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

Rainsage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ecpiandy (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

26 July 2024 Indefinite topic ban from Arab-Israeli conflict

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

1. 22 November 2024 PIA topic area
2. 15 December 2024 PIA topic area
3. 29 December 2024 PIA topic area
4. 29 December 2024 PIA topic area
5. 29 December 2024 PIA topic area
6. 29 December 2024 PIA topic area
7. 30 December 2024 PIA topic area
8. 18 January 2025 Responds to message from User:Vice_regent about their topic ban saying they had forgotten about it
9. 29 January 2025 PIA topic area
10. 29 January 2025 PIA topic area
11. 29 January 2025 PIA topic area
12. 29 January 2025 PIA topic area
13. 30 January 2025 Blanks their Talk page after I post a message about topic ban
14. 31 January 2025 PIA topic area
15. 01 February 2025 PIA topic area

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 26 July 2024 1 week block for edit warring
2. 9 August 2024 1 week block for violating topic ban

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

• 27 July 2024 Responds to 1 week ban by promising to follow topic ban
• 20 September 2024 Topic ban appeal was denied

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I only included a sample of their edits violating topic ban; there are many more.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

01 February 2025

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.

Yes I have been updating the content to reflect the new article title I have not been doing anything controversial. If you want to ban me then fine, I've been an editor for a long time all I want to do is improve the encyclopedia. Ecpiandy (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Reply to Rosguill] Well I'd rather have a year ban instead of a perm ban if that's what you're looking at, I don't want my history to be wiped. Ecpiandy (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which by the way, I can say I will intend to follow any guidelines going forward but I thought I would have been blocked from even attempting to edit articles I am not allowed to edit. As I say I've not been subject to a topic ban before in my long time here. I can hold fire on anything while I revise the current guidelines. Ecpiandy (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Reply to Liz] I've never been subject to a topic ban before now. Ecpiandy (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Reply to Seraphimblade] As per before, these are not controversial edits but if I am to be suspended I'd rather it be a year or two years I would rather not have my history suspended when I am trying to improve the encyclopedia. Ecpiandy (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Reply to Guerrillero] Bit harsh considering how many edits and articles I've made in my time here. Ecpiandy (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Reply to Valereee] Fair enough I understand now, I don't want a permanent ban because I enjoy helping the encyclopedia I'd rather an annual ban if that's what it will come to but I have more to offer to this site going forward in years to come. Ecpiandy (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC) moving to section, Ecpiandy please reply in your own section Valereee (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Valeree Ecpiandy (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else I can do to help my case here? I did not know a thing about topic bans prior to this aside from me not being able to add certain corrections on Arab/Palestine-Israeli articles and I thought I would have had a block on the articles, I fully understand how difficult it would've been to do a personal block on so many articles now and I won't make the mistake again I'm just not familiar with such bans because I've never needed to be subject to such measures majority of my time on here. Anything I need to do going forward just let me know. I'm not mainly on this encyclopedia to just edit Palestine articles I'm on here to help grow all of Wikipedia to an academic level for a large range of topics so I'm willing to comply on whatever is necessary. If you look at most of my history on Wikipedia it isn't mostly related to this conflict Ecpiandy (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Seraphimblade Ecpiandy (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Ecpiandy, a topic ban does not mean that you may not make controversial edits in the topic area. It means you may not make any edits in the topic area at all. After repeated warnings, if you don't understand that, I don't see any outcome but an indefinite block as you clearly are either unwilling or unable to abide by the restriction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And looking now, I'm even seeing ban violating edits after Ecpiandy replied here: [1], [2], [3] as some examples but not an exhaustive list. Given this, I don't see any solution but an indef here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this editor understands that a topic ban covers all edits regarding a subject in all areas of the project. Unfortunately, the evidence is strong here that either Ecpiandy either doesn't understand topic bans or is unwilling to abide by Wikipedia guidelines. As a longtime editor, either one of these scenarios is unfortunate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Liz and Seraphimblade. I would be inclined to show clemency if the offending edits were all truly controversy-free improvements like fixing grammar, but as Seraphimblade identifies they also include edits to material that has been the subject of extensive disputes, and has been repeated several times. If there were any indication from Ecpiandy that they intend to follow community rules going forward a shorter sanction could be justified on the basis of a long history productive edits elsewhere, but their responses here do not provide room for this possibility. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As a temporary matter pending resolution of this enforcement request, I've blocked Ecpiandy from editing articles for continuing to violate the topic ban. SilverLocust 💬 17:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I think an indef is our only option here --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ecpiandy, maybe it's possible you don't realize we can't simply block you from editing articles you are topic-banned from? That would require us to block you from in this case possibly thousands of articles. That is a manual process, and honestly I'm thinking it's not possible, tech-wise. Valereee (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, @Ecpiandy, so you now understand you are not allowed to edit anywhere within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict, you believe you understand what that means, you understand that any questions about what it means should be dealt with only on your own user talk, and you intend to comply? Valereee (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not unsympathetic to this line of questioning/thinking for an editor who has edited since 2011 (though with some edit warring blocks before). What are you suggesting as an outcome Valereee because I admit I also don't love someone violating a topic ban while at AE for violating their topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, I have seen multiple times experienced editors who are not experienced in PIA issues -- editors whose previous focus was in completely different areas -- who because of this crisis, come into this area and end up getting into trouble. This seems like it might be one of those editors. I'm suggesting we treat this editor as a very new editor -- which in this topic they seem to be -- and maybe take into account the possibility they don't really even understand what they've stumbled into. Valereee (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems like a reasonable explanation, Valereee. In general, I steer clear of CTOP subjects (except for BLPs) unless admin responsibilities draw me into them. Too many landmines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Given Ecpiandy's most recent response, and the discussion I see between Liz and Valereee, I suppose I'd be willing to treat this as a "didn't get it" situation, since there have been no further violations since then. I would want to be very clear to Ecpiandy, though, that you certainly now clearly understand what it means to be topic banned, and any further violations are almost certain to lead to an indefinite block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree; I don't think an indef is currently necessary given Ecpiandy's assurances since 4 February. SilverLocust 💬 04:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've lifted my temporary block. Unless someone still wishes to indef Ecpiancy (all comments urging that were from before his replies on 4 February), I'd just close this with a warning. SilverLocust 💬 02:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 01:06, 18 January 2025 - Cited a 1909 source for a contentious POV claim.
2. 18 January 2025 - Citing a self published book by a popular historian Vikram Sampath for a POV claim
3. 10:24, 12 February 2025 - Restored aforementioned disputed edits in violation of WP:ONUS.
4. 09:06, 14 February 2025 - Malformed tagging of a notable article for PROD
5. 09:21, 14 February 2025 - Edit warring to keep that tag in in violation of WP:PROD guideline.
6. 09:25, 14 February 2025 - Denying edit warring when warned
7. 09:28, 14 February 2025 - Engages in whataboutism in order to justify his tagging

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

[4]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Cullen328: The problems with SpunkyGeek are not new. It is unwise to insert PROD tag once it was reverted, but SpunkyGeek still did that. On the talk page he falsely claimed that only "2 sources" were provided from the First presidency of Donald Trump despite the article version at that time had at least 6 sources from that period.

Before all this, on Ram Mandir, he falsely claimed that "contemporary archaeological survey conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) suggesting the existence of the Ram Mandir in medieval times," and falsified the source he cited. His presence on Swaminarayan Akshardham (Robbinsville, New Jersey) was also unhelpful because he would defend removal of critical content and would misrepresent guidelines to justify the removals.[5] He removed Al-Jazeera by falsely claiming that it is "not a reliable source". [6] He removed another critical source only because it was not written in English language.[7] Also see this POV-based attribution of the source as "Western news outlets" only because the source happened to be independent and reliable. These are just some examples.

Hindutva-based POV pushing by this user is going on for a long time. His response to this report is evasive at best. Some action is clearly necessary now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhishek0831996 your initial allegation was I was engaging in edit warring which is clearly NOT the case, and even respected admin- @Cullen328 has acknowledged that.

And as that gets BUSTED! you have shifted the goal post.

Therefore you are labeling as a "Hindutva" editor - when I have always respected Wikipedia's guidelines and never misused the platform to label another editor. Regarding all the links you have shared - if they were reverted I did not engage in edit war but discussed with them to understand their POV to establish consensus. Wikipedia is a platform to share thoughts from all sides of the spectrum - with civility and build consensus based on reliable sources.

However @Cullen328 and @Liz I have never had any interaction with user: @Abhishek0831996, I feel like I am being targeted and attacked here just because I have a different opinion or point of view. SpunkyGeek (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

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.

- Respected admins,

Firstly, I have neither violated 3RR nor engaged in edit warring.

Secondly - complying with Wikipedia's policies I had already started talk page discussions - 1 - for points 4,5,6,7 and 2 for points 1,2,3.

Thirdly, editor @Abhishek0831996 - has not even participated in the above talk page discussions let alone making significant contributions.

I have been civil in my arguments as well as not shown bad faith.

I have faith in Wikipedia's admins and who will adjudicate in the interest of the platform and editors who follow guidelines.

- Reply to admin-Liz

@Liz - this is my first nomination of deletion for an article - and I clearly misunderstood it. I apologize for my misunderstanding. Thank you for understanding my case.

- Reply to admin-Cullen328

@Cullen328 - Exactly my point - I have no objections to removing the content if it is established that the book from Vikram Sampath is an unreliable source. I even started a talk page discussion regarding that but I did not get a response back, hence reinstated it. Appreciate the understanding respected admin.

- Reply to admin-Rosguill

@Rosguill if you see my edits - I was clearly not able to understand the guideline regarding PROD and coupled with that - I even executed it wrong - therefore I created a talk page discussion. (This is my first time nominating an article for deletion) I sincerely apologize for understanding it wrong - and executing it wrong.

Thanks! SpunkyGeek (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never engaged in edit-warring with you. If you reverted my edit and I disagreed, I always made sure to discuss it on the talk page before making any further changes.

Adding content based on reliable sources does not violate any policy. While you may have considered it POV-pushing, I did not. In cases of disagreement, I always engaged in discussion (see here) and refrained from modifying the content unless a consensus was reached. SpunkyGeek (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please make all comments, including responses, only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Some action is needed here: SpunkyGeek has a history of removing content with spurious explanations (e.g., [9], [10]) and adding content that isn't entirely verifiable or is a violation of NPOV, often by presenting as fact something that RS report as a statement (e.g., [11], [12], [13], [14]). Not to mention the concerns about POV-pushing/PROMO related to BAPS and its affiliates, which were discussed at SPI, including the addition of a slew of images with bad licensing [15]. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No comment on the first 3 edits but it's not a violation for an editor to mess up tagging a page for a PROD or for mistakenly retagging it. Many editors don't understand PROD guidelines. I'll have to look closer at the content references. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not think that the diffs provided justify any arbitration enforcement action against SpunkyGeek at this time. Objecting to an article created in response to actions of the second Trump administration on a WP:NOTNEWS basis does not seem unreasonable to me. Citing Vikram Sampath may or may not be a good idea in the specific context, but it is not egregious. He is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society, after all. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• SpunkyGeek, this section is only for comments by uninvolved administrators. Please move your comments to your own section. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• While proposing the initial PROD does not violate any policy or guidelines, re-instating the tag after it is challenged does. It is also edit warring. As for the edits at Varanasi, while Abhishek is ultimately correct about the underlying practice of WP:RAJ, on the talk page other editors failed to engage SpunkyGeek in adequate discussion to explain this to them. Procedurally, there is nothing wrong with SpunkyGeek waiting a few weeks for a response (that was supposed to arrive the same day) and then reinstate their edit.

That having been said, I find the edits highlighted in Abhishek's follow-up concerning. Individually they could be written off as errors: collectively, they paint a picture of civil POV-pushing. The edit dismissing a non-English source is particularly egregious, but the other edits could at best be described as sloppy, to a degree that is collectively incompatible with CTOP editing even if full good faith is assumed.. I am leaning towards a topic-ban for these reasons. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Warrenmck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 5/11/22 TBAN for identical behaviour as this AE

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

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.

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

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

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

Previous comments redacted due to word count limit

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

As far as I can tell, Simonmn presented sources twice on the talk page twice, based on the diffs they gave in this AE report (see: here and [16]). You can clearly see that, in neither situation did they tag me, direct the comment at me, or respond to something I said; the first was their !vote, and the second was part of a discussion with Springee, not me, and both were part of a very, very large RfC. If either were directed at me - I genuinely did not notice. If the complaint is I didn't respond to them here - I was already told that I was violating word count, and Simonm didn't initially link to either here. Toa Nidhiki05

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

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

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

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

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

It's deeply tedious that I needed to get to the point of putting diffs into an AE case just for Toa Nidhiki05 to acknowledge that these sources were presented. Here's where the sources are: [17] [18]. I also want to comment on what Springee said below. Yes, TN05 has, for the most part, except for in their comportment toward Warrenmck, been generally civil. That's what the C in WP:CPUSH stands for. However WP:OWN issues, vague gestures toward prior consensus, calls for moratoria mid-RFC, claims of having "won" the RFC in order to divert attention from complaints regarding their behavioural issues, these are all stalling tactics in order to effectively says, "consensus cannot exist unless I allow it." And I should note that TN05 is rather unique in these behavioural issues. Note that I am not complaining about CPUSH behaviour from Springee who has generally held the same opinions as TN05. Regardless of the statements to the contrary, if this were an attempt to adjust the result of an RFC on the basis of AE action then it is a remarkably badly planned one since, as TN05 has been quick to point out, their position of continuing to call the Republicans principally center-right has a numerical advantage in the RfC and TN05 has not contributed anything significant enough that their !vote would be missed so long as Springee were still counted. And, as I've had to remind TN05 more than once, RFCs are not decided by a vote. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I directly responded to TN05 here advising them that I'd provided reliable sources. When they ignored this statement I brought it up several more times at the article talk page. Regarding the Romney incident the reason why I was initially reticent to provide sources supporting the WP:SKYBLUE statement that he is a center-right (or farther right) politician was because I was feeling quite ignored for those sources I had provided. I then provided an WP:ABOUTSELF source of Romney claiming to be right-wing himself. TN05 rejected this as being too dated to be reliable (the source was from 2012). TN05, however, did not present any sources supporting calling Romney a centrist even after they were asked. The demand for sources on Romney was, by the way, something TN05 requested as a method of refuting this relatively bromine statement [19]. I replied first by asking for reliable sources that disputed my characterization of Romney [20] but none were provided. Then we got the bit above regarding WP:ABOUTSELF not being good enough. TN05 then complained that the aside, that they'd initiated by disputing my characterization of Romney, was getting too forumy. [21]. Frankly these are all core examples of what I am talking about with CPUSH. The requests, taken in isolation, are reasonable enough. But serially they are disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From my observations, it appears Toa has a much looser definition of what counts as a reliable source when it comes to topics that might make the left wing look bad. For example, he reinserted text attributed to Napolitan.org at Killing of Brian Thompson that an editor had removed for being biased [22]. If you're unfamiliar with Napolitan.org like I was, their about us page states their "mission is to magnify and amplify the true voice of the American people. A project of the Napolitan Institute, Napolitan News Service focuses on releasing daily data focused on the thoughts and desires of everyday Americans. Through our groundbreaking Counterpolling, we're asking questions that no one else is asking, and giving leaders and organizations the data they need to break free from the misleading messaging of out of touch Elites." He doubled down on the source being reliable in a subsequent RFC [23] [24] at one point telling someone else to "Please do some research" [25].

At the same time this was going on, Tao removed statements from the same article sourced to the likes of the BBC and Newsweek [26] and Wired and The Hill [27].

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

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

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

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

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

• The division of discussion across various forums makes it a bit difficult to ascertain that I've read through all of the relevant arguments. Toa Nidhiki05, could you please point me to a summary of the bibliography you believe establishes the majority of academic sources refer to the party as either center-right or right-wing, as well as brief comments regarding the bibliography compiled by Simonm223 and how they figure into your overall assessment of the literature? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So, reviewing all of the relevant evidence presented by Warrenmck and Toa Nidhiki05 I note that:

  • The allegations leveled in the initial case filing are two counts of tendentiously misrepresenting the state of consensus, one count of failure to comply with verifiability policy despite challenge, and one count of failing to engage with other editors in good faith.
    • Setting aside the consensus and good faith issues momentarily, as those require a fuller reading of the discussion as a whole to assess, I don't see any acknowledgment or response to the count of failing to comply with verifiability policy with respect to the addition of Keckler--in fact, it's even made it into their bibliography of sources supporting "center right" here. However, we construct an anatomy of the American center-right, which identifies them as incipient factions within the conservative movement and its political instrument, the Republican Party is not a statement that supports the claim that the Republicans are a center-right party--it supports the claim that they are a "conservative" party that includes a center-right faction. The paper as a whole further documents the fights between "moderate" conservatives in the party (and broader movement) and other factions. This is not to say that this rules out "center right" as a possible valid outcome to the discussion, but Toa has failed to do their homework in their presentation of sources to support their claims, and instead seems to be relying on sources that do not solidly support their position upon investigation, and has not engaged with the complaints about this specific source. In a similar vein, examples in the "right wing" set given here, even based solely on the quotes listed can also be taken as supporting designators further to the right e.g. ...Republican Party, or at least the dominant wing, which supports or tolerates Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda have become a proto-typical populist radical right-wing party (PRRP).
  • Warrenmck's assertion that this is the same pattern of behavior as the last AE that saw Toa topic-banned is inaccurate. That last report was way, way, way worse, and the pattern of problematic behaviors cannot be said to be the same, although there may be some overlap (admins last time basically looked at the case from arm's reach, each separately identified distinct, hugely problematic features with Toa Nidhiki05's behavior--which most flagrantly included personal attacks and edit warring but was not limited to that--and collectively agreed that the behavior was problematic enough that it warranted a topic-ban rather even without getting into the weeds of exactly what went wrong where)
  • Toa's description of other discussions that they link to here are generally misleading.
    • It is highly misleading to summarize this discussion as agreed that the initial consensus didn’t actually look at sources--the discussion establishes that the prior discussion's closer did not vet each source individually or determine that each individual source is WP:DUE for inclusion; the participants in the prior discussion did discuss the sources and their general support for the statements for which consensus was found. It bears saying that this is normal process for discussion closure--closers are not generally expected to do their own separate close readings of the sources being discussed, just to assess what others have stated about them.
    • Similarly, the [28] discussion which is summarized as a later discussion found that reliable sources also say the party is center-right, and that this should be included as well shows extensive disagreement as to whether center-right belongs in the article. I would not describe this discussion as evincing any clear consensus, although among all the options "right wing" seems to be the frontrunner among participants.
    • The diff given [29] to support Warrenck, who did not participate in any of these to be clear, insists this never happened, despite being directed to it numerous times, does not demonstrate evidence of Warrenmck doing anything in particular.
    • To Toa Nidhiki05's credit, their description of the ANI thread prior to this case is essentially accurate. Most other responses did dismiss the issue as relitigating the content dispute. Warrenmck's comments there do cross into WP:BLUDGEON territory. It is also pretty evident, however, that most of the respondents (other than the two official parties here) did not analyze the relevant discussions thoroughly, so this finding doesn't preclude examining the case at AE.
  • Having read through the discussions necessary to assess the above, I find merit in the accusation that Toa Nidhiki05 has misrepresented consensus in their discussions with other editors, prior to coming here. While misrepresentations of consensus can sometimes be good-faith errors, when taken together with the comments here, there is a consistent pattern of self-serving readings of discussions that crosses the line into tendentious behavior.
  • Regarding the accusation that Toa Nidhiki05 has not engaged in good faith with sources presented by other editors, while it's fine to continue to disagree with other editors' positions it is hard to see how they can assert so confidently that the majority of academic sources refer to the party as either center-right or right-wing. The course of discussion generally demonstrates that a) there are a lot more academic sources on this specific topic out there that no one has evaluated one way or another b) among those that have been evaluated, there are a range of positions without clear majority for anything in particular c) several of the sources identified by Toa Nidhiki05 as supporting their position appear to give equal or greater support to other positions.
  • In the course of the discussions at Talk:Republican Party (United States), Toa Nidhiki05 made repeated tit-for-tat arguments about labeling the Democratic Party as "far-left", using exclusively non-peer-reviewed sources. This is evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, as the question of what RS say about the DP is not relevant to the discussion about how to describe the Republican Party. If this had been a brief tangent it would have been a non-issue, but Toa went three-comments-deep on this thread.
    • Refusing to engage substantively with the sources provided by Simonm223 is not sanctionable on its own. However, taken together with the other issues identified here, and the continued general participation in proceeding discussion, it is very bad form and a missed opportunity for Toa Nidhiki05 to demonstrate good faith editing.
  • I note that throughout these discussions, while Toa has made a large number of comments, but does not appear to have at any point brought their own peer-reviewed sources for consideration--the sources cited here appear to have largely been provided by other editors. Again, this isn't sanctionable behavior by itself, but it is another missed opportunity to engage constructively. Warrenmck has not brought any peer-reviewed sources either, ( struck: they have brought to my attention that they did present a peer reviewed source in Special:Diff/26008348 _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC) ) but at least they're not the one insisting that that is the standard they are operating on.[reply]
  • Toa Nidhiki05 and Warrenmck are also way over the word limit here. With respect to Toa Nidhiki05, initially I was going to turn a blind eye to that (I did after all request for a specific response, even if I didn't authorize an extension for it), but we've now gone waaaaay past that and Toa Nidhiki05 continues to respond to other editors.
  • My overall assessment is that at a minimum, Toa Nidhiki05 merits a logged warning for misrepresenting prior discussions, not doing due diligence with respect to sources, and casting aspersions with insufficient evidence. The rap sheet is long enough, and there is an element of recidivism (because even if the exact behavior from the past AE case wasn't repeated in toto, we're still talking about persistent, tendentious behavior in defense of a consistent POV), that I think a topic ban should be seriously considered, either from the American politics CTOP or more narrowly from the Republican party.
  • Separately, Warrenmck merits a logged warning for casting aspersions (specifically, in the misrepresentation of the prior AE case as identical behavior) and bludgeoning.

  _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Aside from the unnecessary aspersions which I'm guessing have arisen as a result of how long this dispute has lingered, this does seem like a content disagreement that is currently being discussed. I haven't read through the entire ANI complaint but reading comments here, it seems like this dispute over the labeling of a political party is a subject that should be determined by our editors, not a small group of admins who visit this noticeboard.

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

• I am open to reinstating the topic ban due to the aspersions. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Rosguill's two logged warnings would be acceptable -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am beginning to really dive into this report, but I want to put one thing out there as I spend some time on this since I don't see anyone pushing back on it (besides Nableezy's reasonable request for diffs) and it being seemingly supported by Rosguill's summary: I take quite seriously Simonm223's point about Toa requesting certain kinds of sources and then ignoring them when presented. This seems qualitatively different than anything Warrenmck seemingly has done as a form of BATTLEGROUND/civil POVPUSHING. What am I missing or do I have this right and if so am I the only one who finds this a bigger issue than what Warrenmck has done? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Warrenmck: you're already at close to 1500 words. Presuming you can explain in less than 150 new words I'd be interested in what you have to say about Bludgeoning. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have now read through things. I am on board with the logged warning for Warrenmck and am glad he even acknowledges the bludgeoning (given that I would have also been OK with an informal warning, but logged is fine for me). For Toa, I continue to find the conduct worse than Warrenmck after reading everything. There is, to me, clear WP:CPUSH happening. To answer a question Toa Nidhiki05 asked above, this is different than the conduct of others because of the way he initially used the lack of academic sources as justification for his position (which was then copied by others) and then when academic sources were presented there was no attempt to re-examine what the right outcome was in light of new sourcing. And to the extent that this is true of others, that can be examined in other AE reports but I do find Toa's participation in those discussion to be different than others. Despite all this, examining this report in a vacuum, I can understand why people were suggesting closing with the same sanction (logged warning) despite the level of culpability being different. But Toa Nidhiki05 was topic banned from American Politics until September of last year when the topic ban was loosened. Now here we are less then 6 months later with new conduct issues. I feel the correct outcome for Toa is to reinstate the full topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Springee I will take a look in a little bit into the AE thread that got them topic banned and their successful appeal to see if my opinion changes because my suggestion of a topic ban is definitely based on past ArbCom guidance around recidivism rather than just conduct in the most recent content dispute. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Springee I did review the two threads last week and my mind wasn't changed so I didn't write anything. I appreciate your efforts to find an alternative than a topic ban. In general I'm not a huge fan of "sanction lifted, disruption resume, new lesser sanction imposed" but in this case I could see some sort of lesser sanction having been appropriate in the first place. But there would have to be something about the talk page participation and that gets tricky fast - I don't think it would be fair to give Toa a word limit that is reasonable and is across the board rather than for each discussion because even what is a "discussion" can vary based on when threads are continued versus started anew (see the recent discussion of this by ArbCom where a word limit can work on a topic basis or in the category of "formal discussion"). We can at AE impose just about any sanction we can think of by rough consensus so if there was something I thought could address the talk page side of things I'd be open to it but I am unaware of anything I think could work. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Following a request on my user talk, I retroactively grant Simonm223 an extension to 700 words. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the two logged warnings. As an admin who participated in the AE discussion that levied the TBAN, I agree that it isn't fair to say Toa's behavior is identical, but also that there have been places where it has strayed from the straight and narrow into gatekeeping and misrepresenting previous discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• We really ought to remember to enforce the "Only the filer and respondent are allowed to comment unless an exception is granted" rule; this kind of sprawling mess is the exact thing that rule was meant to curtail. That aside, I do not see a warning as being sufficient. Having been previously banned and granted an appeal is the warning. If Toa Nidhiki05 has engaged in further misconduct after the ban was lifted (and having read through the above, I believe they have), then we need to reinstate it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade: That limitation is on the number of parties (that is, persons whose conduct is within the scope of review), not the number of commenters. SilverLocust 💬 11:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, maybe I'm an idiot then. Not the first nor likely the last time, though would that it were so. In any case, the rest stands though—Toa Nidhiki05 has already been banned and had the ban lifted; a warning at that point is more or less hot air. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (FWIW I made the exact same mistake when I read the ARBCOM case) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We're fairly evenly divided in terms of outcomes. It seems that Rosguill, Vanamonde93, and Guerillero are in favor of a logged warning for both, Seraphimblade and I are in favor of a topic ban for Toa + logged warning for Warrnmck, and Liz not having expressed a preference for outcome (or maybe in favor of no sanction for either?) Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am in favor of a tban for Toa Nidhiki as well as the warning for Warrenmck, and Guerrillero seems to also be open to this outcome. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that would be an acceptable outcome -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Barkeep49, you have raised valid concerns about whether ARBCOM members should even be participating at AE so I'd like to limit my involvement to occasional comments rather than recommendations over sanctions. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that there is an asymmetry here, and that Toa has failed to substantively engage with some of the presented sources. My hesitation about reinstating the TBAN is a concern about fairness - so much of the talk page discussion about the Republican party is in forum territory, quite divorced from any discussion of the source material. In that context I don't see much separating Toa's behavior from the crowd. That doesn't make it acceptable, but that is the circumstance in which a logged warning feels appropriate to me. I won't stand in the way of a TBAN if everyone else favors one, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I supported a topic ban here not because Toa Nidhiki05 did anything particularly egregious in this instance, but rather because of the recidivism issue, with just having a similar sanction in the area lifted. Still, we certainly ought to bring this to some resolution, so if the consensus is for warnings all around, I'll go with that if need be. I just don't see the point in warning someone who's just recently been topic banned from the area; one might think that's warning enough if anything would be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We should move to a close here. Vanamonde93, as the only administrator out of five here opposed to the topic ban for Toa outcome, do you want to further plead your case or can this be closed as such? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We should close with a TBAN. I don't feel the conduct rises to the level of a TBAN but I do feel there has been misconduct, and as such this isn't a hill I will die on. Even if I felt otherwise, we only require rough consensus here, not unanimity, so you would be justified in closing over my objections if I had more. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

This page can be used to request page restrictions as contentious topics sanctions. I don't see recent disruption to justify increased page protection for a talk page or non-primary article (under the WP:PIA#General sanctions upon related content and WP:ARBECR point B), but I'll place a notice on the talk page. Unless another admin sees a need for protection, I'll just mark this as  Not done and collapse it later. SilverLocust 💬 23:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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) 19:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious topic designation

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

Edit warring at Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic

1. 1 February 2025 Adds a maintenance tag
2. 7 February 2025 First revert
3. 11 February 2025 Second revert
4. 17 February 2025 Threatens to make a third revert

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

Recent readings, namely this NIOSH document made me feel the need to start a discussion. I've also read [30]. I don't know why this content dispute is being brought forth here this quickly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Thanks for logging into your primary account, Randomstaplers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I am seeing a long period of tendentious editing from Randomstaplers on this article, of which edit warring over the maintenance tag over the objection of multiple other editors is only the latest instance. At minimum, I think Randomstaplers needs to be restricted from further participation on this article, via either partial block (including from discussion) or topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Seraphimblade's observations. Regarding Randomstaplers' comment that no one warned me properly to stop.: Pppery's comments on the article talk page on Feb 15 explain quite clearly that the continued reverts were a problem and why. As an editor with more than 5 years and 6,000 edits of experience, I don't think it's reasonable to consider Randomstaplers insufficiently aware of Wikipedia's policies and norms such that they would require a talk page edit-warring notice in addition to having been plainly told to stop by other editors. In a CTOP, you should be erring on the side of caution and stopping well short of what you even think would earn you a warning. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given Randomstaplers' replies, which appear to lay out a sincere acknowledgement of the issue and plans to deescalate, I think that a p-block from the Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic and its talk page would be sufficient. I thought about even recommending that this be reduced to a warning, but I think the length of time over which the prior issues were identified, and the unobtrusiveness of a p-block to the editor in light of their general stated plan of action, makes the software-enforced break a more appropriate outcome. Seraphimblade, thoughts? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm good with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

Aganon77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

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

1. 14:35, 13 February 2025 Edit warring against consensus
2. 14:17, 13 February 2025 Ditto above
3. 19:07, 12 February 2025 Ditto above

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

This is possible block evading sockpuppetry [31], I've opened up a SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aganon77. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aganon has now resumed editing the Ganzfeld experiment page continuing to push a fringe POV after the block expired [32]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Given 14:45, 13 February 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

See edits here

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

I support Hemiauchenia's comments.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganzfeld_experiment&diff=1277603675&oldid=1277182787's response to talk page discussion has been to dismiss anyone who will not conduct WP:OR/WP:NOTFORUMish debates about 'methodological rigor', calling opposition 'gatekeeping' ([33]). They seem to reject the idea that we would consider the publisher, as expected by WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that Aganon77's first edit after their 1 week block for edit warring was to reinsert the editorializing (diff) that they had previously been edit warring about. - MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User edit warring at Ganzfeld experiment with massive citation bombing [34] seeking to have Wikipedia state that experiments have demonstrated the existence of ESP. Talk page discussions include multiple experienced editors advising the user that WP:FRINGE parapsychology journals are not considered independent sources that can be used to overturn the scientific consensus regarding the existence of ESP, Psi, the paranormal, etc. however edit warring continues, hence the need for an administrative solution to mitigate the disruption. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the user after having been blocked for a week has gone right back to the criticized behavior. [35], [36]

After being reverted, the user complained to the reverting editor on their user talkpage rather than engaging on the article talkpage.

There has been some coaching attempted by Rosguill, but it seems to be unappreciated. [37]

A topic ban may be necessary.

jps (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Just acknowledging here that Aganon77 was blocked today for 1 week for edit-warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The talk page comments make me think the week block isn't sufficient to limit disruption --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but Aganon77 is attempting to make an extraordinary claim using poor quality fringe sources, and engaging in edit warring and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Although only an essay, I think that Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans sheds some light on this situation. I think that either an indefinite sitewide block or a topic ban on paranormal phenomenon broadly construed ought to be the outcome. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The combination of IDHT, verbosity, and edit warring is unequivocally disruptive, and Aganon77's response doubles down rather than make any sort of commitment to working towards a consensus. I agree with Cullen328's remedies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given their response to further coaching, I think a tban combined with a block from Ganzfeld experiment and its talk page is the appropriate course of action and recommend that we close as such. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree (assuming you mean Cullen's proposed TBAN scope of paranormal phenomena) and will close as such within the next few hours if no one objects. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Aganon77, I've probably told many people the same thing: You don't have to agree with a consensus or believe it's right, but you do have to follow it until or unless it changes, and there does come a time to shrug, realize you can't win 'em all, and walk away. There are some I've disagreed with, and still do, but I still follow them, because that is how editing here works if you want to continue doing it. So, your decision is: Would you be willing to abide by a topic ban from topics like this while you learn to edit more collaboratively on less contentious articles, or is this the end of the line? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Novem Linguae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Edax Mendacium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• AMPOL
• BLP

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

1. 2025-02-12 A revert (edit warring) after receiving AMPOL user talk alert. This is after receiving an edit summary from me of partial revert of the two paragraphs objected to on the talk page. please see WP:BRD. leaving the third paragraph about DEI for now. Edax Mendacium's wording changes are objected to by Alenoach on the talk page, in the section Talk:Sundar Pichai#Political positions. Edax Mendacium is ignoring the objections on the talk page and making the changes anyway.
2. 2025-02-12 A revert (edit warring) after receiving BLP user talk alert. This is after receiving an edit summary from me of please get consensus for your controversial edit on the talk page

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• AMPOL user talk notification
• BLP user talk notification

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• I've had bad luck at the edit warring noticeboard before, and this is a CTOP area which requires more careful editing than normal, so starting here.
• Edax Mendacium, the root problem is that you made your edit a couple weeks ago, were reverted, started a talk page discussion, the talk page discussion didn't go your way (received an objection). Then today you tried to reinstate your edit, I reverted it, you tried again, I reverted it, you tried again. From my point of view, you are well beyond WP:BRD here. You are at BRDBRBRB. In an area as sensitive as a CTOP, you need to be more careful about getting consensus for controversial edits. It feels to me like you are the one doing the bullying by trying to push through your edits over other's objections.
  Also please stop calling other people's edits WP:VANDALISM, as you did here. Disagreements about editorial content are not vandalism.
  Finally, your edits don't really add much new content. The "old edits" still talk about Project Nimbus and the inauguration. Your edits change the wording/tone, and that is what I believe is being objected to on the talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Since I do not want to edit war, the objected-to revision is still the top revision. I think self-reverting and apologizing would be enough to close this report with no sanction. And of course the objected-to revision can be put back if a consensus is gained on the talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The proposed pblock below sounds good to me. Sends a message but isn't too harsh. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This user restored their controversial edit today [38], in my opinion continuing the edit war. Instead they should have waited for a consensus on the talk page, in my opinion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• User talk diff

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Edax Mendacium is a very new editor who clearly does not yet understand that the Neutral point of view is a core content policy and that complying with it is mandatory for all editors. They do not yet understand that pushing a political point of view in article space is not permitted, especially in a biography of a living person. I happen to share aspects of their point of view which I am happy to discuss in detail off-Wikipedia but not on Wikipedia. This editor must learn that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy of any kind, no matter how righteous they may feel. So, the question arises: how to deal with this new editor? In a sense, this is up to Edax Mendacium. The editor can acknowledge the policies and guidelines that are being explained to them and promise to comply. On the other hand, they might choose to dig in their heels and continue argue their own righteousness. In that case, we should consider a topic ban on biographies of living people and a topic ban on post-1992 politics of the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If, instead, Edax Mendacium absents themselves from further discussion as they are currently doing, perhaps a p-block from the article in question is an adequate solution. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Rosguill, are you proposing a block from the article only, or talk as well? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant just the article, as the evidence here primarily concerns edit war edits to the mainspace article. I have not inspected the quality of discussion on the talk page in detail. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems quite reasonable to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As Edax Mendacium has continued edit warring even while this request is open, I have implemented the partial block from Sundar Pichai as an interim measure to put a stop to that. I do see that Cullen328 also proposed a topic ban, so I'll leave this thread open at this time in case anyone wants to discuss the need for that, or whether the partial block is sufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given Special:Diff/1277052415, I am now leaning toward a topic ban, although I'm uncertain about the appropriate scope. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  When I first commented here about ten days ago, I was hoping that Edax Mendacium would take on board the feedback they have received, familiarize themself with the applicable policies and guidelines, and moderate their approach. Instead, they have doubled down, declined to moderate their approach, and engaged in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior on their talk page, claiming that it is all unfair. I think that it is time for an indefinite topic ban on post-1992 politics of the United States, and on biographies of living people. Cullen328 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is the BLP ban necessary? It seems like the BLP disruption is only occurring on articles relating to the AP2 area, so an AP2 ban would already take care of that. Or perhaps a ban on AP2 and a logged warning concerning BLPs, so that this aspect is clearly part of the record? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am categorically opposed to bans from all of BLPspace, mostly on the basis that if someone needs that, they just need to be indeffed. I think an AP TBAN + BLP warning makes sense here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Adamantine123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPAK

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

1. 22 February - Came back after 3 days of inactivity to jump on a thread about his distressed opponent (Ratnahastin), and is trying to turn the entire issue (involving some legal difficulties) into a discussion about unrelated caste feuds. Adamantine123 is designating his opponent to have been motivated to make edits because "Marathas are considered as formidable enemy of Rajputs". Adamantine123 is doing this, despite having been almost topic banned and warned against similar violations of WP:ASPERSIONS in the earlier ANI thread. Not to mention the unexplained claims of "selective disruption", and WP:CANVASSING to demand "at least a topic ban" without any basis.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

[39]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I filed the report here because that ANI thread is all set to close without any action as already demanded by one admin.[40]

Rosguill has also commented on this message from Admantine123.[41]

Adamantine123 was already warned for this battleground attitude,[42] and he himself acknowledged it[43], however, he still recklessly jumped to abide by the same disruptive attitude that got him into trouble last time. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[44]

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

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

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

In light of the prior warning, indef is an appropriate call. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm seriously considering a NOTHERE block. This is unacceptable. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that makes three of us. I was tempted to block when I saw the comment, but Rosguill had already left their informal warning, and I didn't want to override that. That said, at the time I was unaware of this comment in October, essentially the exact same conduct about the same user (among others), which Valereee had warned them for. Knowing that, I have blocked indefinitely for targeting other users on the basis of (actual or perceived) caste, which is a form of hateful editing and thus disruptive. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an action you're taking as an individual admin, not as an AE action, correct? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to take AE action in light of your block. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

إيان (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Iamnotanorange~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles 1RR and personal attacks

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

1RR

1. 26 February 2025 Repeated revert, violation of 1RR restriction after the user was notified of WP:ARBPIA
2. 7 February 2025 violation of 1RR restriction, which led me to notify the user of the contentious topic and invite them to self-revert (they did not self-revert)

Casting aspersions, considered a personal attack

1. 8 February 2025 The user cast baseless aspersions of COI and, despite having been asked repeatedly to apologize (here, here, here, and here), the user has refused to do so.
2. 26 February 2025 @إيان - Looks like you've waited for the biased, promotional content to be added back into the article, before removing the bias and promotional tags. Can you expand on that decision?

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In attempting to justify their POV, Iamnotanorange~enwiki has made bizarre statements, such as:

• Quote: No shadowy jewish network required.
• Quote: If there's an app that sends persecutory emails, we don't need to name every jewish person who contributed money to the creation of the app.

(Note: Iamnotanorange~enwiki's signatures appear as "DuckOfOrange"—it is not another editor. I indicated to Iamnotanorange~enwiki that this could be confusing to other editors and suggested changing the signature as a courtesy to them, but Iamnotanorange~enwiki has not done so.)

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.

I'm actually glad this has been brought up. I've been trying to balance some serious concerns with this page, while navigating some pretty strong reactions from إيان that seemed to focus on the idea that I was attacking him personally, rather than the content of the article. Because my primary goal was to de-escalate this situation, I originally decided to be polite (but persistent), rather than escalate the dispute to arbitration. I'm happy to have the chance to explain my side of the story; it would be great to get another POV here.

1. When I first encountered the page, it seemed to focus primarily on a persecutory narrative, rather than the subject of the article. For example focusing on the vaguely worded enemies (including "Zionist organizations"^[who?] and "Hollywood celebrities"^[who?]), of Kiswani, rather than Kiswani. As a newcomer to the subject of the article (as I was, earlier this month) I struggled to understand what she believed or what her organization did, besides protests. After checking the sources and discovering most of them to be from the low quality Palestine Legal and medium-low quality Mondoweiss, I decided to treat this narrative as a form of WP:PROMO content that also violated WP:NPOV, often relying on WP:UNDUE.
2. I began making edits and discovered إيان was closely monitoring the page, which was surprising to me, given the state of the article. If someone was caring for the article, why wasn't it in better shape? As such, I invited Ian to declare any WP:COI that might be relevant. I did so once on my talk page, but he didn't seem to see it, so I did so again on the article talk page, specifically here[45].
3. Ian did not clearly say "no", but was indignant, calling it an aspersion, and repeatedly demanded an apology on several occasions. The lack of a clear "I have no COI" statement made it hard for me to apologize. I thought we could move past that, but it continued to be brought up and eventually just seemed like an attempt to distract from the article. At that point, it seemed clear that an apology would not de-escalate, so in an effort to do so, I explained my original reasoning, concluding that I was happy to assume good intentions, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. I don't see this as a personal attack, but an invitation to declare COI, made several weeks ago.
4. Over the last few weeks, this page has a habit of losing criticism [46]of the article's subject. Meanwhile, political statements made by this politically active figure, in the sphere of her political influence[47], [48], also have a habit of disappearing. This has reinforced my suspicion of WP:PROMO via a persecutory narrative.
5. Above, Ian has quoted from my attempt to use hyperbole as a way of highlighting the subtext embedded in part of that narrative. I stand by the fact that we don't need to name Sheldon Adelson in an article about Nerdeen Kiswani. The connective tissue between those two individuals is - at best - tenuous, while furthering a narrative that distracts from the subject of the article. The relevant portion for the subject of the article was an email campaign, not the venture capital involved behind the app that allowed an NGO to coordinate the email campaign. (PS I just re-read that sentence and I can barely do it - that's how convoluted this section was). Imagine if I told the story of my trip to the airport by highlighting Uber's connection to the Saudi Sovereign wealth fund. WP:UNDUE
6. Regarding the second "aspersion" - Ian and I had a lengthy discussion about WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO on the talk page, but Ian stopped responding. Meanwhile, much of the contentious material found its way back to the original article. Ian then removed the label, here: [49], which was confusing to me, so I asked him about it. I'm not sure how this qualifies as a personal attack?
7. If I reverted more than once within a 24 hour period, I'm truly sorry about that. For context, I have a newborn at home and so I haven't been great about keeping track of time. If that happened, then please accept my apology, I thought I was in the clear (ie: it had been 24 hours) when I made those. Also, I am not normally embroiled in contentious topics and thought I would be prevented (directly, via wikipedia) from making reverts that were not properly spaced. I took the acceptance of my reverts as confirmation that it had been at least 24 hours.
8. Regarding my username, my account was weirdly renamed a few years ago and I don't love the aesthetics of the ~~enwiki. If this is truly an issue, please let me know and I'll happily change it, as I offered to do here Talk:Nerdeen_Kiswani#NPOV_and_Promotional_Content.

Below comments moved from admin section _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the opportunity to continue editing this page. I assure you, the 1RR violations will not be repeated.

I'm not sure if it's appropriate for this discussion, but I was actually hoping to get some more oversight into this page. It's a little frustrating to have a weeks long discussion with an editor who then stops responding and ignores the content of what we discussed (that might be where the snark came from - my bad).

I feel like I'm doing a good job of keeping my side of the discussion calm, but it's hard to do when my editing partner wants to escalate everything and turn a conversation about 2 sentences into a DARVO attack. Should I open up a separate dispute for that? I'm not sure what the best solution is here.

side note: After this discussion, I am planning to change my signature. Just don't want to do it in the middle of a dispute.

DuckOfOrange (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee - thanks I appreciate the advice. I've had an account for 20 years, but I've mostly participated in neuroscience articles, with a handful of light editing over the years. Not sure why I'm spending my parental leave in this CTOP rabbit hole. I've been trying to stay respectful and NPOV, the latter of which is easier than the former because I'm not naturally embedded in this fight. IMO I'm bringing fresh eyes to an article that's only appealing to people who are deeply embroiled in these politics, which hope is useful to the wiki community as a whole.

Maybe some arbitration could be helpful, even if it's a judgment against me. If I'm not being helpful to the community, then I'd love to know how I can be better.

DuckOfOrange (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade - thank you for the additional warning, I'll keep that in mind as I continue. I think I have a perspective as a fresh set of eyes, and I hope I can continue to contribute. DuckOfOrange (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Having been a new parent myself, I find believable the explanation that the user lost track of what day it was between editing sessions and didn't intend to violate 1RR. But Iamnotanorange~enwiki, that is an excuse that can be used exactly once, after which you must find a foolproof solution. What I'd suggest is coming up with some simple rule for yourself at CTOPs that will ensure this can't happen.

Iamnotanorange seems to be attempting to engage calmly, even mentioning discussion in edit summaries. I don't see notifying someone that if they've got a COI they need to disclose as casting aspersions. إيان, you may have found that insulting, but it's not casting aspersions or assuming bad faith or making a personal attack. By the same token I'm not seeing Looks like you've waited for the biased, promotional content to be added back into the article, before removing the bias and promotional tags. Can you expand on that decision? as particularly problematic, though it's a bit snarky, which is not ideal in a CTOP. I don't see a problem with the username, though I can see why someone might find it confusing, especially combined with the different displayed username. I don't want to get into content here w/re the objection to inserting Jewishness into the article, but if Iamanorange is arguing these insertions are inappropriate at that article then their comments about that don't seem bizarre to me.

I'm inclined to think that if we accept that the 1RR violation was accidental, and Iamnotanorange can convince us it won't be repeated, there's nothing actionable here. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamnotanorange~enwiki, if the main issue is a content dispute, you can find pointers on where to get help with such disputes at WP:SEEKHELP. If the main issue is, in your opinion, behavioral, which it sounds like is what you're saying, IMO your best bet is to open a new section here or to take it to ANI. Since it's a CTOP, I'd recommend here. Be very aware that if you do bring it to either noticeboard, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. It would be a good idea to read over several past discussions at either noticeboard before you post. Also be aware that you're editing in one of the most contentious topics on Wikipedia, and you are fairly inexperienced, which can be a tricky combo. Valereee (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Valereee has given some excellent advice. Of the CTOP areas, you've probably chosen one of the most contentious, so it's very important to be mindful of your editing and discussion behavior there. I would also note that 1RR is not an entitlement; editors can be sanctioned for edit warring even if they technically adhere to 1RR. I'd be okay with a warning for it this time, but as above, you only get one of those. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any objection to closing this as informally warned for 1RR violations? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection. Valereee (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]