Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive365
JiruAuriverde
[edit]| JiruAuriverde is indefinitely blocked as a standard administrative action. — Newslinger talk 07:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JiruAuriverde[edit]
n/a
User has made no edits to talk pages, just goes from one article to another every so often making the same disruptive changes.
Discussion concerning JiruAuriverde[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JiruAuriverde[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning JiruAuriverde[edit]
|
Unchagaon
[edit]| indeffed as a regular admin action. asilvering (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Unchagaon[edit]
One CT/SA warning was issued on 30 December 2025.
In summary, this user's is the kind of badly-formatted, broken-English fancruft that WP:CT/SASG is intended to prevent.
Discussion concerning Unchagaon[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Unchagaon[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Unchagaon[edit]
|
Thisischarlesarthur
[edit]| Thisischarlesarthur is indefinitely blocked. The first year of the block is an arbitration enforcement restriction, which may only be appealed via the WP:CTOPAPPEALS process. — Newslinger talk 07:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Thisischarlesarthur[edit]
It is clear that Thisischarlesarthur has zero interest in abiding by their topic ban and that they are a net negative to this project. Notably, their contributions indicates that almost all of their edits have been in the topic area. TarnishedPathtalk 00:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Thisischarlesarthur[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Thisischarlesarthur[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Thisischarlesarthur[edit]
|
Raskolnikov.Rev
[edit]| Raskolnikov.Rev is reminded to be mindful of our definition of reliable sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
 Comments in this thread are restricted because an administrator has placed this enforcement request under an Arbitration Enforcement participation restriction (AEPR). Comments violating the restriction may be moderated or removed and may result in sanction of the commenting user. This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Raskolnikov.Rev[edit]
In diffs 1 and 2 there is misrepresentation of source reliability and content, in comments in a merge and a move discussion. In diff 1 (merge discussion), this list includes opinion pieces, letters pages, WP:GUNREL sources, and sources that don’t discuss the subject at all (e.g. Chaitin 2008). Raskolnikov claimed that they were "RS on this that reports on and analyzes it as a distinct subject". In diff 2, (RM at Nuseirat rescue and massacre), Raskolnikov claims to provide a list of "extensive RS that call it a massacre" but the list includes non-RS and “no consensus on reliability” sources, opinion pieces, WP:GREL sources that used other terms from the RM “raid”/“operation” but include attributed quotations of others calling it a "massacre" (Guardian, WaPo). These all are presented as "RS that call it a massacre". In diffs 3 & 4, Raskolnikov takes two sources listed as no consensus/additional considerations with a specific note about AI use and comes to diametrically opposed conclusions (in 3, the spectre of AI is exaggerated - RSP's noting it that additional considerations apply and that it "may have published at least one AI-generated article" becomes an unusable source as it In diffs 5 and 6, reverts reliably sourced content off a page using again selectively applied sourcing standards. In diff 5, Raskolnikov reverted inclusion of material as not due. On talk she objected to the quality of the source base and the fact that the precipitating edit request had cited a WP:GUNREL source. The material she reverts in diff 5 was sourced to 5 WP:GREL sources. The editor who had included it posted a further list of extensive sourcing, almost all to RSP listed WP:GREL sources. Raskolnikov stopped engaging on talk, but reverted again (diff 6) when another editor re-added a small portion of the material (with sourcing). With extensions, I can give more examples of tendentious evaluation of sources, or detail exactly how specific sources in diffs 1 and 2 are misrepresented. There are also violations of things like WP:AGF (diff 3) where I've seen other examples. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Raskolnikov.Rev[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Raskolnikov.Rev[edit]Samuelshraga characterizes policy-based editorial disagreements that a routine part of the consensus-building process as "tendentious". However, my actions show a consistent effort to uphold WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE in a highly contentious topic area. Diff 1: I categorized sources based on direct relevance and reliability, including Chaitin (2008), and can provide quotes upon request. When Samuelshraga challenged my sources, I answered in detail. He failed to respond substantively and is now resurrecting this, despite himself questioning Middle East Eye reliability in that discussion without any RSN basis. Diff 2: This misrepresents the source base, and is a year old and stale. It concerns a page where discussion led to a moratorium and retaining "massacre" per strong consensus. Others also showed the usage in sufficient RS, confirmed in multiple prior RMs. I previously addressed inaccurate claims regarding source quality. Diffs 3 & 4: The "double standard" allegation regarding AI-flagged sources stems from a misunderstanding of WP:BLP. Diff 3 involved a contentious BLPCRIME allegation. Because WP:TIMESOFINDIA has additional considerations, notes AI use, and the piece has AI signs, I argued for a higher BLP bar for this uncorroborated allegation. Diff 4 concerned a routine protest report corroborated by ABC, written by a former NYT reporter, and lacks AI signs. I explained this, yet Samuelshraga omitted it here. Diffs 5 & 6: See ongoing discussion in talk, these were challenged for failing BLP, RS, V, DUE, NPOV and CRITICISM, as another editor also noted, and weak tabloid sourcing (Australian Daily Telegraph), admitted by Samuelshraga. Yet here he cites that as me "removing reliably sourced content" and "The material she reverts in diff 5 was sourced to 5 WP:GREL sources". It is easy to demonstrate that I am not "gatekeeping", as another editor subsequently added some of the same content that has received sustained RS coverage and adhering to NPOV, CRITICISM and BLP standards as I noted, which I did not challenge. Regarding "stopped engaging in talk", it's a link-dump without any proposed changes by the editor who did diff 5 ignoring what I said about BLP and other standards. Instead of faulting them for violating BLP, V, DUE, etc., Samuelshraga is using their edits to fault me, and cited a very weak source to justify inclusion of other content. This filing appears to be an attempt to use AE to bypass talk page consensus-building and violates WP:AGF as it relates to my (misrepresented) edits. I have remained engaged and have adjusted my positions when presented with sources that meet the high bar required for contentious biographies. I am available to provide further details to administrators as needed. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Statement by Kowal2701[edit]Ngl Arcticocean, sorry but I was surprised you referred to RR's analysis in the previous AE as a
Statement by Smallangryplanet[edit]I find this request more than a little bit concerning. Samuelshraga's claim about diff1 is the most problematic as it involves a misrepresentation of a reliable source. I read the Chaitin source in full for use in the article. Samuelshraga says it Without getting too into the weeds of a content dispute, this source is a critical secondary reference for this article. All the others are GREL like WP:GUARDIAN and WP:BBC or fall squarely under WP:RSOPINION and are published in GREL like WP:NEWREPUBLIC and WP:LATIMES. All of this is dismissed by Samuelshraga. This is pretty outrageous for an AE request centred on the charge of improper source handling! As for diff6, it stated Randa Abdel-Fattah "posted a link to the group chat" without context. The February 2024 source mentions this in one sentence, insufficient for BLP standards. The January 2026 source provides context (Adelaide Writers' Festival controversy, alleged hypocrisy regarding boycott), but the added text didn't reflect this or framing. The removal pending talk page discussion to establish dueness and proper phrasing was entirely warranted imo. If you're looking for Wikipedia:Partisans, it's not @Raskolnikov.Rev, it's the filer and the editor agreeing with them in that dispute who came in here to back them without any concern for the blatant and repeated source misrepresentations. I ask administrators to dismiss this report, and consider whether it was appropriate, especially given Samuelshraga's habit of filing frivolous AE/ANI cases against perceived POV-opponents in CTOPs that were all dismissed without action. Smallangryplanet (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Raskolnikov.Rev[edit]
|
Riposte97
[edit]| Riposte97 is warned to be more mindful of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Riposte97[edit]
There is a current dispute occurring at Imane Khelif, for which there is a current RFC, for which Riposte97 is well and truly involved. See edits to article and edits to talk page. Riposte97 was advised by @Katzrockso that they should revert their review during a discussion at User talk:TarnishedPath#Your nomination of Imane Khelif has failed, with Katzrockso noting that they were having a hard time WP:AGF in regards to Riposte97's actions. See also discussion at Talk:Imane Khelif/GA1 where other editors have stated that Riposte97's review was inappropriate. TarnishedPathtalk 06:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Riposte97[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Riposte97[edit]This is bizarre. The page in question was placed under full protection due to edit warring at this editor's own request. Now, they are stamping their feet because I happen to have been the editor who did what any of us would have done and QF'd the article. Riposte97 (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Statement by ~2026-83257-3[edit]Filing this dubious request for enforcement is further evidence of your own disruptive behaviour regarding the Imane Khelif article. ~2026-83257-3 (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Statement by Szmenderowiecki[edit]I am looking at XTools and Riposte97's contributions to the article is a mere 355 characters, or 30th place. I have a larger contribution but only because I rewrote the lead and did not otherwise interfere with the article. They have six edits to the article (41st place). So it's a stretch to say the involvement is significant. But let's even assume for the sake of argument it's true, given that they are engaging on the talk page. The protection log of Imane Khelif clearly shows that the reason of full protection (!) was edit warring. And you should know it because you requested full protection and cited "content dispute/edit warring" as the reason. If you believe there isn't a high risk of content disputes or edit warring with a lower page protection level, you shouldn't have applied for the increased page protection in the first place. That the GA nomination was quickfailed was a logical conclusion of your request. WP:INVOLVED/WP:NACINV does require editors with involvement in the topic to abstain from enforcing binding results, and on that point you are right. However, I don't think anyone would overturn the result given your own characterization of the topic. If you haven't thought this out, too bad. You can renominate the article once Khelif stops being a subject of RL culture wars. Which unfortunately may even never happen. Tough luck. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 12:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Statement by Aesurias[edit]Szmenderowiecki, I should note that Riposte97 has made more contributions to the page, but they were reverted. Aside from the "major contributor" rule which is specifically looking at contributions to the article namespace, Riposte97 is highly involved in the contentious talk page discussion (on the opposing side of TarnisedPath), and because of this, I don't believe that closing the GA was the right thing to do (especially given the fact that their edits make up a significant amount of reverted content which made the page unstable). aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Statement by Simonm223[edit]This page has been a lightning-rod for culture war antics for far too long. Multiple RfCs have attempted to bring some sort of decorum to a talk page that regularly hosts forum-like speculation that borders on transvestigation. I think Riposte97's comments on Thisischarlesarthur's block need to be understood in this overall context and I'd implore the admins to take disciplinary action here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC) Statement by Valereee[edit]I'm not involved w/re a GA quick fail of the article, but I'm involved w/re GENSEX there, so out of an abundance of caution since the original complaint has gotten muddled into GENSEX, I'll post here: I think at minimum looking at that GA, realizing it was an immediate quickfail, and doing it yourself when you've had ongoing disagreements with the other editor at that article was at best astonishingly poorly considered and at worst borders on baiting, whether conscious or not. Literally anyone could have flipped that switch, so doing it yourself didn't really save anyone else any time. In fact, doing it yourself has (not unpredictably) ended up wasting a ton of people's time. Valereee (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC) Statement by Tamzin[edit]Who are we kidding here? Riposte isn't trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of sports sex controversies. Their goal is to win a culture-war proxy battle over whether a specific living person is ~secretly trans~. They've decided who their allies are, and who their enemies are, and are treating users accordingly (see also WP:ANI § MjolnirPants CIV issues). When I removed a POV statement from the lede that failed verification in the cited source, they restored it, accusing me of OR—as Vanamonde and leek have noted. Riposte never apologized for or explained that deliberate restoration of a contested unsourced statement in a BLP—not then, only when challenged here offering the explanation that they reverted after only reading my edit summary (which included the words "the cited source does not assert this") without actually checking the cited source. It's hard to think of a clearer indication that they approach the article as a POV battleground rather than something meant to reflect what's verifiable in reliable sources. The philosophy of escalating warnings and gentle attempts to deter misconduct is based on an assumption that someone's editing in a given area is fundamentally based on a desire to improve the encyclopedia. I don't think that assumption is reasonable given how Riposte has behaved both on the article and its talkpage. Enough with the kid-gloves stuff. This is someone knowingly introducing errors into a highly sensitive BLP to further their personal agenda. A TBAN from Khelif should be the minimum sanction anyone's considering here. It's also important to consider systemic bias issues here. Frankly, I think if Khelif were some American Internet personality instead of an Algerian boxer, we wouldn't have so many people treating it as an acceptable state of affairs for her talkpage to be full of this nonsense, or suggesting just warnings for those responsible. Hell, we full-protected Brianna Wu's article just to keep her from being outed as trans, and that was someone who actually is trans and lives in a country where it's legal to be. Khelif is a real living person subject to constant threats, harassment, and attempts to brand her as something that is illegal where she lives; right now we are falling short of our duty of care to her as a BLP subject. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC) Result concerning Riposte97[edit]
|
Quick Enforcement Requests January 2026
[edit]Talk:Textbooks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
[edit]- Talk:Textbooks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Requested action: Just a quick request that an administrator remove the duplicate ARBPIA talk notice. I imagine this could probably be done myself, but the template technically says any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator.
, so if someone could do so, would be appreciated. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Thunderbird L17
[edit]| Thunderbird L17 is topic banned from gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people, broadly construed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Thunderbird L17[edit]
Thunderbird L17, arguing that it wasn't necessary to state in Imane Khelif that she is not transgender because no one is saying she is, first asked for a major media outlet saying some public figure had said so at , and then asked for a quote at , and then argued Trump hadn't said that at and , and then that Trump was known for not stating things clearly and asked for another public figure at and also is arguing that Trump saying she "transitioned" isn't the same as Trump saying she is "transgender" here. Now apparently arguing it's hypocrisy that WP requires different standards for saying Khelif isn't transgender than for saying she "admits to having SRY gene" here.
Removal of CT alert here
This very infrequent editor hadn't edited in over a year. Three days ago a reddit post covered this new story and discussed the WP article, and user came in and has made twice as many edits at Talk:Imane Khelif as at any other article or talk in their 20+years of editing, mostly arguing that no one is saying Khelif is transgender so there's no need for Wikipedia to state she's not transgender. Valereee (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Thunderbird L17[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Thunderbird L17[edit]I rarely edit Wikipedia anymore because it feels like the established narrative on a page and the procedure of allowing edits is more important than just stating the truth. It takes too much effort to effect change, even if the change you're trying to make to a page is factually, provably true. I had monitored the Imane Khelif page for some time, and observed the unchallenged false statements on it. I knew the entire controversy was about whether or not Khelif had XY chromosomes, an SRY gene, and a DSD. But the Wikipedia pages have always framed the issue with a straw-man argument that Khelif had been falsely accused of being transgender. When I saw in the news last week that Khelif had made a public statement about the SRY gene I decided to see if the page was going to finally reach a neutral and unbiased state, and acknowledge what the controversy was actually about. As expected, I saw on the talk page that certain editors were working hard to keep the quote off the page. I saw the request for comment and decided to try adding my voice to the conversation. I didn't come from Reddit or anywhere else. In the discussions I pointed out that the Imane Khelif page and the related 2024 Summer Olympics boxing controversy also make claims that "Several public figures, including then U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and author J. K. Rowling, referenced the incident in political commentary about women in sports, often incorrectly suggesting Khelif was transgender." That claim is false. There are no quotes from any public figures that I can find accusing Khelif of being "transgender", certainly not from J. K. Rowling. The closest I can find is a quote from Donald Trump about people "in the boxing" who "transitioned". That quote is unclear, but is also from a single public figure who is well known for being unclear. So I wondered if I could actually make a small difference in the conversation by pointing out that fact. In a discussion about how what exactly Khelif said was just so important, maybe I could respectfully point out that what exactly people like J. K. Rowling said was important too, and that they were being misrepresented on the same page. The results have been unsurprising to me. No engagement with the actual fact that those claims are false. Just personal attacks against me for going against the established narrative on the page. And now this. I have no idea what exactly I'm supposed to defend here, and honestly at this point I really don't care. It's all taken up too much of my time and I'll probably give up on Wikipedia again for another few years. But facts are facts. If you want them to be on Wikipedia, then put them there. But if you want to drag me through arbitration to preserve the provably false narrative that multiple public figures are accusing Khelif of being transgender, then do that. I've said my peace. Thunderbird L17 (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC) Can I ask why this arbitration was even started by User:Valereee in the first place? According to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom, "All conduct issues should first be discussed at the talk page of the users involved." If this is a conduct issue that Valereee took issue with, then why did they not bring it up on my talk page first and resolve it that way? What are we even doing here? Thunderbird L17 (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
@Valereee I received one complaint by a user for using "they" instead of "she". I amended my comment as a result and was more carful with my pronouns going forward. I thought that would be the end of it. Like I said, this entire experience has soured me on ever answering a "Request for Comment" on Wikipedia again. I just don't understand why you wouldn't reach out first instead of pushing this to arbitration. Thunderbird L17 (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Statement by TarnishedPath[edit]There's a discussion between myself and Thunderbird L17 at Talk:Imane_Khelif#Responses underneath my !vote. Some of diffs provided by Valereee make up part of that discussion. In that discussion, Thunderbird L17 repeatedly attempts to WP:GASLIGHT me, telling me that Trump didn't say what he clearly said. I've taken the page of my watchlist and unsubscribed from the threads in very large part because of Thunderbird L17's conduct. Looking at Thunderbird L17's comments at Talk:Imane_Khelif it is harder to find comments which aren't problematic than it is to find ones which are. Two diffs which stand out are Special:Diff/1337356009 where they state that the issue has always been about "a male DSD" and then Special:Diff/1337380747 where they state that @Katzrockso has engaged in a "dishonest misrepresentation" for quoting what they wrote. TarnishedPathtalk 23:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC) Statement by Nil NZ[edit]Just to clear up some confusion: it appears Thunderbird is confusing the CTOP alert that's being discussed above with a warning they received here from DanielRigal. The difference is rather moot, however, as both the alert and warning should have been heeded when he removed them from his talk page. In response to DanielRigal's warning, Thunderbird calls our MOS:GENDERID guidelines " Statement by Black Kite[edit]
Statement by Kingsindian[edit]I have a question/comment about MOS:GENDERID about the pronoun "they". Suppose someone self-identifies as a woman. Doesn't matter for this question whether they're cis or trans. Am I not allowed to use the singular "they" as a pronoun for them in talk page discussions? Where does MOS:GENDERID prohibit this practice? As far as I can see, the only sentence at all dealing with "they" in the MOS is this: I understand completely that it's a problem if someone uses "she" for a person who self-identifies as a man (or vice versa). That problem arises because "she" or "he" are not gender-neutral. But the singular they is a gender-neutral pronoun, and useful precisely because of it is so. I use the singular they all the time in my normal conversation. I mostly stay away from this topic, so please excuse my ignorance. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Statement by DanielRigal[edit]Thunderbird L17 claims confusion but I'm not sure that I buy it. I think the use of "they" was almost certainly intentional and gratuitous and that the response to my warning was only feigned ignorance. I think that some other diffs support this suspicion. Here we have Thunderbird L17 trying to put the nonsense phrase "male DSD" on Khelif. (That's on Talk, so it's not as egregious as it would be in the article itself but it's definitely not good.) When Thunderbird L17 rephrased that comment after I reverted it it was accompanied by a snippy edit summary. Then there is the old "why are you assuming what my pronouns are?" shtick which is a bit of a tell. Of course, I have no way to be absolutely sure about what Thunderbird L17's intentions are but I think subtle but intentional trolling is the simplest and most plausible explanation for what has gone on here. I think a topic ban from GENSEX would put a stop to this without preventing Thunderbird L17 from contributing constructively in other areas if desired. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Thunderbird L17[edit]
|
Alaexis
[edit]| Closing without action. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Alaexis[edit]
3 Feb 2026 - Alaexis adds to the BLP article of Hussam Abu Safiya (a Gazan doctor who was has been detained without charge by the Israeli military since Dec 2024) that "Abu Safiya holds the rank of colonel in the Directorate of Military Medical Services. The directorate is part of Hamas but is separate from its military wing." This was sourced only to two Arabic language sources of unestablished (and seemingly dubious) reliability,[1][2] and to a Times of Israel article.[3] Alaexis' edit summary was simply: "position". Their edit was reverted per edit summary of "This is WP:SYNTH, combining unrelated reporting from weak Arab language sources to an unverified Israeli military claim in ToI [Times of Israel]. It also fails WP:DUE and WP:BLP. Seek consensus". Alaexis' edit was made immediately after an edit adding similar content was removed per "JP [Jerusalem Post] cannot be cited for controversial claims, and ToI [Times of Israel] cites it back to an Israel lobby outfit NGO Monitor. Needs stronger source base for inclusion in a BLP". I believe this is a clear BLP violation and very similar to the edit Alaexis was previously warned over. The sources cited are not sufficient to establish this information is DUE, and the statement that "the directorate is part of Hamas" is disputed by Al Jazeera and Drop Site News and implies "serious accusations of involvement in a designated terrorist organization. As such, WP:BLPCRIME considerations apply."
See "Notice of a logged contentious topic warning" above.
Not only was this edit made by Alaexis but they continue to argue for it's restoration in the talk page discussion, putting forth more poor sourcing to justify their edit, citing the Times of India (a problematic source per WP:TIMESOFINDIA), the Jerusalem Post (which "should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict"), and two sources of unestablished reliability (Misbar (Arabic) and The Media Line). The Misbar source is titled (per machine translation) "The title "Colonel"... How did the occupation turn an administrative title into a terrorism charge against Dr. Abu Safiya?", and one user's analysis of it states that the article "provides effective reasoning for opposing inclusion of the "colonel" information absent the necessary context it provides, for doing so legitimizes the Israeli campaign to justify his detention and abuse. It explains that titles like "colonel" and "military medical services" are civilian administrative designations with no operational military meaning, and that deploying them outside their specific administrative and legal context produces a misleading perception (تصور مضلل) of military affiliation where none actually exists."
Replying to arcticocean's statement that Alaexis' edit "appears to have been appropriate and necessary for a full coverage of the subject: if he is affiliated with Hamas as a doctor, that clearly would be an important secondary occupation in the subject's life." First of all, what's due for inclusion in BLPs is based on what "high-quality, reliable sources" consider due for inclusion. None of the 6 sources put forth by Alaexis are high quality, all being either unknown/unestablished or having explicit caveats about their use. The Times of India article is abysmal and says that Abu Safiya "is allegedly a colonel in Hamas, The New York Post reported, citing the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Jerusalem-based watchdog group NGO Monitor." These three sources the Times of India cites are all unreliable sources of misinformation. The Times of Israel article also cites these same three sources. Second of all, Dr Abu Safiya is not "affiliated with Hamas". The Al Jazeera source is titled "Debunking the smear campaign against Dr Hussam Abu Safiya", and that's exactly what this is, a smear campaign. Per the Al Jazeera source: "Israel has made a number of claims to justify his incarceration, some of which were recently repeated in an article in the New York Post. But are any of them true? Claim one: Dr. Abu Safiya was a member of Hamas. This claim is false." The Times of Israel article says that Abu Safiya was "wearing a Hamas uniform". This is nonsense/misinformation. Per the AJ source: "Abu Safiya's uniform only signifies his employment by this directorate, the Military Medical Services, and in no way indicates membership in Hamas." + "Kamal Adwan Hospital, of which Abu Safiya is the director, is part of the Palestinian Directorate of General Military Medical Services. It's a government organization that provides medical care to Palestinian police and security officers as well as civilians. The Directorate also operates in the occupied West Bank under the Palestinian Authority and its medical staff are often seen wearing similar uniforms." It is notable that the more reliable sources which cover this topic do not mention this colonel information, and Alaexis' edit stating the MMS is "part of Hamas" is wrong, poorly sourced, and BLP-violating. This is exactly the kind of misinformation and slander that BLP's insistence on using high-quality sources seeks to avoid. This is not only a BLP violation, it is a BLP violation of the worst kind, given that these claims are being used to justify the ongoing unlawful incarceration of a medical professional in a prison notorious for its inhumane conditions and use of torture. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
References
Discussion concerning Alaexis[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Alaexis[edit]This is yet another example of removing sourced information which without any policy basis which has happened a lot in this topic area. There are no sources that dispute the key facts (the rank and affiliation with the Directorate of Military Medical Services). Whether it's due is now discussed at the talk page, this is exactly what is supposed to happen when there is a disagreement. Several other editors also believe it's due. When there is a disagreement in RS on whether the said directorate is part of Hamas goverment or not we should present all main viewpoints rather than censoring one of them. This statement by IOHANNVSVERVS is misleading The edit summary of the revert shows the fundamental misunderstanding of the WP:RS policy. RS are allowed to use non-reliable information sources and do this all the time. Editors cannot use Youtube videos as a source but RS are allowed to do it because we assume that they do the due diligence. So using a source we deem unreliable is not a valid reason to remove a RS. Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs), regarding the two sources I used, I did reasonable due diligence
I concluded that these sources are appropriate for the affiliation and rank of Abu Sufiya. Based on the information that other editors found later about these sources, it appears that one of them is affiliated with Fatah and another one with Hamas. This is not automatically disqualifying - if both Hamas- and Fatah-affiliated sources tell us that he holds a senior position in the government, there is no reason to doubt that this is true, especially since no sources dispute that. Statement by Samuelshraga[edit]It seems like Alaexis is being reported for including a claim in a BLP that 2 GREL sources have reported (in their own voices) - that the subject is a colonel in the directorate of Military Medical Services. The filer repeats false claims such as that Alaexis included an "unverified military claim in ToI", but the content sourced to ToI is said in their own voice, not attributed to a military claim at all. As for the the use of the Palestinian media sites (Al-Watan and Al-Ray) to establish the subject's rank in their organisation is not the way that I think we should go about this, but their reliability for this claim in this context - that "Abu Safiya holds the rank of colonel in the Directorate of Military Medical Services" - is easy to defend. This was basic non-controversial biographical information at the time they published it. Alaexis was including the content after 2 GREL and 1 MREL sources covered it in detail in published articles, while the contrary sources that Alaexis is accused of ignoring here are: a tweet and a youtube short posted after Alaexis' edit. There are of course real content issues of WP:BLP and WP:DUE which are being discussed on the talk page, but I'm surprised to see this alleged as a conduct issue. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Statement by Lf8u2[edit]This is not a mere content dispute, it shows deliberate and repeated violations of core WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME policies, in a way that would lead to grave real-world harms to the BLP's subject, Hussam Abu Safiya. @Alaexis states Sustained high quality RS reporting states that allegations of Hussam Abu Safiya being a "Hamas colonel" lacks evidence. NBC News reports the Israeli military Misbar was selectively cited by Alaexis to support inclusion of the allegation. But Misbar refutes it, citing Physicians for Human Rights Israel saying that if the allegations held substance, Israeli prosecution would have filed formal indictment: Alaexis' edit itself violates WP:RS and WP:OR. The first part states in wikivoice: The PhD dissertation has been published. Al Watan voice is the source cited by Alaexis. It is analyzed as a partisan factional operation lacking reliability: Neither meets RS standards for WP:BLP/WP:BLPCRIME claims. Alaexis' responses to the lack of reliability of these sources has shifted. On February 4: On February 16 Alaexis admits not checking the reliability of these sources, and continued to defend their use for including the allegation that RS reporting states lacks any evidence: Crucially, the sole source for the allegation in the relied on deprecated WP:NYPOST and pro-Israeli advocacy group NGO Monitor report are these years old context free references to Hussam Abu Safiya in Al-Ray and other Palestinian sites. Al Jazeera fact-checked the NYPost piece as being false. Alaexis appears to have recreated the NYPost allegation by citing these sites in the first sentence directly, and then in the second indirectly through Times of Israel, which in turn relies on the NYPost report. Engaging in WP:OR in the second to confirm the "Hamas colonel" allegation, Alaexis added: To defend this edit in the talk discussion Alaexis cited WP:JERUSALEMPOST, which has additional considerations prohibiting its use for controversial claims, and also relies on deprecated New York Post/NGOMonitor; WP:TIMESOFINDIA, which has additional considerations and relies on NYPOST/NGOMonitor; The Media Line, a pro-Israel advocacy outlet whose founder and CEO works for Jerusalem Post, and also relies on NYPOST/NGOMonitor. The allegation thus circulated solely in highly partisan pro-Israeli outlets relying on the deprecated NYPost/NGOMonitor, far below the bar for WP:BLP/WP:BLPCRIME allegations of this magnitude. Engaging in OR/RS violations to establish the appearance of a stronger source base by recreating that report constitutes a fundamental breach of BLP obligations. Alaexis further argued others should produce sources disputing the allegation. This inverts WP:BURDEN. Under WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME, absence of refutation does not permit inclusion of serious allegations lacking a sufficient RS-basis and when high quality RS state no evidence exists. This is part of a pattern. Alaexis was sanctioned for 1RR violation (Aug 2025), warned about BLP source handling (Aug 2025), received a balanced editing restriction (Oct 2025), and received topic bans from PIA (30 days) and Hamas article (90 days) for edit-warring (Dec 2025). Lf8u2 (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Statement by EvansHallBear[edit]The issue of the Palestinian sources is largely a distraction. Abu Safiya's rank in a Palestinian government organization is probably not due but not a BLP concern. The problem is extrapolating from that information to imply membership or affiliation with Hamas. This is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that is not supported by any unbiased mainstream sources and flatly contradicted by Al Jazeera. After the initial direct allegation of Hamas membership from another user was reverted, Alaexis choose to misleadingly frame the MMS as "a part of Hamas" here to imply the association. They then advocated on talk for inclusion of this serious allegation as a potential "interpretation" here and here, and by claiming censorship here. It is worth considering that Alaexis has subsequently walked back attempts to mention a Hamas link (albeit after the filing of this request). EvansHallBear (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Statement by Smallangryplanet[edit]There is important context that was omitted from the ToI source by Alaexis that is absolutely necessary to include when inserting the controversial and contested claim that he is a 'Hamas colonel': This information stands alongside the significant RS we have already that say that Israel has not charged him with anything, including Hamas membership. Now the ToI source Alaexis (!) cited verifies this important BLPCRIME information...that verification was then omitted. @Theleekycauldron: you say that From ToI:
While ToI begins with Also, Theleekycauldron, when you say that @Vanamonde93, @Arcticocean, this is relevant w/r/t the provenance of Al-Ray/AlWatanVoice. They've been circulating in pro-Israeli circles since Israeli government sponsored influencer Eitan Fischberger's Twitter thread in 2024 linking to Al-Ray and Al-Watan. It was pointed out the translation was inaccurate and essential context was left out. Al-Ray is referenced in NewYorkPost, which Fischberger took credit for. Israeli gov/supporters non-stop accused Hussam Abu Safiya of being a 'Hamas colonel', sourced exclusively to a handful of Palestinian sites, which, again, are contested by other sources of at least comparable quality and Al Jazeera. It received no independent corroboration in any RS, while top-tier RS extensively report it lacks evidence/charges. These include NBC, CNN, AP, BBC, CBC, The Intercept. Assuming the allegation passes criteria for inclusion (which I don't believe per BLPCRIME and DUE), it would have had to include attribution; its contestation by many RS as lacking evidence or being outright false and lacking any formal charges, and the omitted line from the cited ToI that the IDF said it did not accuse him of terrorism. Instead no effort was made to make the controversial content adhere to wiki standards, after Alaexis was explicitly warned to be careful when handling primary sources in BLPs less than 6 months ago! Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Alaexis[edit]
|
TurboSuperA+
[edit]| There is an open request at AN. There is a rough consensus that having parallel discussions is unhelpful and since that one was opened first this report should be closed. This report may be re-filed (identically even) if the AN thread closes with no consensus (as in the May 2025 discussion), is archived without action, or if the consensus is to refer the problem to here. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Link to AN thread |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning TurboSuperA+[edit]
User talk:TurboSuperA+/ArchiveCTOP#Contentious topics alerts (January 2025)
My complaint has nothing to do with the current dispute about the Denis Kapustin (militant) lead; I've never objected to the neo-Nazi label. TSA+ has a long history of disruptive POV-pushing in the WP:RUSUKR area, including misrepresentation of other users; obstructionist conduct in discussions; and false accusations and personal attacks. WP:PACT. Sanctions against TSA+ have been repeatedly proposed, but not implemented; I hope we can end the disruption.
Discussion concerning TurboSuperA+[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TurboSuperA+[edit]HC wrote a 3500 word report at AN (thread is still live) and then directed editors here to AE. Diffs: 1) This is what I removed: 2) I objected to GeogSage's argument (I could have done it differently, but I was heated at the time given the context). GeogSage wrote: 3) In the Kapustin RfC I started HC kept implying impropriety on my part, even after telling me to go ahead with the RfC: 4) Misleading. I didn't do a "U-turn". I raised the issue of "coercion vs deception" before and after HC's comment: 5) Misleading. I never disagreed I don't see how this is relevant. The article in question, Vranyo, was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vranyo. I did not participate in the AfD. Editors thought it problematic and it was deleted by consensus. 6) This happened 9 months ago. I was a brand new editor. I was distressed that I was called a "wikivatnik" because I started an RfC. Allegation of canvassing was not unfounded, though perhaps misdirected. It is not a "wild accusation" when there is literally someone canvassing off-wiki to get me banned. Re: POV pushing. An ANI report from May 2025 that went nowhere is not evidence of "long history POV pushing". There were no reports since then. Which POV would that be anyway? Here is somebody accusing me of working for the Ukrainian government. Here is me saying we can't change an infobox to "Russian victory". Here I added a video of Ukrainian soldiers shooting down a Russian jet, etc. I can provide more examples if needed. If one side says I'm pro-RU and another side says I'm pro-UA, that's neutral editing. TurboSuperA+[talk] 21:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC) Statement by Butterscotch Beluga[edit]I'm uninvolved with this dispute & am mostly unfamiliar with the material in question, so I hope I can give an outside perspective here. Broadly, my initial reading is that these issues occurred due to TSA+ having a stricter interpretation of wording then HC. 1) I understand TSA+'s logic with the first revert as Kapustin's statement only refers to a specific antisemitic trope rather then antisemitism as a whole. I do not know what their objection to your reworded version was though, however I'll say that conceding the point after realizing consensus was against them is a virtue in editing. 2) I don't think that response was at all necessary, but I wouldn't interpret it as TSA+ insinuating GeogSage was a Nazi sympathizer. I may understand where their kneejerk jab at the phrase "The Nazis were bad guys" came from, but TSA+'s remark was unconstructive. 3) You did directly tell them to start that RFC , so I don't think it's fair to object to them doing just that. 4) TSA+ has already addressed this as not a change of position, but rather a dispute over specific word choice. There's also a difference between saying the recruiters in question were directly part of the Russian military & saying that their was Russian involvement in the process. 5) Again, TSA+ has already addressed this as their issue was with the specific details, not the expert's position. 6) They said their concern over canvassing was not baseless, which was true. The concern over canvassing was just unrelated to you, of which they apologized to you & you said you accepted it. While I definitely think TSA+'s style of writing can come off as argumentative & I hope they work on that, I also have concerns over how HC seems to be interpretating many of these situations in the worst possible light. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Statement by TarnishedPath[edit]Given that there is a pre-existing thread on another behavioural noticeboard about TurboSuperA+ at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#TurboSuperA+ not listening and misusing the guidelines this should probably be closed. TarnishedPathtalk 04:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Statement by Nemov[edit]It should be noted that Helpful Cat did not initiate the most recent report at AN, nor were they the only editor complicating that discussion with lengthy responses that made it nearly impossible to follow. Several editors suggested that this was the appropriate venue to address the alleged behavioral issues raised by multiple contributors. I disagree that this matter should be closed due to the existence of a prior AN thread. That thread can be closed, and the issue can be resolved here. Nemov (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Note from FIM[edit]held to his promise to do better in the topic area, and a warning that recidivism would likely see them TBanned).The phrase A plague o' both your houses! springs to mind, and I'd be surprised if this wasn't increasingly the view of AE admin regulars; perhaps a few regular players on both teams should be removed from the pitch. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Statement by TylerBurden[edit]I do not know what Fortuna imperatrix mundi means above, I have never opened an AE request against TurboSuperA+. What did happen is TSA+ opened one against me, the rather lengthy one that is linked, so perhaps you read it wrong? Either way I find it ironic that TurboSuperA+'s initial reaction to finding themselves reported on this board included complaining about HC ″compiling evidence″ against them, something that judging by the aforementioned report created by TSA+, they have nothing against when they are the one creating a report, since the depth of their report would have required not only close monitoring of my contributions, but specific combing/compiling for over a dozen diffs spread over several years they felt strengthened their position. This hypocrisy aside, my position on TSA+ is that they seem to have an issue staying objective in this topic area, demonstrated by several instances of attempting to downplay or outright remove on false premises the use of foreigners by the Russian military. If an editor is truly neutral as TSA+ claims to be, they shouldn't be misrepresenting what reliable sources are saying or outright deny them, like the examples I provided in the administrators' noticeboard , and I don't think the three diffs provided to demonstrate how neutral they are outweigh multiple pretty clear WP:TENDENTIOUS incidents. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning TurboSuperA+[edit]
|
Najibuddaulah1752
[edit]| Najibuddaulah1752 is reminded to adhere to the extended confirmed restriction in the Indian military history topic area. — Newslinger talk 07:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Najibuddaulah1752[edit]
n/a
Notified of South Asia at 20:05, 10 February 2026, further notified of Indian military restriction at 20:08.
Editor has yet to make a single edit that isn't related to Indian military history, no acknowledge to any talk page message.
Discussion concerning Najibuddaulah1752[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Najibuddaulah1752[edit]Statement by Vanamonde[edit]These are clear-cut ECR violations, but given that the reported user has now acknowledged the restriction, I suggest this be closed without further action. Further violations ought to be grounds for an immediate block. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Najibuddaulah1752[edit]
|
Eastiak shoron
[edit]| User:Eastiak shoron blocked until they acknowledge the CT/SASG ECR. Toadspike [Talk] 14:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Eastiak shoron[edit]
While this editor hasn't been directly problematic in editing, they've edited articles about SA political parties after both the contentious topics notice and then after an additional warning about the restrictions in this topic area. The editor is also pushing up against the very edges of political parties, with extensive edits to people closely tied with leadership of those political parties. The latter may not be actionable, of course, as ArbCom has taken a rather narrow interpretation of "social groups including political parties" in past discussions. Otherwise, I think this is relatively straightforward. This editor has given no indication that they are either aware of the restriction or intend to follow the restriction in the future.
I think this editor can be a very productive one (I re-reverted one of their edits after confirming the change myself, taking on the edit as my responsibility), but this is an extremely sensitive area, and so far, encouragement to engage on this subject has not borne fruit.
Discussion concerning Eastiak shoron[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Eastiak shoron[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Eastiak shoron[edit]
|
Aesurias
[edit]| Logged warning for Aesurias for topic ban violations. Additionally, a logged warning for Edittttor for ECR violations. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Aesurias[edit]
User also previously admitted on their talk page that they may have a COI because they "have a close connection" to Democratic Majority for Israel. Given that, I question whether they should have been editing the contentious topic at all, but definitely not without disclosing this on relevant articles.
[Response to Aesurias's comment:]
[Response to EaglesFan37's comment:]
[Response to EaglesFan37's comment:]
Discussion concerning Aesurias[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Aesurias[edit]Almost all of this seems to be about edits wholly unrelated to my topic ban? ... There are no PIA contentious topic templates on the Bondi Beach terror attack talk page, Pahlavi's article etc. Have I been topic banned from post-1978 Iranian politics & the Syrian Civil War and ISIL without realizing? (No!) Some of the other claims are gross distortions of what I actually said and did – particularly in the first edit. The only real points of substance here are 8, 9 & 10, which I will address. 8 was removed by choice a long time ago because I realized it probably skirts to close to the ban, but I didn't really connect it to the Yom Kippur war. 9 was a joke mocking both sides of political extremism ... I also removed it days after adding it, with the edit summary "Don't want this to be perceived as breaking PIA, I hadn't thought about it before". 10 was actually me reverting a temporary account who was trying to remove (what they perceived to be) criticism of Israel from an article, but I hadn't realized it at the time – I only saw a broken template and had no idea what "Study Group" was, I just saw the editor reported at AIV. (I did not write any of what was claimed above, it was pre-existing content that was removed) This, if I am being honest, appears to be a bizarre attempt at retaliation because I voted to delete a political biography of an unelected candidate that they wrote. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Statement by ~2026-92659-0[edit]
Statement by EaglesFan37[edit]I removed WP:PIA content from the Melat Kiros article due to it being added by a non-ECR user (same user who filed this Arbitration Enforcement request). Aesurias responded after I had made such removals, but before the user who warned him of the topic ban had. The Kip's first commenting on AFD: Me removing the ECR content added by non-ECR user: Aesurias commenting on the AFD: I will attest to Edittttor being a very quick learner on Wikipedia. After I asked this user to avoid WP:UNCIVIL, they told me to be mindful of WP:WIKIHOUND . When I explained to Edittttor what WP:RSEDITORIAL was , they were able to apply it to another article on the same day .I have not come across any other Wikipedians who have been making articles for progressive candidates challenging incumbents, so I'd be genuinely surprised if this user ended up being a sock. --EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Aesurias[edit]
|
