week. By my count we're at 2 for a full TBAN (me and Guerillero), 2 for a pblock and neutral-to-supportive on TBAN (Val and Ev), and 1 for a pblock and moderately opposed to a TBAN ('blade). I think that does count as a rough consensus for a full TBAN, but will give this one last bump in case anyone else would like to comment. Courtesy pings to @Seraphimblade and EvergreenFir if they'd like to comment further. I'll say preemptively, I'd also be fine with a scope of "transgender topics, broadly construed", but I do think just Linehan is too narrow. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 13:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)