Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive360

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exper-maelstrom

EC revoked as a regular admin action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Request concerning Exper-maelstrom

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MCE89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Exper-maelstrom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIMH

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

WP:PGAMING to reach WP:XC, e.g. this sequence of 20 edits and this sequence of 16 edits to individually add spaces between words, this series of edits to individually capitalise words in a phrase, and this series of 7 edits to delete the words "it was" letter by letter.
Most of their edits made before reaching XC status were on the topic of Indian military history, in violation of the topic's extended-confirmed restriction. For instance their edits on the pages Shahaji, Tanaji Malusare, Peshwa, Balaji Kunjar and Hadapsar among others. These edits were all made after being informed of the IMH extended-confirmed restriction, and after they had responded to the notification confirming that they had seen it.
Immediately after hitting 500 edits, they started editing the ECP page Vanjari caste. Their edits to the page so far have primarily been sourced to 19th-century Raj-era sources (e.g. ).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

I was advised to report this at AE and this is my first time filing a report here, so I apologise if I've made any mistakes.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Exper-maelstrom

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 Exper-maelstrom

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Exper-maelstrom

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

Good first report. EC revoked (technically not an AE action since it's not in WP:STANDARDSET). Probably all that needs to be done here for now, since further gaming means an indef and further caste editing can be handled as an ECRvio. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Matrix

More information Downgraded to semi --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC) ...

Downgraded to semi --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sanction being appealed: ECP protection of Italian brainrot

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

Notification of that administrator

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)

@Tamzin: what are your thoughts on maybe enforcing this with an edit filter targeting the "Controversial audios" section instead? —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 15:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: thought this would be #3 of Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#On_community_review, since 1) Italian brainrot as a trend has largely died down, and 2) people may want to edit the rest of the article, and this places a large roadblock to that. But ultimately if you don't agree, feel free to close and archive. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery: I think you have the wrong mentality - it's not about whether there's a problem, but how we can encourage new editors. We've already got two edit requests on the talk page of this article, which is a lot in the space of 2 weeks, and a lot of people have pointed this protection out here. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and protecting pages tangentially related to ARBPIA excessively for no reason is contrary to that. An edit filter doesn't have to cover every edge case, and I think we should still have semi/PCP on this page to prevent the usual IP vandalism. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 18:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel Case

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

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Matrix

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.

So, for what it's worth, both Pbritti and Thegoofhere violated the ARBPIA 1RR in the edits in April that preceded this protection. A general reminder to all that that 1RR applies to all content related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, regardless of what page it's on. As to the protection Daniel made, would I have imposed it? I'm not sure. But under Wikipedia:Contentious topics § On community review, the action was not out of process, was a reasonable anti-disruption measure at the time, and the existence of continued disruption in the PIA topic area, including on related content, means that it's still "reasonably necessary" even if some other restriction could be used. I think the best approach here is to decline this appeal, but explicitly not endorse the action as an AE-consensus restriction either, meaning that come April 2026 the protection will be eligible for review under normal WP:UNPROTPOL rules instead of the heightened CTOP standard. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
@Matrix: In principle I have no problem with that idea, but again the issue is I don't see any procedural basis to overturn Daniel's action. Policy builds in a fairly strong presumption of deference to the discretion of the enforcing admin for the first year of a sanction's existence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Daniel Case's statement implies that he is fine with this being reconsidered here from scratch rather than under the heightened standards of WP:CTOPAPPEALS that favor leaving in place whatever he initially imposed. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I am. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
In that case, the idea of doing this by edit filter has some appeal for me. I'd already been thinking about how one might go about that... WP:ECR authorizes us to do it but I don't think anyone's invoked that to date. What I'm thinking is something like:
Create templates called {{START EXTENDEDCONFIRMED-RESTRICTED SECTION}} and {{END EXTENDEDCONFIRMED-RESTRICTED SECTION}}; these would not return anything visible.

Have a standardized hidden comment that would go along with these, something like "Edits between this template and the {{END EXTENDEDCONFIRMED-RESTRICTED SECTION}} will be blocked by a filter if your account does not have extendedconfirmed access. Please see the notice above the editing window for more information."

Have a parameter for the CTOP editnotice to provide said explanation.

Create a filter that prevents non-admins from adding or removing these templates.
Have a extendedconfirmed-show part of the disallow message that says that if you're trying to BLAR the page or remove the ECR'd content in its entirety, just remove all the content between the tags but leave the tags themselves, and ask an admin to tidy up after you.

Create a filter that prevents non-EC users from changing the wikitext that the template wraps. (Off the top of my head, something like restricted := "\{\{\s*START EXTENDEDCONFIRMED-RESTRICTED SECTION\s*\}\}(.*?)\{\{\s*END EXTENDEDCONFIRMED-RESTRICTED SECTION\s*\}\}"; get_matches(restricted, old_wikitext) != get_matches(restricted, new_wikitext), after a removed_lines check for performance? Haven't tested this, but something like it should work.)
Have a disallow message that mirrors the explanation in the CTOP editnotice.
The biggest catch with all this is that someone could still just add content above the START tag or below the END one, or do something like comment out the whole section. (Sure we could whac-a-mole these approaches but there'd always be something else.) But for pages where disruption is relatively low, I could see this being a good way to keep an honest editor honest, especially if paired with semi-protection or pending changes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
There has been a grand total of one edit request on the talk page since the section was imposed. I think that shows there isn't enough of a problem here to warrant inventing new technology, and I would just decline this entire request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
If there's no appetite for something more radical, I propose we close this with a downgrade to semi. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I support reducing to semi at this point. It can be increased again at a single admin's discretion in response to continued disruption. I think the edit filter idea would be better proposed to the community or ArbCom rather than decided here. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

73.250.111.41

More information Blocked for a month by SilverLocust as a standard admin action --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC) ...

Blocked for a month by SilverLocust as a standard admin action --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Request concerning 73.250.111.41

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mikewem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: 73.250.111.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Amendment (September 2021)

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

Oct 3 After being warned on their talk page that they cannot engage in discussion of this topic or make edits per ecr, they once again restored the archived discussion
Oct 2 restored archived discussion
Oct 1 deleted their first ecr warning in collapse top note and un-collapsed discussion
Sept 26 threat to blank the page at the discussion in question, Accuracy of LGBTQ Death Toll

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)

Oct 3 user talk page

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

An IP started the topic Accuracy of LGBTQ Death Toll at Talk:Victims of Nazi Germany. It was not a proper edit request per WP:CHANGEXY, though it could be seen to be in the spirit of an edit request (though probably not actionable). It was an objectively silly take on a serious topic, and other editors weighed in to clarify the misconceptions that the IP was expressing. This 2nd IP (the one I am reporting here), engaged in the discussion, threatened to blank the page, reverted a collapse of the discussion, and reverted an archiving of the discussion twice. Their general conduct looks WP:NOTHERE to me.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Oct 3

Discussion concerning 73.250.111.41

Statement by 73.250.111.41

Statement by WhatamIdoing

The IP has also been edit-warring a comment that Someone's fee-fees got hurt! into a discussion at WT:RSP. I was considering a trip to ANI when I saw the notification about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 73.250.111.41

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

Blocked for a month as a normal administrative action. I believe that is sufficient. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by LilianaUwU

Appeal declined. LilianaUwU blocked for two weeks as an ordinary admin action by Tamzin. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Appealing user: LilianaUwU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban on transgender topics, imposed here

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

Notification of that administrator: diff

Statement by LilianaUwU

I believe this is an INVOLVED TBAN, due to Guerillero previously blocking me as an arb over similar battleground mentality concerns (which are completely false, by the way). If anything, I want someone else to impose the TBAN, because with the history between us two, I don't believe there is any way for Guerillero to remain neutral with me. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Also what Black Kite says. Anti-trans editors have done so much worse, yet have escaped consequences. How come I'm the one who gets consequences over what is essentially a shared sentiment among a lot of editors? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin, you're not wrong with any of what you've wrote. Maybe you're right and I shouldn't expect my TBANs to be lifted anytime soon. But I will reiterate that GENSEX, as well as AP2, is absolutely packed with people who will push a harmful POV in such a civil way that they repeatedly evade sanctions, which is what I alluded to on your talk page. No wonder I'm always angry all the time when people get to spread harmful misinformation and do so with impunity.

As for the canvassing accusations, I maintain that I was never accusing anyone of canvassing, and that IMO, all the Kirk AFDs were "canvassed" in a way due to the news coverage sending people to them. But this is not an AP2 appeal, this is a GENSEX appeal. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

My block in October of 2023 was for, mostly, canvasing in another topic area; however, battleground behavior came in to the decision when choosing if a week block over a warning or a block of lesser duration. The evidence of blatant canvasing is archived in ticket:2023102110003332 if anyone with access to the checkuser-en-wp VRT queue would like to take a look. The battleground stuff mostly lives in the archives of arbcom-en (I can send arbs the thread title if they are interested). There is a strong public example that I can provide, but it is useless without the context that I feel is covered by the way the community sees the boundaries of my NDA. In that case, as well as this one, I acted in a purely administrative capacity. None of my editing reaches the level of WP:INVOLVED.

In a vacuum, the diff I cited would not have resulted in more than a warning for battleground behavior. It should not be lost in this discussion that the diff has to be the clearest example of what treating Wikipedia like a battleground looks like: seeing disputes as having factions, casting aspersions with a wide net based on those factions, and "its either them or me". In the context of Liliana's topic ban from GENSEX that expired in June as well as the recent topic ban from AMPOL that hinged on similar conduct, it was clear to me that the other sanctions have not changed the behavior.

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Liliana is not a party to the case. If she was, in my experience, this would be a diff that would get added to a FoF while voting is happening.

It is past my bed time here. I will respond more in the morning. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Tamzin

I'm not involved in the WP:INVOLVED sense, but I think I'm involved in the sense meant by the appeals rules, given that I imposed Liliana's previous voluntary-but-enforceable 6-month GENSEX+AP2 TBANs and her recent indef AP2 TBAN, so I'll comment up here.

Re Black Kite, on its own the edit is... not great, not terrible. It includes aspersions against three editors, but we can charitably say that the evidence presented in the case is meant to be the evidence for those aspersions, in which case it's more like aspersions against one editor. (I think the evidence presented makes a reasonable case for Liliana's claims with respect to Void and Sweet, less so Colin; based on the voting so far, ArbCom seems to agree.) Still, one aspersion does not a TBAN make.

The important context here, though, is Liliana's long history of disruption in the topic area. You can take a look at the evidence I presented last December that led to her agreeing to the 6-month bans. Since those bans ended nothing has changed in her fundamental battleground attitude. Here you can see yet another attempt to relitigate the Times's reliability on trans topics at a completely inappropriate time. Then there's the series of edits regarding Charlie Kirk's assassination, most notably , that led me to reïmpose the AP2 TBAN indefinitely. In that context, the fact that Liliana made this comment, not just with the aspersions, but with the explicit battleground and right-great-wrongs mentalities (If all three don't get at the very least a complete GENSEX TBAN, you won't ever see me on Wikipedia again, because clearly you don't care about civil POV pushers trying to erode my rights one edit at a time), shows that there's no reason to expect any further constructive contributions from her in the topic area—something that I'll note, unlike any of the parties in the ArbCom case, she has essentially no history of. I don't think I've ever seen Liliana make a constructive edit about GENSEX; her participation is exclusively pot-stirring like this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked Liliana for two weeks for personal attacks / harassment in her most recent comment here. This is not an AE action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Now that I've had time to talk to OS (who declined to suppress but affirmed revdel), just for transparency's sake for non-admins, here is a redacted version of the edit I blocked over: I want to point out that the 'evidence Guerillero posted below was illegitimately acquired by (Redacted), who abused their power (Redacted) and lurked in the AARoads Wiki Discord server with the sole intent of trying to 'get' one of the roads editors. The person in question, whom Liliana pinged, is not involved in any of the rest of this, so this was a purely gratuitous personal attack over a years-old grudge; I also note that Liliana doesn't actually challenge the accuracy of the evidence that person obtained. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by LilianaUwU

Statement by uninvolved Black Kite

Never mind the WP:INVOLVED stuff. Can we look at the actual edit that she was tbanned for? Because I'm pretty sure there's a significant number of editors that feel the same way. Is that edit really a TBANnable offence? It's not, is it? We've let other editors really double down on the bigotry before we even think of TBANning them; there's a chance that some of the anti-trans editors in that ArbCom case might even escape it - though I hope not. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

voorts In that case the other behaviour should have been stated, because I'm seeing nothing in that diff. Oh, by the way I've just suggested that the anti-trans element at this case should be removed from Wikipedia as well (see the PD comments), so I will be expecting my TBAN soon. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

voorts Whatever - I hardly edit in the GENSEX area these days because it's so toxic, and the reason it's so toxic is because there are not enough admins willing to take action against problematic editors in trans-related areas when they undoubtedly would do in other culture war topics. Black Kite (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved FIM

I don't know whether this constitutes an involved action by Guerillero or not, but I'm interested in its trigger. Since LilianaUwU's last edit to the transgender topic area appears to have been on 24 September, then presumably the trigger must have been her latest comment at the arbcom page. However, it's not particularly egregious; I don't necessarily agree with her position, but it's a fairly reasonable one to hold. Are we really, now, topic banning people for commenting on Arbitration cases that they are a named party to? Sure there must be something along the lines of "subject tio the usual exceptions"? —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Threatening to leave Wikipedia ... can be disruptive/indicative of a battleground mentality. How? WP:FLOUNCE might only be an essay, but it's pretty highly regarded, and it suggests nothing of the sort. (Note: I agree that pushing for other editors to be banned/blocked can be disruptive, hence my elision.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by EggRoll97

On the merits of this, I think it's pretty clear that the topic ban imposed on Liliana is well-past justified. Less-so on the merits, and moreso on their behavior in this AE, I'm surprised Liliana was only blocked for 14 days, and not indefinitely, especially considering the remarks they made here are just more of a continuation of their prior behavior in the case, and considering their attitude of "I'll leave if you don't do what I want", which has resulted in indefinite blocks before for less established users. I think it's a good idea to give some thanks, though, to both Guerillero and Tamzin here for their quick action. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Liliana does show self reflection in their post when they write: No wonder I'm always angry all the time when people get to spread harmful misinformation and do so with impunity. Practically every other talk, user talk, Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespace post I read from them is unhelpful in some way or another. Whether that be pot stirring, aspersions, battlegrounding, or generally raising the tone of a discussion unnecessarily (all the aforementioned can be seen in their appeal here, and the associated talk posts on Guerillo and Tamzin's talks). Aside from all the stuff Tamzin cited in their recent ban, this stuff also wasn't so long ago. It's not egregious, but this was also a pretty mistaken, unhelpful/unnecesary and probably demotivating contribution, which in isolation isn't worth mentioning, but it's a pretty strong pattern imo. I also recall some pretty egregious posts in past years relating to gender from Liliana, so while perhaps it's getting better, I think it's still way below the bar for contentious topics.

The other thing I recall is Liliana saying some variant of Things aren't going well for me, and for some reason I thought it was a good idea to lash out against someone who didn't do anything. I'm sorry. (here), or Not like I should be on Wikipedia for a while anyways while I get my behavior fixed (which will likely happen soon, thankfully, as I have a meetup scheduled in regards to that after the holidays). (here), and other instances. I don't think this is really acceptable, especially when all too often Liliana's contributions either start a chain of events that wastes editor time, or are just abusive. I think an indefinite ban is the appropriate sanction here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by LokiTheLiar

(Guerillero is not a current arb.) Loki (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by LilianaUwU

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

We should decline this appeal. Taking a previous administrative (or arbitration) action does not make an admin involved. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
@LilianaUwU, please read the first part of the second paragraph of INVOLVED (emphasis in original):
One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area.

voorts (talk/contributions) 18:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Guerillero's notice to Liliana makes clear that this is an example of conduct that lead to the TBAN, not the sole conduct. Threatening to leave Wikipedia and/or pushing for other editors to be banned/blocked can be disruptive/indicative of a battleground mentality. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Guerillero clarified the reasons above. Your post here and on the PD talk page was POINTy and warrants a warning under GENSEX, not a TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU: I don't know who has/has not escaped consequences. If you have evidence of selective enforcement on Guerillero's part, I'm happy to look at it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: see WP:GOODBYE. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
This appeal doesn't show an adequate basis for overturning the sanction. A prior administrative action doesn't make you involved. If the sanction was not out of process (e.g., involved), what needs to be shown is that the sanction is "not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption". Threatening to leave Wikipedia unless particular editors are banned is treating Wikipedia as a battleground and (as Voorts points out) tendentious editing. Together with a history of battleground behavior (e.g., as previously sanctioned by Tamzin), this is a reasonable sanction. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think Guerillero was acting as an arb with their previous action but that is immaterial, as an Arbitrator acting in their capacity as an arbitrator is not INVOLVED nor is an admin and an admin taking an action against someone they have previously sanctioned is not prohibited by the rules. The comment does display a battleground behavior, and an indefinite topic ban is a reasonable escalation from a six-month (voluntary but enforceable) topic ban that expired in June. As such I find no grounds, based on the criteria, to overturn the topic ban. Independent of that, I have, as a measure of first resort, suppressed the previously RD'ed comment and brought it to the OS list for discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Correct Loki. But the claim to being INVOLVED is from when he was. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
It seems like there is agreement among uninvolved admins that the appeal is to be declined. The OP has also been blocked for two weeks and is now retired from Wikipedia. Maybe it would be best to close this thread, then? Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 11:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Boutboul

Boutboul's topic ban is lifted per WP:LASTCHANCE. Given that this TBAN followed a previous XCON revocation, Boutboul is advised that, should he find himself sanctioned in the topic area again, he is likely to find it very difficult to appeal that sanction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Appealing user: Boutboul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Imposed at boutboul talk page ([diff]) and logged at AE log 2025.

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

Notification of that administrator: [diff]

Statement by Boutboul

I’d like to appeal my topic ban, which was imposed for WP:CIR. Valereee advised me to go with appealing at AN or AE after three months and 500 productive non-gaming edits outside the topic. That would put [me] at ~2000 edits.

Timing

The topic ban started on 6 May 2025. As of 4 October 2025, that is ~5 months.

500 productive, non-gaming edits

As of 4 October 2025, my total edit count is ~2,100, which exceeds the advised 500 additional edits outside the topic. Examples of pages I improved:

History of Togo (diff)

History of Benin (diff)

Salt evaporation pond (diff)

Germanium (diff)

Neodymium magnet (diff)

I believe these contributions are productive and non-gaming; all information is sourced. I also created tables, pie charts, and even a map.

Competence improvement (WP:CIR)

I misunderstood several points and didn’t pay enough attention to Valereee’s warnings. In particular, I took the “Lorem ipsum” example literally because I didn’t know it was placeholder text. I’ve learned from this: I now check context and policy notes before editing.

I’m appealing because I have met the advice given and I believe I have addressed the WP:CIR concerns. – Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Boutboul

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Boutboul

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

@Tamzin: Just checking you've seen this and if you had any thoughts? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings about this, but given the way Valereee and I framed the unblock, and that Boutboul has followed that advice, I think the default outcome here should be a WP:LASTCHANCE unban. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
@Tamzin: I don't have any issues with Boutboul's editing since the TBAN that would make the think it can't be removed but given there haven't been other admin comments I don't have the required consensus to remove the TBAN. Are you willing to do it yourself as the enforcing admin or give your okay for me to do it? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Sure. If there is no further objection in about 72 hours (at which point this will have been open for a week), I will close this with something to the effect of "Boutboul's topic ban is lifted per WP:LASTCHANCE. Given that this TBAN followed a previous XCON revocation, Boutboul is advised that, should he find himself sanctioned in the topic area again, he is likely to find it very difficult to appeal that sanction". But that's without prejudice against any other resolution if anyone has anything further to say. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Polite bump @Tamzin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with lifting this. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

FellowMellow

FellowMellow blocked for 48 hours for 1RR vios. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Request concerning FellowMellow

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: FellowMellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block 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

1RR and consensus violations (Gaza genocide)

9 October 2025 this is their bold edit.
9 October 2025 first revert to restore their edit
10 October 2025 this second bold edit (which is against the RfC consensus) was made despite the fact that they have been made aware of the RfC's result.
10 October 2025 second revert (less than 24 hours from the first).
10 October 2025 they also refused to acknowledge the fact that they have been edit warring against the consensus.

1RR violation (Allegations of genocide in the October 7 attacks)

9 October 2025 this is their bold edit.
9 October 2025 first revert (once their bold edit was partially reverted).
10 October 2025 second revert (less than 24 hours later).

Assumption of bad faith (Gaza genocide)

9 October 2025 their response to having a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template placed on their talk page is not what you'd expect from an experienced editor.
10 October 2025 their response to raised concerns about their editing.
10 October 2025 same as above.
10 October 2025 even clearer than the above two.

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)

9 October 2025 - I placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@CommunityNotesContributor: that discussion didn't take place at their talk page because of their bad faith assumption. Since it wasn't their first time either (see diff), I deliberately avoided their talk page after that, and took the opportunity to raise the issue once they pinged me. They continued to assume bad faith with me (something that I ignored). That obviously had nothing to do with the rest (them assuming bad faith with others, editing against consensus, breaching 1RR multiple times and even describing the AE notification as vandalism). M.Bitton (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: given the contentious nature of the topic and the fact that they talk page is an area where assumption of bad faith seems to be the norm (as explained above), it had to be mentioned somewhere to at least ascertain whether they are aware of the rules. Their responses and the rest of what they did speak for themselves. M.Bitton (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: that's your opinion. As far as I know, those who are "aware" of the "rules" don't describe notifications as vandalism. M.Bitton (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning FellowMellow

Statement by FellowMellow

I am being accused of this because the user was in disagreement with me. I took the matter onto the talk page to find a consensus. The users were intentionally delaying finding a consensus when I was asking for a solution and asked for everyone’s opinions. User: M.Bitton disrespected me and another user as well saying that our opinions didn’t matter because it didn’t coincide with their. Please see the talk page of Gaza genocide. There were reverts on my edits I did not have clear explanations, so they were reverted back. When an explanation was provided, I did not revert anymore and took it to the talk page. M.Bitton’s claim is beyond ridiculous. The user has discussed on the talk page in very bad faith and presented clear bias, which was also pointed out by another user. I also want to point out that I have not made anymore reverts after the second time. The edits I made were based on because the talk page were intentionally delaying progress of the discussion and the main factor of this issue is M.Bitton, where the user intentionally tried to ignore any of my discussions. I also want to note that I didn’t violate the 3RR rule.

Statement by berch

I'm not sure whether this user is just very enthusiastic and doesn't realize how often they're replying without saying anything new.. or if they're trying to be problematic. But at least a warning to them regarding bludgeoning would be ideal. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not trying to be problematic whatsoever. Also what have I repeated and have not said something new? Maybe you didn’t read what I wrote, as you have not replied to a single thing I wrote and ignored me. I resent the fact that you are making an assumption like that. If I was being problematic, I wouldn’t have engaged on the talk page and opened a discussion. I understand that my edits were reverted as it was not agreed upon and have not made any edits since then. Also I’m not sure what enthusiasm has anything to do it. I’m sorry for trying to defend Wikipedia’s neutrality policy, that in my view has been violated. You are even the user that has been disrespected by M.Bitton as the user made it clear your opinions didn’t matter. FellowMellow (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by CommunityNotesContributor

I just wanted to flag that there was a hatted conversation that imo really didn't help matters at all here, nor should have occurred on that talk page per WP:FOC. If that discussion had appeared on the user's talk page, as should of occurred, it might not have contributed to aggravating the situation which ultimately resulted in the issues raised in this request. I otherwise didn't read the entire discussion beyond that part as it had already devolved into all sorts, but am also far from surprised given how it started. This comment isn't intended to point fingers, only encourage self-reflection. Regards, CNC (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton The first link is after that discussion. I just meant it didn't belong there and only raised the temperature of the discussion even if unintentionally. It would of been better had on the user's talk page even if it were to be reverted like the ctop notice, then at least other editors wouldn't have to read it either. I'm not blaming you for any of the disruption to be clear.. CNC (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton It wasn't necessary as they were already aware per WP:AWARE. CNC (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning FellowMellow

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

I see multiple clear-cut violations of WP:1RR by FellowMellow after they removed the CTOP notice, which included a 1RR warning, from their talk page with the edit-summary "Disruptive vandalism omitted". I have blocked them for 48 hours for violating 1RR. I will leave this open for a brief while to allow further opinions: I believe this was on the milder end of possible sanctions, given the aggressive tone they have employed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by BZPN

More information Grossly exceeded word limit. — Newslinger talk 13:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC) ...

Appeal unanimously declined. Widening the tban was proposed, but, given the WP:AN thread, appears moot. -- asilvering (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Appealing user: BZPN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – BZPN (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from "anti-LGBTQ sentiment, broadly construed and including 'mirror' concepts such as heterophobia"

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by BZPN

I am respectfully appealing the indefinite topic ban imposed on me by @Tamzin on 17 October 2025, concerning "anti-LGBTQ sentiment, broadly construed and including mirror concepts such as heterophobia." This is my first edit involving LGBTQ-related content, with no prior history of contentious editing in this subject area. I have no prior sanctions, warnings, or ArbCom-related issues involving gender or sexuality wiki content. My edit history shows compliance with BRD and other content policies.

The sanction was imposed without a proper basis under the contentious topics procedure. No edit warring in my entire edit history before this situation, no personal attacks, or advocacy were present. The sanction was issued solely due to my disagreement with the inclusion of a quote from a non-academic personal webpage, which fails the standards of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. The dispute was purely content-related, not behavioral. Under WP:CTOPIC and the ArbCom’s own precedent, sanctions must be applied for disruptive conduct, not for engaging in policy-based content criticism.

The disputed edit was fully compliant with Wikipedia’s core content policies. The removed quote (by Raymond J. Noonan) came from a non-peer-reviewed personal website (bway.net), whose domain belongs to a private internet provider ("New York City’s Best Internet Service Provider Since 1995"), not an academic publisher, and the very existence of this Nooan's statement is not even confirmed on the basis of this source. The content used subjective and non-neutral language ("pseudoscience", "victimology") and was not contextualized with scholarly balance. My edit replaced it with a neutral, well-sourced definition based on peer-reviewed psychological and sexological literature (APA, Merriam-Webster, Parent et al. 2019, Haldeman 2006, etc.). This is verifiably within WP:V and WP:NPOV.

The ban targets the editor (me) personally, not the behavior. User:Tamzin explicitly justified the sanction by referring to my "strong views" and not to any editing misconduct. This contravenes WP:AGF and the principle that sanctions must address disruptive conduct, not the mere possession of views. The edit itself was not reverted for inaccuracy, bias, or lack of sources, but due to perceived association with "anti-LGBTQ sentiment" - which I firmly deny.

The sanction has a chilling effect on policy-based editing. Imposing a CT ban in response to a legitimate policy-based removal discourages editors from enforcing WP:RS and WP:V when dealing with poorly sourced material. This undermines editorial neutrality and sets a precedent where criticism of non-academic sources becomes sanctionable depending on topic sensitivity. Previous issues with user space MfD were procedural or administrative matters (controversial issues - with different opinions on the subject) and did not concern content disputes, nor do they reflect on my ability to edit neutrally.

Given the above, I respectfully request:
(a) The topic ban be lifted in full, as it lacks behavioral basis and conflicts with the principles of WP:CTOPIC enforcement; or
(b) At minimum, the ban be reduced or replaced with an advisory warning, conditional on future adherence to WP:BRD and article talk discussion norms.

I am willing to discuss content disputes through the article’s talk page or relevant noticeboards (e.g., RSN) and to abide by collaborative standards in all further edits. I have not engaged in any advocacy, disruption, or incivility.

Thank you, BZPN (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Grossly exceeded word limit. — Newslinger talk 13:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

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

@Tamzin, @Pirate Belle: with all due respect, both of these comments misrepresent the situation and make personal assumptions without factual basis. First, this is my first-ever edit involving LGBTQ-related content. There is no prior editing background, battleground behavior, or conduct issue in this content topic area - neither on enwiki nor on any other project. My block log is completely clean, and my on-wiki record includes years of constructive editing across Wikimedia, e.g. simplewiki, always in compliance with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Second, there is no "bias" or "advocacy" involved in the disputed edit. The change in question was the removal of a non-academic personal webpage of unknown origin (bway.net) as a source - clearly failing WP:RS and WP:V - and replacement with a neutral, verifiable, and peer-reviewed definition cited from APA, Haldeman (2006), Parent et al. (2019), Merriam-Webster etc. That is the essence of policy-based editing, not activism. Third, U4C or Discord-related disputes mentioned by Tamzin are completely unrelated to content editing and occurred in a separate, procedural context. Referencing them as justification for an indefinite CT ban conflates off-wiki and on-wiki matters, which contradicts both WP:CTOPIC and ArbCom precedent. AE should focus on on-wiki conduct related to the specific edit, not on unrelated, outdated disputes. Finally, both comments assume a "bias" and "partisan views" without any evidence in the diffs or discussion (against AGF). According to WP:TEND, a single edit is not sufficient to establish a pattern of bias or POV pushing. It explicitly says that issues arise only when an editor repeatedly engages in biased editing over a sustained period of time. In my case, there was only few edits related to this topic in just one article section, and no previous involvement whatsoever in gender- or sexuality-related areas. Therefore, labeling this as "tendentious editing" or applying a topic ban is inconsistent with WP:TEND an WP:TBAN. The purpose of a topic ban is to prevent further disruption in an area where an editor has already caused repeated issues, not to penalize a single, good-faith contribution. The edit in question was NEUTRAL, properly sourced, and aligned with core content policies. No part of the CTOP framework authorizes restrictions for merely holding or being accused of "strong views." Therefore, the ban lacks procedural and factual justification. I again request its full removal. BZPN (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

P.S.: @Tamzin: the claim that "heterophobia" constitutes a "mirror concept" to LGBTQ-related topics is factually incorrect. The term is independently studied in peer-reviewed literature (e.g., Plummer 2001, Parent et al. 2019, Haldeman 2006) as a social and psychological phenomenon distinct from homophobia. The edit in question was based on scientific sources. BZPN (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The following comment was posted by BZPN as a reply to #c-SarekOfVulcan-20251017140300-Statement_by_SarekOfVulcan. — Newslinger talk 14:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Have I edited any LGBT content before Heterophobia? Check my contribs. BZPN (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The following comment was posted by BZPN as a reply to #c-SarekOfVulcan-20251017163300-SarekOfVulcan-20251017140300. — Newslinger talk 05:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

After these MfDs I changed my point of view, but it's none of your business, it's a private matter. BZPN (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Tamzin

This isn't about the content merits, which it's not up to AE to decide. This is about BZPN's zero-to-sixty battleground approach in a topic area in which they've already expressed strong partisan views (MfD 1, MfD 2), causing sufficient disruption as to prompt a U4C member to comment, in voting to throw out their case over a ban from Discord for anti-LGBTQ advocacy, that local enforcement processes should take action. Usually, when someone enters a topic area and causes trouble, there is a degree of AGF accorded based on the assumption that they are here to build an encyclopedia rather than push a political ideology. BZPN has made it very clear up till now, and continuing now in how they've approached this dispute itself, that their purpose on Wikipedia is to reduce a perceived pro-LGBTQ bias—not because they have evidence that that supposed bias runs against WP:DUE, but because they feel their own, differing views are entitled to equal or greater respect. They seem to be under the mistaken impression that other editors are not allowed to take note of that agenda. But we are, just as much as ArbCom has taken note of both pro- and anti-trans agendas in WP:ARBTRANS. Whether someone's edits are geared toward building an encyclopedia is at the core of user conduct enforcement. I'll refer to an essay I recently wrote, Wikipedia:Partisans, for more on that subject. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@BZPN: If you'd like me to modify the wording to "bias on the basis of people being or not being LGBTQ, all terms broadly construed", I'm happy to, if that addresses your "mirror" concern. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I have no objection to expanding the TBAN, other than to nitpick that the scope of the topic is "gender-related disputes and controversies", not "gender and sexuality". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Guerillero: It probably would be good to broaden GENSEX to actually be GENSEX, and I've thought about taking that to ARCA once ARBTRANS resolves, although in either case, any culture-war-ish LGB-related matters still fall under gender-related disputes and controversies broadly construed. There are cases where the incomplete coverage of LGB topics would be an issue (say, someone who edits tendentiously about statistics on some undesirable attribute among gay men), but none relevant in this case I don't think. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

In view of BZPN's repeated statements that they have not edited LGBT content, I suggest that the appeal not be granted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, note that here, he claimed to be one of 1.4 billion members of a religion, and here he added a Jewish userbox. My ability to AGF is ebbing quickly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

I've said as much elsewhere today but I honestly think Tamzin's action was, if anything, too lenient. BZPN does very little but stir up drama regarding their personal beliefs about LGBTQ+ people. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by BZPN

Statement by GoodDay

BZPN, recommend you withdraw your appeal & accept your t-ban. Move on to other areas of the project. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

BZPN's recent comment at WP:AN, suggests retirement. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 3)

Result of the appeal by BZPN

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

I don't see any issues with Tamzin's action here as an uninvolved admin trying to reduce disruption in a CTOP. As xe explained above and on the related AN thread, it's clear the OP can't separate their bias from normal Wikipedia editing. That, plus the battleground behavior, makes this a good TBAN (maybe even too lenient a sanction). Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 11:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Based on the OP's comment on Tamzin's talk page, the topic ban seems somewhere between reasonable to very lenient --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
This is where GENSEX covering sexuality explicitly would be useful -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
To enforce the 500-word limit, I have collapsed BZPN's replies. — Newslinger talk 13:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline appeal. The restriction is reasonable; if anything, it's too limited. $Salvio giuliano$ 13:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, I support extending the topic ban to the entirety of the gender and sexuality contentious topic. $Salvio giuliano$ 14:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
BZPN received a contentious topic alert for the gender and sexuality topic area at 18:32, 24 June 2025, so Tamzin's application of the current topic ban is procedurally sound. In the sanction notice, Tamzin stated that BZPN has "been sanctioned for tendentious editing on content matters, as seen in this AN thread, that furthers your history of disruptive on-wiki activism on this topic (MfD 1, MfD 2, declined U4C case)".
After reviewing the listed discussions, I see that BZPN's claim "This is my first edit involving LGBTQ-related content, with no prior history of contentious editing in this subject area" is incorrect in light of their prior creation of the now-deleted page User:BZPN/LGBT, which was speedily deleted in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BZPN/LGBT per the snowball clause after many participants described the page as "divisive" and "inflammatory". Similarly, BZPN's U4C case request, in which BZPN appealed their ban from the Wikimedia Community Discord server for the use of anti-LGBT rhetoric, was unanimously declined by the U4C; one of the U4C members stated: "BZPN appears to have violated point 3 of section 2.1 – Mutual respect, which states: Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves."
The above shows that BZPN has a history of disruptive behavior concerning LGBT-related topics on the English Wikipedia and in other Wikimedia-related communities. Now, BZPN has filed a conduct report at WP:AN § Censorship of valid edit on Heterophobia section arguing that another editor is engaging in "censorship" for reverting BZPN's edit Special:Diff/1317194168, in which BZPN removed content from the Homophobia article. BZPN's accusation matches the description of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing § Accusing others of censorship, and when combined with the remainder of BZPN's behavior, justifies the topic ban imposed by Tamzin. I also believe that the topic ban is too lenient, and should be expanded to the entirety of the gender and sexuality contentious topic. — Newslinger talk 14:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline the appeal, and for the record there is a siteban proposal at AN. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 17:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Does a clerk need to remove the out-of-section and over-word-limit comment that BZPN added to SarekOfVulcan's section? Or can any admin do it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Any admin can, but the thread can also be closed by any admin if they read a rough consensus -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, "the management and maintenance of order at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement has traditionally been left to the administrators active there" per the clerk procedures. A consensus close will have to wait until the request has been up for 24 hours per WP:ARBPROC#Noticeboard outcomes. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 01:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I just moved the comment. — Newslinger talk 05:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Gicarke

I have indef'd Gicarke (talk · contribs) per NOTHERE/CIR as a normal admin action. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Gicarke

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Gicarke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: CASTE 500/30

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

2025/Oct/21 15:24: Starting a DRN thread in the sanctioned area
2025/Oct/21 21:58: Complaining on the Teahouse that they are being reverted in the topic area and demanding an Indian user go over their edits
2025/Oct/21 22:33: Requesting another unrelated user assess their edits while repeating a CASTE-related claim
2025/Oct/21 23:03: Claiming (falsely) they haven't edited in the topic area while reiterating their Indian user request
In addition, practically every edit made to User talk:Gicarke since the sanctions alert has been arguing about GSCASTE, with many also being chatbot output; said edits make up practically all of their contributions since then.

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): 2025/Oct/21 14:42

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I was alerted to this at #wikipedia-en-help, where the user came in in what seems to me to be an attempt to gain validation for their actions. They did not get a responce before they left (and it's unlikely they would have as CTOPs and content disputes are generally out of scope there). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Here

Discussion concerning Gicarke

Statement by Gicarke

Hello administrators,

I acknowledge that this discussion concerns edits and talk-page participation related to the Kapol community topic. My position is straightforward: every action I took was directed toward maintaining factual accuracy about a real community and its institutions. My edits were sourced, relevant, and neutral. The page and related links were deleted almost immediately without any review of the sources or verification of facts.

After the deletions, I made no new edits on the topic. The only comments I made were on talk pages asking how to request review or factual correction. I did not add new material, ask others to edit for me, or attempt to bypass any restriction. I asked questions on my talk page. For doing so, I was repeatedly told that even asking about accuracy is “not permitted,” and several of my good-faith responses were mocked or dismissed instead of being addressed on substance. The result is that editors with real community knowledge are completely excluded from even discussing factual matters, while administrators with no subject familiarity decide what inaccurate information can exist. This appears inconsistent with Wikipedia’s mission of open, verifiable knowledge.

The enforcement of the “extended-confirmed restriction” appears to have been applied in a way that completely prevents participation or even discussion about ensuring accuracy. This creates a situation where truth and verifiable information cannot be represented if it involves South-Asian communities. I believe that is contrary to Wikipedia’s core policy of verifiability and open collaboration.

I am not seeking special permission to edit right now. I am simply stating that the record should reflect that my actions were factual, transparent, and in the interest of accuracy — not disruption.

I request that administrators review the diffs objectively and confirm that I have not violated any editing restrictions. I also ask that the committee consider whether current enforcement practices can allow genuine subject-matter contributors to provide reliable information through appropriate channels, rather than being completely excluded. Also, current policies of not even allowing discussion or blocking post seeking guidance is helpful.

Statement by 331dot

This user has had several notices about the restrictions but for some reason isn't getting it and thinks we are in the wrong. Their LLM use isn't helping. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gicarke

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Selim beg

Accepted by blocking admin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Appealing user: Selim_beg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed: Indefinite block, related to WP:GS/AA

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Selim_beg

I have finally understood that WP:GS/AA includes every politic, ethnic, and historical context related to Armenia or Azerbaijan and the Armenian genocide and not just direct conflicts. I take responsibility for my previous misunderstanding and violations of wikipedia broadly construed.

Until I am extended confirmed, I will avoid editing any pages under WP:GS/AA relating to Enver Pasha, Ottoman Armenian relations or the Basmachi movement.

I have read and understood the guidelines at WP:GS/AA, WP:ECREXPLAIN, and WP:BROADLYCONSTRUED to the end and i pledge to follow them. I ask for another chance to add reliable content while respecting Wikipedia's rules Thank you. Selim beg (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

As blocking admin, I think this is a good unblock request and will go ahead and accept it myself. In particular, on reviewing the history of this case from before I was involved in it (I became involved by accepting their prior unblock request), it looks like another admin previously gave them directly opposite advice as to whether Enver Pasha's political and military activity in Central Asia is covered by the restriction. I stand by my assessment that the pan-Turkic political activity of the principal figure associated with the application of the Armenian Genocide is covered broadly construed by GS/AA and should be avoided, but in light of this information this block should have been a caution. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Selim_beg

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Selim_beg

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

Gotitbro

Gotitbro is warned to use clear edit summaries when reverting, and reminded to follow WP:BRD rather than edit-war. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Gotitbro

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ratnahastin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Gotitbro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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.
Has made 4 reverts in 3 days to remove same content. 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)

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)

@Asilvering and Rosguill: Yes, issue persists even during this report, see slow burning edit war at Nazi punk (concerning inclusion of Hindutva pop) and removal of warning with a combative edit summary for the same . Another instance at Rock Against Communism. There is also continued misuse of ANI to get rid of authentic opponents. I believe the proposed restriction would be more than enough to control the edit warring. Ratnahastin (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Gotitbro

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. Gotitbro (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Another user with no interaction (beyond 2025 India–Pakistan conflict). Discussions/detailed P&G rationales for both the film and the riots are being misrepresentated here under bizarre claims of 'POV'. Needn't make any personal comments but for the PA aspersions of "pro-Hindutva POV": been here for more than a decade, people familiar know just the amount of time and effort I've spent to combatting such stuff but adherence to P&G in a CTOPS will not be abandoned despite any personal views. None of the content disputes present a case under ARBIPA. Gotitbro (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Azuredivay

@Firefangledfeathers: You should take another look at this report. You surely cannot say edit warring (see Ratnahastin's latest comment), false accusations of COI (see #14, #15), falsification of sources (see #2) mislabelling reliable sources as opinion pieces (see #18), falsely accusing editors of legitimizing racism (see #18), battleground mentality (see #10), Hindutva POV pushing (see #4, #5) and more violations do not warrant a sanction especially when the editor has 3 blocks for edit warring, 1 of them being in the last 6 months. Similarly, Gotitbro has made 4 reverts to remove reliably sourced content on Pajeet (see #17).

During last month on 1984 anti-Sikh riots, he was misrepresenting "stable" version and edit warring to remove sourced content which was critical of Hindutva party Bharatiya Janta Party and Hindutva organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. He also engaged in mass canvassing. This is all when he had more than a month to address how his false claim of "misrepresentation of sources" was any correct.

The concerns over pro-Hindutva POV pushing are correct. You can see he is alone at Talk:Kashmir Files where he is opposing the label "propaganda" for this Hindutva movie, without offering any rebuttal.

Yes there is a long term pattern of this user when it comes to removing sourced content (which comes into conflict with pro-Hindutva POV), before edit warring to restore his edits and then personalizing the dispute. Closing the report without action would approve of his actions and disruption will only spread further. Azuredivay (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

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)
I'm not seeing anything actionable in 1, 3, 5, 6, or 7. Probably going to close this soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Gotitbro, you can have an extension up to 750 words total, but you may want to save words for when an admin actually responds to the evidence.

Ok, I won't close this soon. I'm having trouble with both the volume of evidence and the low quality I've seen so far. I asked for the 4 or 5 worst diffs from Ratnahastin. In the first 5 mentioned, I saw one revert from G at 2025 India–Pakistan conflict and the absolute mess of a content dispute at Firstpost. Ratnahastin calls G's edit there a "new edit", and Azuredivay calls it "Hindutva POV pushing". I have not seen evidence to prove that G's edit was either. Azuredivay says that G is 'opposing the "label" propaganda for this Hindutva movie, without offering any rebuttal', but G offers a substantial argument for their position at Talk:The Kashmir Files, which is not opposition to the label but concern about its placement and attribution. If this gets closed, or archived without action, no one should take that as an approval of G's actions, just that no admin felt compelled to act based on the quality of evidence provided. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers, I'm having trouble understanding your conclusion here: my first impression reading all but the last sentence of this comment is that you find the filing tendentious. The final sentence, however, does not seem to really follow from the rest. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I didn't find the filing to be tendentious, just poor. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewing all the evidence again, I also find it underwhelming. While it is asserted that there is Hindutva POV pushing at play, it has not been demonstrated that Gotitbro is selectively interpreting policy to this end. The one pattern of misconduct that is evident here is edit warring: while there are somewhat mitigating circumstances of general chaos at Pajeet and Firstpost, given their past history of edit warring sanctions I'm thinking that a 1RR restriction for Gotitbro may be appropriate at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Ratnahastin, has the behaviour continued over the past month? Apologies for the AE limbo. -- asilvering (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewing the edits at Nazi punk and Rock Against Communism, Gotitbro does appear to be edit warring overmuch, although I'm frankly more alarmed by EarthDude also edit warring in order to shoehorn mentions of Hindutva pop into infoboxes without there being any relevant text or sources in the articles themselves. This is a backwards method of writing an article; on that basis I'm disinclined to consider Gotitbro's ANI thread against EarthDude as a mark against Gotitbro, and I find EarthDude's replies to PARAKANYAA and Gotitbro in that thread to generally be missing the point at best and IDHT at worst. All that having been said, the 1RR limitation for Gotitbro still may help reduce disruption, but I think if we go forward with that we need to open a more thorough examination of EarthDude's conduct here, as per the two party rule and EarthDude's absence from this discussion it would not be appropriate to run straight to sanctions at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

(ec) Well, @Rosguill, it looks like a 1RR wouldn't really have stopped much disruption in the more recent cases, given that these recent ones are all pretty rightful reverts following obvious P&G justifications like "lead follows body" and "citations needed". I think I'd prefer a really strong warning, along the lines of "do your absolute best to provide a full justification in the initial revert" and "remember to go to the talk page ASAP if reverted", rather than a formal 1RR, which will have other editors trying to play "gotcha". -- asilvering (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd be fine with a logged edit warring warning. As I mull this over, I'm also not sure what to make of the fact that Ratnahastin considers the evidence that we just addressed meaningful examples of continuing misbehavior by Gotitbro; it seems like it's stretching towards willful ignorance to present them as misuse of ANI to get rid of authentic opponents when EarthDude's edits were clearly problematic. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
At this stage I believe a logged warning around explaining reverts and encouraging a BRD approach would be the most appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
This is fine by me. Addressing Rosguill's points about Ratnahastin, I do plan to give Ratnahastin and Azuredivay non-formal, non-warning advice about evidentiary standards at AE. I'm on the fence about something more substantial, but unless anyone is pushing for it, I'm fine with closure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Logged warning and no further official action it is. I'll handle the former, @Firefangledfeathers, you're up for the latter. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

إيان

إيان warned "to remain civil, assume good faith of other editors, and avoid inflammatory remarks". -- asilvering (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Request concerning إيان

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kowal2701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: إيان (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block 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

12 October 2025 Accuses fellow editor of being WP:NOTHERE for disagreeing with them
12 October 2025 Characterises two disagreeing editors as WP:IDL and their own 'side' as "[expressing] support", despite both opposing editors invoking policy
13 October 2025 Again characterises said editors as IDL, argues for discarding one "!vote" (despite this being an informal discussion) on the basis of them being canvassed (whether this is within the bounds of reasonable interpretation idk, but certainly ABF). Seems to be trying to circumvent WP:CONSENSUS in a disagreement between 2 and 3 editors.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

24 January 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Making this report after discussion at User talk:Tamzin#POV pusher? (my first report so apologies if there're any errors). My main concern was a lack of NPOV editing, scrolling through their contribs reveals a consistent POV. But I only met them recently and my impression is based off of a small sample size, they're an experienced editor with a clean block log and no bans. They started an RM at Talk:New antisemitism where, at best, they don't appear to have consulted the literature nor policy (at worst intentionally contradicted them), and it looks like they just saw a (weakly implied) POV in the clearly common name/term they didn't like. But POV pushing is notoriously difficult to illustrate and I'm not going to attempt a proper investigation. Per N95 70% of their edits are in the PIA topic area, Tamzin's initial thoughts were to impose WP:BER which I thought would be good. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Zero0000, this sort of comment is why Arbcom's recent remedy passed Kowal2701 (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning إيان

Statement by إيان

Hi, this user had never raised an issue with my editing, as far as I know, and I had never interacted with them beyond having happened to participate in some of the same talk page discussions, so I was surprised to be pinged with complaints on an admin's talk page. I apologized for my mistakes and offered to take the warning and affirm that I would be more conscientious and adhere to WP:Civility. Would that be possible here or do I have to take up everyone's time with a full contextualization and thorough defense of the accusations brought against my editing here? As the accuser has correctly noted, my record is clean and I would very much like to keep it that way. Is there a risk that I would receive a sanction without prior discussion or warning? إيان (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

In addition to Zero's summary, it should perhaps be stated explicitly that the accuser's objection to my editing is not only one of civility, but it is also one of substance: the accuser has demonstrated disagreement with the content of my edits, and the dispute over content is even evident in the accuser's complaint as well.

Ordinarily, this should not matter, but while another editor and I did engage in some minor antagonism in that discussion, the accuser has not complained about the other editor, with whom they happen to agree on the basis of content. The accuser did not complain about that editor's antagonism (which actually introduced the incivility, with an accusation that I hadn't done my reading and further failure to demonstrate good faith, which I addressed), nor has the accuser acknowledged that editor's apparent canvassing. Instead, without ever having contacted me about an issue with my editing, the accuser went straight to the admin's talk page with complaints about only about me. I assume good faith but it's hard to escape the conclusion that this incongruity, this concern about lack of civility from an editor the accuser disagrees with on substance, on the one hand, and, on the other, indifference when it comes to an editor the accuser agrees with, might be motivated by a disagreement based on content.

I have acknowledged that I was not perfect in maintaining civility (though I was not alone in it), I have apologized, and I have affirmed my intent to keep my cool and abide by it with more dedication. That should have been it, but here we are. It would be unfair to in any way punish me alone here—just the editor with whom the accuser appears to disagree with on content. إيان (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

I fail to see anything actionable here.

The first diff is unnecessarily snarky, but not actionably so.
The second diff says "As of now, there are three editors who have expressed support and two that don't like it", where "it" is an image. It is a plain statement of fact and not an IDL accusation at all. "Don't like it" is just the opposite of "expressed support" and neither is accusatory.
The third diff suggests that someone's vote should not be counted because they were canvassed to the discussion. The accusation of canvassing relates to this edit and in my opinion is reasonable given that Zanahary pinged the two non-TB editors from the earlier discussion that agreed with him and didn't ping the other two non-TB editors from the earlier discussion. And, again, saying that another editor doesn't like an image when they have stated their opposition to it is a fair statement of fact. Zero^talk 07:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning إيان

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

I lean toward a BER here, but I do appreciate إيان's conciliatory response on my talkpage, and would be open to a logged warning with the understanding that future incivil comments will lead to a BER. I await other admins' thoughts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
This seems minor enough that, with the added apology, a formal warning will suffice, though I'd lean toward a temporary TBAN from the area instead of BER if issues were to persist in the future. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 11:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
@Isabelle Belato, @Tamzin, since there have been no further comments and no objections, I'd close this as consensus for a logged warning, but I'm not sure exactly what warning you had in mind. "To remain civil"? "To maintain npov"? "To avoid battleground behaviour"? -- asilvering (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I think "to remain civil, assume good faith of other editors, and avoid inflammatory remarks" would work. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree. (Regarding WP:BER, I'm not a fan of imposing a TBAN from all but 4 namespaces without something more significant than this.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Alright, hearing no objections, I'll close with the logged warning as worded by Tamzin. -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Theonewithreason

Theonewithreason given a logged warning re BATTLE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Theonewithreason

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Theonewithreason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Statement by Theonewithreason

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 [], 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 [], then they did that again today [] and now they are trying to remove me from that page because they WP:IDONTLIKE. I mean this editor has over 20 000 edits on Wikipedia they should know better to use other tools to resolve the discussion, instead they reported me directly here. Sorry but WP:boomerang should be imposed here. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Also since you closed the ANI report we obviously need to deal with Pofka behaviour here which exceeds the discussion about this article and goes directly against the rules implemented in sensitive topics. First Pofka claims that Serbia "stole" those medals [] 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, [], [] - that kind of behaviour is actually problematic and concerning. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Joy all of my reverts on Nikola Tesla page were according to 20 years of discussions and implemented rules by admins and other editors, and since you are regularly invested in that article you should also know that, there is nothing trigger happy in this especially if I am reverting someone who is openly posting death threats on my user page [], 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 [] 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 [] after which you admitted that you are often WP:involved in Balkan related topics [] - in the last five years I was never blocked nor did I used other accounts, the comment you are referring to in May I did apologise for, and never used in this form again. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Joy thank you for only confirming what was obviously clear for the last few years, that you are probably to often WP:involved in Balkan related topics and that you should take more neutral stances regarding reports to others, [] let us not forget that you were also blocked from Wikipedia for abusing admins powers, so maybe you too might not be well-suited for this contentious topic area. Theonewithreason (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Statement by Sadko

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

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

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

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

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

Second statement by Pofka

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

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

Statement by TylerBurden

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

Statement by Uniacademic

Hi @Extraordinary Writ, Joy, Isabelle Belato, and Firefangledfeathers: As an editor of the Kosovo and Serbia topic area, I have noticed that Theonewithreason consistently displays obstructive editing behavior in Balkan-related articles, with a tendency to perform blind reverts and push particular POVs, often without regard for sourcing or established consensus. This may be of relevance here, so I'll provide evidence from things I have noticed in the past year or so. Below are a series of diffs illustrating this pattern:

– Reintroduced thousands of bytes of uncited text while simultaneously removing maintenance tags that requested citations. There is also POV-pushing by framing Kosovo as part of Serbia.

– Added some sources that do not mention either Marin Barleti or Voisava (the former being a primary source on the latter, who is the subject of the article). The only medieval author who linked Voisava with the Triballi, Barleti, was a Venetian, not Byzantine. Instead, he should have added modern academic sources which say that Voisava was of Serbian origin or that Barleti used the term "Triballi" to refer to Serbs.

– Says that the “Bulgarian theory” on Voisava's origin should be removed solely because it “does not agree with other sources,” disregarding the fact that it is a documented scholarly position. This is selective editing that dismisses reliable sources for POV reasons.

– Claimed that Barleti’s testimony “doesnt matter,” despite Barleti being a primary source on the subject. This amounts to rejecting sources simply because they do not align with the editor’s preferred interpretation.

– After an edit war on Llapusha, another editor started a discussion and requested that Theonewithreason provide a direct quote to substantiate their reverts and edits. Instead of doing so, Theonewithreason repeatedly evaded the request, failed to provide a single quotation, and continued to argue without evidence. This indicates that they did not actually have access to the source and were reverting purely to obstruct.

These diffs are obviously not isolated mistakes. They show a clear pattern of blind reverts without verification, adding irrelevant or misleading sources, removing reliably sourced material for POV reasons, and engaging in unproductive arguments while failing to provide evidence. This behavior disrupts Balkan-related content, violates WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and wastes community time. I am therefore not surprised at all that he is showing such behavior in the topic discussed above. I see a clear pattern here. Thank you. Uniacademic (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Griboski

As someone who patrols the Balkan topic area, I do think that Theonewithreason occasionally is a little too trigger-happy, but they also do a lot of anti-vandalism activity. The sockpuppetry occurred in 2020 and since then they've had a clean block log. I think Rosguill's proposal for a logged warning is appropriate--a reminder to be calm, follow protocol and be more open to others' points-- and a topic ban to be excessive for what is essentially a content dispute over basketball. Probably the reason why Sadko and Theonewithreason often come into contact is because a lot of the same pages are on their watchlist and they have similar interests. I don't see anything egregious on the part of Sadko, however, since their reinstatement. I have just seen much worse things in this topic area. Just my two cents. --Griboski (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Theonewithreason

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

Theonewithreason subsequently started an ANI thread against Pofka, WP:ANI#User:Pofka trying to impose their POV by using WP:battlefield, which I've now closed so we can sort things out here. In no particular order:
- An RfC is going to be the best way to handle this. It's been over a decade since the (apparently never-implemented) 2014 discussion, so I don't think it's unreasonable to want to revisit the issue, and I'm certainly not going to sanction for "oppos[ing] a reached WP:CONS".
- Both of you need to be careful about selective pinging; see WP:VOTESTACK. It's fine to notify everyone who participated in a previous discussion or everyone who's contributed to the article recently, but choosing particular people to ping is often going to be a problem.
- Pofka, I don't understand why you think it's concerning that Sadko participated in the discussion. If you're trying to imply canvassing, you're going to need much better evidence, especially since he had edited the page before and could easily have watchlisted it.
- Theonewithreason, I'm really troubled that you think are reliable sources—they're obviously self-published and shouldn't be cited at all, much less to say that The sources are clear, the discussion is over. Frankly I'm not sure you should be editing in this area at all if you don't have a good grasp of what a reliable source looks like. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ in context of AE, Sadko is actually generally concerning because they had been banned from this topic area once before. They got unbanned in the meantime, which I remember because I've had to complain about that at Guerillero's talk page last year. ~~Thankfully this didn't escalate since.~~ I don't know if Pofka just has some random bias against Serbian editors, but this particular one is still a matter of legitimate concern. --Joy (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
@Joy: The new motion announced at WP:AC/N might interest you -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
@Guerillero thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of that. As it happens, I just noticed a new incident of weird wikilawyering by Sadko at Talk:Nikola Tesla#Infobox (now in...). I don't think this level of shit-stirring is in any way appropriate - they appear to be testing the boundaries of what level of advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle is acceptable. We need to enforce the principles of WP:ARBMAC and WP:NOT#BATTLE again. --Joy (talk) Joy (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm uninvolved in this specific matter because this is the first I hear about it, but I've participated in other discussions like it, for example in the previous talk discussion there or at a football list. Suffice it to say that we have had a lot of issues in the past trying to figure out the most appropriate formatting for the description of these succession matters. Often times, these discussions are rather intricate and are just not very interesting to the general public and are not frequented by a lot of uninvolved editors, so it's genuinely hard to gauge actual consensus. For example, Pofka cites a discussion from '14, but then there's also this discussion from '18. It's hard to say that any of these discussions are really determinative.

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

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

Sadko, please add new replies to other editors on your own section. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Pofka and Theonewithreason are over their word limits. No more comments unless an extension is granted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Ok, having read through this case, it seems like the dispute is a case of editors disagreeing over whether a recent discussion trumps a prior consensus. Given that the prior consensus was over a decade old it's valid to reopen the question; given that evidently multiple editors do stand by their prior comments in favor of the old consensus, an RfC would be the best way to resolve the matter, with the old consensus treated as the status quo ante. Frankly, the most concerning interactions exhibited here are the raising of canvassing allegations, and the response to them. Pofka's framing of Theonewithreason's activity on Serbian Wikipedia isn't great, but I'm also concerned by Theonewithreason's response of demanding a block for aspersions, without addressing the substantive evidence of canvassing that they had preferentially pinged editors with references to Serb identity in their usernames; the correct response would have been to either demonstrate that the pattern of pings was not partisan, or to apologize and commit to observing WP:CANVASS. Separately, the first, second and fifth of the diffs presented by Uniacademic do cause concern (for the third and fourth, I think that Uniacademic is giving undue weight to the WP:PRIMARY source). I'm uncertain exactly which remedies to propose at the moment, although my first instinct is to recommend a logged warning to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for Theonewithreason and a logged warning to refrain from making unnecessary comments about editors' backgrounds for Pofka. I am nevertheless open to proposals from other admins for greater or lesser sanctions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ, Joy, Rosguill, just trying to give this discussion a kick. Having not read the case itself and just tried to judge what the admin consensus is here, it looks to me like there's a general agreement that the prior consensus is stale enough that a new RfC is recommended. There are some concerns about Pofka but I'm not seeing anything I'd be comfortable calling (Rosguill is the only one with a proposal, unless I missed something), and to a lesser extent the same goes for Sadko. So I think this is a "speak now or hold your peace" re: both of them. Regarding Theonewithreason, though, it looks like everyone agrees things are going wrong here and we shouldn't let that one drop. Ros proposed a logged warning. EW, Joy, is that sufficient? Guerillero, any opinion? -- asilvering (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
noting that Theonewithreason has posted on my talk page regarding this case: Special:Diff/1317565579. -- asilvering (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

In case of Sadko and Theonewithreason, we know we are dealing with editors who have engaged in serious policy violations, over a period of years. The assumption of good faith has been long exhausted. Why are we afraid to ban them from the topic area, broadly construed? --Joy (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Well, I'm not the slightest bit afraid to topic ban anyone, but unless I'm much mistaken, no one proposed any such thing. -- asilvering (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe I wasn't making myself clear earlier. I see the level of acrimony these editors create in this topic area and it's a net negative. Maybe it's a draconian measure, but the topic area will be just fine without a few troublemakers. There's many Serbian editors who haven't engaged in sockpuppeteering, improper coordination of edits, displaying battleground mentality, etc, who will continue to edit just fine without these two.

We could also have the ban be more specific, for example about the topics of 19th and 20th century international history in the Balkans, broadly construed. This should prevent the axe-grinding from Dalmatian politics in the era of romantic nationalism, Tesla's allegiances, to Yugoslav sport medal history, but still allow edits on ancient, medieval and contemporary topics, and of course anything not involving history. --Joy (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm in favor of logged warning for Theonewithreason RE their battleground attitude. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree with this approach. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Tomruen

Indeffed by voorts as a CTOP action. Action is being appealed below. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Tomruen

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tomruen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality

Topic ban from GENSEX:

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

A comment directly discussing transgender-related subjects

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

30 May 2023 Blocked 30 days for topic ban violation

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 29 May 2023 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Recently, I noticed while checking recent changes the comment noted above on User talk:Tomruen, which seems a straightforward violation of his GENSEX topic ban. I'll note for completeness that the ChatGPT portions of the comments were added by an IP (), but Tomruen added the comments introducing them and edited that exact portion afterward (), so I think we can fairly say that either he was the IP or endorsed the addition. This is almost exactly the same as the material that Tomruen was blocked for shortly after being topic banned (), so, while the new edit is over a month old, I really don't think it should be ignored. I'd hoped to be able to find out what was going on and maybe resolve it through discussion, but Tomruen has made very clear that he does not care about violating the ban (), so I'm bringing it here to discuss what to do on it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Tomruen

Statement by Tomruen

Any system that suppresses or punishes opinions is unworthy to exist. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Isn't it curious I'm the only person here editing under my own name? Tom Ruen (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tomruen

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

Given that the last topic ban violation occurred in 2023, resulting in a 30 day block, and the misconduct in this instance occurred on Tom's talk page in a discussion with a single editor who brought up Tom's "regrets", I'm leaning towards a 60-90 day block. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
This is a straightforward, and apparently deliberate, breach of the indefinite t-ban. Voorts' proposed 90-day block is a proportionate response. For Tomruen's benefit, I would add that should he breach the t-ban again, admins are likely to conclude he is incapable of complying with it, and an indefinite block from editing would likely have to follow. Arcticocean ■ 11:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
First choice would be an indefinite block without CTOP protections until Tomruen says they "agree to" abiding by the topic ban. Second choice would be a CTOP-enforced 60-day block. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
See recent additions to Tom's userpage. I am indeffing. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Tomruen

Appeal unanimously declined. No rough consensus for a specific restriction on subsequent appeals, but it should be abundantly clear that unless Tomruen agrees to follow his topic ban, any subsequent appeal will have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding (especially with the "clear consensus" required to overturn the block within a year). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Appealing user: Tomruen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed: Indefinite block (rationale, thread, ~~not logged yet~~ log entry)

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

Notification of that administrator: done

Statement by Tomruen

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I have done nothing wrong. My contributions over 21 years have been made under my real name, with transparency and integrity. I’ve consistently engaged in good-faith editing and discussion, even on difficult topics. I believe the enforcement actions taken against me reflect ideological bias rather than genuine violations of Wikipedia’s core principles. I stand by my right to express reasoned dissent and to uphold editorial standards rooted in evidence and neutrality. I reject the judgment that has been imposed on me, and I ask for a fair and open review. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by voorts

Tom, I blocked you because you violated your topic ban willingly during a discussion about you violating your topic ban. I don't know why you were topic banned in 2023, but if you wanted to discuss gender and sexuality on wiki, you should've appealed instead of quadrupling down and claiming that you're being censored. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

See my additional comment on Tom's talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Tomruen

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Tomruen

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

decline. hate is disruptive, userpage polemic was completely unacceptable, sanction was well within discretion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline Whether the topic ban was "validly" imposed or not, he had a duty to edit in compliance with it until he was able to get it removed. Doubling down during a AE discussion tends to indicate its validity. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline and preclude further appeals for 30 days. Straightforward block, would have been justifiable even without the TBAN; absolutely no question with it being a willing TBANvio on top of that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline. And do we really normally make only a 30-day appeal embargo for this sort of thing? I would have thought it would be six months. -- asilvering (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm fine with 90 days. Six months seems a bit much to me, but I won't stand in the way if that's the consensus. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I've no problem with a shorter one, to be clear. -- asilvering (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline. If one expresses a disinclination to follow active sanctions, an indefinite block is warranted until that changes. (And no, Tomruen, there isn't a free-speech exception.) So I would bar further appeal until Tomruen agrees to follow the topic ban (or until the maximum appeal bar of 1 year if that never happens). But if he does agree to follow it, then I don't think waiting 6 months will be necessary to deter repetition (given that agreeing to follow it and then breaking that commitment would lead to an indef that would be very difficult to appeal due to untrustworthiness). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline and per SilverLocust, in this instance, I don't think a minimum appeal period is necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline - the block was the only appropriate response in the circumstances. Arcticocean ■ 18:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thisischarlesarthur

More information tbanned from GENSEX -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC) ...

tbanned from GENSEX -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Thisischarlesarthur

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Thisischarlesarthur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBGENSEX and WP:ARBBLP

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

28 September 2025 This page will be confusing until it recognises that athletes such as Caster Semenya (XY 5-ARD) are male. They added this to the talk page.
10 October 2025 between the years 2000 and 2023, between 50 and 60 male athletes with differences of sex development (DSDs)] who were wrongly recorded as female at birth took part in 135 female elite international finals ..... This was added to the article.

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)

21 July 2025 I placed {{Contentious topics/aware}} templates for the areas of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I only listed the worst offending comments by the editor who, since 11 August 2024, has edited nothing else by topics that are related to GENSEX (nibbling at them to see how far they can push what they truly believe in).. M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Thisischarlesarthur: why didn't you comment on the diffs that I listed above? M.Bitton (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Thisischarlesarthur

Statement by Thisischarlesarthur

Update: How wonderful! I tripped over another invisible laser beam: nowhere in the submission system does it say you have to keep topics to 500 words. (It says it in teeny type so people can miss it. And there's no word counter.)

responding to M.Bitton

Re your first diff: I wasn't aware of the restrictions that are placed on this discussion. A paper co-authored by a biologist supports what I said there. Re your second diff: as I point out below, the Guardian article that I linked to in the edit directly implies what I wrote. There is no other reasonable interpretation of the phrase "athletes with differences of sex development (DSD), who have a 46 XY karyotype with male testes but were reported female at birth". Male testes are found in males. Only. The phrase "Assigned female at birth" implies the potential for mistakes in registering birth sex.

The content of Special:Diff/1316517130 is defensible as fact. The Imane Khelif page describes "false claims" which were never made: there has never been any credible suggestion that Khelif is trans (ie: someone registered as male at birth who later identifies as female). Yet the phrase "false claims" links to "transvestigation", which this never was. To represent the Olympic boxing controversy in those terms misleads the casual reader, while leading the informed reader (ie anyone who has read a few articles on the topic) to conclude Wikipedia is wrong, and to wonder why a theoretically world-editable wiki remains wrong.

However the BLP rules create a Catch-22 where it is disallowed to point out what the actual topic of the controversy is, on the basis that this is a BLP violation. So now I know why Wikipedia remains wrong.

responding to Simonm223

"It seems like this editor's only interest in editing Wikipedia is to engage in debates about how to define the gender of women athletes" - Not true. My interest on those pages was to correct inaccuracies. I have accepted that my initial attempts were clumsy.

responding to TarnishedPath

"Without extremely strong sourcing, these sorts of claims/speculation should not be occuring." The phrase "unsubstantiated allegations" might be more appropriate, given the BLP. But as this discussion on a Talk page on a different page points out, the BLP handcuffs clear explanation of what the allegations around Khelif are. I don't think any reasonable person believes Imane Khelif was not registered female at birth.

responding to @theleekycauldron

I reject @theleekycauldron's claim that I am "only here to push the idea that SRY testing is completely determinative of sex". I have never said that, because it isn't true. SRY screening does not determine sex. It determines the presence or absence of the SRY gene. However, it was used in the 1992 and 1996 Olympics to determine entry to the F category, and has now been reintroduced by multiple global sporting organisations. Therefore it is important in understanding modern and past sporting categorisation systems: currently the Sex verification in sports page is lacking this information, so I tried to add it. My attempts to introduce edits about this were however reverted, without any explanation or offer of help. Go Wikipedia!

responding to Tamzin

"If in 450 edits TICA [ie me] has been dispelled of their fringe views" - thank you, but I don't find the offer of doing it to Julia instead enticing. What if it's your views that are fringe, and wrong? A paper co-authored by a biologist explicitly contradicts the views you and others here hold about multiple athletes, and shows its reasoning, with scientific references. (In passing, the word "intersex" was determined by medics to be outdated due to being "confusing" and "potentially stigmatising" by a consensus meeting in 2005. The phrase "DSD" has been preferred in the literature for the past 20 years.)

The tenor of accusations here holds that the group is correct, and this individual wrong. However scientific resources (as above) support the view that it is the group which is wrong. I don't expect this to be accepted, since absorbing a new and different opinion into the group is challenging. But you should always wonder: what if you're wrong?

I suggest that the rapid adoption of SRY screening by multiple sporting organisations which have independently done their own scientific enquiry shows that those organisations hold significantly different views about DSDs (or "intersex") in sports than those reporting me here. To quote from the Guardian article that I tried to add into the Sex Verification page, "In a presentation to a scientific panel in the Japanese capital on Friday, Dr Stéphane Bermon, head of health and science at World Athletics, outlined why the sport’s governing body believes such screens are necessary as he presented data collected over the past 25 years. He said it showed that athletes with differences of sex development (DSD), who have a 46 XY karyotype with male testes but were reported female at birth, were significantly “over-represented” in major finals…"

Wait - "but" were reported female at birth? What could Bermon have been implying? Tamzin attempts to thread a needle on this: using the conjunction "but" to describe an AFAB person having some male sex characteristics, does not imply that it's the view of The Guardian (let alone of Bermon or any actually reliable source) that it is incorrect to assign such a person as female Who exactly is doing the "assigning" here? The midwife? Tamzin? Testes are not "some" male characteristics. They are defining male characteristics. The phrase "with male testes" appears again and again in every article about the presentation, so a reasonable conclusion is that these were Bermon's words. Bermon is director of health and science at World Athletics with a long history in medicine, and those are clearly his words. For Wikipedia to reinterpret them as meaning something else would be perverse and against the obvious sense of the words, in the absence of any explanation by Bermon that such athletes belong to the female sex.

If you allow me to continue editing, I will do my best not to knock over the furniture; for the newcomer, these important topics have invisible laser beams linked to alarms everywhere, and I feel as though I tripped them all. At the same time, I take my guidance about the facts from the scientific literature and (on this topic) the sporting bodies - which is how references should work - not from the beliefs of other Wikipedia editors.

--Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

====Responding to @Arcticocean====

a number of this user's edits are inconsistent with WP:NPOV.

I assert they're inconsistent with a number of Wikipedia editors' POV, which is a very different thing.

Their statement in this enforcement request heightens my concern, particularly at para 5 where there is an apparent attempt to refute one view on scientific consensus by cherry-picking a single citation.

My revised version (which has sections, hurray), points out that the "single citation" actually distils what is becoming more clearly stated within science (ie biology) and sports. See the link to searches on what Bermon said.

The final paragraph seems to reflect a troubling intention to edit as an WP:SPA.

Obviously I would say this, but that's not my intention. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

"For the avoidance of doubt, you don't have permission to go beyond 500 words."

"Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words".

None of my sections is over 500 words. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

It concerns me to see this continuing from Thisischarlesarthur. On October 8 they conceded their comportment was a BLP violation: as such it's rather concerning that, instead of stopping with an approach they know to be a BLP violation, they just moved the discussion to other pages. . It seems like this editor's only interest in editing Wikipedia is to engage in debates about how to define the gender of women athletes. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

Admins, please refer to Special:Diff/1316517130, in which Thisischarlesarthur suggests that Imane Khelif is male. Without extremely strong sourcing, these sorts of claims/speculation should not be occuring. TarnishedPath^talk 03:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Thisischarlesarthur

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

I can't see how Thisischarlesarthur's editing is consistent with the expectations of GENSEX and BLP. Given that Thisischarlesarthur is a new editor, I think a GENSEX TBAN that automatically expires when they qualify for extended confirmed would be appropriate at this point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think Tamzin's second TBAN is necessary at this point as the issue seems to be centred on a broader gender-related dispute taking place on BLPs. Just by bringing up the issue Thisischarlesarthur would be creating a gender-related dispute. I'm also fine with SilverLocust's any admin removal after 500/30. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Poking around, it seems like Thisischarlesarthur is only here to push the idea that SRY testing is completely determinative of sex, and that if someone hasn't undergone SRY testing, their sex is undetermined (shifting the burden of proof that applies to contentious BLP claims). People who do have 5-ARD, like Caster Semenya, are labeled as "male" (see M.Bitton's diffs). Curiously, this only seems to apply to sportswomen who have been transvestigated – but somehow, someone being "male" and identifying publicly as female doesn't make them transgender. In other words, this seems like an attempt to invent a policy and factual framework for labelling sportswomen who have been transvestigated as "male" or of "undetermined" sex in a way no RS comes even close to supporting (while also trying to avoid getting painted with the same brush as transvestigators). I would support something stronger than a 'til-ECR GENSEX topic ban, but I'll support that at a minimum. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I actually think this is a bit overly charitable to TICA's rhetoric. There's been some debate about where we draw the line on WP:FRINGE on trans medical issues, it being an area where academic consensus is still developing, but describing woman athletes who may have DSDs as "wrongly recorded as female at birth" is utterly fringe, possibly more so than your typical "secretly trans" conspiracy-theorizing. Yes, there are reliable sources that think such women have a sufficiently unfair advantage that they ought to be categorized separately in sports, but I have never seen a single such source say that assigning those women as female at birth is wrong. The absolute best-case analysis here is that TICA dramatically misunderstands what "female" means, as that term is used in essentially all scholarly sources—and I don't mean "woke" gender stuff, I mean the basics of the science of sex, in which "female" is not mutually exclusive with "intersex" and in which no single genotypic or phenotypic attribute is the sole determinant of whether someone is male or female. I always want to be careful at AE about not promoting any one side's view as right, but this is not reasonably in dispute among any subject-matter experts, even those strongly in favor of excluding trans and intersex women from women's sports.
That's the best-case analysis. The worst-case analysis is deliberate misrepresentation of science to libel living persons. If I were convinced it were the latter, I would just indefblock. Lacking a smoking gun in that regard, though, I think the minimum I'd support here is two related topic bans: one from GENSEX, and one under WP:CT/BLP (of which TICA is aware) forbidding them from commenting on the actual or alleged gender or sex of any living person (except implicitly through using the pronouns/etc. already in place in an article). I oppose any automatic lifting upon extendedconfirmed. If in 450 edits TICA has been dispelled of their fringe views, I'd like to see them make that case to an administrator to get the ban lifted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The Guardian—not Bermon, but The Guardian, which is not a reliable medical source, paraphrasing Bermon—using the conjunction "but" to describe an AFAB person having some male sex characteristics, does not imply that it's the view of The Guardian (let alone of Bermon or any actually reliable source) that it is incorrect to assign such a person as female. "But" implies some level of unexpectedness, but not necessarily that one of the two statements is incorrect. Picture a source that talks about people who "Had no COVID symptoms but tested positive for it"; that "but" doesn't mean that the tests were all incorrect, just that most people who test positive also have symptoms. Again, this isn't a question of which side one is on in the trans and intersex sports debates, but rather a basic foundational scientific understanding necessary to understand those debates. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

support a GENSEX topic ban as well per above. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I'll support a WP:CT/GENSEX TBAN that may be lifted at an administrator's discretion after they qualify for extended confirmed. I'm fine with Tamzin's additional TBAN, though I struggle to imagine when that wouldn't already qualify as a "gender-related dispute" (broadly construed). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I think the second one is necessary because "gender-related dispute" doesn't clearly extend to something about an individual person's gender or sex, if that hasn't been the subject of political or cultural controversy. Claiming that Imane Khelif is male would fall under GENSEX, but saying "obscure athlete ABC has disorder of sexual development XYZ" might not. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree that at least a GENSEX topic ban is appropriate. As others have said, a number of this user's edits are inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Their statement in this enforcement request heightens my concern, particularly at para 5 where there is an apparent attempt to refute one view on scientific consensus by cherry-picking a single citation. The final paragraph seems to reflect a troubling intention to edit as an WP:SPA. Arcticocean ■ 14:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@Thisischarlesarthur: Yes, it does. The notice at the top of this page, headed "important information", reads in part: Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Please read the instructions fully and please keep your statement within the word limit. For the avoidance of doubt, you don't have permission to go beyond 500 words. Arcticocean ■ 18:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Given all the "at a minimum"s happening in here, I think we have consensus for a GENSEX tban, without any references to XC. If no one objects to that resolution in the next 24 hours or so, I'll close this thread as such. -- asilvering (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
@Thisischarlesarthur, you don't get a word count extension just by putting a new section header in. That's not how this works. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)