Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Transgender healthcare and people	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	11 Aug 2025	25 Aug 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Article titles and capitalisation 2	22 August 2025

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	25 August 2025
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles	none	(orig. case)	17 September 2025

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
CTOP/AE page protection logging	21 August 2025

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

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

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

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

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4

Initiated by Newslinger at 01:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#Definition of the "area of conflict"

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Newslinger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Patternbuffered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Long-live-ALOPUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification to Patternbuffered
• Notification to ScottishFinnishRadish
• Notification to Long-live-ALOPUS

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#Definition of the "area of conflict"
  • Change "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace" to "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of the editor's own userspace"

Statement by Newslinger

I recently encountered a user talk page discussion titled "Views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Gaza war", in which Patternbuffered said, "I was going to just revert, but I'll give you a day or so to clean it up", in reference to article content related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. As Patternbuffered was not extended confirmed, the extended confirmed restriction (ECR) of WP:CT/A-I prohibited Patternbuffered from performing the described revert.

Per current practice (e.g. ScottishFinnishRadish's warning of Long-live-ALOPUS in another discussion for violating ECR by posting another user talk page comment), my understanding is that ECR also prohibited Patternbuffered from starting the user talk page discussion in the first place. However, Patternbuffered pointed out to me that the wording of the clause in question excludes "userspace" from the "area of conflict" without additional qualifiers. Long-live-ALOPUS also interpreted the clause as it was written.

I do not believe it is the intent of the userspace exception to allow non–extended confirmed users to openly discuss the Arab–Israeli conflict on other users' talk pages in ways that are prohibited in other namespaces and restricted on article talk pages. I ask the Arbitration Committee to amend the clause to limit the exception to the editor's own userspace, which better reflects existing practice. — Newslinger talk 01:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: The problem is that, in the lead section of WP:CT/A-I, the text "with certain exceptions as provided below" contains a link to WP:CT/A-I § ARBPIA General Sanctions, which does invoke the term "area of conflict" in the bullet point "Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict." An editor who is unfamiliar with the case history cannot be expected to know that ECR applies to the entire topic area (and not just the defined "area of conflict") after reading the WP:CT/A-I page. — Newslinger talk 14:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Patternbuffered

As I wrote on my talk page I was fine with the warning and just curious about an apparent loophole. I agree it should be addressed to mitigate future confusion or conflict; how that should be done I will leave in more experienced hands. Patternbuffered (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

While at first glance the simple change seems unproblematic, there does need to be some allowance for posting on other users' talk pages. The first scenario that comes to mind is:

• User:Example is not extended-confirmed. They make a good-faith edit to content related to the area of dispute on a page that is not ECP protected.
• User:Foo reverts this edit on the grounds that Example is not extended-confirmed
• User:Example posts on user talk:Foo seeking clarification (maybe they didn't understand jargon used in the summary)
• User:Foo replies
• User:Example posts a follow-up question (e.g. perhaps still not understanding, perhaps disagreeing that the content is related to the dispute)

As long as Example is not sealioning or otherwise acting in bad faith, we don't want to prohibit this sort of interaction yet a simple reading of the proposed language would do that. My first thought is a much-wordsmithed "this does not include discussion of actions taken regarding a user's own edits that takes place on the talk page of the user taking that action." While "discussion with the editor taking that action" is simpler, it would prohibit follow-up to a reply given by a talk-page stalker which I don't think would be desirable. Other things to consider are that good-faith, genuinely new editors are not guaranteed to know about pinging users to their own talk page, won't know how to determine whether some other editor is or is not extended-confirmed and if the queried actions relate to more than one editor (e.g. User:Foo reverted user:Example and user:Example2) it is better for all concerned for all discussion about it to happen on a single page. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

At WP:ARBPIA4#Definition of the "area of conflict" it says "For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing...edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace.". And the application of ARBECR to PIA is "The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict." (my bold). So, even if "topic area" at WP:ARBECR is more general than "area of conflict", the ARBPIA page explicitly exempts userspace from it.

To repeat myself, ARBPIA4 does not apply ARBECR to the PIA "topic area" but only to the "area of conflict", which is a defined domain.

If ArbCom wants to replace the motion, they should do so with a motion to repeal and replace it, as this is not the first time the issue has come up and it won't be the last unless it is put to rest.

Personally I think that there is nothing wrong with a general userspace exemption, but reducing it to own-userspace would not be a big problem. On the other hand, restricting non-ECs from making comments in their own userspace would seem to have no purpose whatever, as there are other mechanisms for handling disruption. What sense is there in allowing edit requests on article talk pages but disallowing the same on own talk? I think own-userspace should be a general exemption to ECR in all topics. Zero^talk 12:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• The userspace exception was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 128 § Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) (July to September 2024), which was closed as having "currently no appetite on the committee to change the definition of the area of conflict". (See the two abandoned motions and comments by arbitrators about the exception.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

• The area of conflict language isn't found in Extended confirmed restriction – only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, with certain exceptions as provided below. All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article. The most recent clarification and motion says The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions. The "area of conflict" language is just an artifact on that page because of older decisions. ECR applies to all edits related to the topic area, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, I think that falls under WP:BANEXEMPT#2, and that's how I've always seen it handled and handled it myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  Newslinger, yeah, that should probably be fixed. It looks like it's just a supplemental page so it doesn't need a full motion so if my views align with the rest of the committee it should be a simple matter to tidy up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, SilverLocust. I was about to search for the discussion where I had analyzed this and said it should be changed. Here it is. My comment from 11:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC) is still my opinion on this matter. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles

Withdrawn by filer, to re-file for community review. Daniel (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Matrix at 20:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Matrix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Special:Diff/1311944697

Statement by Matrix

Daniel Case protected Italian brainrot with indefinite ECP. ARBPIA remedy 7 says "the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment" instead. I feel this would be more appropriate, along with lowering the protection to PCP, since the only section affected by this case would be "Controversial audios". Daniel Case told me to bring this to AE, but this seemed like a more appropriate location. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• Moved from arbitrator-only section. @Daniel: sorry, I'm still discombobulated at how arbitration works since it's my first time with anything like this (more of a Commons regular). I just want to get it reviewed. @SilverLocust: I thought the enforcement page was only to request bans? If it's easier I (or you) can move it there. Cheers, —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel Case

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I don't see this meeting any of the three criteria listed at "On Arbitration Committee review" at Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Standard of review, and this seems better framed for the criteria listed at "On community review". Would encourage the applicant to consider a different venue to review on that basis. Daniel (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @Matrix: with the greatest of respect - Daniel Case advised you to bring it to WP:AE (something you note in your filing that he recommended you do), and given your admission in your ping back to me that you are not familiar with Arbitration processes, I feel it would have been prudent to follow his advice. Daniel (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

    On a general note, I think an actually novel question of policy interpretation counts as "compelling circumstances that warrant the full Committee's action" (and historically what ARCA is for). I'm not saying that definitively does apply here, i haven't looked into it enough, but I think it might. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

    • That was indeed the criteria most likely (as the other two are clearly not applicable), and my assessment was/is that it doesn't meet the "compelling circumstances" threshold by quite a long way. If it helps formalise it, decline to review as this clearly fails the three criteria in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Motions

CTOP/AE page protection logging

CTOP/AE page protection logging: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Motion: Remove requirement for logging CTOP/AE page protections

Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Renewal of page restrictions and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Renewal of page restrictions are modified as follows:

If an uninvolved administrator (including the original enforcing administrator) decides that a page restriction is still necessary after one year, the administrator may renew the restriction by re-imposing it under this procedure and logging the renewal noting the CTOP invoked in the protection reason. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Logging and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Logging 2 are modified as follows:

Contentious topic restrictions, excepting page protections, must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action. Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Logging is modified as follows:

All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections, must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections.

A central log of all page restrictions and sanctions (including blocks, bans,page protections or other restrictions) placed as arbitration enforcement (including contentious topic restrictions) is to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log and Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Support:

1. I think with the bot and the language above this will be a significant process improvement and save oodles of time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Daniel (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
3. This does seem like it will be an improvement. - Aoidh (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I place about 100 of these protections per year. I should perhaps abstain from deciding if I need to continue to log these. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussions

Going to leave this up for discussion for a bit before I vote, on the (fairly high) chance that I'm missing an obvious reason to make people manually maintain a redundant log, and because I probably missed somewhere else these procedures are mentioned. In my view, the time investment of manually logging an enormous amount of page protections isn't worth the effort as we can just search the protection log for the CTOP name, and clearly see it in page histories. There might be some benefit to a specific language to use for the protection reason, so that's probably worth a discussion, too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I like this idea, though like Thryduulf I'd want to specify exactly how this needs to be noted in the log summary (my thought is a link to a specific shortcut for each topic) to make it so automated tools could comprehensively find each such protection. A bot that would then make a logpage from these somewhere would help alleviate concerns about this making the information harder to find. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

the thing about in-summary logging is that if an administrator forgets, they need to undo and redo the protection because you can't modify a log entry after you've hit the button. so, it adds some logistical complexity. not a dealbreaker, but something that needs to be anticipated – and lots of AE admins are old hands that wouldn't necessarily love using an automated tool to pre-fill the edit summary. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

That's still less work than opening up a new tab, heading over to AE/Log, finding the right section, and logging it there. Especially if they're on a phone or tablet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

maybe a template that hails a bot to come over, do the protection, do the logging, and remove the template? or a work-order page? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

My hope is to make it take as little effort as possible. One thing that became clear when I got access to revdel, and has been made crystal since I got oversight is that if something takes more than 3-10 seconds it's probably not getting done. I don't think having to change the protection on a page if you forgot to use the right reason in the initial protection is terribly onerous. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• I'd prefer a technical solution if we can wrangle one up. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm no technological wizard, but my first thought would just be "button in Twinkle page protection gadget that allows you to add page to relevant AE log." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• I support this change generally, and further support Kevin's proposal here. As Tamzin notes here, a bot-generated log allows the right balance of still tracking the records (and allowing manual adjustments where needed), while still making it lightweight for those protecting pages. Daniel (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm also satisfied with the bot Kevin put together. Just need to wordsmith the motions above, which Kevin has also helpfully provided some input on. I hope to get that taken care of in the next couple days. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Community discussion

Statement by Thryduulf

My first thought is that as CTOPs are (or at least should be) periodically reviewed to determine whether they are still required there needs to be an easy way to determine whether actions are being taken under it (some even have automatic sunset clauses if they aren't used). That doesn't have to be a manual log of page protections of course, but there needs to be some alternative if it isn't. My first thoughts are some sort of template for the talk page and/or standardised wording for the protection log that could be easily found by a bot or script. In "busy" ctop areas it wouldn't matter too much if 100% of page protections aren't recorded this way as there will be plenty of other actions that demonstrate its continuing need, but for quieter ones it is important because page protections might be the only actions being taken. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

I do think that we need to retain some log of this (and it could be automatic, as Thryduulf notes), particularly for CTOP that are not ECR by default, as these logs will later be what is evaluated to determine if the CTOP is still needed. For ECR-by-default topics, this is perhaps less important, as the protections will not necessarily be indicative of persistent disruption. There’s an edge case there as well, which is protection of Talk pages in ECR topics, especially when such protection is less than extended-confirmed. I’ve personally found temporary semi protection of high traffic article talk pages to be quite helpful for tamping down disruption without totally shutting the door on editors who have not hit XC _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Izno

I think this is a generally good idea, but it does extend to blocks as another example pretty trivially, so it needs support in a way that separates it from some kinds of editor restrictions.

Additionally, "searching the log" is a non-trivial point e.g. for metrics, as noted above. Consider ensuring you have the infrastructure in place to support that before passing a motion like this. There are a lot of ways a log summary can point to a CTOP. Izno (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

There are far fewer editor and page restrictions than page protections, so that's a pretty significant separation. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2025/Arab–Israeli conflict#Page sanctions (CT/A-I) is a tremendous waste of editor time and effort for very little gain. CT/SA is going to be the same. Blocks also fall in the high end of escalation of user sanctions, so it's good to have those logged alongside with warnings and such. Page protection is generally either ECR enforcement or the lightest touch to end disruption at a contentious article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

Administrator time is already a precious resource for AE. Making better use of it is always advisable. But the data a log provides is very useful, as others observe. In an ideal world the log would be entirely automated. We're not there yet, but perhaps there's a way to make logs automated for blocks and protections? I imagine we'd need to add some drop-down options to twinkle, which could add a tag that could be logged? Not my area of expertise, perhaps it's more complicated than that. But we had a bot maintain a list of ECR pages for a while, perhaps we still do, so this feels like it should be within reach. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

There's a lot of ways this can reasonably be done. Could add an edit filter that tags protection with CT/(whatever shortcut) to any protection that includes CT/(whatever shortcut) in the edit summary. Then you can look at the protection log and select a tag. Shabam, instant log. That just requires the protecting admin add CT/SA to all South Asian CTOP protections, or CT/A-I for Arab/Israel conflict protections to the edit summary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Jéské Couriano

I would say that protections should stay in the centralised log, provided they are not ones put in place across an entire topic area due to a remedy (i.e. no ECPs for the Arab-Israeli conflict, South Asian social strata, or Indian military history topic areas should go to AELOG). Those ones can very easily get away with a link to the relevant remedy in the protection log and nothing in the centralised one. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Tamzin

I think an automated replacement for page protections would be a good idea, but there would need to be a proper tool for it. On one side you'd have to enforce a machine-readable syntax. WP:CTOP, WP:AE, etc., might occasionally still be mentioned by reference, so I'm thinking something like [[WP:CTOP/<code>|Arbitration enforcement]] being the magic thing we look for. Policy could also note that any admin can update a protection to use that syntax if the protecting admin indicated an intent to invoke CTOP but used defective syntax. That part's all something ArbCom could mandate right now, but for the other side you'd need an easily available tool that can be used to search the protection logs for that magic string and refine by the relevant code, ideally such that we can do prefilled links to search results at the top of AELOG sections. That's not super hard, but it's also not like five lines of Python.

Sadly, I've already done my ArbCom tool development mitzvah for the year, but maybe someone else can come forward and take that on here. If not, though, perhaps this should be withdrawn until the technical infrastructure can be first set up—or passed as a suspended motion, pending that development.

Also, in any case, two edge cases that come to mind: One, what about salting? Strictly on a technical level that's title protection, not page protection, and it often coincides with deletion, which still would be logged manually. Two, if this goes the direction of only applying to ECR enforcement as some have suggested, in addition to Rosguill's point about discretionary protection of talkpages, what about ECR enforcement that intentionally underdoes it, e.g. semi-protection due to IPs violating an ECR on a related-content page? Do the exceptional nature of these protections merit a manual log? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I like Kevin's idea of an automated detection system that writes directly to the AE log (or a subpage thereof), with admins having the option to manually remove false positives or add false negatives. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by L235

In response to this motion, I wrote a bot that produces this table of all CTOP protection actions. It uses edit summary heuristics to identify which CTOP applies, but the table can also be easily manually edited. If the committee desires, I can run this regularly (say, daily), and this can replace the logging of protections. (It can also be extended to blocks and partial blocks if desired, and any other AE actions that are fairly standard MediaWiki logged actions.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that, looks good! I don't think blocks are a good use case because they often include diffs, either to behavior or AE threads. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

L235, what triggers this logging? Is it CTOP or Arbitration enforcement in the protection reason? If so I'm fine with setting some standard language and rolling with the bot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: It's a kludge of various heuristics. Currently, the protection is assumed to be an AE action if one of the following trigger phrases appears (case insensitive): "arbitration", "arbcom", "ctop", "ct/", "30/500", "contentious topic", "blpct", "blpds", "arbpia". Then, sorting into various CTOPs relies on some more heuristics, largely here: [40].

If you were to impose some standard mandate, my preference would be to ask admins to link to the CTOP page for the specific topic, for example WP:CT/BLP (or Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons), which will allow for easiest extraction of both the AE nature and the specific topic associated with the protection. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

You could, by the way, incorporate this into the text of the procedure. For example, something approximately like:

All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections, must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections.

KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: FYI, I've updated the bot such that it is also capable of notifying admins when they've made AE protection actions that need to be categorized because it wasn't apparent which CTOP they related to. It's currently dry-running it, but an example is available here. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

That's a great feature. Thanks for your work on this. Is the source for the bot available? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: it's publicly available at [41]. Thanks! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Raladic

if the manual logging of CTOP page protections gets removed, I would definitely like to still have an automated way that produces a table or page like the current log is so I can follow a very easy shortcut like going to WP:AELOG/2025#GG as a simplified overview. Having to do a manual search over edit summaries is not going to be useful for referring back to which pages were protected when. I find myself going to the AE log often enough when I need to check when certain CTOP pages were protected as it’s pretty good to have a very short list for each year to see patterns which can be helpful for SPI related investigations sometimes as they will sometimes go to similar pages. Raladic (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@SFR - Should the new modified part, which notes that adding the WP:CT/X will automatically log it, assumes that this will happen in every case, but we're still humans and accidental omission is all but guaranteed, at least sometimes, so should there be an additional remedy for if that happens be noted explicitly?

E.g. "If an administrator accidentally forgets to include the applicable topic page (e.g. WP:CT/BLP), which would result in the page protection not being automatically added to the Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections page, they must manually amend the protection page by doing X"

Where X is either direct edit, or causing a bot to do so from some manual auxiliary page like the WP:CFD/W procedure? Raladic (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

We don't outline every way that an enforcing admin can remedy a mistake with logging now so I don't think we need to get that far into the weeds in this case either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the explanation :) Raladic (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by ToBeFree

I got used to logging these; it doesn't take much of my time. As long as a bot does the logging, we'll still have an overview of which contentious topic designations are used or unused by administrators, so there's probably no downside in removing the need for logging. Making the process less complicated is probably a good idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Viceskeeni2

Viceskeeni2's AA topic ban is revoked. This is a last chance, so "conduct that would otherwise raise an eyebrow will probably cause the topic ban to return". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

Appealing user

Viceskeeni2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from Armenia and Azerbaijan topics, broadly construed
(imposed at AN § Disruptive editing of Viceskeeni2, logged at AEL § User sanctions (AA))

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Notification diff

Statement by Viceskeeni2

  Viceskeeni2's statement contains 966 words and is within 10% of the 900-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 900 words. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I hereby ask the Arbitration committee to please lift the sanctions put on me in March of 2025, which restrict me from editing on topics associated with Azerbaijan and Armenia. Since the sanctions, I have made approximately 385 edits to Wikipedia in various topics, contributed to various topic areas, made 4 articles (Sawt Safir al-Bulbul, Jabal e-Malaika, Altes Rathaus, Deggendorf, Ya Ali (phrase)), greatly contributed to 3 articles (2025 Iranian strikes on Al Udeid Air Base, Abu Fanous, Ya Ali), gotten into 0 problems or conflicts (atleast I cannot remember getting into any, if I have done so please correct me), become more mature over the last 5 months and gained more knowledge in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict and other topic areas. I genuinely regret past mistakes and promise to try not to repeat those mistakes, e.g. when I mistakenly edited on GS/AA article and then didn't contest the sanctions, knowing I did a mistake and will have to pay for it. I ask you to please lift the sanctions on topics associated with Azerbaijan and Armenia, including the conflict, because I have been on sanctions in connection to these 2 countries for almost a year now and have learnt from my mistakes, promising to become a better editor now and in the future. I would be very happy if the committee accepts this request, have a nice day. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Moved from Rosguill's section: I thought editing on userpages and sandboxes doesn't have anything to do with topic bans as they're not public articles or areas. If it actually violates the ban, I will immediately remove it and apologize for my mistake. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• The first time I was banned due to being new to Wikipedia and not understanding what I supposed to do and what not, and due to that breaking GS/AA multiple times and doing mistakes the admins could not keep up with properly (and we're fed up with me - I understand why), so I got banned, but then successfully got unbanned and was on a clean streak up to March where I stupidly edited on a page about the conflict (more specifically where I updated information about an Armenian church) and then got TBANed, not resisting though because I knew and admitted my mistake. Now 5 months have gone by, I'm on a clean streak and so on (everything I have referenced above). To answer your second question: My plan for if I get unbanned from that topic is NOT to go on an "offensive" again like I did earlier by 24/7 editing on pages about the conflict but rather update information on specific articles, expand information, correct grammar or other mistakes, update photos (look at my Wikimedia Commons page, I have tons of photos I prepare to upload) with new high quality ones and so on. I, again, apologize for past mistakes I have made and admit to them, and promise to continue trying to be on a clean streak, avoid conflict and not violate anything. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts The last time I was in a conflict was around Nowruz when I got into conflict with an Armenian editor on the page for Gata (food), when I wanted to insert the fact that it is apart of Azerbaijani cuisine but he/she resisted it and then it escalated quick but that's another topic (my ban was not because of the conflict with the editor, no violation there, but because of the afformentioned violation with the church). I'll try to avoid conflicts like these by not getting into contentious areas at first and rather focusing more on the things I mentioned than editing the conflict (I'll of course, if I'm unbanned, edit on the conflict too but not as offensively as I've done before but try to calm things down and back up from editing high-conflict pages). Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts because I'm very familiar with the topic, have become better over the past 5 months, believe I can edit again without causing problems like I did in the past, when I was new to Wikipedia, and because WP:5P, WP:OWN and WP:HOW state anyone can freely edit on Wikipedia and contribute to it and WP:BOLD states that if you see something wrong or bad you SHOULD correct if, which I already stated before is my first aim if I get unblocked from the topic, e.g. with newer and high quality pictures. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts What should I do from this point on? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts sorry if I'm bothering but it's almost been a week, I'm curious if there is any progress on the topic. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts And is there any way to maybe change the opinions of admins declining or do anything else to have my request accepted? Rosguill, the person who unbanned me himself, said my request says the truth. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts So, by my understanding, you're the only admin that has responded to this request and has rejected it? If so, may I ask why. Also, I'm pretty Rosguill meant "the truth" in his commentary, specifically when he verified that I, indeed, like I had claimed, haven't gotten into any fights and/or conflicts since the sanctions. Excuse me if I am wrong and/or misunderstood it though. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts also, could you please extend my words? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts Would it violate Wikipedia guidelines if I would talk with adminstrators on their talk pages about this request? I'm confused on whether it falls under WP:CANVASSING or not. If yes, would there be any other way to bring attention to this request or do I just have to wait until someone notices it? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts @Firefangledfeathers @Johnuniq It sounds like a lot, but could you please grant me a word extension to 6500. I wanted to say something. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

   Rosguill's statement contains 346 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I'm generally well-inclined to the written content of the request (demotion of Altes Rathaus, Deggendorf to draftspace notwithstanding as notability/translations were not related to the issues for the original block/ban), but asked Viceskeeni2 that they bring it here given that there's a longer history of related blocks and bans that I think is worth considering before moving forward. My understanding is that the full chronology of prior sanctions is:

• 28 August 2024 -- Blocked by me for 31 hours for GS/AA violations
• 6 September 2024 -- Blocked by me, indefinitely, for further GS/AA violations, battleground attitude, and noting quality issues with edits outside GS/AA
• 19 November 2024 -- Unblocked by HouseBlaster with a conditional topic ban from Armenia and Azerbaijan, both individually and the conflict.
• 18 February 2025 -- Tban partially lifted by HouseBlaster, now applies only to the conflict, not the two countries individually.
• 20 March 2025 -- Tban from Armenia and Azerbaijan individually reimposed by me, following report of violations of the conflict-only tban at AN (Special:Diff/1281448939#Disruptive_editing_of_Viceskeeni2).

My overall impression is that the latest appeal says the right things, and there don't appear to have been signs of disruption since the last ban. I am a bit concerned, however, by the repeated problems with prior iterations of the tbans, which, in line with my assessment at the time of the 6 September 2024 block, would seem to indicate a persistent battleground attitude towards this conflict. Reviewing all of this now, I do also note that on 1 March 2025, while still facing a tban from the conflict, Viceskeeni2 added a custom userbox to their userpage expressing This user opposes ethnic separatism in Nagorno-Karabakh... and most of the rest of the post-Soviet separatist conflicts, which seems like another straightforward topic ban violation that went unnoticed and which is still on their userpage at the moment (the contraposition of opposing these "separatist conflicts" while supporting Chechen and Turkestan independence is left as an exercise to the reader I guess). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Vanezi Astghik

I really don’t see many positives in Viceskeeni2’s return to A-A contentious topics given their history. Viceskeeni2 has conveniently left out the fact that they were disruptively socking with an IP to avoid GS/AA violations on their main account (the IP ended up being blocked). I don’t think they had struggle understanding restrictions because a quick look shows that Viceskeeni2 was well aware of how the restrictions worked and even asked if they could edit certain pages unrelated to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict [42]. Yet, just half an hour later they were socking with an IP while fully aware they were violating GS/AA [43]. These are old edits, but I just want to highlight the obvious and deliberate WP:GAMING that was going on and the battleground mindset of the user.

One of their early articles in A-A was extremely fringe [44], [45], and it had various WP:NPOV problems; I can't link the article as it was deleted, but I figured it was noteworthy to be shown in this appeal.

I personally wasn't into the idea of a conditional unblock [46], and later it became apparent that they were given too much WP:ROPE as stated by the admin who unblocked them [47]. Vanezi (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Viceskeeni2

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 Viceskeeni2

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

• @Viceskeeni2: what did you do to get TBAN-ed? How will you avoid getting blocked/banned again going forward? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Viceskeeni2: please make comments in your own section. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Viceskeeni2: I've granted you an extension of another 300 words. When was the last time you were in a conflict? If the TBAN were lifted, how would you avoid conflict in this contentious topic area going forward? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  Why do you feel the need to edit in this topic area again? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm neutral on an unban at this point and could be persuaded either way by other admins. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Viceskeeni2: wait for other admins to weigh in here. If they have questions, they will ask. Please note that you're almost at 800 words. If you're asked another question and need more words, please ask for an extension. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Viceskeeni2: unless several other admins support unbanning you, your appeal will be declined. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  What other admins? Nobody has responded other than me. And, if nobody else responds in another couple of days, I will close your appeal as unsuccessful. Rosguill said your appeal says the right things superficially, not that it says the truth. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  I am not persuaded that the topic ban is no longer necessary per your past history of noncompliance with sanctions and battleground editing. As I said, I am open to comments from other admins. I have no further questions for you at this time nor do I need additional information. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  And, to clarify, I'm not rejecting your appeal. According to the Arbitration procedures, an appeal cannot be successful unless there is a "clear and substantial consensus of ... uninvolved administrators at AE". If several other administrators do not support your appeal, it will be declined. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  Do not ask other administrators to weigh in on this request. There are several administrators who watch this page. The fact that none of them have weighed in on your appeal after a week and a half indicates that they probably do not think your ban should be lifted, but I'm nonetheless going to keep this open for another couple of days. I will not grant further word extensions at this time. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Viceskeeni2: technically AE appeals don't have any word limits on the appellant. I would still highly recommend you not use that many words, and I know I would (a) probably not be willing to read that much and (b) be less likely to support an appeal, knowing that it contains so much material I'm not reading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to grant the appeal. I'm not seeing any major red flags, and I'd like to keep the bar low for appeals of this type. The ECR restriction > TBAN > TBAN violation > stricter TBAN pipeline is rough on newer users. My hope is generally that our use of blocks/bans interrupts the downward spiral, and that we'll then see the sort of productive editing elsewhere that Viceskeeni2 has engaged in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

My sympathy lies with the regulars in a contentious topic who should be protected from yet another enthusiast. However, I would be prepared to support this appeal bearing in mind that any future problems would lead to immediate reinstatement of the current sanction (if needed, anyone is welcome to remind me about this comment). Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I have sympathies in the same place as well. I do envision the rope being given out here (potentially) to be quite short. I think Vanezi Astghik's account of the history is accurate, so I'm particularly likely to support swift sanctions if we see POV issues, anything with sock or meatpuppetry, edit warring, or talk page comments that focus on users over content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• I might be included to grant under the understanding that conduct that would otherwise raise an eyebrow will probably cause the topic ban to return --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  I propose that we close with that. It matches Johnuniq's conditional support and mine. I think voorts is still at neither accept nor reject, but checking to see if anything has changed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Fine with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Gotitbro

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 Gotitbro

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ratnahastin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 11 August - Removes statement from Pakistani defence minister Khawaja Asif while himself detailing the statements from Indian Chief of the Air Staff Amar Preet Singh, thereby engaging in pro India POV pushing.
2. 18 August - Removes sourced content with a misleading edit summary.
3. 11 August - Edit warring to restore above edit.
4. 20 August - Overhauling the lead to show Chanakya explicitly as a historical figure, contrary to the fact that no historical evidence exists for Chanakya as per body of the article, thereby pushing pro Hindutva POV.
5. 27 August - Removes longstanding sentence from lead claiming it is "Undue" when the subject in question is an unreliable outlet, notorious for spreading misinformation.
6. 27 August - Engages in edit warring by restoring his revert and citing BRD when he is himself bringing a new edit to the article.
7. 27 August - Continues edit war by falsely claiming "added about a month ago".
8. 27 August - Derailing the thread and attacking another editor by bringing up how he "is t-banned from a closely related topic area".
9. 28 August - Even after being told to focus on content, he is still talking about "editorial behaviour". See WP:IDHT.
10. 28 August - This is the height of WP:BATTLE and WP:IDHT: "Yes, focus on content would have been done were you not restoring sock content willy nilly everywhere despite already being under sanctions. I would strongly suggest you take your time away from contentious topics."
11. 28 August - Poisoning the well by falsely accusing another editor of using "slurs in an offhand manner" and breaching "Wikipedia:Civility".
12. 29 August - WP:IDHT; Still repeating his above false accusations.
13. 29 August - Unnecessarily targeting another editor on the AfD by pointing out their edit count.
14. 29 August - Now falsely accusing this editor of "very COI".
15. 29 August - Now that above personal remarks failed to bait the editor, Gotitbro starts misusing ANI to get rid of this user anyhow by repeating his false accusations of "COI" and "SPA".
16. 30 August - Falsely accusing another editor of "hounding me around" despite this user edited ANI weeks ago after Gotitbro reported him there.[48]
17. Has made 4 reverts in 3 days to remove same content.[49][50][51][52] A look at the talk page (see (Talk:Pajeet#Edit_to_history) shows he is being WP:1AM here.
18. 1 September - Falsely labelling this source as "op-ed". He is not only showing his lack of understanding of WP:FRINGE but is also making chilling accusations that other editors "legitimize racist rhetoric (though this is also generally the case)".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• 3 Blocks for edit warring, 2 of which are relevant to this area.

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

[53]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• @Firefangledfeathers: In particular, diff #3 (which is a revert to #1), diffs #5, #6, #7 and all 4 diffs listed in #17, all of these demonstrate a recent history of aggressive edit warring in spite of the previous three edit warring blocks. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[54]

Discussion concerning Gotitbro

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 Gotitbro

A baseless report with a clear misrepresentation of the diffs and discussions. Have been here for more than a decade without any major issues, an effort to get editors the filer disagrees with in content disputes off the project. I have had no interaction with them beyond some recent run ins, this follows from no intimation. This is a bit bizarre and the evidence is as thin as water.

• 2025 India–Pakistan conflict: merely paraphrased a quote which I think served better; added some claims from an unopposed proposal by other editors at Talk, followed by single back and forth edits between the filer and me. Started a detailed discussion for this at the Talk page where I explained the edits in detail. It remains ongoing, made no further bother with the content.
• Rama: A revert followed (by Koshuri Sultan) but the quotes I added later validate whatever was initially stated in the ES (had made the edits to counter historic mythmaking).
• Chanakya: There were changes to the lede of the article some months ago and a discussion followed at the Talk page, read it and tried to figure a compromise between the changes and those opposing it. The filer reverted them but the edits were also partially accepted by the original editor (Joshua Jonathan) who made the lede changes. The edits explicitly removed mythmaking e.g. removing that the subject wrote a text he did not (go sqaurely against the baseless "pushing pro Hindutva POV", pretty offensive). Started a discussion after a revert by the filer and made no further bother.
• Firstpost: a content dispute for the lede which has been challenged by multiple editors ever since it was introduced. Recent changes to the lede (by Koshuri) I believed went against the last concluded discussion and to have been restoring sock content. Promptly started a discussion which remains ongoing. The comments at the Talk page were for Koshuri, topic banned from the military topics (as the edits directly pertained to military content) and who had shortly restored sock content at different articles.
• Pajeet (an extremely offensive slur): The article itself was largely created by a chronic sock network. Despite the socking the exact article was restored by Koshuri and Ratnahastin. Went to the talk to find for e.g., 'despite the fact that it mostly hindus and sikhs that are called as "pajeet"'. Finding this a bit insensitive (shouldn't really be using slurs when discussing them), cited civil. SPA: the entire discussion and explanations can be seen at ANI. Calling any of it sanctionable is something. 1AM is unfounded, a look at the article's history and fringe noticeboard will tell us that. And just to highlight the extensive misrepresentation, the last diff I fully quote: "The AfD proposal by me has lead to a barrage of socks attacking me with vile racial abuse. So, indeed I am a bit partial against edits which appear to legitimize racist rhetoric (though this is also generally the case)."

The previous disparate blocks have nothing to do with anything here.

The filer hasn't really engaged in any of the discussions that I did start. And I am not sure why they think AER is an alternative to dispute resolution. Could list a myriad problematic edits by them but that won't lead to a frivolous AER report.

Result concerning Gotitbro

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

• @Ratnahastin:, you're over the diff limit. I wouldn't worry about editing your filing, but it would help to know which 4 or 5 diffs you think most demonstrate misconduct. Please answer briefly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Rambling Rambler

The article Dragon Age: The Veilguard is now under a "one revert over one week per editor" restriction, appealable to this board no sooner than six months. The page block imposed on Rambling Rambler is rescinded as no longer necessary to prevent disruption. The editor Bladeandroid was blocked for one day for violating their TBAN as an individual admin action by Firefangledfeathers. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:50, 11 September 2025 (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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Rambling Rambler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Koriodan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rambling Rambler (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

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

1. 18:54, 6 August 2025 Unilaterally replaces the RFC consensus wording with "the game failed to"
2. 19:10, 6 August 2025 Rambling Rambler revert #1
3. 12:56, 10 August 2025 Rambling Rambler revert #2
4. 19:35, 18 August 2025 Rambling Rambler revert #3
5. 19:43, 18 August 2025 Rambling Rambler revert #4
6. 07:51, 2 September 2025 Rambling Rambler revert #5
7. 09:29, 2 September 2025 Rambling Rambler revert #6
8. 22:16, 2 September 2025 Rambling Rambler revert #7

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

[55]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Rambling Rambler has repeatedly edit warred against RFC consensus to replace "Reaching 1.5 million players by year-end 2024, Veilguard outperformed Electronic Arts' previous single-player games but did not meet the publisher's expectations" with "the game failed to". Many editors have already warned him on the talk page.[56][57][58][59][60] He has indicated he will keep disregarding consensus.[61] I want to help but he's pushy in discussions and has left 30 comments on the talk page arguing with various people. Koriodan (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

There's no consensus for Rambling Rambler's change to the RFC outcome. The way he keeps stating that even though 5 editors told him otherwise[62][63][64][65][66] I think illustrates the problem. Koriodan (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

In response to Butter Beluga, the closer of the RFC directly told Rambler "See Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions. This is not an exempted situation. If you believe your position is the correct one, start an RfC".[67] He has left a large amount of pushy comments arguing with everyone who tells him he needs consensus. He knows about consensus but thinks it doesn't apply to him because he doesn't seem to care.[68] Koriodan (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Rambling Rambler just reverted the same material again. This is after this thread, after your comment, and after multiple editors warned him on the talk page. Koriodan (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[69]

Discussion concerning Rambling Rambler

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 Rambling Rambler

The reporting user hasn't shown how any of the reverts has breached any Contentious policy issue applied to the page (of which there appears to be none) nor demonstrated any of the apparent "rudeness" they claim has occurred.

This is (or rather was) entirely a content dispute where wording chosen by an RfC closer unintentionally introduced an unsourced statement into the lead of an article. A slight alteration was made to remove this, and when opposed I opened discussion on the talk page, where there remains broad consensus that the existing wording wasn't supported by sources (a total of 6 editors including myself), though currently there isn't strong consensus on what if any detail to add in its place.[70]

The main point of contention by a minority of users (approximately 3) previously, and occurred some time later after the discussion went dead, was whether changing the wording breached the RfC, but the closer of said RfC has since confirmed this isn't the case so was no longer relevant and the discussion went dead again.[71]

The filing user, a new-ish account with relatively few contributions whose editing shows only to be on video games that are "culture war issues", revived the discussion day ago re-inserting unsourced content against WP:BURDEN, yet has now already proceeded to filing this incorrect report which appears to be little more than a vexatious bad faith attempt by them to try and get a punitive admin response landed on myself, something they have done previously where they incorrectly reported the closer of very same RfC they now raise as their defence for being closed "against consensus" when it didn't go their way.[72] Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Response to @Tamzin's statement: "Between this dispute and past issues involving Yasuke, I'm open to some kind of "at wit's end" sanctions here about these video game culture-war disputes... No one seems to be involved in otherwise improving the article, so I don't think it would be a great loss"

I have had no involvement in any of the wider disputes raised that others seem to have been party to[73]. My only involvement is I happened to notice that this article's lead was making a claim not only unsupported but in fact actively disproven by sources already cited. As part of this initial editing I also made this still present edit for the same reason in the sales subsection.[74] When challenged, I opened discussion explaining with quotes from the sources why the lead contained WP:OR in which 5 people took part and all agreed that it was currently inappropriate on WP:OR/WP:V grounds.[75] Given this policy-grounds consensus, I subsequently removed only the unsourced material and specifically chose not to introduce any new claims.

In the stop-start dispute since at no point have those policy-grounds been disputed, and no reliable sources to support the wording have been provided. Instead some editors have simply insisted the RfC wording can't be changed even after the RfC closer themselves saying otherwise.[76]

I will happily hold my hands up and say I could've handled it better, but in mitigation I wasn't expecting a typically innocuous edit to rapidly be caught up in an existing long-running dispute that quickly saw me and my speculated intentions being the target of discourse[77] and not the material itself. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Fim

This article (and a couple of others) was not that long ago relevant to a sprawling ANI thread which resulted in three editors being topic-banned from videogames (although to be fair they don't seem to have edited since, except one with four edits). The issue was specifically over the addition of sales to the lead, and doesn't seem too remote from the issue raised here. Another similarity might be that those three accounts were also only a few months' old with low edit counts.

I know nothing of the topic, but considering its volatile recent history, perhaps CU might be appropriate. Just an FYI on some background. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin I agree that OWC is a more likely possibility, if not the most likely. I also agree—or support your suggestion—that a cadite eos resolution might be for the best. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

I'm not involved in the topic & honestly don't know anything about the game itself, so I'm only commenting on given links & page history.

From my reading however, Rambling Rambler never actually went against consensus as the closing statement was "to include publisher expectations (option E, although the consensus does not extend so far as to entrench the specific wording)" with the closer further explaining that "specific wording was never discussed, and if there is a problem with it, it should be changed. Presumably some suitable alternative exists, but if one doesn't, or if there's a consensus in this discussion to just remove that whole part, it should be removed."

I will also say though that the framing - they've "left 30 comments on the talk page arguing with various people" - reads as rather disingenuous when most of their comments are non-argumentative discussion regarding potential WP:SYNTH/WP:OR issues. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Vestigia Leonis

I have been involved in this previously, and I have to say that discussions around the article often tend to derail into arguments that don't really go anywhere. Most of the important points have already been covered above, but the main issue is the mistake or oversight in the RfC result. As far as I understand it, WP:OR is one of the core content policies, and if the RfC outcome includes original research it overrides the result. A comment from an uninvolved admin, either here or on the article talk page, would probably be helpful to get things back on track and focused on resolving the issue.

Tamzin's suggestion below (imposing 1RR) seems like a good idea. It should reduce the number of reverts, and I would also recommend increasing the page protection again to help shift the ongoing conversation back fully to the talk page. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: I added a citation needed tag to the article. There is nothing in the article's body that supports the disputed part of the lead sentence (which is what caused all of this). Vestigia Leonis (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by OceanHok

I agree with @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: that CU maybe needed. This discussion is essentially the continuation of the aforementioned AN thread concerning how we handle sales information in the lead section. BMWF (talk · contribs), NutmegCoffeeTea (talk · contribs) and Wyll Ravengard (talk · contribs) were banned for WP:TAGTEAM editing (essentially taking turn to edit war against other editors). The same is apparently happening again with Koriodan (talk · contribs), BlackVulcanX (talk · contribs) and Bladeandroid (talk · contribs), taking turns to revert. Looking at their edit history, it is just hard to believe that it is merely a coincidence. These six newbies crossed paths with each other so many times (at talk page discussions of various CT, the AN thread etc). They pop up at this exact moment after being dormant for months, and all they really do is reinforcing each other's positions every single time while making no meaningful contributions to other areas. @TomStar81: previously suggested that they may be engaged in paid PR work, though I think sockpuppetry/off-wiki canvassing is likely possible as well. OceanHok (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The line of thought provided by Bladeandroid below is exactly the same as the topic-banned editor BMWF, where they accused editors who do not share their opinions as bigots/racists/gamergators, even when the nature of the discussion itself is not political. The fact that they use ideologically-motivated arguments instead of Wikipedia policies/guidelines as their justification for edit warring is just a massive red flag. OceanHok (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: - I don't know about Symphony Regalia (talk · contribs), who seems to focus on the article about Killing of Austin Metcalf. It may be trivial, but I want to point out another content dispute at Talk:Forspoken over similar issues (sales information). Koriodan supported and reinfroced the position of an IP editor (37.153.152.31 (talk · contribs)), whose second edit was to vote on the Metcalf article. BlackVulcanX was also there reinforcing their content positions. Given that the nature of these articles are quite different and their active contributors are unlikely to cross path, these newbies editors are highly coordinated if they are not socks of each other. OceanHok (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Bladeandroid

I think Vestigia Leonis (talk · contribs) and Rambling Rambler (talk · contribs) are sock accounts of OceanHok (talk · contribs). Particularly it seems like Vestigia Leonis and OceanHok tagteam edit to push gamergate views on any video game that has non-white or LGBT characters in it. OceanHok and Vestigia Leonis were called out for repeat edit warring and aggressive, uncivil, right-wing POV push on these articles.

By the way Assassin's Creed Shadow, a few others, and Veilguard have a lot of overlap. They both did well and they both made bigots mad. Shadows and Veilguard together were probably 90% of Gamergate discourse in 2025. Bladeandroid (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Vestigia Leonis (talk · contribs) always supports and refines the position of OceanHok (talk · contribs). They always tag team revert together. On any game of interest to Gamergate, Vestigia Leonis and OceanHok have tag team edited on it to insert views. In this discussion despite neither getting a ping Vestigia Leonis comments and then OceanHok comments directly after him. Both their first time commenting here and neither got a ping. Vestigia Leonis (talk · contribs) is probably the same person as OceanHok (talk · contribs). Bladeandroid (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Tewdar

1-year pagebans for everyone who's made a revert over this thing sounds ridiculously harsh, in my opinion. Perhaps a different metric might be more appropriate, hmm?  Tewdar  08:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rambling Rambler

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

• I think imposing a 1RR on the article, to be enforced strictly with blocks if necessary, might be the path of least resistance here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  I've p-blocked RR from the article for a month as an individual-admin CTOP sanction, for continued edit-warring while this discussion is ongoing. This is not meant to be a final resolution to this thread. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Fortuna imperatrix mundi @OceanHok: A number of people have suggested sock- or meatpuppetry here. I endorsed a check against NCT at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Symphony Regalia, which came back unrelated according to @AmandaNP. In addition to telling us that that NCT is very unlikely to be Symphony Regalia (who's not involved here but has been involved in related disputes), it tells us with a moderate degree of confidence that NCT isn't any of these other people either. (TL;DR: CUs primarily look for the pair they've been asked to investigate, but also look into other connections that arise if there's reason to be suspicious.) Whether any of the others have been checked, I wouldn't know.

  But overall I doubt there's much or any outright socking here. What seems more likely is some level of off-wiki nexus. The problem there is that that's a spectrum ranging from the entirely-policy-compliant (e.g. multiple people seeing the same dispute discussed by a third party on Twitter) and the entirely-forbidden (e.g. an explicit conspiracy in some private chat to come skew consensus). Between this dispute and past issues involving Yasuke, I'm open to some kind of "at wit's end" sanctions here about these video game culture-war disputes. These are, frankly, pretty silly and inconsequential disputes, and they're a drain on the resources of AN(I) and AE, which are already inundated with much more consequential kinds of tendentious editing. I'd honestly be open to just handing out 1-year pagebans to everyone who's made a revert over this thing. No one seems to be involved in otherwise improving the article, so I don't think it would be a great loss. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• I partially dealt with an issue related to this article in the past, I believe during the aforementioned RFC, when editors were edit-warring and I had to full protect it. Because of this, the article has been on my watchlist since then, and I was meaning to step in after someone requested for page protection, but real life happened. I see no pattern of sockpuppetry here, from either sides. What I see is an overzealous editor trying to fix what appears to be a valid problem (the sentence agreed upon during a previous RfC suffers from WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and has to be altered), and other editors disagreeing that problem actually exists and the RfC should stand fully. Since no WP:BLP was involved, Rambler should've stopped reverting and used other forms of dispute resolution, so the pblock is not uncalled for, though I think it could be reduced if they promise to stop the slow edit-warring. I think a "1RR over one week" on this article would be helpful. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 10:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  The closer of this thread has my permission to lift or shorten the p-block on RR if they judge it no longer necessary to prevent disruption to the article. I went with something narrow in scope but long-ish in time because I didn't want to prejudge the outcome of this discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• I think Tamzin's pblock, which I endorse, has dealt with the issue at the heart of this case. I'm weakly in support of IB's 1RR/week proposal, mostly out of a sense that we ought to do something about the broader issues. I'm warning Bladeandroid not to revert repeatedly without engaging in talk page discussion and not to make serious misconduct claims without supporting evidence. As a non-expert, there appears to me to be some substance to RR's complaints, and I hope that other users will continue to discuss how best to resolve them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Note: I've blocked Bladeandroid 24h for violating their Yasuke TBAN in the comment above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Tamzin and Isabelle Belato, would you be amenable to closing this with no further user sanctions and a 1RR/week restriction on the article? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  That works for me. And in that case I'm fine with lifting RR's p-block, since it's not serving much preventative purpose that wouldn't already be covered by the 1RR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

27 is the best number

Page blocked for a week, no further input in 6 days so closing. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2025 (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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning 27 is the best number

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

As above (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

27 is the best number (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Final_decision

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

1. 23:41, 4 September 2025 Initial addition of content for reference. I think that there are some definite issues which could be examined with this (WP:BLP and WP:NPOV specifically), but those aren't CTOP violations I don't think those are CTOP violations.
2. 05:01, 5 September 2025 Reverts another editor's subsequent reversion of their initial edit just five hours later, in violation of the BRD rule placed on the article which states follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 01:12, 7 November 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Initially, I was under the impression that this was a fairly mundane, once-off mistake, having done a cursory look at the user's other edits, which mainly pertain to roads in recent times. However, a deeper look revealed another two edits to the page which have problems, and are linked to the above edits given the similarity of the statements. Though they are now stale, at 00:25, 7 November 2024, telling someone to Cry about it. while re-adding His election has been linked to a rise of fascism. and then a week later at 19:22, 15 November 2024 adding Because of his victory, many people began thinking that American democracy was at stake. suggest a lack of the tact required to edit in such an unbelievably contentious area, and a complete lack of awareness of the restrictions in place, despite the CTOP notification and the edit notices on the page. As above _{so below} 10:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

10:37, 5 September 2025

Discussion concerning 27 is the best number

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 27 is the best number

This section is incredibly difficult to read. Can someone please explain, in human terms, what is going on here? 27 is my favorite number. You can ask me why here. 17:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 27 is the best number

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

I've page-blocked them from Donald Trump for a week for the quite obvious violation of the Consensus-required restriction in place on the article. I'm open to other admins increasing the length or imposing other sanctions, but given the revert's blantant nature, I figured it was best to get them page-blocked for a bit while discussion goes further here. (Now to log the dang thing...) Ealdgyth (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

NW Cracker

Blocked as a normal admin action. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:24, 10 September 2025 (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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning NW Cracker

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Rjjiii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

NW Cracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:AMPOL

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

1. 9 September 2025 On the talk page of a recent killing, they lament regarding the killer, "Liberals are spinning in circles trying to protect this madman. It’s pathetic."
2. 4 August 2025 On the talk page of Sydney Sweeney, they are reverted after commenting, "We should add that it’s 100% far left liberals who are complaining. They are jealous of her looks."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 22 July 2025 After being warned for leaving off-topic, inflammatory comments at Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and commenting "Trans is a mental illness." at Talk:Mass shooting, they confront the editor warning them, "Do you feel like a tough guy threatening me?" and are blocked after laughing at a trans prostitute on the article's talk page.

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 28 April 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notice was added after filing.

Discussion concerning NW Cracker

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 NW Cracker

Statement by (username)

Statement by TurboSuperA+

Good block. Editor is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. 12:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning NW Cracker

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

• Noting I've blocked the editor indef as a non-AE action. I'll leave this open for now so that other admins and users can weight in if they feel the need to, but most of this user's edits are either trolling or hateful. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 11:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  If you hadn't blocked, I would have. Definitely NOTHERE. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Stickhandler

Withdrawn and moved to WP:ANI. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:42, 12 September 2025 (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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Stickhandler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

GENSEX

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

[78] I normally wouldn't make an AE report over one diff, but he edited the Jeffrey Epstein article to call a transgender Epstein victim a "crossdressing man" and change her pronouns to he/him.

Looking at his edit history, he has also been edit warring and POV-pushing about gender affirming care and other such topics in Gordon Guyatt.[79][80][81]

Along with other edits on Gordon Guyatt.[82]

All of these edits are from today.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

EDIT 1: @Voorts Notified properly. Can I throw this to ANI? This seems pretty egregious for just a logged warning.

EDIT 2: Withdrawn, moved to ANI

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[83]

Discussion concerning Stickhandler

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 Stickhandler

There seems to be some controversy re my edits linking Michael W. Higgins. I accept now that I've read Michael Higgins bio page on the NP website that MWH is not him. It would have been much more productive of the OP to link to [Michael Higgins bio page in OP's edit log instead of logging an unsubstantiated affirmation and thus we might have avoided this unfortunate situation.

Answer to Snokalok

My talk page was graced by this AE Notice in which User:Snokalok uses imperative tone: "I'm taking you to AE over your behavior on GENSEX. Enjoy." For a person that doesn't know what is "AE" and doesn't know what is "GENSEX" and feels that imperative tone indicates hostile behaviour you will understand I feel perplexed and uncomfortable and violated. This absence of collegiality is not the way to attract new editors into the field.

Answer to YFNS

Re my edits on Gordon Guyatt: no edit war was had. OP conceded on the Gordon_Guyatt#Gender-affirming_care_review Gender-affirming care review wholesale deletion. I agree with that new position and since then wiki has had many productive edits. Because of the concession, employment here of the WP:3RR policy is inappropriate.

The removal of the SPLC clause was done so as to maintain focus on the subject, which is Gordon Guyatt and his Gordon_Guyatt#Gender-affirming_care_review Gender-affirming care review. Information about the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine's problem with the Southern Poverty Law Center is available at their Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine#Conversion_therapy.

Answer to Cdjp1

The edit log text "strange that ppl keep on deleting useful info - why is that exactly?" is self-evident - I failed to understand that Michael W. Higgins was not Michael Higgins because the OP had not indicated any convincing rationale, like for instance linking to the author's bio page. It is more appropriate to substantiate on wiki than to affirm on wiki.

Statement by YFNS

I was thinking about reporting Stickhandler for edit warring, but that first diff is pretty self-evidently bigoted and NOTHERE kind of stuff.

Further, it seems to be a general issue with Stickhandlers editing that they use no edit summaries, roughly 1-2% of their edits seem to have more than a 2 word description.[84]

This seems to me intentionally misleading. Take this edit from last night with the sole edit summary ce[85]

• It removes the fact SEGM has been described as an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the SPLC
• It relinks Michael W. Higgins as the author of a piece. This is immediately following an edit delinking them noting they're completely different people[86]

ANI is probably a better venue for this. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Cdjp1

[87] - In this reversion made hours after this case was opened, the edit summary provided by Stickhandler was strange that ppl keep on deleting useful info - why is that exactly?, when in the edit summaries reverting Stickhandler's bold addition and the discussion that was started on the talk page on 10 September, detail that the issue people have with including the opinion of Higgins is that the article is an opinion piece by a theologian journalist with no relevant qualifications with regards to the provision of medical treatment. I would say that the answer to why is that exactly? is rather evident. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2025 UTC

Adjusting my comment after checking the article again based on YFNS' comment. I had assumed the individual linked to as the author of the piece by Stickhandler would be the right Michael Higgins, so while Stickhandler seems adamant to link to the wrong person as the author, the criticisms others have brought up regarding the qualifications of the article author to argue that a physician is wrong in their expert opinion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2025 UTC

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Stickhandler

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

You did not properly notify Stickhandler of this request. Please use the template. Additionally, since Stickhandler hasn't received a CTOP alert, the only thing we can do here is issue a logged warning. That said, the first edit is very unacceptable and similar future edits will result in a block. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• While I agree with Voorts that, since the editor was not aware of this CTOP, no sanction can be issued. On the other hand, it seems like the disruptive edits are continuing after their acknowledgment of this AE thread. I'd hope Stickhandler chooses to stop those edits and participate here instead. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Snokalok: If you want to move this to ANI, feel free to open a thread there and ask for this one to be withdrawn. Feel free to ping the other two participants so they are aware. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Alalch E.

Alalch E. is warned for not following proper dispute resolution etiquette on a CTOP when their bold edits are challenged. M.Bitton is reminded to be more civil and assume good faith when discussing improvements to an article. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:25, 18 September 2025 (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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Alalch E.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Alalch E. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:PIA

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

1. 11 September 2025 they attempted to "summarise" the reactions (while reverting multiple recent edits and obliterating many of the reactions without a valid explanation).
2. 11 September 2025 they restored their edit.

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)

• Red-tailed hawk placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

  M.Bitton's statement contains 647 words and is within 10% of the 600-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 600 words. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I reverted their edits and left an explanation on the talk page. I honestly wasn't expecting an experienced editor to revert again, but when they did, I reminded them that their revert constitutes a 1R violation and asked them to self-revert. Their reaction was even more surprising: they described what I said as utter nonsense (see diff) and suggested that I should put in the work (as if they are and I'm not, or maybe they are expecting me to violate 1R, just like they did). When I asked again to self-revert, they doubled down on it and accused me of fighting (see diff). They then described my request to "abide by the rules" as comical (see diff). M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Their initial edit is indeed a revert of multiple recent (as in the 24 hours that preceded it) additions (edits) by different editors. There is absolutely no doubt that they second edit (the revert) is a violation of 1R.

He wanted.. the only thing that I wanted and expected was to discuss the edit (hence, why I started the discussion). Them violating 1R to impose their edit and then spending time adjusting it (however they wish) is the polar opposite of that.

instead of reverting .. assumption of bad faith and projection to boot (unlike them, I only edited the article once).

Their claim about AE is baseless, as AE wasn't mentioned until later on (after the utter nonsense and put in the work comments).

motivates him sigh. M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: I wouldn't have reported them if I wasn't 100% certain that 1R was breached. Here's an example (one of many): Ivebeenhacked added this content. Alalch E. reverted it (as in deleted it). I restored the deleted content. They reverted my edit. This whole thing happened in less than 24 hours. M.Bitton (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

my edit was not a revert I have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they violated WP:1RR (a very simple rule that even a newbie can understand). I'm not going to waste time entertaining the reasons why they did it, because they are irrelevant (short of vandalism, everyone can provide what they think is a valid reason for their edit)

My intention was to discuss.. intentions in this context are irrelevant, and besides, they had every opportunity to discuss it, but they didn't, and instead, they chose to dismiss my concerns with deriding comments.

it is very inconvenient.. this statement comes across as rather strange considering their put in the work comment. M.Bitton (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn't assume anything ("good faith edits" are not exempt from the edit-warring policy). M.Bitton (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Alalch E.

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 Alalch E.

  Alalch E.'s statement contains 578 words and is within 10% of the 550-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 550 words. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I did not breach 1RR because my subtractive yet substantive edit of Special:Diff/1310756556 is not a revert. M.Bitton should put in the work and edit collaboratively instead of reverting until a version he agrees with created by someone else appears. He wanted explicit mentions of specific major powers and regional powers, and I have added those mentions in Special:Diff/1310796582, as a further incremental step from my first-pass more abstracted summarization. He complains about original research, but as he was focused on threatening AE on the talk page, it would not have been productive for me to discuss his perceived issue (which I do not agree with: I do not agree that there is original research). His disciplinary initiative and the wrong energy that currently motivates him should fade out, so that we can discuss his perceived orignal research problem on the talk page, which I am very glad to do, and I am also very glad to see M.Bitton incremental edits.—Alalch E. 17:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: Ivebeenhacked added a raw reactions list entry consisting of a flag template, boilerplate text in the form of "X condemned" followed by a government quote. I summarized that alongside other such entries by writing the sentence Various other governments around the world condemned what they described as a breach of sovereignty, warned of escalation, and urged restraint and renewed diplomacy, while keeping the reference used by Ivebeenhacked (and other references for individual countries and groups of countries with the goal of sorting them out in the process, and figuring out how best to use them; some were then kept with quotes, some were bundled, etc.). The content of Brazil's statement is represented in the summarized description of the reactions and still existed (and exists) at a more summarized level. I created a new sentence reorganizing existing content by applying summarization. M.Bitton thinks that this was 100% certainly a revert and with this belief he states 100% certain that 1R was breached interpreting my subsequent revert as a second revert. M.Bitton, however, is wrong, as my edit was not a revert.

When I reverted his revert, which was my first revert, I only saw the edit summary This is not an accurate summary of the reactions and no talk page section; however, several minutes after M.Bitton reverted and approx. 2 minutes before I reverted the revert, M.Bitton had in fact started a talk page discussion. My intention was to discuss improvements without the content being reverted, because I could not conceive that any perceived "inaccuracies" would require the content not being live while it's improved, and it is very inconvenient to incrementally improve content after an organizational change by wholesale reverting and then agreeing in writing on every detail. However, M.Bitton then shifted to 1RR enforcement. —Alalch E. 09:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

M.Bitton is repeating himself and hasn't proven anything. Contrarily to I had every opportunity to discuss, I had no such opportunity; there's no content discussion under active threat of sanction, which began with the first 1RR mention. Drive-by wholesale revert and conduct track is the "enforcer" path that M.Bitton chose. Now M.Bitton wants validation for his acting irresponsibly in this capacity. Don't validate that. —Alalch E. 13:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm noting that I've gone a bit over the word limit; I'm requesting a retroactive 50-word extension for my last comment; apologies. —Alalch E. 13:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. —Alalch E. 13:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Alalch E.

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

• I'm somewhat on the fence here when it comes to whether 1RR was breached or not. While it's undeniable that content was removed with that first edit (10kb, about), it was also a rewrite and reorganization of content. Someone (M.Bitton) disagreed with that edit and reverted it. I think it was a very unwise move by Alalch E. to then revert again to their preferred version, and they should've followed WP:BRD, as we are dealing with a very contentious topic. Their further comments at the talk page are also unnecessarily bite-y, which served only to heat things up. I'd like to hear from other admins, but maybe a formal warning here will suffice. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm granting Alalch E. an extension to 550 words, as requested. M.Bitton, you are over your limit. I'm willing to grant a extension to 600 words, as I believe you've already made your point. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

The word extension would allow you to write upwards to 660 words, counting the 10% margin. As I've noted before, you've made your point regarding 1RR already. Unless you have further diffs to provide, my recommendation is to allow other editors and admins to chime in. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

If there are no further inputs in the next 24 hours, I'll be closing with a logged warning to Alalch E. for battleground behavior on a CTOP. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• In my view the first diff is in a grey area with respect to the definition of a revert. It did negate multiple previous edits, but alongside an effort to summarize them and preserve their essence. Regardless of whether the summary was a good one, I cannot but read this as a good-faith attempt at summary, and so I'm not inclined to sanction this as a 1RR violation. However, the followup commentary on the talk was remarkably abrupt and uncollaborative from both parties. As the one making a bold change Alalch E. was obligated to discuss it substantively, which they did not do. I would support a logged warning. M. Bitton's approach on the talk page was not wonderful either: it involved some assumption of bad faith and a jump to enforcement over discussion. But I don't see it as serious enough to merit formal action. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Theonewithreason

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 Theonewithreason

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Theonewithreason (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

Talk:Serbia men's national basketball team/Archive 1#Final disscussion: Results/medals history (a WP:CONS was reached in 2014, later user AirWolf, who participated in reaching a WP:CONS, reaffirmed this WP:CONS in 2018, but user Theonewithreason oppose it)

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

1. 19:04, 8 September 2025 - reverted my attempt to implement a WP:CONS and a position of the FIBA's official website (see: HERE);
2. 22:56, 8 September 2025 - continue to oppose my edit in talk page;
3. 20:15, 10 September 2025 - continue to oppose a reached WP:CONS by also stating that "the discussion is over" and threaten to report me at WP:Ani;
4. 20:36, 10 September 2025 - continue to oppose a reached WP:CONS;
5. 22:11, 10 September 2025 - another user Sadko came to support him (with rollbacker rights in English Wikipedia and most of his edits in Serbian Wikipedia), so this is also concerning;
6. 19:49, 11 September 2025 - user Theonewithreason: "You are going in circles without any argumentation" (even though I quoted other users WP:CONS statements, which contradict his POV).

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

User Theonewithreason wrote in one of his statements in article's talk page that "this is very sensitive topic (the Balkans) there are very strict rules biding every single editor on Wikipedia" (his edit), so I think he is well aware about the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The FIBA's official website do not attribute the results and won medals by the Serbia and Montenegro men's national basketball team (it represented Serbia and Montenegro / in 1992–2003 called Yugoslavia) exclusively to the Serbia men's national basketball team (see: HERE) and a WP:CONS was also reached in this article's talk page (see: HERE) that in Wikipedia we should comply with the position of the FIBA, so we should count Serbia's team results only since 2007 (for quicker reading of WP:CONS discussion see my quotes of its participants statements in this edit). The former state Serbia and Montenegro (1992–2006) is now represented by three separate national teams: Serbia team, Montenegro team, Kosovo team.

Another article Serbia at the Olympics only count Serbia's medals since the 2008 Summer Olympics, not earlier (same point of view as FIBA), so the same should be in article Serbia men's national basketball team. Now we have one article (Serbia men's national basketball team) claiming that Serbia won 1996 Olympic silver medal and another claiming that it did not (Serbia at the Olympics), so such contradictions cannot exist in different articles.

Moreover, a relevant example is the Russia men's national basketball team who is not attributed the results of the Soviet Union men's national basketball team even through the Russian Federation is a sucessor state of the Soviet Union.

I request assistance to implement WP:CONS in the article as I cannot do that when user Theonewithreason revert it. Furthermore, I think Template:Contentious topics/talk notice (topic=b - the Balkans or Eastern Europe) should be added to this article's talk page to ensure a reached WP:CONS and WP:LISTEN.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Theonewithreason

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 Theonewithreason

  Theonewithreason's statement contains 741 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

This is getting ridiculous, Pofka is obviously unable to reach their POV on the Serbia Basketball team talk page which has been wp:stable in this form for several years now, in fact one other editor also opposed their statement [[88]], they were openly canvassing pinging several editors for whom they think that they are going to side with them based on that conversation from 2014 [[89]], then they did that again today [[90]] and now they are trying to remove me from that page because they WP:IDONTLIKE. I mean this editor has over 20 000 edits on Wikipedia they should know better to use other tools to resolve the discussion, instead they reported me directly here. Sorry but WP:boomerang should be imposed here. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Extraordinary Writ when I wrote that discussion is over what I`ve meant is that those discussions were long time ago, and since then this article was in this form (not edited in that way by me) for the last 7 or 8 years, what I also noticed that editors who participated in that discussion occasionally would revert users who would go in other way around, posting all the medals from SFR Yugoslavia (the medals won before 1991 when the country was larger than today), as for the sources I was using them in discussion to show there are other opinions, however, in those previous discussions it was clear that even editors were not certain how to approach this subject i.e. one of the editors that Pofka pinged stated that: It looks like the FIBA ranking points for SFR Yugoslavia was carried over to FR Yugoslavia, which was then carried over to SCG, then finally to Serbia. However, it seems the FIBA archive has a team for each IOC code: so YUG, SCG & SRB are "3 different" teams; same with ROC & TPE, and URS & RUS (and CIS). It doesn't happen between FRG & GER, but GDR is a separate team. There's no clear-cut solution on how to deal with this. We can safely ignore the successor states problem. ROC and TPE records are at the Chinese Taipei national basketball team, same with FRG and GER at Germany national basketball team, while URS/CIS/RUS are separated, and SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia-SCG-Serbia are separated. etc which Pofka was ignoring.

Also since you closed the ANI report we obviously need to deal with Pofka behaviour here which exceeds the discussion about this article and goes directly against the rules implemented in sensitive topics. First Pofka claims that Serbia "stole" those medals [[91]] and what is even more concerning is that Pofka is labelling other editors by their ethnicity or what they believe is their ethnicity and thus trying to discriminate their comments as non valid, [[92]], [[93]] - that kind of behaviour is actually problematic and concerning. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Joy all of my reverts on Nikola Tesla page were according to 20 years of discussions and implemented rules by admins and other editors, and since you are regularly invested in that article you should also know that, there is nothing trigger happy in this especially if I am reverting someone who is openly posting death threats on my user page [[94]], so if you trying to expand this report even further, first we need to address why this report by Pofka was directly posted here, which is inappropriate, and second why are you trying what I now understand to broadly disqualify me from Balkan related topics, which is not your first time, example writing this post to admin Ivanvector page [[95]] 2 years after my SPI block (for which I was properly punished in 2020) asking them to revaluate my status, in which ivanvector clearly explained that my case was borderline and that my concerns were reasonable [[96]] after which you admitted that you are often WP:involved in Balkan related topics [[97]] - in the last five years I was never blocked nor did I used other accounts, the comment you are referring to in May I did apologise for, and never used in this form again. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Joy thank you for only confirming what was obviously clear for the last few years, that you are probably to often WP:involved in Balkan related topics and that you should take more neutral stances regarding reports to others, [[98]] let us not forget that you were also blocked from Wikipedia for abusing admins powers, so maybe you too might not be well-suited for this contentious topic area. Theonewithreason (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Extraordinary Writ [[99]] this last edit from Pofka is now clear WP:ASPERSION against me and the other editors, also those accusations against me and assumptions about my location or to which nation I belong to is a direct attack against my privacy which has nothing to do with this article or my edits on Wikipedia. I am now asking indefinite block against Pofka. We are not going to have of discussions about my personal information online. Especially because Pofka is repeated offender with topic ban on other articles in 2024 [[100]], [[101]] and previously in 2022 [[102]]. Theonewithreason (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Sadko

   Sadko's statement contains 327 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I have stated my opinion and I stand by it. FIBA had a clear stance on this question, and there is nothing concerning about that in my view. I did not edit this page much, nor is it of particular interest to me; therefore, bringing up concerns from 14 months ago is a bit unusual. The fact that this is the topic of such a report is concerning. I think it was premature, and that more could have been achieved with further rounds of discussions and debates, in good faith. Theonewithreason fights vandals on a daily basis, swiftly and smartly, and is a valuable editor. He kept the Nikola Tesla article safe from vandals for years, alongside other great editors. I can also see that Pofka has made many valuable contributions. I am sure and I hope that this will be resolved in a good way and in the best interest of the project. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Second statement by Pofka: Sorry to disappoint, but unfortunately, I have no communication with Theonewithreason, a credible and honest editor, via email or any other platform. You can freely ask for this to be checked; any day.

Of course, I am keeping this article on my watchlist, considering that just recently several editors and I worked on the article on SWP and there's a lot of references on EWP. My tweaks, led to it getting featured article status on my home project. Double check this, by all means. And I am quite active at that time of the day.

Additionally and more importantly, the undertones of this message are somewhat problematic. Checking out and talking about someone's location based on his Google search? Stating that there are many Serbs in Croatia? What? Just, what in the world is that all about?

My question is, why not start an RfC yourself, rather than going back and forth and making empty accusations? Focus on content and sources. — Sadko (words are wind) 16:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Second statement by Pofka

@Extraordinary Writ: @Joy: I agree that the 2014 WP:CONS seems to be quite weak, however I believe it is worth respecting because in it five experienced users: AirWolf, HTD, Dirtlawyer1, Jetstreamer, Zagalejo (check their user pages) expressed support that we should follow how the FIBA tractate this question and this 2014 WP:CONS comply with information provided in the FIBA's official website. I think that instead of immediately reverting my edit and soon declaring that "the discussion is over" (his edit) user Theonewithreason should have started a RfC procedure to reach a new WP:CONS. I think that WP:STABLE when there seems to be obviously wrong information presented in the article (per FIBA position) is not a valid argument. Nevertheless, I have doubts that Wikipedia's article should include contradictory information to the FIBA's official website, so do we really need a RfC about possibly denying FIBA's official website position? I think we need WP:AE clarification about it. I will of course not oppose a RfC if it is really necessary about this question. This question should be solidly solved to avoid disruption in the future.

Regarding user Sadko: I noticed that in user Theonewithreason's talk page there are positive messages from user Sadko (e.g. check these edits: first in 2020, second in 2025, maybe more are deleted), so it seems like they know each other well for a long time. Moreover, user Theonewithreason pinged in this edit many unrelated users (possibly all Serbians because some of their user names are: Soundwaweserb, Vikipedijasrbija0, other pinged users IPs locations and maybe interactions with user Theonewithreason should be checked to determine whenever in the talk page user Theonewithreason attempted to gather support of exclusively Serbian users, who previously never participated in this article's talk page discussion). As I already mentioned, most of user Sadko edits are in Serbian Wikipedia, so I presume he is Serbian as well (IP location check could be helpful, but with over 300,000 edits in the Serbian Wikipedia he certainly has an excellent command of Serbian language). Of course, I cannot confirm whenever user Theonewithreason communicate with user Sadko using external sources, however the fact that user Theonewithreason attempted to gather support of unrelated Serbian users raises suspicion how user Sadko in just ~2 hours came to "absolutely" support user Theonewithreason position (if administrators can check whenever user Sadko had Talk:Serbia men's national basketball team in his watch list before joining the talk page discussion, then it could be helpful to at least partly check the possibility of communications via external sources between users Sadko and Theonewithreason). User Theonewithreason in the talk page inserted links "www.google.hr" (in this edit), so I presume he is residing in Croatia where are many Serbs of Croatia. So if you ask me, there seems to be many Serbian connections. -- Pofka 14:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by TylerBurden

All I'm going to say here is that Theonewithreason naming Sadko as ″one other editor also opposed their statement″ as if that is meant to be indicative of Pofka being in the wrong is not particularly convincing, since while there doesn't seem to be any evidence of coordinated editing, they're both clearly of the same POV and constantly back each other up when it comes to disputes within the topic area. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Theonewithreason

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

• Theonewithreason subsequently started an ANI thread against Pofka, WP:ANI#User:Pofka trying to impose their POV by using WP:battlefield, which I've now closed so we can sort things out here. In no particular order:
  • An RfC is going to be the best way to handle this. It's been over a decade since the (apparently never-implemented) 2014 discussion, so I don't think it's unreasonable to want to revisit the issue, and I'm certainly not going to sanction for "oppos[ing] a reached WP:CONS".
  • Both of you need to be careful about selective pinging; see WP:VOTESTACK. It's fine to notify everyone who participated in a previous discussion or everyone who's contributed to the article recently, but choosing particular people to ping is often going to be a problem.
  • Pofka, I don't understand why you think it's concerning that Sadko participated in the discussion. If you're trying to imply canvassing, you're going to need much better evidence, especially since he had edited the page before and could easily have watchlisted it.
  • Theonewithreason, I'm really troubled that you think [103][104][105] are reliable sources—they're obviously self-published and shouldn't be cited at all, much less to say that The sources are clear, the discussion is over. Frankly I'm not sure you should be editing in this area at all if you don't have a good grasp of what a reliable source looks like. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Extraordinary Writ in context of AE, Sadko is actually generally concerning because they had been banned from this topic area once before. They got unbanned in the meantime, which I remember because I've had to complain about that at Guerillero's talk page last year. Thankfully this didn't escalate since. I don't know if Pofka just has some random bias against Serbian editors, but this particular one is still a matter of legitimate concern. --Joy (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Joy: The new motion announced at WP:AC/N might interest you -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• I'm uninvolved in this specific matter because this is the first I hear about it, but I've participated in other discussions like it, for example in the previous talk discussion there or at a football list. Suffice it to say that we have had a lot of issues in the past trying to figure out the most appropriate formatting for the description of these succession matters. Often times, these discussions are rather intricate and are just not very interesting to the general public and are not frequented by a lot of uninvolved editors, so it's genuinely hard to gauge actual consensus. For example, Pofka cites a discussion from '14, but then there's also this discussion from '18. It's hard to say that any of these discussions are really determinative.

On the other hand, I remember seeing Theonewithreason act in a bit of a trigger-happy manner reverting at Nikola Tesla and the talk pages there. I went to check further, and found this warning I gave them in May, for which they apologized in a subsequent edit summary. Now that I read that again, this does show a bit of an odd confusion: I didn´t accuse anybody [of being a Nazi by citing the NONAZI essay], since I dont know who posted this. - even if we don't know who posted something we disagree with, that should not prevent us from treating them with a modicum of respect. Maybe this all rises to the level of a violation of the WP:ARBMAC that needs to be acted upon further. --Joy (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Theonewithreason, thank you for reminding me of that 2022 discussion about your 2020 sockpuppeteering, I completely forgot about that. I didn't say I'm improperly involved, rather that I tend to set aside my admin privileges in favor of contributing to content and discussions. I understand you're necessarily defensive after being called out here, but in my mind this interaction just reinforces the idea that you might not be well-suited for this contentious topic area. --Joy (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Sadko, please add new replies to other editors on your own section. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Pofka and Theonewithreason are over their word limits. No more comments unless an extension is granted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Journalist

Journalist blocked for 72 hours by Tamzin as a regular admin action. User is also warned that any further violations of our WP:BLP policies will result in an indefinite block. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:58, 16 September 2025 (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.

Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Journalist

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IdanST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IdanST (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Journalist (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

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

1. 13:22, 11 September 2025 - broke WP:UNCIVIL, WP:FORUM and WP:NPOV in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Kirk, a contentious topic.
2. 13:44, 11 September 2025 - again broke WP:CIVIL.
3. 23:27, 11 September 2025 - again broke WP:CIVIL after being notified on their talk page.

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

The user was notified on their talk page on 22:26, 11 September 2025, to which they responded with diff 3.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Journalist

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 Journalist

Statement by Cdjp1

Now, I may be misunderstanding the policies and guidelines here, but I'm pretty sure WP:CIVIL is in regards to interactions between editors, and does not cover discussing the subject of an article. And similarly for NPOV, expressing one's opinions in a discussion about a subject, I'm pretty sure, aren't covered as NPOV relates to actual articles. So Journalist would have broken these if they had said another editor was awful or if they inserted text into the Charlie Kirk article calling him awful, neither of which Journalist did. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by QuicoleJR

They responded to the AE discussion notification with a personal attack (clearly a lot of sympathizers here) and a reference to an unspecified genocide. They have also said that they will not stop violating NOTFORUM. I think that this shows they cannot calmly and neutrally engage with this topic, and a topic ban from American politics is unfortunately warranted. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Tamzin. I will support that narrower scope if the wider one isn't an option. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Journalist

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

• The question here should not be if the editor broke our policies on civility, but whether they broke our WP:BLP policies, which applies to all pages of the project. At the moment, I'm not convinced this should result in sanctions, but a formal warning that this behavior may lead to a topic ban from the subject might be warranted. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Considering their response to the AE message, I'd be fine with an indefinite TBAN from BLPs, as proposed below by Tamzin. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 18:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• If someone's response to a CTOP alert is that they will continue violating our policies (in this case, WP:NOTFORUM) "every chance I get", my inclination is to take them at face value and TBAN. That said, emotions are high right now, and there's no history of similar issues that I know of. Perhaps a 1-month TBAN from living and recently deceased American political figures. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  @QuicoleJR: Just as a procedural note, Journalist does not appear to be WP:AWARE of WP:CT/AP, only WP:CT/BLP, which is why I suggested the TBAN scope I did. If this closes with a logged warning, however, we could log that as AP, which would also serve as awareness going forward. (P.S. @Significa liberdade, when sending {{alert/first}} to someone for one CTOP, you can also tack a regular {{alert}} afterward for another.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• @Journalist: Comments like this are a misuse of Wikipedia and will lead to a block if repeated. As Tamzin said, emotions are high and I don't think action is needed now. I wouldn't even bother with a formal warning—I would issue an indefinite non-AE block if comments like that repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• I would just give a logged warning (i.e., not to use Wikipedia as a forum to voice opinions about the subject of an article or other topics irrelevant to improving the encyclopedia — particularly contentious political remarks sidetracking a discussion) with the understanding that flagrantly ignoring a logged contentious topic warning will result in a block. I'm fine with some topic ban to the extent another admin considers that necessary. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 72 hours, as a regular admin action, over this and this. I also left an AP2 CTOP alert. If they're not willing to listen to warnings to stop doing this, I wouldn't expect them to obey a topic ban either, so I actually think this can be closed: Either this ends here, or, per Johnuniq, continued behavior like this leads to a regular indef for WP:NOTFORUM/WP:DE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:38, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Maran125606

Maran125606 blocked for 72 hours for ECR violations. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:09, 16 September 2025 (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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Maran125606

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Maran125606 (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

IMH 500/30 and CASTE 500/30

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

1. 2025/Sep/07 04:36 - Prot request for Konar (caste) in an attempt to preserve this pre-alert edit, characterising opponents as vandals
2. 2025/Sep/07 04:50 - Demand for administrators to revert to his preferred revision on Gingee Fort
3. 2025/Sep/12 11:04 - Arguing balls-and-strikes to a reasonable request to take it to WP:RFPP/I, characterising other good-faith edits as vandalism
4. 2025/Sep/12 11:07 - Changing the caste affiliation of a historical figure
5. 2025/Sep/13 05:18 - Copypasta of Diff 2 above on talk page of article
6. 2025/Sep/13 05:19 - Copypasta of Diff 2 above, albeit with properly formatted links

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

-nil-

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

Alerted on 2025/Sep/06 14:15

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning Maran125606

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 Maran125606

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Maran125606

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

• I've blocked the editor for 72 hours as a clear breach of our WP:ECR active in the topic area. Will log next. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 11:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

EvansHallBear

EvanHallsBear is reminded of the word limit and instructed not to post further in the RfC. I will leave a general reminder to RfC participants as well. In the future, an attempt at informal resolution of a word-limit issue would be preferable than immediately reporting to AE, as with 1RR violations. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:34, 17 September 2025 (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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning EvansHallBear

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words)

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

In no particular order (and excluding quotes/references per the ruling): ~2,275 words of comments.

Comment-references

References

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

• [106]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am uninvolved in the dispute itself and generally uninvolved with the CTOP. Just wanted to ensure the temperature (and wordcount) is kept low in future discussions. Many other editors came close to the limit; User:Markbasset came to ~1,300 without having been ARBPIA warned. EvansHallBear on the other hand more than doubled the limit. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[107]

Discussion concerning EvansHallBear

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 EvansHallBear

This is a pretty clear cut violation of the 1000 word limit. I don't feel like this violation has negatively impacted the discussion as I have tried to engage civily and constructively and have kept my individual comments concise. But over the course of the RfC, I have weighed in way more than I realized. I'll accept whatever sanction is deemed appropriate. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning EvansHallBear

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

• I'd rather see a friendly warning in a case like this than straight to AE, same as with 1RRvios. Now that we're here, given EHB's reasonable response, I think an informal warning should suffice, as long as EHB makes no further comments in the RfC. Along with maybe a general reminder from an admin on the talk page, under a new level-3 heading to really get people's attention. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• I think that's an excellent summation/outcome. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I can go with that -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Accuratelibrarian

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 Accuratelibrarian

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IdanST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IdanST (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:BLUDGEON, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BLP

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

In a relatively short time, the user made over 30 edits on the talk page of the deceased Charlie Kirk in many multiple topics, including disruptive edits such as "He was a despicable person spreading hate, racism, and disinformation".

1. 16:22, 12 September 2025
2. 16:28, 12 September 2025
3. 16:34, 12 September 2025
4. 16:43, 12 September 2025
5. 18:01, 12 September 2025
6. 18:04, 12 September 2025
7. 22:46, 12 September 2025
8. 22:50, 12 September 2025
9. 22:43, 13 September 2025
10. User contributions

IdanST (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification.

Discussion concerning Accuratelibrarian

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.

Result concerning Accuratelibrarian

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

• Most of these comments are about reliable sources' analysis of Kirk's political views. Editors are allowed to discuss the POV that Charlie Kirk's views were bigoted; editors are allowed to agree with that POV, even. "A despicable person", howevever, is editorialization and crosses the line into WP:NOTFORUM and goes against the spirit of WP:BLP. I don't have a strong feeling as to whether the remedy to that is a formal or informal warning. Which is just as well, as procedurally I don't see any indication that Accuratelibrarian is WP:AWARE of WP:CT/AP or WP:CT/BLP, and as such we can't (as an AE action) do more than warn regardless. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Matrix

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

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

Appealing user

Matrix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 22:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

ECP protection of Italian brainrot

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[108]

Statement by Matrix

Daniel Case protected Italian brainrot with indefinite ECP. ARBPIA remedy 7 says "the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment" instead. I feel this would be more appropriate, along with lowering the protection to PCP, since the only section affected by this case would be "Controversial audios". (Moved from ACE by me) —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 22:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel Case

I don't have any inclination on this one way or the other, save to say that given how contentious this contentious topic area has been and continues to be, any reduction in this protection level should be taken through this process and not unilaterally. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Matrix

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.

Result of the appeal by Matrix

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