Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives:

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)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [40]. Yet, just half an hour later they were socking with an IP while fully aware they were violating GS/AA [41]. 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 [42], [43], 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 [44], and later it became apparent that they were given too much WP:ROPE as stated by the admin who unblocked them [45]. Vanezi (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Viceskeeni2: please make comments in your own section. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Why do you feel the need to edit in this topic area again? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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.
18 August - Removes sourced content with a misleading edit summary.
11 August - Edit warring to restore above edit.
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.
27 August - Removes longstanding sentence from lead claiming it is "Undue" when the subject in question is an unreliable outlet, notorious for spreading misinformation.
27 August - Engages in edit warring by restoring his revert and citing BRD when he is himself bringing a new edit to the article.
27 August - Continues edit war by falsely claiming "added about a month ago".
27 August - Derailing the thread and attacking another editor by bringing up how he "is t-banned from a closely related topic area".
28 August - Even after being told to focus on content, he is still talking about "editorial behaviour". See WP:IDHT.
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."
28 August - Poisoning the well by falsely accusing another editor of using "slurs in an offhand manner" and breaching "Wikipedia:Civility".
29 August - WP:IDHT; Still repeating his above false accusations.
29 August - Unnecessarily targeting another editor on the AfD by pointing out their edit count.
29 August - Now falsely accusing this editor of "very COI".
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".
30 August - Falsely accusing another editor of "hounding me around" despite this user edited ANI weeks ago after Gotitbro reported him there.[46]
Has made 4 reverts in 3 days to remove same content.[47][48][49][50] A look at the talk page (see (Talk:Pajeet#Edit_to_history) shows he is being WP:1AM here.
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): [51]

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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [52]

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.

Statement by (username)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

[53]

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.[54][55][56][57][58] He has indicated he will keep disregarding consensus.[59] 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)[reply]

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[60][61][62][63][64] I think illustrates the problem. Koriodan (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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".[65] 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.[66] Koriodan (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[67]

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.[68]

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.[69]

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.[70] Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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[71]. 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.[72] 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.[73] 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.[74]

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[75] and not the material itself. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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."
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

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)[reply]

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

Stickhandler

Withdrawn and moved to WP:ANI. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[76] 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.[77][78][79]

Along with other edits on Gordon Guyatt.[80]

All of these edits are from today.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
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

[81]

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.[82]

This seems to me intentionally misleading. Take this edit from last night with the sole edit summary ce[83]

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[84]

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

Statement by Cdjp1

[85] - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

19:04, 8 September 2025 - reverted my attempt to implement a WP:CONS and a position of the FIBA's official website (see: HERE);
22:56, 8 September 2025 - continue to oppose my edit in talk page;
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;
20:36, 10 September 2025 - continue to oppose a reached WP:CONS;
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;
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 [[86]], 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 [[87]], then they did that again today [[88]] 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)[reply]

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 [[89]] 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, [[90]], [[91]] - that kind of behaviour is actually problematic and concerning. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 [[92]], 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 [[93]] 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 [[94]] after which you admitted that you are often WP:involved in Balkan related topics [[95]] - 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)[reply]
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, [[96]] 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)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ [[97]] 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 [[98]], [[99]] and previously in 2022 [[100]]. Theonewithreason (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by (username)

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 [101][102][103] 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Joy: The new motion announced at WP:AC/N might interest you -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sadko, please add new replies to other editors on your own section. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

13:22, 11 September 2025 - broke WP:UNCIVIL, WP:FORUM and WP:NPOV in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Kirk, a contentious topic.
13:44, 11 September 2025 - again broke WP:CIVIL.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Maran125606

Maran125606 blocked for 72 hours for ECR violations. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

2025/Sep/07 04:36 - Prot request for Konar (caste) in an attempt to preserve this pre-alert edit, characterising opponents as vandals
2025/Sep/07 04:50 - Demand for administrators to revert to his preferred revision on Gingee Fort
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
2025/Sep/12 11:07 - Changing the caste affiliation of a historical figure
2025/Sep/13 05:18 - Copypasta of Diff 2 above on talk page of article
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ^[1]

Comment-references

References

^ [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]

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

[104]

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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[105]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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".

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

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.

Statement by Accuratelibrarian

Statement by (username)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [106]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

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.

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

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.

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

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

[3] [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]

[a]

[b]

[1]

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