Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Appeal Request by 3Kingdoms

3Kingdoms' ARBPIA TBAN is downgraded to a 0RR, which may be lifted at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator after 3 months. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user: 3Kingdoms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban on Arab-Israeli Conflict

Topic ban from the subject of Arab-Israeli conflict, imposed at [1], logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive284

Administrator imposing the sanction: Newslinger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [2]

Statement by 3Kingdoms

How I acted back then was wrong, overly aggressive, and honestly embarrassing. I let my own personal frustrations spill over here which is never the right thing. Since I have come back, I feel that I have been a far more constructive editor and will not fall into the same habit as before. I have not engaged in edit-warring and have worked to talk out differences with other editors to achieve consensus. I would happily accept a 3-month 0revert order. I hope that I can have this sanction removed. Thank you

Statement by Newslinger

Statement by Nableezy

I hope 3Kingdoms has learned how to edit collaboratively in heated topics. I don’t really have any thoughts on if he has, just haven’t looked at his edits, but the request reads sincere enough that I don’t really have a reason to oppose it. nableezy - 00:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by 3Kingdoms

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by 3Kingdoms

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

Will await further comments before weighing in, but just to note, there is already a blanket 1RR in the topic area, so the second half of the proposed alternate sanction is unnecessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant wording removed here, thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, guess I'll get the ball rolling if no one has anything to say yet: My initial impression here, based on clear admission of wrongdoing and desire to find a step-down sanction, is favorable—although procedurally I would prefer a "0RR, liftable by any admin after 3 months" over a "0RR, expires automatically after 3 months". This is based just on what's been pleaded so far, not an in-depth look. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2 years and an allocution also looks pretty good to me. As far as the 0rr goes, I think the only reason to require an admin to lift the restriction is so they can make sure there were no violations, and I think the community can cover that will enough. If you think that is necessary, though, I'm not opposed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, I can support a lifting of the sanction to 0RR. I kind of like the “any admin can lift” just to ensure there is editing over that period. Courcelles (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: You started the March 2021 AE request. Do you have any comments about this appeal? Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable with 0RR liftable by any admin after 3 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Oktayey

Consensus that the restriction should stand, and if anything was quite generous. Oktayey is warned that several admins felt an indefinite block would have been appropriate, and that further disruption may result in such without further warning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: Oktayey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Oktayey (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 30-day & 100-edit arbitration enforcement topic ban from the subject of gender issues, imposed at User_talk:Oktayey#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban, logged at [3]

Administrator imposing the sanction: Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [4]

Statement by Oktayey

(Apologies if this is formatted incorrectly!) I was in an RfC discussion when Zaathras collapsed it [5], claiming it was off-topic. For context, the RfC was about whether to state a couple claims in Wikivoice, and my discussion was about whether the provided sources could support the claims in Wikivoice. I twice reverted the collapse [6] [7], explaining in my edit summaries how it wasn't off-topic and asking for any explanation otherwise. The collapse was restored both times, first by Zaathras (again) [8], then DanielRigal [9], neither providing an explanation of how the discussion was off-topic. I left a message [10] on DanielRigal's talk page asking them to revert their collapse, who refused. I asked how the discussion was off-topic, and they accused me of sealioning. Denaar then restored the discussion [11], but it was collapsed once again by ScottishFinnishRadish [12]. Denaar challenged ScottishFinnishRadish on their talk page, and I chimed in [13]. It was then Doug Weller banned me [14] for "disruptive editing".

I don't hide that I've made blatant mistakes on Wikipedia early on, but I've learned much since then, and this ban is ridiculous. I felt I was making great points in that discussion, and it absolutely was relevant. I reverted its collapse those two times because I was being given no explanation otherwise. I tried to give DanielRegal and ScottishFinnishRadish the benefit of the doubt by trying to resolve it on their talk pages before resorting to ANI, but was instead banned for supposed disruption.

I request that this sanction be lifted, and I think at least a condemnation of Doug Weller's and ScottishFinnishRadish's conduct would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oktayey (talk • contribs) 09:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku I didn't mean to sound aggressive, but I am frankly clueless as to how such a ban could possibly be justified. Doug Weller didn't even reply to me when I asked on their talk page how I was being disruptive. [15] Oktayey (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaathras, @Sideswipe9th Before March, I had for several years steadily contributed to a spread of different topics—however, when I came across the GAG article, I became so fixated on it because I was appalled by its blatant disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines and spirit.

@Zaathras Claiming I "narrowly avoided" being banned as a sockpuppet is downright deceitful—your accusation was based on NOTHING. I have NEVER created, owned, or used any other Wikipedia account, and I have NEVER colluded with another editor. Oktayey (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, @Aquillion, @RegentsPark You say I was being disruptive by repeating myself, but it was because I was given the same arguments—I exhibited WP:IDHT no more than that group of editors on the talk page. Am I presumed at fault because I was in the minority? If the majority can preserve the status quo by stonewalling, then the strength of any argument is worthless, and Wikipedia is run by majority vote, not consensus. Oktayey (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

This feels a bit surreal. It's true I didn't reply to him on my talk page, ScottishFinnishRadish explained it and Courcelles told me that I should have indefinitely blocked. SFR has explained the issues again here as have other editors. If the problems aren't obvious I doubt anyone can convince them that they are the problem, not everyone else. What I've learned from this AE request is that I don't expect a change in this editor's conduct and that I should have indefinitely blocked, which would have saved a lot of people's time while still allowing them to appeal. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Although I consider myself uninvolved, as all of my actions have been made in an administrative capacity I'll put myself here instead of the uninvolved administrator section since some action is being called for against me. It seems they have an issue with my restoration of a hat of a non-constructive tangent during an RFC. I explained my action, and stand by the restoration of the hat. As I said when explaining my action, The arguments about bias in sources have already been made, so continuing them with increasingly unrelated metaphors among the same editors isn't going to build consensus, and is going to create increasingly more work for the closer. Hatting the section leaves the discussion there, and makes it clear that further travel down that path won't be productive.

As for the (lenient) topic ban, it prevents the disruption that Oktayey is causing on the talk page and to the RFC, allows editing in other topic areas, and requires them to edit in other topic areas so they can return to the topic with broader experience on Wikipedia. It will also give the community the ability to judge whether they are disruptive in just this one topic area or in general. This may become an important piece of information in the future. This seems like a win-win as far as sanctions go. No one is blocked, the disruption is ended, the sanctioned editor has to gain more experience before returning to a contentious topic area where they are causing disruption, and the community will have a better baseline to judge Oktayey's behavior on if it becomes an issue in the future.

As far as the disruption goes, there has been significant bludgeoning, IDHT, and general time wasting caused by their behavior. About a third of their total edits are to Talk:Gays Against Groomers, and their contributions amount to over 20% of the edits to that page, and nearly a quarter of all text added. They have constantly been beating the drum that the sourcing is inadequate, despite the clear and obvious consensus over the past several months that this is not the case. Wasting editor time by rehashing discussions where there is a clear consensus over the course of months is disruptive. I warned them in March that this behavior was becoming disruptive, where I said At some point, normally when repeating the same arguments becomes the norm in multiple discussions, you should step back accept the status quo until you have new sources, there has been a shift in coverage, or something else has changed. Consensus can seldom be changed by arguing the same points over and over. It's a big encyclopedia, some times it's best to realize consensus is against your position and focus on something else.

The collapsed text on the talk page related to bias in sourcing, with the first collapsed message reading, in part, Not in its entirety, but It does mean it is biased in favor of its own identity. Oktayey has been making this same argument in March (Furthermore, per WP:BIASED, potentially biased sources should meet the normal requirements such as editorial control and independence from the topic the source is covering.), April (Are you arguing that a claim cannot be considered contentious if many similarly biased sources make it?), May (Bias is not irrelevant. Wikipedia makes it clear in WP:BIASED and WP:WIKIVOICE that even if a source is considered "reliable", it may have bias that precludes it from being echoed in an encyclopedic tone.), July (This user seems to be arguing exactly what I was months ago: that almost all of the media coverage about this group is from sources clearly at ideological odds with it, which is to say, biased.), and then in the collapsed thread where the last post before collapsing went far enough afield to use Nazi metaphors. There has consistently been a solid consensus that the sourcing isn't an issue, and the current RFC is further demonstrating that. That they think the hatting is a problem is a further demonstration that they're not understanding that repeating the same arguments since March is disruptive.

They said above, I felt I was making great points in that discussion, and it was absolutely relevant to the RfC. Well, everyone thinks their points are good and they're contributing. Only trolls contribute thinking their points are bad and irrelevant. That's why we should listen when uninvolved admins and multiple other editors say you're being disruptive.

Statement by Zaathras

I hatted a tangent that had gone way waaaaaay into the weeds. Far away from discussing the usage of sources in the article and into a meta-discussion regarding what it means to be a "biased" source and whether that alleged bias renders it unusable for a topic, despite it being deemed an otherwise WP:RS. This was ultimately upheld by an admin. I was not involved in that particular discussion, though I have participated elsewhere in the article talk page for the record.

Oktayey is for all intents and purposes at present a single-purpose account. While the account itself is 6 years old, and it was once involved in many other articles, since 2 March, 2023 there have been around 250 edits by my rough count, with around 225 of them having to do with Gays Against Groomers. Either article, article talk, ANI or talk pages. Yikes.

Back in April, I filed an ANI regarding the talk page of Gays Against Groomers being flooded with socks, Oktayey narrowly avoided being swept out the door when the sock drawer was closed. Oktayey is tipping close to a self-inflicted exile here.

I've never seen one of these 30 days or 100 edits style of restrictions, it seems new. It also doesn't seem odious, and would demonstrate a commitment to other areas of the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Oktayey has essentially been repeating the same argument on talk, over and over, since March; large swaths of the talk page and far too many discussions eventually devolved into repetitive arguments with them, eg. here and here and here and here and here and here. This is WP:BLUDGEONING. Doing it again in the RFC intended to finally put most of that to rest was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Oktayey had the same opportunity to make their argument there that everyone else did; they didn't need yet another massive discussion on something that the talk page had been filled with for literally months. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th (Oktayey)

When I first read the sanction I thought that it was an interesting way to approach this. A quick look at Oktayey's contributions shows that he has edited almost nothing but the Gays Against Groomers article and associated talk page since March 2023. I see this sanction as a good way to provide just a little rope to demonstrate whether he is fundamentally here or not here to build an encyclopaedia, as the floating nature of its duration (100 edits, or 30 days, whichever is longer) would require Oktayey to edit in another topic area to gain a better understanding of our relevant policies and guidelines. Yes there is a risk that the behaviours that he displayed (not dropping the stick, requiring that editors satisfy his requests, see comments by SFR and RegentsPark for diffs) will shift to other content areas, but with such a small footprint of edits to other articles it's extremely hard to tell if this problem is specific to just this article or is more widespread in Oktayey's general approach to editing.

My suggestion would be that Oktayey should withdraw this appeal and take on this challenge in the manner that it was intended. Demonstrate that you are here to build an encyclopaedia, and can at the very least accept when the community consensus on how a PAG is interpreted even if you fundamentally disagree with that interpretation. There is a time and place to state your objections to the consensus interpretation of a PAG, and it is rarely on an article talk page. Otherwise the alternative from the comments here is clear that he will be indeffed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Oktayay. In response to being added to your list, prior to March 2023 you had made 160 edits total after the creation of your account. Since March 2023 you have made 209 edits, of which 119 are edits to GAG's talk page, 15 are to the article, 3 are to a NPOVN discussion about the article, 19 are to individual user talk pages about the articles, and 10 edits to this discussion. In otherwords since March 2023, you have made only 43 edits to pages unrelated to GAG. That isn't healthy, we even have an essay about this phenomenon, and Doug's sanction should be seen as an attempt at making you a more balanced editor.

Being concerned about the state of an article is fine. Pointing out what you believe may be violations of a policy or guideline is fine, in moderation. But when the overwhelming response from both involved and uninvolved editors is that you are interpreting the PAGs incorrectly, then at the article level you need to accept that and move on. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ser!

_{(I'm not sure if I'm counted as involved here as I've engaged on the talk section where this discussion happened, but not the hatted section itself, but I said I'd err on the side of caution and post here. If this isn't considered involved enough, feel free to move this to the uninvolved section.)}

As pointed out by a few above including Zaathras and Sideswipe, Oktayey has been skirting painfully close to being a WP:SPA for the last while; the sole purpose being pushing changes on the Gays Against Groomers page. They've dismissed reliable sources as "biased" and tried to use much weaker sources (including sites incredibly close to being Breitbart mirrors) to further push their points. There has been a long-running theme of this user having no willingness to drop the stick, in spite of having been asked specifically to drop it by editors above such as Sideswipe - hence, yknow, 134 (15 on page, 119 on talkpage) of Oktayey's 392 edits in total being to either GAG's article or its talkpage, and as Sideswipe noted in her response, around 80% of the editor's edits since March pertaining to this page. Combine this with the aforementioned WP:BLUDGEONing of the same point over and over without end or acknowledgement that they're outweighed by consensus and it's hard to see this pattern of tendentious editing and POV pushing as anything bar being WP:NOTHERE. Amidst the impending WP:BOOMERANG potentially resulting in an indef, I concur with others suggesting the user should withdraw this appeal. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Oktayey

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

Statement by (Random person no 362478479)

I agree with Zaathras that the discussion that was hatted had at the time reached a point where it was no longer constructive. I also agree with them that should Oktayey want to continue discussing the reliability/bias of sources taking the question to WP:RSN would be better. Where I disagree with Zaahthras is in labeling the discussion as off-topic. Oktayey challenged the reliability of quoted sources for the topic in question arguing that they are biased against the subject of the topic. In my opinion closing the discussion was justified, but the justification given missed the mark. (I voted in the RfC that triggered the discussion. As far as I understand the rules that does not make me involved. If I am wrong please move my comment to the section for involved editors.) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bookku (uninvolved editor 2 )

I was around at ARE because of previous discussion. We were discussing importance of having more uninvolved eyes. Gender is my area of interest but I am less involved in Americas in general (though not totally) and uninvolved in the specific article for which RFC is going on. Also I am not admin @User:Oktayey The language of seeking condemnation is unnecessarily sounds strong and usually unhelpful; Unless you are sure to back up with very very strong evidence. It sounds like you are being aggressive right at ARE and may be over all aggressive. So this might be self defeating. Usually I would suggest to take back such language.

Not needed since things are clear now

I would prefer to wait for DW's inputs, specifically would be interested to know if the TB action is due to behaviour at one article or it is due to over all behaviour at multiple articles. Secondly though emails between users are private matter, an email message seems to be on a user's talk page immediately after this action is it related or unrelated. Bookku (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oktayey ARE discussion structure is different. @ ARE one has write and reply only in own section. You can write user name to whom you want to address your reply. Please shift your reply in your own section. Bookku (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

`

(Rappru.= Respectful appropriate pronoun as preferred by respective user)

Referred to contested RFC discussion, User talk:Oktayey, and above explanations by involved users, admin actions of mentoring and the topic ban action from both the admin seem valid taking into account Oktayey's behaviour of repetitive argumentation over a period of time. Though @Oktayey seem to have good analytical skills and rationalism, but given With Wikipedia's well known structural limitations @Oktayey need to be pragmatic, avoid over reactions and persuasive advocacy with rhetorical manners. This suggestion might sound to Rappru. ironic but Rappru. need to be away from contentious topics for more number of edits and days than present topic ban and understand how policies are interpreted and understood by other users. Said that.

There seems some over reaction from opposite side too. If Oktayey is analyzing policies properly or not is for discussion closer to decide that need not be reason for support to dislodge any disagreeing user, secondly I would agree with part of Random person no 362478479 analysis

".. Where I disagree with Zaahthras is in labeling the discussion as off-topic. Oktayey challenged the reliability of quoted sources for the topic in question arguing that they are biased against the subject of the topic. In my opinion closing the discussion was justified, but the justification given missed the mark. .."

IMO Contesting user need to have say in labeling of own discussion. Bookku (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Oktayey

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

More battleground mentality. I said it in Doug’s talk page and I’ll say it here. NOTHERE block was the suitable sanction. Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised Doug Weller gave a sanction that is practically a non-sanction (100 edits and 30 days is quite meaningless) given that this has been going on for months. A single minded focus on an article, repeating the same arguments again and again with a plaintive "All I'm trying to do is get explanations for why things are, in my perception, wrong" - most admins would just indef as a waste of time. We can't function if editors keep reiterating the same arguments ad nauseam just because the consensus doesn't align with their "perception" and I'm open to upping the sanctions to a NOTHERE block. RegentsPark (comment) 05:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the persistent battleground contact, I agree that the appeal should be declined I've no issue with an indef block if someone wants to do that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline appeal. Total waste of time. Kudos to Doug for his patience. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petra0922

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

Request concerning Petra0922

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Petra0922 (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/Horn of Africa

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

23:10, 24 July 2023 Personal attack against محرر البوق, accusing them of persistently and unjustifiably go after Amhara and related articles that cover the ethnic violence in Ethiopia and describing their edits as destructive, which appears to be baseless
15:48 25 July 2023 Repetition of the "destructive" comment toward محرر البوق.
14:33, 27 July 2023 continued personal attacks against محرر البوق.
20:25, 4 August 2023 Restoration of "Amhara genocide" in wikivoice in the lead, despite extensive recent discussion on the talkpage finding that nobody else but Petra0922 supports the inclusion of this.

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)

User is aware of the contentious topics sanction per this comment from May 2022, responding to a discretionary sanctions notice given by Beeblebrox on 19:17, 10 May 2022 regarding the Horn of Africa topic area.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Their old username "AmharaWAAGpublish" suggests that they are associated with the advocacy group "Amhara Women Association Against Genocide". I think that they are too emotionally invested in this topic to contribute to it in a neutral manner, and I think their comments and edit warring above above show that they are not capable of collaborative editing regarding this issue. At the very least, they need to be firmly told not to engage in personal attacks.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

03:10, 5 August 2023

Discussion concerning Petra0922

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

Statement by Petra0922

I like to start by saying that my edits are international and not limited to Ethiopia, and you will notice that I am focused on global human rights and war articles.

On the allegation that my edits represent an organization, that is not true. As an incoming newbie editor in January 2022, I had no idea about the rules of individual accounts, and due to their inspiration related to the women's group, I randomly (naively) picked that name. Then as soon as I learned this was a misrepresentation of the group while I was actually putting in edits as an individual, I understood that was misleading, and completely removed the irrelevant account name. Another experienced editor helped me understand that, and the history can be seen on my users page. Stating again, my edits are the work of mine alone per Wikipedia guidelines and don’t represent any organization.

Giving some background on the early dialogues between myself and @Hemiauchenia

As far as I can tell, @Hemiauchenia stated inaccurate information in discussions dismissing what was disclosed on sources as the work of Amhara activists. At the same time, the editor was persistent in aggressively modifying the article in the middle of active discussions as it was also witnessed by @Random person no 362478479. Hereis the link for the detail of the discussion where I pointed out that @ was giving misleading information.

The edits that I called destructive were manifested in the form of:

shaping narratives (especially for Tigray) without adding edit summaries or discussing them first or without providing verifiable sources. This was also demonstrated with patterns of modifying fatality numbers and removing victim groups (those who were reportedly killed by Tigray forces)
demonstrated patterns on “cleaning up” contents that list the Tigray People Liberation Front as perpetrator of Amhara and other civilians in Ethiopia, and sections that captured dark histories of Tigray. At the same time, the editor consistently removed many war, ethnic, and violence-related non-Tigray contents in nature- providing misleading edit summaries (framed them as “not sourced.”)
rushes to nominate Ethiopian and HOA notable articles for frequent deletion without notifying contributors and making an effort on due-diligence. I noticed most of them were voted to keep
provoking other editors who work on Ethiopia or other non-Tigray articles and ended up getting them blocked- for getting caught up in the altercation with the same editor
others include adding multiple tags on Amhara materials to the point of making them difficult to manage, and engaging in a persistent edit warring and tendentious editing- demanding others to provide sources to disprove the editors' point of view.
Links:

The following examples may be extensive but I am happy to add more if needed.

Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present) which captures the multi-ethnic conflict including the Amhara and others:

The editor removed >21K bytes content from this article without edit summary and discussion, in just a single edit:
Nominated the article for deletion providing inadequate reasons and without leaving a courtesy note to any of the major contributors. Unfortunately, the editor admitted that they previously moved articles without discussion or leaving notes on talk pages. However, this article was voted to Keep for its notability
In the middle of the deletion discussion, the editor moved the same article before reaching consensus. I went ahead and recovered the article and explained the need to come to a consensus first before taking such action
The discussion was closed with a recommendation of tasks suggested to the nominator however never came to the article's talk page to follow up. Instead, the editor waited a couple of weeks and removed significant information from the same article without updating the thread although contents were supported by sources

Tigray war: removed information on:

the Afar civilians killing that discusses the violence by the Tigray forces
sources that captured fatalities of the civilians by Tigray forces
that explains rocket attack to Asmara by Tigray forces
changed a series of important fatality and causality numbers without providing an edit summary and sources, and without discussing them on talk page

On Amhara massacres

Chenna massacre Removed perpetrator's information (TPLF) who reportedly killed innocent Amhara people, without providing edit summary or discuss on the talk page. This is a consistent pattern, i.e. “cleaning up” perpetrators' information who were directly involved in the killings of civilians and are supported by sources

Kobo massacre Similar to the Chenna massacre, the editor consistently removed the Tigray People Liberation Front from the perpetrators' list

Benishangul-Gumuz conflict- Removed information on participant groups and gave a misleading summary stating that the source doesn’t say so although the reference explicitly discusses the allegation against Egypt

Statement by Random person no 362478479

The edit summary for the restoration of "genocide" in wiki-voice includes "Discussion still active." I agree with Petra0922 that the discussion is still active (there is an RfC now). On the other hand the discussion currently trends towards not using "genocide" in wiki-voice and therefore Hemiauchenia's removal was justified and reasonable. I don't think that Petra0922 should have reverted, but I also don't think that this revert was completely unjustified. The accusations against محرر البوق are serious and if there is evidence for them should have been raised at the appropriate noticeboard. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please bare with me. @Petra0922 That's a bit outside my comfort zone. But I'll bear with you.^[Humor] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Random person no 362478479, Thank you! I am beginning to add more information now. It may be some sections at a time. Petra0922 (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question Should the criticism of محرر البوق brought forward by Petra0922 be discussed in a separate section or should the two related issues be treated together? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Petra0922

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

@Hemiauchenia:, please clarify why the reported editor is aware of the CTOP protocols. Courcelles (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Or at least remove the laundry list of reasons someone can be aware and place the actual reason in that place. Courcelles (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petra0922: Your current statement is 1,297 words long. Please bring it down to 500. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me do that. Petra0922 (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lettashtohr

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

Request concerning Lettashtohr

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Contentious topic designation

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

30 June POV edit, removing information that Malevich is considered to be central figure of Russian Avantgarde;
7 August POV, community consensus is to use Kiev for this historic period
7 August Removal "Russian and French painter", replacing this with "Ukrainian painter"", non-RS
7 August Still the same problem; sources are better now, though mainly partisan ones.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: N/A

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

CT alert, 10 June 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The user made about 150 edits and are not extended-confirmed. They were given a CT alert but continued to introduce POV edits in contentious areas. All their edits in July were reverted. Today they started edit-warring in Alexandra Exter, and I gave them a warning saying that the community does not allow non-extended-confirmed users to edit on topics related to Russian-Ukraine conflict (note that this is GS, not AE, though closely related). They responded without addressing the issue, basically a textbook example of RGW. So we are here.; The edits are clearly part of WP:GS/RUSUKR. There is an ongoing process which spills out to Wikipedia, when Ukrainians attempt to define everyone who is somehow related to Ukraine (e.g. born in what is now Ukraine) as part of Ukrainian culture. Since this is typically controversial, it became the subject of propaganda wars, prominently used by both sides.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Lettashtohr

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

Statement by Lettashtohr

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Lettashtohr

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

No comment yet on the CTOP side, but since the GS aspect is related, I will note: Please actually link to WP:GS/RUSUKR, preferably with an explanation of what extendedconfirmed is, when notifying someone of those general sanctions. While awareness is not strictly required for RUSUKR blocks, I would not be comfortable blocking someone who had only been told Please note that the community decided that non-extended-confirmed edits (such as you) may not edit articles on topic related to Russian-Ukrainian conflict with no further context. Here, I have elaborated on Lettashtohr's talk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those edits fall under the topic restriction in WP:GS/RUSUKR anyway, she died in 1949. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I thought I'd spotted something looking at this last night, but now all I see is [16], which predates the GS regime and isn't about article content besides.
Anyways, to the matter at hand, @Lettashtohr: You should not be making edits anywhere on Wikipedia, but especially in a CTOP area, that you know will likely be reverted. If you can acknowledge that, and agree to seek talkpage consensus for edits about the labeling of people and things as Russian/Ukrainian/etc., or in Kiev or Kyiv, I don't see a need for sanctions at this time. If you can't agree to that, I would favor an editing restriction—probably not a full topic ban, but something tailored specifically to these labeling disputes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melechha

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

Request concerning Melechha

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SamX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Melechha (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/India-Pakistan#Contentious topic designation

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

13:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC): Restoring Battle of Sangamner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to preferred version, characterizing another user's edits as "vandalism" after I'd advised them not to
14:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Reverting sourced material with the edit summary Give your citation dude else you will be banned by disrupting this article for no reason
18:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Polemics: You are so ignorant regarding Maratha history[reply]
19:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Essentially the same comment as above
19:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Another revert on Battle of Sangamner, again describing another user's edits as "vandalism"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: None that I am aware of

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 21:57, 5 August 2023‎ (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Admins: Please note that, while this section is titled "Melechha", I am requesting an investigation of and potential enforcement against all three editors mentioned in this report.

Melechha requested assistance on my talk page after I warned them for adding a copyright violation to Siege of Ponda, possibly under the mistaken impression that I'm an administrator, saying that they were "tired of these vandalists like @ThePakistanihistorian and others for their external interests". I wasn't sure what they mean at first since they didn't link to the article under dispute or provide diffs, but a quick look at the editor interaction analyzer revealed a dispute on Battle of Sangamner. I explained to them that TPH's edits weren't vandalism and advised them to resolve the issue on the talk page or at an appropriate dispute resolution venue. Since several other parties appeared to be involved in that dispute, I posted contentious topic notifications on their talk pages. I also noted that they also seemed to be using the account Melechha2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and advised them of WP:SOCK, to which they replied Yes I have been using my alt for editng with PC.

Shortly afterward, two other parties to the dipsute (ThePakistanihistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Aryan330 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) began commenting on my talk page. It's worth noting that Aryan330 is indefinitely p-blocked blocked by Black Kite from Mughal–Maratha Wars and has been warned by Abecedare for disruption on Draft:Battle of Umberkhind (an article at the time) and Battle of Pavan Khind. I repeatedly advised the two editors to instead discuss the matter on the article's talk page or at appropriate dispute resolution venues and refrain from accusing each other of vandalism, with little success. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also revert-warred on the article, although, to their credit, they engaged in discussion on the article's talk page without accusing anyone of vandalism. I only alerted them to the contentious topics procedures just now, which is an oversight on my part.

Since I'm not just requesting enforcement against Melechha, I've compiled diffs from the two other editors below. These diffs might not be exhaustive.

Aryan330

Contentious topics alert

17:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Incivility: did you have common knowledge about history atleast?
02:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Calling another user's edits "vandalism" after I'd warned them not to[reply]

ThePakistanihistorian

Contentious topics alert

05:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Accusing Meleccha of vandalism and stridently called for them to be sanctioned[reply]
8 August 2023 (UTC) Personal attack/WP:OWN: don't you ever dare to rechange it again, like even the amateurs know that it's a mughal victory
8 August 2023 Personal attacks: why are you being so sensitive about it, you are trying to be the victim here while you started this entire argument, do better.

I'm at my wit's end here. It's obvious that there's an intractable dispute going on that I don't have the necessary experience to deal with. It's very late in my timezone and I'll be fairly busy tomorrow, so I probably won't be able to reply here until 18:00 UTC. This is my first time participating at AE so I apologize if I've screwed up here. I'd also welcome feedback on my haphazard attempts to get the parties to resolve the dispute amongst themselves. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Abecedare and Black Kite since I bungled the pings earlier. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Melechha

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

Statement by Melechha

Statement by Aryan330

First of all I had to say that there are some false allegations made by user samX as he said warned by Abecedare for disruption on Draft:Battle of Umberkhind (an article at the time) and Battle of Pavan Khind,which is untrue & I had told him at his talk page now,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169307732. I had started the discussion as the topic name "Vandalism" thought I apologise even after not knowing what my mistake was!I just reported @samX that :- user عبدالرحمن4132 is voilating three revert rule,nothing more than that. thought I shouldn't use the word like "Vandalism" as I already apologized about that in talk page of SamX https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SamX I will not repeat the same. Thought the query I had raised,nothing wrong in that as user عبدالرحمن4132 had made 4 reverts in less than 48 hours https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sangamner&action=history this user is also warned by samX previously,see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169256728, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169300167. & It was my first & last edit on that page,I had neither edited further nor engaged in edit war as user عبدالرحمن4132 engaged. Now he is also making articles on by one by sticking to only one source jadunath sarkar which is pretty dated source & can't be used as citation.The senior Wikipedia users also said same the user Abecedare & RegentsPark also said the same,see :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1163841364. If one source is not considered as reliable & the user is creating articles one by one using that only source then as a Wikipedia user I had to raise a query & that what I done. Note:- I had not Disrupted the page seige of basavapattan as the user accusing me on false claims https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169305568. you can see that page where I even don't edited single time:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Basavapatan. He is adding wrong word "Disruption" as I just told him that his edits Is seems to be unconstructive & I will edit it soon & please don't distrib talk page of other user as he disturbed the talk page of Materialscientist & I just said to him that we can discuss it on that respective article & that's why I told him to come at page of basavapattan,see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169297504. About ThePakistanihistorian :- I had just commented that he had used abusive language for personal attack which was addressed by samX himself here. The issues raised by samX which are familiar with the issues I raised https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169288983https:/ ,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169292668, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169289164. Even after that I addressed him on his talk page,but rather than correcting a mistake,he warned me https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169292668 Thank you

@Abecedare First of all I was blocked for the things I do in past on the page mughal maratha wars which is only because of not knowing Wikipedia policies that time & thats over there.but that doesn't mean you can judge me on that basis!

No one is completely neutral in whole Wikipedia because even on that page mughal maratha wars those two users Capitals00 & aman.kumar.goel were pro mughals or anti Maratha but black kite had blocked only me because that time I didn't know about Wikipedia policies.But now I am aware of that. You said about WP:RS applied

to history articles, I wonder how you are saying that even by knowing that after that I was discussed about battle of Pavankhind in talk page without harming main article pag e? Even at last I didn't Edited if after knowing my mistake & realising what WP:RSis, especially releted to history articles

Thats why I am convincing user عبدالرحمن4132 about his mistake in his latest created articles. that's other point that he is accusing me for Disruption rather than working on that or thanking me.

My Condition Now :- I am totally aware of Wikipedia Policies,WP:RS especially releted to History articles.

So think next time before talking about that.

My role in this discussion:- This discussion is mainly because of 2 reasons.

1) Disruption on page Battle of Sangamner :- I had edited or reverted article section of that page only single time,while in talk page I written more than 3 comments.

2) Unnecessary Discussion on talk page of samX :- though I only reported about Disruption of user عبدالرحمن4132 because of violating Wikipedia three revert rule as he had made 4 reverts in less than 48 hours which is true & you can check this on article section of page of Battle of sangamner.The only mistake in whole I committed is I started the discussion with wrong topic name Vandalism as I should had write it as Disruption.this is the only mistake I done & speaking honestly this is not that very wrong thing I done as I accept my mistake but thats not that very wrong same as عبدالرحمن4132 done by violating that rule. Aryan330 (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorkamran The word which you are claiming to be descrimnery is Mleccha. But that user is having the name Melechha which is not appearing to be related or as same as the word you mentioned Aryan330 (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ThePakistanihistorian

Statement by عبدالرحمن4132

Hello!

First of all, the user seems to have removed my sources, which prove that the Battle of Sangamner was a Mughal victory, and used a source that says otherwise. I fixed the article according to the source, but still to no avail. I've taken this to the talk page to discuss until the user, Melechha, accused me of being vandalistic and ignorant, assuming I'm committing bad faith on the article. He also assumed that one of the sources I've provided was not only that but said that one of my sources, which is Jadunath Sarkar, claimed he corrected his mistake in his fifth edition, and I've asked him to show me that fifth edition but never replied till now.

The other user, @Aryan330 had also begun disrupting my articles by removing the source in Battle of Shivneri Fort and Siege of Shivneri Fort, he also attempting to disrupt my article in future which I created Siege of Basavapatan , which is Jadunath Sarkar, who provides great military details about battles, claiming it is a dated source I don't know what that means, but you cannot remove sourced content just because you find an issue with him; otherwise, the reasoning he provides doesn't really make up for it, claiming the following in Battle of Pavan Khind talk page: & about this battle it should not as his works are primarily depend on persion sources and sardesai said that persion sources remained silent on this Battle for reputation.

Due to his bad English, I'm assuming he's talking about Persian sources, which he seems to have an issue with.

Statement by Editorkamran

Melechha should be blocked for username violation alone. His username is a slur used for foreigners. See this and also our page on Mleccha. Editorkamran (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abecedare

Haven't taken a look at the current dispute that sparked this AE report although I have been pinged several times by various parties in the past few hours when I was offline.

Placing myself here since I have previously interacted with Aryan3000 (see here and here) and Melechha (see here) regarding sources/content and, IMO, neither seem to have an adequate grasp of WP:RS especially as applied to history articles. This combined with their obvious pro-Maratha leanings in the centuries old Maratha-Mughal wars (which unfortunately have relevance to religio-cultural wars in contemporary India and Pakistan) makes them somewhat of a time-sink in this topic area. This is not to absolve the other editors involved in the fracas whose conduct I haven't taken a look at. Abecedare (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TB

A plague-on-both-your-houses-approach is needed, except for Editorkamran. Melechha needs an username-ban, as argued. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Melechha

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

Melechha is problematic in both username and editing. Indeffed them and their sock. This does not resolve this filing, though, despite its naming. Courcelles (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just thinking aloud here, but I wonder if a sourcing restriction would be beneficial on some of these Mughal–Maratha Wars articles. No restoring non-academic sources without consensus, something like that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards