Proposed parties

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

• SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

•

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Robert McClenon

A thread has been open at WP:ANI since 7 March 2026 concerning User:SchroCat, and seems to be going nowhere, that is, not reaching a consensus. The editor in question has a history of bringing articles to Featured Article status, and also has a history of defending these articles against subsequent edits. Their defense of these articles is viewed by other editors as article ownership, and is often characterized by incivility and by insults that are seen as personal attacks.

The WP:ANI thread has resulted in four proposed sanctions, the first being a 1RR restriction against edit-warring, the second being a form of probation, the third being a form of mentorship, and the fourth being a ban. It is not easy to count support and opposition, because discussion of sanctions began informally so that some of the votes were not bolded. By my count, which I do not consider accurate, at about 1800 GMT, 21 March 2026, there were 7 votes for 1RR and 12 votes against 1RR, and 12 votes for probation and 11 votes against probation. There were 2 votes for a ban, and 1 vote for mentorship. The votes for and against probation look like a textbook example of no consensus, and the scattering of votes on other remedies look like there is no consensus. The mandate of ArbCom is to resolve disputes that the community cannot resolve. The dispute over this editor appears to be a dispute that the community cannot resolve, and some users have made statements to that effect.

There is an essay, written in 2011, that is questionably named Unblockables. It is about users who are blocked but don't stay blocked, either because their blocks are lifted by other administrators, or because all of their blocks are short. (The essay says that they are frequently blocked and unblocked.) The essay was and is about editors who are esteemed by some other editors as article content creators, and who don't learn to be civil from repeated short blocks. SchroCat is such an editor, who is frequently subject to short blocks for incivility. Sometimes the community is divided by contentious topics, but sometimes the community is divided by contentious editors.

I am aware that ArbCom cases usually involve topic areas or processes, but I think that occasionally ArbCom should consider cases involving a contentious editor, and this is such a case. I am not asking ArbCom to review the Featured Article process or any other topic area or process. Maybe ArbCom can craft an appropriate remedy to ensure that this editor remains a net positive to the community.

Wikipedia has a policy that blocks are preventive and not punitive. Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. There is a tension between those two principles with regard to editors who don't learn from their blocks and so continue to be or resume being uncivil.

Unfortunately, this is a dispute that divides the community, and the community cannot resolve it, and ArbCom should open a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat

Statement by Szmenderowiecki

Robert McClenon, I understand where you are coming from but I think one ANI discussion is not enough for a full case. I think there has to be several elements weighed:

• If the comments were made in bad faith
• If it is likely or clear that the abrasive editing style has dissuaded others from contributing, or made others seriously consider withdrawing, even if the comments were otherwise well-intended
• If it's indeed a pattern and not a specific article

There may be some arbs who are familiar with SchroCat but if they are not, IMHO it's best to present all the evidence of alleged misconduct upfront. It's in the interest of people unaware of the story behind this filing, but also allows SchroCat to address the allegations if they so choose. Maybe not exactly due process but at least common decency.

(If there's so much of bad stuff, just show the most clear-cut cases that, in RL terms, would give probable cause to dig much deeper).

Without a demonstrated a pattern of bad behaviour and a pattern of cover-ups or questionable interventions to avoid/overturn sanctions, I don't think ArbCom should intervene. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 09:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

SchroCat: Clerk notes

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

SchroCat: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Statement by EarthDude

The inclusion of the term "broadly construed" here would align with the August 2025 ARCA request regarding scope of IMH. According to the linked request, IMH is already supposed to apply in a "broadly construed" manner. With WP:CT/CASTE now including the term, it would only be confusing and misleading for editors if the other subtopic is also applied as broadly construed in practice, but not stated as such. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to comment that the main reason I bring this up is due to the discrepancy regarding the usage of the term "broadly construed" when it comes to CTs. For instance, as @45dogs has highlighted, many CTs include the terms "broadly construed" or a variant of it, as is the case with WP:CT/PIA and WP:CT/CF. Out of the 23 contentious topics (including the two subtopics of WP:CT/SA), 17 explicitly state either "broadly construed" or the aforementioned variation. If such a practice is widespread but not uniform, then new coming editors or editors who don't fully know the workings of CTs are bound to misled over the scope of many of these, such as IMH as I've brought here. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I support the potential motion. It's a pretty small fix which will help clear up the confusion. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by 45dogs

This does seem to be a larger discrepancy than just IMH. The list of CTOPs that don't specify broadly construed are:

• The Arab-Israeli Conflict
• Biographies of living people
• Infoboxes
• Gender and sexuality
• Pseudoscience and fringe science
• Historical elections
• Yasuke
• Indian Military History

PIA and CF are unique in that they specify broadly interpreted, rather than broadly construed. From my check, all the other CTOPs specify broadly construed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 07:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Gramix13

I am concerned about the draft motion's increased scope of the Zak Smith extended-confirmed restriction by inserting broadly construed. My understanding (from an outside perspective) is that the disruption that lead to the motion was contained in the Zak Smith article, and so making it broadly construed might lead to articles who's subjects Zak had some involvement in, an in particular Dungeons & Dragons, would have to have the ECR applied to comply with the broadened scope of the motion (or preferably, at the very least, only when it pertains to Zak Smith). I don't think it would hurt to have the committee solicit feedback from those who've worked in the Zak Smith topic area (including some of those listed in the proposed parties of the case in September 2025) to see if such a broadened scope is necessary or not, especially as it is a restriction set to lapse after 30 September 2026 if no editor requests the committee to consider an extension. Gramix13 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The Zak Smith designation is already broadly construed (WP:ECR, by its own definition, applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed). The motion would just say so explicitly. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok so the motion would add extra redundancy by mentioning explicitly that they are broadly construed to make that more clear beyond the definition in WP:ECR. In that case, I have no other concerns with the motion, thank you for taking the time to clarify that. Gramix13 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by The Bushranger

On the currently proposed motions, while I do understand that (a) the language establishing all CTs as "broadly construed" is in WP:CT and (b) there's a reasonable desire not to repeat things, I can absolutely see removing the "broadly construed" language from the individual CTs as opening the door for an unusual situation: good-faith Wikilawyering from editors who have only read the applicable CT for something they were sanctioned for and believe that what they were sanctioned for doesn't fall under a CT as strictly confused and, not having (yet) read CT itself, are unaware that all CTs are by default broadly construed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Indian military history: Clerk notes

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

Indian military history: Arbitrator views and discussion

• aren't CTs broadly construed unless otherwise specified? I'd be fine clarifying that explicitly if there's a discrepancy, but I would default to saying it's broadly construed anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  They are, per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Contentious topic restrictions, and there's nothing about this CTOP that specifies otherwise. - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  WP:ECR is a separate restriction from WP:CT, but ECR likewise notes that it "applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed". (But yes, it is a tad confusing that one ECR subtopic of WP:CT/SA now says it is broadly construed while the other is silent.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• all righty, are we cool with just a clarification, or do we wanna amend? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think clarify is fine since it's broadly construed by default, but I wouldn't oppose if someone wants to amend. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• I do think we should amend our remedy. We owe it to the community to use clear, consistent language in our decisions, and it's a super easy fix. I've written a potential motion to address this more broadly; see below. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by LokiTheLiar

This specifically concerns point 5 of the new WP:AEPR restriction. My understanding of the intent of that exception is that it's supposed to cover the general case of posting diffs that are relevant to an ongoing AE discussion, and under that understanding I posted two article edits to a discussion under WP:AEPR. However, once I posted it was pointed out that taken strictly the wording of that exception is much more narrow. There's a possible reading where it doesn't cover posting any diff from after the enforcement request was filed, and it also doesn't seem to cover article diffs at all.
The same admin that pointed this out suggested I come here to clarify, and frankly I'm also curious. Was the wording of point 5 of the AEPR intentionally narrow or is it supposed to be broader? Loki (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

Should a separate amendment request be filled or are arbs able to consider amendment in this request? I think it's fairly clear what point 5 of WP:AEPR means. A better question is if that's how it should be. Is it beneficial to prohibit the posting of diffs which demonstrate ongoing behaviour which is directly relevant to the subject area for which an editor may have been reported? If it stays prohibited then the only way to address ongoing behaviour would be with the filling of potentially parallel reports at AE, which I don't think anyone would welcome. TarnishedPath^talk 08:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Ps, I should probably clarify that I'm not suggesting that anyone should file a parallel report in the current circumstance, I'm more thinking of things going forward. TarnishedPath^talk 09:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

A new request wouldn't be necessary for an arb to propose a motion to amend. On the merits, I think #4 ameliorates that. Rather than filing a parallel request, a user can ask one of the admins (or on the talk page, though that's more likely to go without a response) for permission to provide the diffs. AEPR is for use when input from more users seems to be a net negative, but an admin can decide a comment should be invited. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 12:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking that removal of the term "past" from point 5 may be beneficial. I understand that AEPR is brought in when admins think that there are too many editors pilling on; however, from what I've seen of the usage to date it's been applied when most of those pilling on are not adding anything by way of evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 13:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks 45dogs for some diffs confirming what I personally have seen, that the AEPR restriction has been imposed when there has been editors offering opinions and discussing with other editors in the absence of the provision of evidence and analysis thereof. TarnishedPath^talk 06:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Ps, I didn't exactly state what I think should be changed above.

Point 5 currently reads Users providing links to relevant past discussions or administrative actions, without any editorialization

I think it would be beneficial to read Users providing links to relevant discussions, edits or administrative actions, without any editorialization TarnishedPath^talk 06:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by 45dogs

Adding on to TarnishedPath's proposal for reforming AEPR, there appear to have been 5 uses of the AEPR restriction. Those are:

• Riposte97 (Reason for enacting)
• Raskolnikov.Rev (No stated reason for enacting)
• إيان (Reason for enacting)
• Iskandar323 (Reason for enacting)
• Cinaroot (Reason for enacting)

It seems the most common reason for enacting is participants discussing amongst themselves, as that is why it was enacted for إيان and Cinaroot. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure many concrete conclusions can be drawn from 5 different instances of AEPR being invoked, but I think it may be helpful amending AEPR to require admins to give a stated reason why they are enacting the restriction, for both accountability and to help in reviewing if AEPR can be improved. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 06:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Transgender healthcare and people: Clerk notes

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

Transgender healthcare and people: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I wasn't around then, but based on the text of WP:AEPR, it seems like the intent was to permit links to previous times an editor's behavior came under scrutiny—e.g. past discussions, the WP:AELOG, the standard block log—but to prohibit adding actual evidence. In the present case, adding those diffs would not be permitted. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• "Providing links to relevant past discussions or administrative actions, without any editorialization" doesn't seem to leave much room for interpretation. The only links that can be provided by third parties are links to previous sanctions or discussions about the editor in question, like a diff where an admin informed them of a sanction or a previous noticeboard thread. If you want to present evidence, you would have to be invited by an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• I'm happy to participate on this from either side of this header, but I'm curious to know if other arbs think my participation in the original thread on substance (plus a tongue-in-cheek comment on the procedure here) is enough that I need to recuse. Don't be shy about telling me to scram :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• I agree with HJM and HB. The two diffs are links to article edits, not "discussions", so AEPR #5 unambiguously doesn't apply. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• I see no great need to change anything here. Izno (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Recused. - Aoidh (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by SdHb

Afghanistan-related articles covering ethnicity and demographics are subject to chronic, structural disruption by newly created single-purpose accounts that systematically alter demographic figures, delete sourced content without edit summaries, or insert unsourced claims in service of clear ethnic or political agendas. This is not episodic vandalism but an ongoing, large-scale problem rooted in real-world ethnic tensions between Afghanistan's major ethnic groups, namely Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and others, that shows no sign of abating.

The topic already falls under WP:CT/SA, which acknowledges its sensitivity. However, the existing framework has proven really insufficient. The pattern is consistent: a newly created account appears, makes dozens of edits across numerous articles without ever providing a single source, alters figures to serve a particular ethnic narrative, and disappears or is reported only to be replaced by the next account doing the same thing. Individual ANI reports treat the symptom, not the disease. Temporary page protections lapse. Good-faith editors cannot reasonably be expected to monitor and report disruption across hundreds of articles indefinitely.

Three recent cases illustrate the problem, and they represent only a fraction of what could be documented:

Afghanistan Mottahid made 81 edits since 31 January without providing a single source. They repeatedly deleted well-sourced content on Ethnicity in Afghanistan (Special:Diff/1336719606) and Herat (Special:Diff/1339423045, Special:Diff/1339423613, Special:Diff/1339423713) and inserted unsourced content (Special:Diff/1336719926). When reported at ANI, no action was taken because the account had gone dormant, illustrating exactly why reactive enforcement is insufficient.

ArashArianpour888 has systematically manipulated ethnic demographic figures across multiple articles, consistently downplaying Pashtun presence and inflating Tajik figures contrary to the academic consensus reflected in existing sourced content. Examples include edits on Mazar-i-Sharif (Special:Diff/1336696255), Ethnicity in Afghanistan (Special:Diff/1339992473), Tajiks (Special:Diff/1341947648), and Herat Province (Special:Diff/1342130664). When confronted at AN, the user dismissed concerns by appealing to personal experience rather than providing sources (Special:Diff/1340895422) which is a textbook case of WP:IDHT while continuing the same editing pattern.

Amir TJK repeatedly inserted slurs targeting ethnic Hazaras into Panjshir Province (Special:Diff/1295382319, Special:Diff/1295674375, Special:Diff/1295356324, Special:Diff/1294901327). The slurs remained in place for an extended period before being noticed.

Semi-protection (autoconfirmed: 4 days, 10 edits) is a trivially low barrier for motivated editors. Extended confirmed restriction (30 days, 500 edits) would filter the vast majority of mission-driven new accounts while leaving the overwhelming majority of established good-faith editors entirely unaffected, so exactly as it has functioned effectively for caste-related topics under the same CT/SA framework.

I am requesting that this committee extend ECR to cover: (1) all articles related to ethnicity in Afghanistan, and (2) articles on provinces, districts, and major cities of Afghanistan where ethnic demographic content is present. I am prepared to provide extensive further diff-based documentation upon request.

Prior discussions: ANI: AfghanMottahid, ANI: Amir TJK, ANI: ArashArianpour888, Village pump proposal.

• @Izno Exactly, going to AE would provide only temporary relief, capped at one year under Remedy 6b, after which the entire process would need to be repeated indefinitely for a problem that is structural and shows no sign of resolving. Again, I can provide diffs going back maybe even to the beginnings of the WP project. The disruption I’m documenting isn‘t tied to a news cycle or a temporary spike in interest but is rooted in real world ethnic tensions that are unlikely to abate within any foreseeable timeframe. An amendment here would resolve the issue permanently rather than requiring annual renewal. That’s why I came here rather than AE. SdHb (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish fair enough. Given that multiple arbitrators have pointed in that direction, I will take the AE route first and return here if the one-year cap proves insufficient (which given that this disruption predates most of the accounts I have cited) I strongly suspect it will. Filing at AE shortly. SdHb (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by The Bushranger

• @Asilvering: For the record I suggested it be brought here more as an amendment to WP:CT/SA overall, as opposed to strictly the SASG portion of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Asilvering: Exactly; this proposal would be to create a third "sub-CT" of SA under ECR, I imagine. I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not, but - given the overall CT - I thought it might be best to have Arbcom look at it; there is of course always the possibility of a community-imposed "overlay" as with KURD, AA, and EE/RUSUKR of course. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Jéské Couriano

My view of the CASTE restriction is that it applies to all social strata and ethnic groups in the South Asia region - castes, tribes, etc. (This is in line with GS/CASTE before it was folded into SA.) This would include Afghanistan despite that country not being part of GS/CASTE in the first place; the SA CTOP essentially plugged that loophole per "broadly construed". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Izno: CASTE did not include Afghanistan in its ambit as a GS, which is (in my eyes) the reason for this specific request. Relative to other CASTE topics Afghanistan hadn't historically been an issue in that aspect (or if it was, it had been covered by IPA). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

ECR extension: Articles touching the topic of ethnicity in Afghanistan: Clerk notes

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

ECR extension: Articles touching the topic of ethnicity in Afghanistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

• This is obviously a "contentious topic" in the non-Wikipedian definition of the term, and I agree that there is likely to be some merit in protecting some of these pages. But the case that led to WP:CT/SASG had nothing to do with Afghanistan's ethnic groups as far as I can recall. I agree with Bushranger that you've asked for a very, very broad list of page protections, and that your proposal is unlikely to be achieve consensus as written. But I don't agree with the suggestion that you send it here. -- asilvering (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger, Afghanistan is already part of WP:CT/SA. ECR is limited to WP:CT/SASG and WP:CT/IMH. -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• All four [p]rior discussions are less than 24 hours old, so I don't see this as serious conduct dispute[] the community has been unable to resolve (which is our mandate). The community can authorize ECR if it wishes, so this can be sorted at the village pump. Decline. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Decline, but mostly because WP:CT/SA already gives this power to AE admins. Failing that, I would likely agree with House that the community should try to resolve it first. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, that power was the one specifically identified as the item to be modified by the requester. :) Izno (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  yeah, but why? this doesn't need to be amended to accomplish the thing they want. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  I gather that going to AE and coming here were about equivalent in effort, and one provides only limited relief while the other provides indefinite relief. But SdHb probably should answer the question. Izno (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Jeske, that is what GSCASTE applied to. My understanding is that after March 1, arbitrary social groups are no longer covered. Izno (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  And now I've been reminded of my opposition to the existence of 6b. This is impractical and should be deleted/retired post haste. So from that point of view I cannot support suggesting/employing it as a remedy. Izno (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  Jeske, the point I'm making is that even if Afghanistan were relevant to the pre-SA-case scope (and indeed it was not), this request isn't relevant to the post-March 1 scope of the ECR because the request isn't asking about caste topics. Izno (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• I would rather see this go to AE first. If they address it with up to a year of ECR and there are problems after then we can look at permanent expansion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• I would prefer to have it first discussed more significantly at either AE or VPR before asking us. We authorized a consensus of AE admins to create an ECR like this for a subtopic of IPA. AE may be able to reach a consensus for or against, or to refer it here. And, of course, the community can create ECRs at village pumps (proposals), including within an ArbCom-authorized CTOP. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Permission gaming.

Talk:List of Palestinians

Melat Kiros

Violations of WP:ARBECR

Yet another Gaza Genocide move request

Page protection for high risk article

• 2026 Kabul hospital airstrike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page protection: This is an article currently displayed on the main page about a hospital being airstriked leading to mass civilian casualties, and it's part of a conflict taking place in a region designated as a contentious topic area (WP:CT/SA). If this isn't high risk I'm not sure what is. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 09:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• I've got it watchlisted but it actually seems to be fine at the moment. We can always revisit this if there are serious issues. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds good, as long as someone is monitoring it. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 10:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Maltazarian, if you believe there are urgent issues that haven't been seen, you can also take them to WP:ANI for help. Valereee (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm aware, but my request was not a response to any urgent issue; it was meant as a heads up. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 22:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Request concerning Rejoy2003

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SerChevalerie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rejoy2003 (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 enforcement log#User sanctions (CT/SA)

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

1. 17 March 2026 Added "Citizenship: Indian (from 1961)" on Premanand Lotlikar, in direct violation of their sanction to not add "Indian and/or Portuguese nationality designations". Note that this is WP:OR.
2. 18 March 2026 Same behaviour on M. Boyer
3. 16 March 2026 Same behaviour on Maestro Josinho
4. 15 March 2026 Same behaviour on Krishna Moyo
5. 11 March 2026 Added info on Portuguese citizenship at JoeGoaUk

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Special:Diff/1326739812 User has an active sanction against them

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict at Special:Diff/1326739812 by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SerChevalerie's statement contains 776 words and is within 10% of the 775-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 775 words.

User has been warned multiple times of this behaviour. I was hoping that this would stop after the sanctions, but this has unfortunately continued. I am also concerned about WP:BLP issues at JoeGoaUk, previously discussed at Talk:JoeGoaUk/Archive 1.

I understand that the timing of this may seem so but this is an issue that I have previously brought up with the user multiple times on each respective page, to which they have never responded positively. I had hoped that this behaviour would improve after the sanctions but here we are, and my main concern here is the WP:OR. Rest assured, I am here to build an encyclopedia and do not intend any further action against the user if they keep away from the nationality/citizenship edits in this topic area as suggested. I would be even happier if they simply understand where they are going wrong and maybe even get the sanctions reverted. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC) Please comment in your own section. Valereee (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering, @Black Kite and @Rosguill, I do not wish for an IBAN since we are both active editors of WP:GOA, which is already very small. As stated above, I am willing to settle my differences with the user. As previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Constantly_being_stalked_by_User:SerChevalerie, this was not the user's first attempt at getting me banned, and we were both told that we cannot get the other editor banned from the WikiProject. However, I am willing to offer an olive branch here to continue our respective work in this small topic area. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, my olive branch is simple: I am tired of every edit of mine being assumed to be in bad faith, leading to a retaliation and another forum complaint. @Rejoy2003 and I are both interested in a topic area and all I ask is that they are willing to accept that we both are here to build an encyclopedia and follow what advice has been given to them by not just me but others (on this AE thread and the above linked ANI thread). Why the WP:COI complaints were a shock to me is because both of us were actively editing pages like that of Frederick Noronha, our mentor in this common Wikipedia user group, before one-sided evidence was submitted that only I have the COI. As was pointed out at ANI, we are the only two editors on the project, but not every disagreement must lead to an escalation, and I am willing to coordinate on the Talk page of every such article in case of a disagreement. From my end I have always maintained that they have contributed in the creation of a large number of pages on Wikipedia and am willing to hear them out about their concerns with my editing and work upon those. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Rejoy2003, I am now presenting an olive branch: I definitely do not want either of us to get blocked, and I am willing to fix my past problematic behaviour. I made my comments because getting another editor from the project banned is acting in bad faith, but I'm willing to move past this. Thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, I am at my word limit here. May I request for a word limit increase? SerChevalerie (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Timeline:

1. Special:Diff/1341061618: I clean up Viresh Borkar, who is in the news

2. Special:Diff/1341073352: User retaliates, removing sourced content on Gerald Pereira with no explanation. I then restore content; I have since declared my COI here.

3. Special:Diff/1341487738: User files WP:ARC against me (rejected)

4. User files COIVRT against me; I am now unblocked.

When the both of us are part of WP:GOA, which Viresh Borkar comes under, why did the user choose to escalate? This felt like getting me banned in bad faith, out of retaliation. (I reiterate: I am willing to let this go.) SerChevalerie (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Requesting another 50 words. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Accepted, @Valereee and @Vanamonde93. I care more about the project, and agree to stay away from their edits, as suggested instead of IBAN. Request that @Rejoy2003 reconsider; we may disagree but we both care about the project, deeply so. Also, happy with their positive behaviour here wrt TBAN. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1344250631

Discussion concerning Rejoy2003

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 Rejoy2003

  Rejoy2003's statement contains 797 words and complies with the 800-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 800 words.

The sanction was placed because I advocated for Portuguese nationality at BD in its lead section. And the sanction explicitly states "from Indian and/or Portuguese nationality designations". Emphasis should be made on "Nationality designations". The OP has plainly manipulated with the above examples wherein I simply stated the obvious there which was "citizenship" of the subject's country of birth as can be seen at Premanand Lotlikar and in no means advocated for pushed for Portuguese nationality which was a violation of WP:OR, which I completely understand now.Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 10:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Black Kite I am a little confused. I had pushed for Portuguese nationality on Goans born and dead before 1961 it was deemed as textbook OR, which I was completely unaware of. But how can we ignore when multiple reliable sources for example Lotlikar literally say he is "Indian". I haven't added anything new from my side, it was simply in coordination with Indian nationality law which states Goans were designated as Indians as soon as the annexation took place in 1961. Or is it still WP:OR despite not advocating for other nationalities here? Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 11:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Black Kite I agree with you, if source says Indian he is Indian. I didn't do these edits in bad faith, if you were to ask why what's the motive for it? I merely used the same reference to Mahatma Gandhi. Now I know the "nationality" parameters have been depreciated if I am not wrong it must be after my sanction was placed last year in December. If you had seen on Gandhi's article it said in the citizenship parameter British Raj (until 1947), Dominion of India (from 1947). Now how sure are we that there were references that actually said that? because the last time I checked it was unreferenced. And the topic ban was made mainly because I pushed for Portuguese nationality confused about how WP:OR works around these corners. And I would be happy to learn more because I have more questions regarding nationality and Goans. I know I should had atleast asked an admin before adding the years but I am willing to fix this problem. I tried to appeal before but still had questions with how these nationalities work on Wikipedia , but unfortunately this editor didn't wanted to answer more of my questions. Until later when I was busy in this to which this Arb request was filed in the first place as a reaction. I am open to learning more on these nationality and citizenship issues and editing constructively, perhaps you could help me with this?Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 12:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Black Kite I want to learn more about this to be really honest as many of my questions have been unanswered. But at this point, like you have said I think I should clearly stay away from any aspects of nationality and citizenship areas and I would like to do that so. Speaking about SerChevalerie, as many of us are aware this is a retributive filing taken as a revenge to which the filler was blocked. I completely disagree to the statements made by them. FN did NOT serve as my mentor nor have I ever met this person in real life nor do I know much about him, in contrast to SC, WP:COIVRT is aware. The same goes with SerChevalerie, I never met this person as well. The Wikipedians Goa User Group they are talking about is a whatsapp group I was part of something along the lines of "Wikipedians of Goa". I never met anyone from there nor do I know anyone personally. Well SC statements above may seem "peaceful", I rather believe it is to save face for a re-block. I would like to mention he has advocated to kick me out of WP:GOA also showing WP:OWN behavior as evident here where he stated I have "acted in bad faith against other editors." The same can be seen here where he passed personal attacks on me stating "I cannot be trusted and actually been working against the interests of our group". He then retracted his statements later . SerChevalerie passing such statements within hours of getting unblocked clearly seems like for revenge against me. I find this actions to be deeply disturbing when I have given my heart and soul to WP:GOA. I just cant let such personal attacks slide.Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:21, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  GP is on my watchlist. I edit fast and across many Goan articles and tend not to leave edit summaries usually, I did here . I find the same article to be inflated and pushed everywhere obviously because of SC's COI and have evidence for it if anyone needs. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  Two-way iban, me okay. Reoccurring problem. Can't let this pass . Stalking remarks? Willing to share report to @Asilvering who started. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 17:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93 I am looking for a one-way iban, given their past circumstances. Willing to carry the can for a two-way for Goa. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 07:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Rejoy2003

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

Well, that appears to be a very obvious breach of the sanction imposed. I'd be interested to see the rationale for it. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Rejoy2003 There are a number of issues here. Firstly, your sanction was "broadly construed" and I am sure that most people would agree that this would include citizenship designations. Secondly, part of the issue for which you were sanctioned was adding this material without any sources, and I see this is still happening in some of these cases. Thirdly, I'm looking at the example Premanand Lotlikar who was 7 years old when India invaded Goa. I think we'd need a source to say he immediately became an Indian citizen at this precise moment? Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• If multiple reliable sources say that Lotlikar has Indian citizenship then it shouldn't be difficult to add them. But the main issue here is that you shouldn't be messing with these descriptors, that was the whole point of the topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Rejoy2003 I think you just need to agree to stay away from nationality/citizenship edits in this topic area. This does not bar you from other edits about Goa and its people. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• This is very clearly a retributive filing and I am contemplating reblocking the filer. We may need to set a two-way iban here. -- asilvering (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Indeed it is, but it is not without merit. I have suggested to Rejoy2003 above that they just need to keep away from the area and we'll be good. Pinging Rosguill as the admin that performed the original topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  This looks like a clear topic ban violation to me. I don't immediately see the basis for calling the filing retributive, asilvering, Black Kite, what's leading you to that conclusion? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• I am assuming it is because of this edit which led to the filer's COI block. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, thanks. I think particularly the exchange of 1, 2, followed by this filing is pretty clear-cut retaliation, although Rejoy2003's response vis-a-vis the COI concern also seems excessively rude, so I feel a bit more sympathetic to SerChevalerie given the circumstances. If there is an IBAN to be imposed, two-way does seem appropriate. Beyond that, Rejoy2003's argument that citizenship is somehow distinct from nationality falls flat--while they're not synonymous, they are definitely related, and thus covered by the topic ban's broadly construed provision. Taken together with their recent attempt to appeal their sanction to me, which quickly devolved into wikilawyering and failing to get the point, I'm left favoring a block and/or a broadening of the sanction, as the current scope is clearly not sufficient for addressing disruption related to nationality. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Diff 2 is the same as 1, I think you probably meant this?

  The discussion on your user is dismaying. "Help me understand" is basically a more polite "I think you're wrong and will keep questioning until I get the answer I want". Valereee (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie, I agree that a mutual iban would be quite difficult. This EIA is huge: . But to my understanding, this dispute between you has been going on for some time. You were trading COI notices more than a year ago already. What would this olive branch look like? Why would @Rejoy2003 accept it? And what olive branch would you need from them? -- asilvering (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie, can you give us a bit more context about I made my comments because getting another editor from the project banned is acting in bad faith, please? -- asilvering (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Rejoy2003, you're already pretty far over. Go ahead and take an extension to 800 words for now. -- asilvering (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Rejoy2003, they are under no obligation to describe the exact terms of their relationship with the COI topics. They have declared the COI, and that is enough. -- asilvering (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie, go for it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Rejoy2003, a one-way is not on the table. You have been harassing SerChevalerie. I understand you to have also been harassed to at least some extent, but that doesn't give you a free pass to the same. -- asilvering (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm kind of wondering how much of that EIA is from these editors following one another around? In general I dislike Ibans, but I think these two editors are going to have to decide what's more important to them:

1. Working in the topic
2. Policing the other editor's work in the topic

I'd highly suggest the two of them start behaving as if an Iban is the next stop for them, because if they don't end up with one from this, it probably is. Unless you see something that is actually harmful to the project -- BLP vios, copyright vios, for instance -- leave the other editor's edits alone. Stop checking each others' work. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• SerChevalerie, you can take another 100 words. Valereee (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Rejoy2003, what is it that you need it for? You can take 25 words to explain. (Also you don't need to get that permission from me, every worker here is likely watching on and off.) Valereee (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Rejoy2003, well, for beginners, start leaving useful edit summaries consistently. You are working in an area where you have ongoing friction with another editor. Stop trying to work fast and instead work smart: edit summaries are at least as important as the edits, especially in cases where you know another editor may disagree with you. And even the edit summaries you mention leaving such as "(irr)" when removing an entire section don't really explain anything. Irrelevant, I assume? Edit summaries are supposed to explain your thinking to other editors. Valereee (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• The filing may be retaliatory but the TBAN violation is pretty clear cut. I am amenable to warning Rejoy2003 rather than blocking in the expectation that they will avoid further edits about Indian and Portuguese nationality or citizenship. I find the interaction history of these users quite concerning. The internal functioning of a group seeking affiliate status is outside our remit, but this does not make me hopeful that these editors will be able to get along. An IBAN is going to be difficult, but unless both editors are willing to make peace, it seems to be needed. Both editors should read the terms of such a sanction: it will severely restrict your ability to edit pages to which the other editor has been a major contributor. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Request concerning Davefelmer

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Paprikaiser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Davefelmer (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:ARBPIA

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

1. 24 January 2026 Davefelmer introduces content to the Zionism article.
2. 12 February 2026 I partially revert the new content, challenging it.
3. 13 February 2026 Davefelmer restores the content, claiming it is "longstanding".
4. 14 March 2026 I revert the content again following the conclusion of the previous AE proceedings on 9 March.
5. 15 March 2026 (post-warning violation) Davefelmer restores the content again, claiming the reverter is the one who must seek consensus.
6. 17 March 2026 TarnishedPath reverts Davefelmer's addition to the pre-existing version.
7. 17 March 2026 Davefelmer restores the content yet again.
8. 17 March 2026 Davefelmer self-reverts after multiple editors indicated he was at fault and an AE report is being considered.
9. 17 March 2026 (immediate follow-up) Davefelmer attempts to modify the disputed content again.

This request follows a 9 March 2026 warning issued to Davefelmer for ARBPIA violations, including edit warring and failure to comply with consensus-required restrictions. Since that warning, the same pattern of disruptive conduct has resumed. He continues to characterize his January 2026 additions as "longstanding" because a similar version existed in the article nearly two years ago (more details here); under the current restrictions placed in the Zionism article, such material is treated as a bold edit and, once challenged, requires talk-page consensus before reinstatement.

Despite the warning, Davefelmer repeatedly restored challenged content, improperly shifting the burden of consensus onto the reverting editor in contravention of WP:ONUS. After TarnishedPath reverted the article to the prior stable version on 17 March, Davefelmer immediately restored his preferred version. His subsequent attempt to reinsert a slightly altered version of the same text, immediately after a compelled self-revert that appears to have been made only under the prospect of AE action, suggests he is circumventing the 1RR and consensus-required restrictions rather than a good-faith effort to comply with them.

Throughout this process, he has remained dismissive of applicable policies, referring to concerns as "whining" and framing enforcement as an attempt to "establish some kind of authority", rather than engaging with the substance of the restrictions.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 3 September 2015: Blocked for 3 days for sockpuppetry
2. 27 September 2015: Blocked indefinitely for edit warring (appealed successfully the following month)
3. 18 January 2021: Blocked for a month for edit warring
4. 4 September 2024: Blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring
5. 9 March 2026: Logged warning for edit warring and incivility in ARBPIA

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 8 May 2025
• Notified about WP:1RR and WP:CRP regarding the Zionism article on numerous occasions: 28 January 2026 by @M.Bitton, 29 January 2026 by @Smallangryplanet, 1 February 2026 by @TarnishedPath, 13 February 2026 by me, 17 March 2026 by @Cinaroot.
• Also notified by @إيان regarding edit warring in another article in the topic (Gaza war) on 22 February 2026.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As noted by administrators in the previous case, Davefelmer "pointedly avoided any explicit admission of his violations". His actions on 15 March, followed by dismissive comments and the immediate attempt to reinsert a variation of the disputed text on 17 March, reinforce a continued refusal to acknowledge and adhere to the rules governing this topic area. Given that a formal warning has not curtailed the edit warring or the repeated attempts to shift the burden of consensus, stronger sanctions may now be warranted. I therefore request consideration of a more stringent remedy, such as an ARBPIA topic ban, to prevent further disruption. Paprikaiser (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

AE notification

Discussion concerning Davefelmer

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 Davefelmer

  Davefelmer's statement contains 750 words and complies with the 750-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 750 words.

This is WP:HARASSMENT. It is a carbon copy of an AE request that was just filed and closed against me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1342508530#Davefelmer where Paprikaiser himself commented the exact same thing and demanded the exact same total topic ban. He just added a few edits from last week, where Paprikaiser made a revert claiming it was related to the AE when it wasn't. I agreed to restore his version and develop consensus on talk where we've been for days now, only for Paprikaiser to stop responding and file here. The last edit he references from March 17 is insane. This is content that he added for the first time during what he said was a revert, which I cleaned up without reverting because it violates a previous consensus established on that article talkpage (and other editors on the page have corrected as well), and he's now suggesting that's a 1R violation! This is my problem with the edits, his February 12 'revert' of my January 24 edit doesn't restore the content or even section to what it was before my change, and it adds brand new content that wasn't there before. Regardless I agreed to seek consensus for what he claims is the disputed content.

This is a shameless and transparent attempt to stop me from editing content that he doesn't like. We already had a discussion about the topic in question on my talkpage more than 1 month ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davefelmer#Zionism where Paprikaiser stopped replying before showing up at arbitration demanding a topic ban, now despite my skepticism I agree to revert to his version and seek consensus with him on the article talkpage, he stops replying, and shows up again at arbitration days later demanding a topic ban. I am not necessarily asking for WP:BOOMERANG to be considered, but something should be done to stop this AE baiting. Davefelmer (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Response to asilvering (talk) - Anyone can make a complaint about anything, but it’s a frivolous complaint that should be viewed on the merits. It concerns a discussion inactive for half a week now where I already agreed to self-revert. His central claim that my last March 17 edit (not even a revert) constitutes a 1R violation is nonsensical any way you look at it.

Furthermore, after self-reverting, I brought the discussion to the article talkpage and directly engaged with him to find a compromise. He stopped answering, and then days later came to AE demanding a ban. Above I link to a thread where we discussed the same content on my talkpage over a month ago where he stopped replying too, then came to AE demanding the same ban. It shows, I think, a relatively clear picture where Paprikaiser doesn’t really want to discuss the content itself but rather try and restrict me from making changes in places he doesn’t like. I also did not explicitly call for action re Boomerang, I’m more so expressing concern with how eager this editor is to run to arbitration and demand I be banned. Davefelmer (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Response to Vanamonde93 (talk) - This is an inaccurate framing. The 'colonization of Palestine' line didn't exist at all there and was first added by Paprikaiser on February 12. When it was changed, he had to get consensus to use it per the rules of the page. This is doubly the case because it also contradicted an actual consensus established on the article talkpage for how to frame colonization, seen in Section 1 here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=1338987651. Other editors pointed this out and have since changed Paprikaiser's wording themselves on the page. The only disputed content here was the Kibbutz Galuyot line which I self-reverted.

I also question your 'history of sanctions' comment as there's been 1 in half a decade. And the warning was just now. I believe I deserve more than a week to show I can handle the page. If a month from now there's still feuding I'll agree to step away from editing on the page. How's that? Davefelmer (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Response to Valereee (talk) - I don't think that, thought I was being constructive. Fact is I reverted the disputed content and Vanamonde93 (talk)'s assertion that editing the 'colonization of' language violates the consensus rule is incorrect as I show above it's already subject to an article talkpage consensus that I was part of! Other editors agreed and have already reverted Paprikaiser's wording there on the article page.

These two things are the entire substance of the dispute. Davefelmer (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee (talk), I never said edit-warring is ok if supported by consensus. And I confirm I am happy to engage on talk exactly as you lay out at bottom and be extra cautious. Davefelmer (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee (talk) Yes, I think I can handle it now. Davefelmer (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Davefelmer

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

• Davefelmer, if an editor is able to make the exact same kind of complaint about you, with fresh diffs, less than two weeks after you received a formal warning, that's a problem, not something that ought to result in a boomerang. -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Davefelmer, you're past your word limit already, so I removed your comment. -- asilvering (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  Extension granted, to an absolute maximum of 750. If you run through all those, you're done. -- asilvering (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Davefelmer's latest edit is absolutely a partial revert of what came before, and as such this is both a 1RR violation and a CRP violation. Given the history of sanctions and warning, some action is warranted here, particularly as Davefelmer does not appear to understand that their conduct is falling short of expectations. I wonder if a page-block from Zionism is sufficient. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  The removal of "colonization of" is present in each of these diffs: , , . Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Davefelmer, if you think you need another month to learn to abide by an editing restriction in a topic you received a logged warning for (Davefelmer is warned for conduct that falls short of behavioral expectations in the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic, including uncivil communication related to his edit warring) just weeks ago, you'd probably be better off with a page block. A page block from Zionism would allow you to continue to discuss on the article talk page, which if you can do productively and nondisruptively, will show other editors that you understand and will follow the restrictions, after which you can appeal the page block. If OTOH you go back and start editing Zionism the way you have been and we end up here again over a third valid complaint, workers here may assume you simply are incapable of working in this topic. Valereee (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  Editor still thinks edit-warring is okay if it's supported by consensus. I'll support a pblock at Zionism while this editor learns how to navigate one of the most contentious articles on the entire project. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Davefelmer, you're out of words, so if you need to write more, you need to strike out anything extraneous (and FFR: learn to write short; if you don't need hundreds of words in your opening statement, edit out as much as you can before publishing).

  Your assertion that the assertion that editing the 'colonization of' language violates the consensus rule is incorrect as I show above it's already subject to an article talkpage consensus is incorrect; thinking you're right doesn't allow you to edit war.

  The way to handle editors reverting you after you've added what you perceive as consensus is to let someone else handle that change. Post at talk what you're planning to change before you change it and ask for confirmation, pinging anyone who'd been disagreeing if necessary to get them back to the discussion. If necessary, ask for a formal close on the discussion. Valereee (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  So you're saying you believe you understand the policy now and you'll take the chance that if you still are misunderstanding, edit war again in PIA, and end up back here, you'll likely be tbanned from the entire topic, a tban that cannot be lifted by a single admin but needs to be lifted either here, at Arbcom, or by the community? With the knowledge that tbans are really hard and often result in an eventual indef from the entire project, and that dozens of other editors will be waiting to gotcha? That still sounds better than a pblock from a single article? Valereee (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  All right. Support a logged warning, willing to be persuaded that's not enough but I'm leaning toward letting this editor prove he now understands and will comply. Valereee (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: Since my comment from the previous enforcement request was quoted, I am making a correction for a non-quoted part of the comment: "editor who pointed out one of these violations to him" should be changed to "editor who pointed out his edit warring". — Newslinger talk 09:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Request concerning Muhammed Tariq Hawleri 1985

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Muhammed Tariq Hawleri 1985 (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/Kurds and Kurdistan, WP:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan

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

They're not extended-confirmed, basically all of their edits are to places in Kurdistan. You might try to split hairs and say they weren't formally made aware of that, but their edits fall on their own merits even ignoring the extended-confirmed restriction as User talk:Muhammed Tariq Hawleri 1985 is a litany of unacknowledged warnings. Not providing any diffs because it would be easier to list edits that aren't problematic.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

User talk:Muhammed Tariq Hawleri 1985#Introduction to contentious topics

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk:Muhammed Tariq Hawleri 1985#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Discussion concerning Muhammed Tariq Hawleri 1985

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

Result concerning Muhammed Tariq Hawleri 1985

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

• I've given them a time-out but if anyone else wants to get more into the substance of their edits, don't let that stop you. Pppery isn't exaggerating about that talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Muhammed Tariq Hawleri 1985 needs to communicate, starting by responding to this enforcement request, or an indefinite block would be warranted. A significant number of their large edits appear to be LLM-generated, which is in violation of the WP:NEWLLM guideline. For example, the Sarkaw Hadi Ayze article created by Muhammed Tariq Hawleri 1985 on 25 January 2026 was speedily deleted per criterion G15, and this edit to the Halabja article circularly cited two language editions of Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 16:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• This user seems unable or unwilling to understand the messages on their talk page. I would support an article-space block, or a simple indef, if their next edits are not an acknowledgement of needing to do things differently. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  Article space block seems like a reasonable way to get them to communicate. Valereee (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Request concerning Some1

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ethiopian Epic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Some1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision

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

1. 11:50, 7 January 2026 Some1 adds "CNN says" in front of Right-wing YouTuber Nick Shirley, who has created anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim videos in the past even though there are many WP:RS that say this.
2. 23:40, 7 January 2026 Some1 inserts poorly sourced allegations into a WP:BLP section, from a political actor who is described as having extreme politics.
3. 23:27, 7 January 2026 Some1 removes ... described the video as including limited evidence for the allegations.
4. 23:27, 7 January 2026 Some1 removes who has created anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim videos in the past.
5. 10 January 2026 Some1 removes Violence against women in Minnesota and Incidents of violence against women from the murder of Renee Good. Reliable sources note that the agent called her a bitch which is a gendered slur.
6. 00:38, 15 January 2026 Some1 removes Journalists and state investigators followed up with the locations featured in the video, finding centers operating normally and no evidence of fraud besides that which had already been investigated.
7. 12:43, 17 January 2026 Some1 again removes which includes limited evidence for the allegations.
8. 12:43, 17 January 2026 Some1 again removes and said that Shirley has created anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim videos in the past.
9. 02:44, 6 February 2026 Some1 engages in selective templating, not templating the editors he agrees with.
10. 19:10, 20 February 2026 Some1, as a tactic to get his preferred outcome (the inclusion of opinion content echoing the right-wing "reverse racism" claim), modifies a RfC to be non-neutral by tying it's inclusion to non-controversial content that was never disputed by anyone.
11. 00:02, 26 February 2026 Some1 engages in WP:BATTLEGROUND fishing by accusing an editor of being me for simply sharing my opinion (one that he disagrees with).
12. 12:59, 10 March 2026 Some1 asks ToBeFree to block me over content after I raised WP:BLPGOSSIP concerns with an opinion statement alleging right-wing "reverse racism" claims.
13. 22:15, 11 March 2026 Some1 asks Tamzin to block me.
14. 00:48, 12 March 2026 Some1 asks for ~2026-12969-72 to be blocked for pointing out that Some1 is repeatedly engaging in WP:HOUNDING and fishing against editors that do not share his POV. Malcolmxl5 declines.
15. 14:55, 21 March 2026 Some1 violates WP:BLPUNDEL (despite being well aware per him citing BLP when it comes to censoring negative content from right-wing figures such as Asmongold and Elon Musk, or sanitizing eugenics dogwhistling) and, despite an ongoing discussion, unilaterally re-adds Joe Thompson believed "race sensitivities" played a major part in "the rise of fraud", stating that "allegations of racism can be a reputation or career killer." to the "defendants" section of the article with named people, which is disputed on good faith WP:BLP grounds on the talk page, also in violation of the clear consensus on this here.

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)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Some1 has been engaged in a three-month-long POV push about immigrants of color, concerning conspiracy theories mostly from the conservative media about fraud and black immigrants. Also, see this very rude and uncivil comment by Some1. EEpic (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Some1: you were asking Tamzin to block me, as two admins in that thread declined your requests about me and other editors and you were thus WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Also, I began work on this report before your filing. EEpic (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Some1

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

Result concerning Some1

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

• Noting that I've removed what seems to be leftover stock language from the AE template. Also noting that while Some1 wasn't given the AE alert before this case opened, they are presumed aware because of the filing they made against Ethiopian Epic, which Ethiopian Epic responded to with this retaliatory filing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Retaliatory filing and Ethiopian Epic's block notwithstanding, I looked at the substance of this report. I find some of the edits concerning; there is an obvious MO of interpreting sources in the manner most favorable to the editor's own POV. and are what come to mind; the latter insertion isn't supported by the cited sources either. But most of the diffs above are within-bounds, and given the nature of the filing I'm not minded to take formal action. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Some1, at minimum take Vanamonde's post above as an informal warning. A reputation for interpreting sources in the manner most favorable to the editor's own POV is not a positive. Valereee (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)