Proposed parties

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

•

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Robert McClenon

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by SchroCat

• Placeholder; I'll respond tomorrow. - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• (I'm not sure why FIM is being considered as a party: does an extremely minor kerfuffle at ANI now end at ArbCom? Seems like overkill to something that was stopped by thread hatting). - SchroCat (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Have I been uncivil on occasion? Yes, certainly. Have I been triggered into rash language and over reaction? Yes, certainly. Do I have any real defence for my occasional lapses of temper? None that I am willing to disclose.

I am well aware of my shortcomings and have been working on trying to overcome them. (For example, I have been successful in avoiding dropping into uncivil behaviour around infoboxes for a while and try to limit myself to a couple of comments at most, none uncivil – @ScottishFinnishRadish and Izno: you should note this before trying to add IBs to the case).

I obviously still have a lot of work to do in this respect and I offer my apologies to anyone who feels that I have slighted them with my approach.

@Aoidh, HouseBlaster, and Guerillero:, Many thanks for pausing the process to allow a response. I won't hold this up, so feel free to remove your declines if you wish. - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Szmenderowiecki

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

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

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

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

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

Re ToBeFree, the block log alone is indeed pretty troubling, including (admittedly a quite old incident of) sockpuppetry.

This still does not invalidate my point that if somebody goes in full escalation mode (and it is hardly possible to escalate this case any higher), and essentially claims that "this actor is horrible and the community won't do anything about them", they ought to make an effort and present such a case that makes it very clear where the problem lies.

I don't expect to be a fully impartial summary. But, if I were an arb, I would expect the filer to convince me that I need to get my ass up to investigate. The way OP wrote their statement may be easily read as "I don't like how this particular ANI discussion is playing out, Im'ma appeal this outcome to ArbCom, and also SchroCat is an unblockable so let's change it", which is not exactly what ArbCom is for.

@ArbCom Clerks: On Robert McClenon's behalf, I'd ask ArbCom to extend his filing to 1,000 words, but only for the purpose of presenting his case for pursuing sanctions. If he doesn't have anything more to add or doesn't want to present one, I'd urge someone else to pick up the argument for him or else let's drop the case. Additionally, if I'm over the limit, I'd request a 100-word extension for my brief evaluation of presented evidence of misconduct, if it appears. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 14:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: We don't generally grant word extensions to commenters based on what someone else wants them to write. If Robert McClenon has more to say, though, he's free to request a word extension. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by ToBeFree

The amount of "I don't think ArbCom should intervene" comments may become proportional to the actual need for ArbCom to intervene in cases of unblockable editors. When I look at a block log and see this, including a 48-hour block that comes with multiple apologies and "extreme regret",⁽¹⁾ I automatically get a feeling there's something to do 14 administrators didn't manage to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
(1): Yes, that admin turned out to be a sockpuppet. Not sure if that invalidates the point.

HJ Mitchell, Speaking as a community member who has worked on articles with SchroCat is exactly the problem here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Dronebogus

I support this request and implore arbcom to seriously consider taking it up after the community discussion at ANI ends, regardless of the outcome there. A weak community probation (not even sanction) will not be sufficient even if it passes. --Dronebogus (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I cite SchroCat’s block log as evidence: roughly a block a year. More than enough evidence of a long-ranging intractable problem. Dronebogus (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

My most recent encounter with them also comes to mind: Talk:Senghenydd colliery disaster/Archive 1#h-Edit reversion-20251014091900. A very long, pointless fight over an exceedingly minor wording change. Many users would simply not care, and if they did they would at least be reasonable and polite about their disagreement. This is symptomatic of the user’s inability to compromise or show basic civility. Dronebogus (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Siege of Sidney Street#Article infobox also shows an unacceptably hostile attitude towards a much newer good-faith contributor. It also demonstrates the problematic behavior of his supporters in backing up this WP:BITEy misbehavior. The ANI thread also shows plenty of examples of similar behavior cited by many other users. Dronebogus (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Izno: What if I don’t want to be a party? Dronebogus (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

To arbs debating scope: I think this should be about SchroCat and SchroCat alone before it goes six degrees of Kevin Bacon out into like 15 other users. Dronebogus (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

To arbs and everyone else in general, incl. SchroCat (if you’re watching this) and @HJ Mitchell: I am sorry if my tone and rhetoric have been out of line for what is expected at ArbCom. I understand exemplary behavior is expected and my behavior here has not been that. As my section is getting rather long I will stop adding further remarks unless I can think of additional evidence. Dronebogus (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why FIM is being considered as a party: does an extremely minor kerfuffle at ANI now end at ArbCom I can’t believe I’m saying this but I 100% agree with SchroCat. (Sorry breaking my promise to stop) Dronebogus (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Harry Mitchell

Speaking as a community member who has worked on articles with SchroCat, @ArbCom Clerks: , I believe Dronebogus's comment above, which is devoid of diffs, is a personal attack and is made in advancement of a grudge that Dronebogus has been harbouring against SchroCat for some months (see User talk:Dronebogus#Wikihounding, User talk:Dronebogus#June 2025, and User talk:Dronebogus#Friendly advice). I believe they should, at the bare minimum, be instructed to strike everything after the first sentence, and possibly sanctioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia so I see no problem with working on articles with other community members. I've recused from hearing the case request because of my working relationship with SchroCat. @Theleekycauldron: I must protest that Dronebogus's hands are not clean and their personal attack should not be allowed to remain with a vague wave at a block log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Is there something I didn't address? I removed the second sentence of the initial comment, and I don't see the first and third as personal attacks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, I overlooked the removal. That does mostly resolve my concerns. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

S Marshall

Is it possible for an editor to be so provoked that a modicum of incivility on their part could be overlooked? I think that's the defining question for this case.

Arbcom should take the case, because the community can't deal with this, but please be mindful of the need to keep the sanctions proportionate and take account of the mitigating factors.

SchroCat is definitely apt to be testy. He's attracted some "fans" whose behaviour might not amount to actual incivility, but I which hope Arbcom will reflect on.—S Marshall T/C 17:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Some describe SchroCat as an "unblockable". Others make much of the length of his block log. Which?

Q: Do old blocks "expire", in the Wikipedia community? I think they should. Blocks that expired more than about 5 years ago ought to be inadmissible as evidence except in extraordinary circumstances. Blocks by Lourdes also ought to be inadmissible.—S Marshall T/C 08:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

I'm not seeing a long-term intractable problem that the community is incapable of solving. As for the block log, I see I block by a discredited sock account followed by two edit-warring blocks in the last five years. That is hardly the definition of a chronic problem. Apparently the mavens of AN/I get upset if every incident isn't resolved with a bonfire or freedom absolution. Sometimes results are neither; if there's a further incident, that will add to the pile of firewood. The closing administrator at ANI regrets this Arbcom case request being made before a potential solution could be tried, which again belies the assertion that this is an intractable situation. — tim ///// Carrite (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

I would need to see a continous form of vandalism on main space & talk space, for me to recommend an editor be brought to Arbcom. AFAIK, SchroCat hasn't indulged in vandalism. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Nemov

A lot has occurred to reach this point, and wading through it is no enviable task for the arbitrators. I first raised an WP:ANI regarding SchroCat three years ago after encountering them in several RfCs. At the time, the editor was retired, and the discussion closed with the closer stating, SchroCat is encouraged to take note of the community's decreasing tolerance for this conduct, though some who opposed sanction felt that there was insufficient recent evidence of misconduct to justify a community ban. In the most recent ANI, SchroCat has acknowledged a failure to remain civil. Despite this admission, and the broader history of conduct concerns, a significant number of editors continue to oppose taking action. They may be correct; however, the community appears deadlocked on how to proceed with a productive contributor whose civility falls short of the project's expectations. That said, I would also recommend Fortuna imperatrix mundi and Dronebogus as party to this after the conduct at the ANI that led to this request. Nemov (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by LEvalyn

I have attempted to gather ANI threads with civility concerns about SchroCat. I disregarded threads before 2020 as possibly-stale, and I did not examine reports at 3RR; SchroCat has 197 hits in the AN archives and I had to focus my efforts.

• February 2020, Ronz reports ShroCat, closed without action.

• July 2020 and September 2020, drive-by concerns about SchroCat in threads about HAL333 and Cassianto.

• November 2021, ภץאคгöร reports SchroCat-as-IP-editor, archived without action.

• January 2022 No Great Shaker reports SchroCat-as-IP-editor, archived without action.

• December 2022, Nemov reports SchroCat-as-IP-editor. 25 editors supported a ban and 29 opposed it, with many opposes saying that SchroCat's return to his account was sufficient. I would personally highlight a comment from Nil Einne, who opposed a cban: SchroCat's behaviour has been problematic and unfortunately their comments make it unclear it's likely to improve. However it's borderline enough that I'm willing to give them one last chance when combined with the fact they can no longer escape the scrunity every regular editor is under by editing from frequently changing IPs.

• June 2023 Personman reports SchroCat, archived without action.

• July 2023, Morbidthoughts reports SchroCat, closed with page protection and an individual admin 48hr block of SchroCat.

• October 2023 Dronebogus reports SchroCat, closed as Neither party has covered themselves with glory in interacting with the other, so how about we stop this before you goad each other into doing something actually sanctionable?

• March 2024 Erzan reports SchroCat, closed without action.

• May 2024 an IP reports SchroCat, SchroCat's rollback is removed for mis-identification of vandalism.

• August 2024, Tvx1 reports SchroCat, closed without action.

• October 2024, SchroCat's report of Diddy's Diabolical gets derailed by a debate with Nil Enne about identifying vandalism.

• July 2025, InvadingInvader reports Ssilvers and Dronebogus, leads to debates between Dronebogus and SchroCat about infoboxes, closed with no action and the statement all involved users should take into consideration that the wider Wikipedia community has grown tired of their bickering.

• September 2025, FaviFake reports SchroCat. A close by Fortuna imperatrix mundi is reversed; archived without action.

• October 2025, Dronebogus reports SchroCat and Tim riley, closed without action.

• January 2026, Becsh reports Tim riley and SchroCat. After 10 supports and 11 opposes, the proposal to warn SchroCat was closed with There is no consensus to issue a formal warning. I advise SchroCat to carefully read the comments here and strive to address their colleagues' concerns. After 3 supports and 6 opposes, the proposed ban on SchroCat was withdrawn by Dronebogus. After 3 supports and 8 opposes, the proposed iban between SchroCat and Dronebogus was closed as consensus against imposing an interaction ban.

• March 2026 closed with clear consensus that SchroCat has acted with incivility and this ArbCom case.

In my personal assessment, I do see persistent incivility. As I said in the most recent ANI thread: Civility is one of our pillars. It defines who we are. We must do something. It does not seem that existing processes have been able to determine what. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Toadspike

Unless SchroCat is able to demonstrate significant contrition and a willingness to change his behavior going forward, I encourage the Committee to take this case. Editors continually arguing for leniency on the basis of his extensive contributions (example) shows that the community is unable to enforce its behavioral policies on SchroCat. I thank LEvalyn for compiling the list of ANI threads; I was compiling a similar list, but have instead drawn up a narrower list of SchroCat's sanctions at WP:AN3. Both show very similar behavior that has continued for over a decade. The main theme seems to be ownership, which begets personal attacks and edit warring – all three were raised repeatedly at AN3. SchroCat's block log shows seven blocks for edit warring, two of which resulted from AN3 reports. It does not include one AN3 edit-warring block he received as an IP editor, nor does it include several warnings he recieved from administrators at AN3.

• January 2012, warned for edit warring and personal attacks

• June 2012, found to be edit warring, but the report was stale

• April 2013, blocked 24 hours for edit warring and incivility

• February 2014, found to be edit warring, page protected

• December 2014, found to be edit warring, but closed without action to deescalate

• July 2015, warned for edit warring, page protected

• February 2016, warned for edit warring

• November 2019, warned for edit warring

• December 2022, blocked 48 hours as an IP editor for edit warring

• June 2025, blocked 48 hours for edit warring and incivility

I've participated in ANI threads on SchroCat's behavior, which makes me involved. I believe the summaries provided to be accurate, but I encourage others to check my work. Toadspike [Talk] 01:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

From the SPI archive, SchroCat's block logs as an IP editor show that he was blocked repeatedly for his behavior as an IP editor (edit-warring, personalizing content disputes, "disruptive editing") and once for evading those blocks on another IP range. This is only relevant insofar as it shows a continuation of the behavior outlined elsewhere in this request. Toadspike [Talk] 01:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by AP 499D25

Uninvolved user here, coming from AN/I. I had a bit of a look at that relevant thread, and what I'm getting at here, is that there seems to be a bit of a 'dilemma' regarding whether or not to take action on SchroCat. On one hand the incivility comes from dealing with low-quality edits on Featured Articles that SchroCat had successfully nominated or is nominating, and severe sanctions would mean the loss of a significant FA contributor. On the other hand, civility is a mandatory policy that all editors must follow, including the most experienced and top contributors. Incivility creates a toxic environment that can lead to a cycle of further incivility and can drive editors away. I too was on the fence about whether to support or oppose sanctions against SchroCat, although I didn't comment in that AN/I thread. Anyhow, since the community could not come to a consensus on AN/I, I would support an arbitration case.
I should also note that I am not a fan of "unblockable" cases where, a top-notch editor gets away with violations of some policies/guidelines just because they are a significant contributor and would leave a big hole in the community if they left. Does this mean I can take advantage of my position to also do the same thing? The ramifications of "unblockables" are pretty damning to say the least. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

Like Carrite, I do not see a situation here that needs to be urgently dealt with by ArbCom. At the ANI, I do see a number of editors with axes to grind against SchroCat and a number of !votes for action against him that have flimsy or no rationales. I can't help being reminded of the Portals case against Brown-Haired Girl in 2020, and if this case does follow that path, I can only hope that this set of Arbitrators will not vote based on Findings of Fact that bore little relation to reality. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Andrew Davidson

The content issue in this case was a petty matter and the ANI thread seemed a disproportionate response. If Arbcom takes the case, it should please consider the more general problem of WP:UNBLOCKABLEs and invite creative improvements and solutions for this endemic issue.

To help with the brainstorming, please consider common countermeasures to anti-social behaviour such as the swear jar and community service. Wikipedia needs such a variety of forfeits, penalties and penance to deal with such misdemeanors. For example, perhaps we might take inspiration from the Loveday of 1458 which was a historic attempt to resolve some factional strife. Kudos to Fortuna imperatrix mundi and the other editors who have provided this timely example as today's featured article.

So, as a specific suggestion, an incivility offense might be punished by requiring the offender to thank a hundred editors, say. And they would have to do this properly with a personalised message such as a barnstar or other visible evidence. This might be more positive and constructive than blocking which doesn't seem to work well.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

Carrying on from my my comments at the ANI, I'd emphasise that if ArbCom does take the case, it needs to find a good solution to the Schro Cat-related disputes. I worry whether the above murmurs of a general "unblockables" case will lead to less focus on SC's positive contributions, and make the blunt-force remedies more likely. Take the case, but only if you prefer the scalpel over the hammer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by QEDK

I think there is sufficient evidence that this matter is intractable to the point where the community is unable to make a resolution. While I agree that this is on the low-end of the bar in terms of the kind of disputes we expect the committee to resolve, it would arguably be much more efficient as a case - futhermore, I would also argue that the committee has mostly made solid resolutions to similar conduct-around-content-based disputes in the past. --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Mackensen

Wikipedia:Civility isn't about using the right words to talk to people, or thanking them, or whatever. It's about a willingness to work in a collaborative and respectful way with other editors, and not just the ones who agree with you. I don't doubt the good faith of the contributors here who have successfully collaborated with SchroCat and don't understand the fuss. I invite them to walk in someone else's shoes and imagine if editing one of SchroCat's articles in a way he disapproved of was a formative experience as a new editor. Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by RoySmith

There's a couple of different things wrapped up together here. One is SchroCat's tone. The other is WP:FAOWN, which is currently being hashed out at WP:VPI and WT:OWN. I suspect people are letting their frustration with the latter affect their thinking on the former. On the first topic, yes, SC can be curt and occasionally incivil. I wish he would work on being less so. But he's already stated, both here and at the ANI, that he's aware of that and will endeavor to improve. What more could we ask for?

When evaluating an editor's history, yes their past contributions to the project count. That often leads to excusing their excesses per WP:UNBLOCKABLE. I look at it differently; I'm a firm believer in Noblesse oblige, and that certainly applies to somebody with SC's tenure as both an editor in general and a contributor to FA in specific. It is important to keep an eye on FAs to make sure they don't degrade into mush, and this is especially true for WP:TFA because material on the main page is a magnet for anything from straight-out vandalism to just plain good-faith but low-quality edits. But I wish people in general who are curating their past FAs would be a little less touchy about changes other people make and try harder to differentiate between "Not how I would have said it" vs "Clearly makes the article worse". It is certainly tiring to fight the same battles over and over; how many times can you say "I'm sorry, but adding that infobox really isn't useful" with a smile and not let it get to you? As many times as necessary! While obsessing over mdashes is just plain dumb, so is obsessing over putting them back. Roll your eyes (in private) if you want, but let it be.

I really think Robert McClenon jumped the gun on declaring this to be an "intractable" problem and requesting a case; the committee should decline. I could see this ending up with a motion officially encouraging SC to take his own retrospective acknowledgement and promise to work on improvement to heart. But a full case would be absurd. RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by JuniperChill

Not sure if anyone has pointed out about this but SchroCat is listed at the very top of WP:AEDR saying that the user is required to disclose alternative accounts and that the restriction was placed by the committee as part of an unblock condition. I definitely see a case for this to be accepted as the user was constantly the subject of AN/ANI/AN3, not to mention the lengthy block log and the fact that it the user has made over 120k edits since 2011. JuniperChill (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@JuniperChill: I'd appreciate you changing the pronoun you use to refer to SchroCat. I don't believe that they use it/its pronouns, and doing so can be perceived as demeaning. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster:  Done, using 'the user'. I was intending to use it as another way to say the user but I didn't think it was used as a pronoun. I'll also post a reply to FIM within a short period. JuniperChill (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: regarding the about the 'constantly the subject of AN/ANI/AN3', its due to the fact that, as pointed out by LEvalyn, SC was constantly the subject of the AN boards since 2020. I forgot to specify the year. And regarding the AEDR, it was because it was arbcom related. Note that I've only made a couple arbitration-related comments so I'll try to ensure its related to why it should be accepted from this point. JuniperChill (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by FIM

Noting that I've seen this. Thanks for the pings; it's nice, of course, to be wanted. —Serial Number 54129 ^{(wake up Fortuna)} 17:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

(By the way, while I'm here, I tentatively—with all due respect—question the value of JuniperChill's statement above. I don't see how the AEDR restriction on multiple accounts is relevant (as mis/use thereof hasn't been questioned by anyone as far as I can see), being "constantly the subject of AN/ANI/AN3" is so vague as to be useless, while "the fact that it has made over 120k edits since 2011" ("It"=SchroCat, yes?) is ... odd. Again, I can't see the relevance of edit count at all, except for demonstrating how productive SC has been. Perhaps some clarification is in order. —Serial Number 54129 ^{(wake up Fortuna)} 17:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC))

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights

The only interaction I had with SchroCat which I can remember was at W. Somerset Maugham, specifically in Talk:W. Somerset Maugham/Archive 1#Copy edit redux. I, and others, were attempting to streamline the extremely verbose, unencyclopedic, flowery language in that article, and SchroCat was one of a few editors who engaged in belligerent stonewalling of even the most minor changes. That was a large part of the discussion degenerating into futility, at the time I eventually walked away in exasperation (to what I think is the ongoing detriment of the article, which I still find borderline unreadable due to its extreme verbosity). I know this is going back some time, but I think it's demonstrative of both the problem and its intractability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda Arendt

I suggest to look at Talk:Erik Satie, the most recent RfC on a composer infobox that I recall, March 2025, for an example of interactions. Two threads preceded the RfC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

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

SchroCat: Clerk notes

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

SchroCat: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <4/2/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Voting is ongoing in the ANI thread and I don't think ArbCom should step in before the community has finished having its say. But if the community can't decide what to do here – either because they don't agree on whether something should be done, or because they agree that something should be done but can't decide what – SchroCat's pockmarked block log and the discussion in the thread suggest that this might well be something we should look at. It feels like the Committee has had an aversion these past few years to taking cases on singular editors – myself, I think one of the best things we can do for the community is investigate when there is a potential unblockables case. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 13:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @HJ Mitchell: I agree that it is an accusation of severe misconduct without evidence, but since this is ARC, I don't want to immediately shut down accusations if there's some chance they could be backed up. If you feel there's a broader user-conduct case to be pursued against Dronebogus for hounding SchroCat, I would say go to ANI. @Dronebogus: please substantiate your accusations to a reasonable degree with evidence or strike them. (Toning them down would also be very welcome.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Dronebogus: Plenty of editors have a long block log – that can't sustain your original comment, and on second thought, I'm not sure any evidence could. I'd hoped a nudge would be enough to get you to back down from a statement I would have assumed was as hyperbolic as it gets, had you not qualified it with "without hyperbole"; but since that doesn't seem to have worked, I am going to remove it. Feel free to replace it with something that could reasonably be supported by the evidence you have cited. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Per my previous comments and the close of the ANI thread, accept. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Recuse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• In principle I am happy to accept this kind of case, but I'm puzzled by the timing. The thread is still active and, to my knowledge, no one has tried to close it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Alright: Accept. The close: There is clear consensus that SchroCat has acted with incivility. SchroCat even admits as much in this thread. What there is no consensus about, however, is how to respond to that incivility. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson, as a historian I feel compelled to point out that the guy who came up with the Loveday was later imprisoned, and quite possibly murdered, by one of the participants, and that the wars continued for a decade or so after that. -- asilvering (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• I feel similarly to asilvering. If the thread closes with a referral to ArbCom, or with otherwise inconclusive results, I'd be open to hearing a case. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Accept. Sigh. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Accept, per leek. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• If we take a case, I think Dronebogus is a natural inclusion as party. Izno (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Definitely open to this, although we may need to workshop scope a bit. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  ARBINFOBOX2?! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  is it considered unprofessional behaviour to trout your fellow arbs at a case filing, asking for a friend -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  oh no. is it too late to retract my acceptance theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  NGL I am (seriously) entertaining it given the number of AN/ANI discussions raised around infoboxes since the last go (there are more names in the potentials list), but the ANI presented in this case seems to be about only the incivility of SchroCat. Izno (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Great. If you're the filing party, we can have three concurrent cases, each with a recused arb. If we keep this up we can get to arbcom-en-e or, with luck, arbcom-en-n. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Hate to be that guy... but WP:ARBINFOBOX2 exists. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  "SchroCat and related parties" is about where I am for scoping. Izno (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  The ANI thread was about SchroCat's behaviour in general, not restricted to any kind of topic, so this seems reasonable. -- asilvering (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Having reread the recent ANI thread with an eye to listing other parties, I'm equivocal at the moment on Dronebogus, but do think that if Dronebogus is included as a party, Fortuna imperatrix mundi would have to be as well. Their conflicts in that thread had to be hatted twice and are a strong hint of wider issues. -- asilvering (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus, the list of parties is decided by ArbCom regardless of your desire in the matter. Your choice in relevant proceedings is whether and how much you participate. Izno (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• I'd like to hear from SchroCat. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'd also like to hear from Fortuna imperatrix mundi. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural decline to stop the train and let SC respond --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Adding my procedural decline for the same reason. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  (Explanatory note: Without these temporary procedural declines to delay acceptance, the current 4 accept votes with 0 declines would be sufficient to open a case under our procedures.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• I'm going to check back tomorrow before voting on this. - Aoidh (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by EarthDude

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

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

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

Statement by 45dogs

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

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

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

Statement by Gramix13

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

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

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

Statement by The Bushranger

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Indian military history: Clerk notes

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

Indian military history: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by LokiTheLiar

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

Statement by TarnishedPath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by 45dogs

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

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

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

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Transgender healthcare and people: Clerk notes

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

Transgender healthcare and people: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I wasn't around then, but based on the text of WP:AEPR, it seems like the intent was to permit links to previous times an editor's behavior came under scrutiny—e.g. past discussions, the WP:AELOG, the standard block log—but to prohibit adding actual evidence. In the present case, adding those diffs would not be permitted. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• "Providing links to relevant past discussions or administrative actions, without any editorialization" doesn't seem to leave much room for interpretation. The only links that can be provided by third parties are links to previous sanctions or discussions about the editor in question, like a diff where an admin informed them of a sanction or a previous noticeboard thread. If you want to present evidence, you would have to be invited by an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• I'm happy to participate on this from either side of this header, but I'm curious to know if other arbs think my participation in the original thread on substance (plus a tongue-in-cheek comment on the procedure here) is enough that I need to recuse. Don't be shy about telling me to scram :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  No, please do say something @Theleekycauldron, you drafted the case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with HJM and HB. The two diffs are links to article edits, not "discussions", so AEPR #5 unambiguously doesn't apply. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• I see no great need to change anything here. Izno (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Recused. - Aoidh (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

COIVRT block appeals: Clerk notes

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

Draft motions: COIVRT block appeals

Community discussion

How many COIVRT appeals has ArbCom gotten in the year or so since Template:Uw-upeblock was updated? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to the work of Izno, we got 14 COIVRT appeals, out of 94 total appeals received. (But most of those appeals are summarily told to appeal on-wiki because their block is out of scope.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster Does "most of those appeals" refer to most of the COIVRT appeals, most of fthe total appeals, or both? Toadspike [Talk] 00:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Should've been more clear. Most of the 94 total appeals are out of scope. Most of the COIVRT appeals were heard on the merits (though occasionally we have given non-binding advice to the appellant that they might get a faster response if they appeal onwiki). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Is point f intended to expand Arbcom's power over blocks/bans? Or is it just intended to make what already happens more explicitly written down? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Point f is in the current procedures. Izno (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

What ArbCom decides to do is the boring part – the actual power is described at WP:ARBPOL § Scope and responsibilities, footnotes and links omitted:

The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:

1. To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
2. To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
3. To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools;
4. To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;
5. To approve and remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools and (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee.

So 45dogs, I'm not sure what you mean by "expand"ing ArbCom's power over (reviewing) blocks/bans. That power is already unlimited since at least 2011. A fraction of it is in use. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the status quo— which is basically number one— probably needs to stay. COIVRT blocks by nature involve evidence that cannot be easily talked about publicly, if it all. If someone is being blocked for evidence that was sent to COIVRT but is otherwise public, then the block shouldn’t be marked as a COIVRT block. This isn’t like CU block appeals, which rarely involve delving into non-public technicals; most COIVRT blocks involve some sort of OUTING element or otherwise have a lot of surrounding BEANS context. There’s no real good way to otherwise handle such private evidence outside of Arbcom; unless we get a separate mailing list for COIVRT appeals, one would have to privately talk to an individual COI agent if they wanted to discuss non-public evidence. This can be, and has been, problematic— it lacks transparency and peer input, and can lead to situations where important clarifications on evidence are lost if the involved functionary isn’t around anymore or diverges from the views of other functionaries in a problematic way. There was an incident not too long ago where a functionary publicly warned an editor for COI editing based on a COI ticket; that editor privately talked the warning down with the functionary, and the functionary later left the project. The COI got called into question again, and ended up being unresolved, as no one else had access to the private discussion. There’s some other BEANS reasons for why I don’t think devolving is a good idea, which I think some Arbcom members can figure out… unfortunately, I think this is one of those things that AC will have to handle. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

unless we get a separate mailing list for COIVRT appeals – definitely spitballing here, but maybe there's a place for just having people appeal to paid-en-wp as a new ticket? For all VRT's faults, it does at least check a lot of the boxes you mention (privacy, a permanent archive, the possibility of peer review). I suppose it would need a backstop like "if you don't get a response in 30 days, you can go straight to ArbCom". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Moneytrees, I'm surprised to hear you say this, since I've responded to on-wiki unblock requests for your COIVRT or COIVRT/SPI blocks and I'm sure you must have done at least one of mine, and I don't think we had much of a problem. In the event that there is an issue, we've always got the "unsuitable for public discussion" bit handy and can refer unblock requests to arbcom. Personally I prefer HB's #2 option, though I'd change the line to "where members with access to the queue disagree on the interpretation of that evidence or believe the request would be better handled at arbcom" to make that explicit. -- asilvering (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering That is a good point; looking over my UPE blocks, more are for socks of already banned masters than I initially realized. I was more worried about how this would go for more established editors who end up getting blocked (thinking about cases like User:PaulPachad, User:MaskedSinger, User:Jamiebuba and such), and how a case like that might put undue pressure on a VRT agent, but I think your provision would help prevent that from happening. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

And indeed, one of those three now has an arbcom block and can't be handled by COIVRT anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Violations of WP:ARBECR

Permission gaming.

Yet another Gaza Genocide move request

Page protection for high risk article

More information talk ...

No longer on MP Valereee (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2026 Kabul hospital airstrike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Page protection: This is an article currently displayed on the main page about a hospital being airstriked leading to mass civilian casualties, and it's part of a conflict taking place in a region designated as a contentious topic area (WP:CT/SA). If this isn't high risk I'm not sure what is. ―Maltazarian (talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate) 09:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC) I've got it watchlisted but it actually seems to be fine at the moment. We can always revisit this if there are serious issues. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC) Sounds good, as long as someone is monitoring it. ―Maltazarian (talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate) 10:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC) @Maltazarian, if you believe there are urgent issues that haven't been seen, you can also take them to WP:ANI for help. Valereee (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC) I'm aware, but my request was not a response to any urgent issue; it was meant as a heads up. ―Maltazarian (talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate) 22:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Close

Najibuddaulah1752 (again)

Request concerning Rejoy2003

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rejoy2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#User sanctions (CT/SA)

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Y Extension granted to 775 words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1344250631

Discussion concerning Rejoy2003

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

Statement by Rejoy2003

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

Y Extension granted to 800 words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Rejoy2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request concerning Davefelmer

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

@Valereee Respectfully, how does this differ from the assertion that Davefelmer made less than a month ago, which was not upheld after two weeks? I do not see any indication of an acknowledgement of fault. Instead, Davefelmer has continued with the personal attacks, which I will not engage with, but which should not be tolerated, particularly given prior administrative warnings regarding civility. Paprikaiser (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee I was referring to comments made toward me in the talk page discussion (link) and in the statement on this case. My concern is that Davefelmer has moved away from discussing the 1R/consensus rules and has instead transitioned into personal disparagement. In the linked talk page discussion, he characterized my previous attempt at dispute resolution as "whining" and accused me of "trying to establish some kind of authority". In his statement on this case, he continues this pattern by describing my interpretation of the edits as "insane" and "nonsensical", while labeling my filing as a "shameless and transparent attempt" to stop his editing. He further characterizes the filing as "AE baiting" and a "frivolous complaint". I believe these comments go beyond a simple disagreement and demonstrate a battleground mentality.

@Newslinger @Vanamonde93, I see now that I inadvertently reverted Davefelmer's edit to my prior version rather than the stable consensus one, which instead of By the beginning of the 20th century, most leaders of the Zionist movement associated this national revival with the colonization of Palestine, then under Ottoman rule. should have said The arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine during this period is widely seen as the start of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This was not my intention, and if I had been made aware of this, I would have immediately corrected it, but Davefelmer reverted me again to restore his challenged content instead. Paprikaiser (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

AE notification

Discussion concerning Davefelmer

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

Statement by Davefelmer

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

Y Extension granted to 750 words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Davefelmer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Sennecaster, I tend to dislike timed restrictions, which editors can just wait out. I know it's common for edit-warring, though. If that's what we can agree on, I'll go along. Valereee (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Paprikaiser, there's been further incivility since the first warning? Sorry if I'm staring right at it, is it in one of your diffs? Valereee (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Got it. I have to agree that comments about "whining" while probably not actionable are less than ideal, especially at a CT. I'm a little less concerned about the language here, people get upset when they're dragged to a noticeboard and sometimes write hyperbolically, but given the logged warning about incivility so recently, again not ideal. Valereee (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: Since my comment from the previous enforcement request was quoted, I am making a correction for a non-quoted part of the comment: "editor who pointed out one of these violations to him" should be changed to "editor who pointed out his edit warring". — Newslinger talk 09:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Noting for the record that the correct link to diff #8 is Special:Diff/1343935587. In the filing, diff #8 has the same link as diff #7. — Newslinger talk 23:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about a logged warning. If Davefelmer doesn't immediately change behavior basically, we're going to be back here with more disruption even if it's to a lesser degree. A timed pageblock from Zionism sounds like the happy medium. Maybe 1 month would be good? I acknowledge the commitment to do better here, but it's hard to fully believe that this will be the end of disruption immediately with the logged warning being issued less than a month ago. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Vanamonde's suggestion of making a partial block appealable in a month sounds like a reasonable compromise between Valereee's concern of waiting out a block and Newslinger's own concerns around an indefinite pblock given the CRP violation by Paprikaiser. The logged warning for Paprikaiser also makes sense. In all honesty, I didn't consider people waiting out timed blocks, I'll make sure to remember in the future. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Paprikaiser: In your 12 February edit (diff #2), in addition to partially reverting Davefelmer's 24 January edit (diff #1), you also introduced the phrasing "By the beginning of the 20th century, most leaders of the Zionist movement associated this national revival with the colonization of Palestine, then under Ottoman rule." Davefelmer reverted diff #2 on 13 February (diff #3), so your restoration of that content on 14 March (diff #4) is a violation of the consensus required provision (CRP).
  @Davefelmer: Your 13 February edit (diff #3) not only reverted the content Paprikaiser introduced in 12 February (diff #2), but also reintroduced the content you previously added in 24 February (diff #1) which Paprikaiser had reverted in diff #2. Thus, your 13 February edit (diff #3), 15 March edit (diff #5), and first listed 17 March edit (diff #7) are all CRP violations. As you reverted diff #7 in diff #8, I am assigning less weight to the third violation, but that still leaves two fully weighted CRP violations. — Newslinger talk 20:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC); fixed link to diff #8 23:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Based on this, I support a logged warning for Paprikaiser. In light of Davefelmer's previous logged warning, I support either a logged warning or a timed partial block from the Zionism article for Davefelmer. It is not permissible to violate a page restriction while attempting to enforce the same restriction (or any other policy or restriction) for someone else's edit. This enforcement request could have been avoided if both editors challenged each other's CRP violations without introducing their own contested content at the same time. — Newslinger talk 20:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Based on that analysis I support a logged warning for Paprikaiser. I am not generally a supporter of timed blocks in cases where the behavior is not attributable to editing in the heat of the moment; I would prefer an indefinite page block appealable in a month. But I won't stand in the way if there is consensus for a timed block. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  I would be more supportive of an indefinite partial block if there were no negative findings for Paprikaiser, but I am not sure about that outcome in the current case. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Newslinger, you're thinking the fact you're also seeing bad behavior on the side of Pk should lessen the restriction on Df? I'm willing to be persuaded, but what's your thinking? Valereee (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  When two editors under discussion violate the same policy or restriction in a dispute, I will typically consider a set of actions that maintains parity for both editors to minimize the amount of benefit either of the editors can receive from the outcome, because I do not believe it should be possible for either editor to gain an advantage in the content dispute by litigating the conduct aspects when both editors are at fault.

  This situation is not quite equal for both parties, because Davefelmer has one additional CRP violation that was not self-reverted, so I am supporting a partial block for Davefelmer: I support the one-month partial block, and I am neutral on the indefinite partial block (regardless of when it can be appealed). For parity, I would also support a second logged warning for Davefelmer as an alternative to the partial block to match the logged warning for Paprikaiser, although I understand this is unlikely to gain consensus here.​ — Newslinger talk 14:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Request concerning Muhammed Tariq Hawleri 1985

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

Muhammed Tariq Hawleri 1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Kurds and Kurdistan, WP:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In response to Sennecaster, Arbat, Iraq is within the scope of WP:GS/KURD. And I moved unsuccessfully to CSD the entire article as an ECR violation ...

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Discussion concerning Muhammed Tariq Hawleri 1985

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

Result concerning Muhammed Tariq Hawleri 1985

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

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

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

• Oof. 4 talk space edits that I can see, none in the last 6 months, and Talk:Arbat, Iraq is the opposite of reassuring even though it doesn't strictly fall into any ECR off the top of my head. Subsequently, they did a cut-paste move from Arbat Town. Draft:Bana Shirwan has at least parts of the article that falls under WP:GSKURD and undoubtedly some questionable sourcing. They last used a user talk over a year ago, and is not a great response to an AfD notification. There's enough disruption spread over their activity that I'm inclined to indef until they communicate. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Any objection to an article space block only because their user talk has been so infrequent/long ago? I sometimes think people don't really understand the space is there. Valereee (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds good, but I'd extend to draftspace too since they've edited there recently enough. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  It looks like they aren't editing via mobile, so they should see system messages. Valereee (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Request concerning Some1

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Some1

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

Result concerning Some1

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

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

Statement by Riposte97

Riposte97's statement contains 998 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

For reasons of convenience, I propose to deal with my two sanctions in this topic area together (and respectfully request that my word count be extended). I am applying to have my logged warning in this topic area lifted. I am applying to have my topic van in this topic area either lifted or modified to a logged warning. I do so on two grounds. Firstly, I contend that neither action was reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed. Secondly, I contend that neither action is presently reasonably necessary (in its current form) to prevent damage or disruption.

Logged warning

The following admins were involved in the logged warning discussion:
Vanamonde93 (closer)
Asilverling
Arcticocean
Red-tailed hawk
theleekycauldron
Black Kite (procedural)

Without speaking for the participants, there appeared to be a clear consensus that the initial complaint raised by the requester was not actionable. However, looking through my edit history at Imane Khelif, both Vanamonde93 and theleekycauldron hit upon this edit from 28 December 2025 (edit 1) and this edit from 8 February 2026 (edit 2). In those edits, I:
i. Reinserted material originally inserted by Jprg1966 on 27 December 2025 and removed by Tamzin the following day stating that a female athlete being born male, being genetically male, having a DSD, or having elevated testosterone levels would confer an unfair advantage over other female athletes.
ii. Removed a link to Transvestigation from the lead.
iii. Removed the statement that claims Khelif is sexually male are (positively) false.
iii. Inserted the words ‘[Khelif] has stated she’ before the words ‘was born female’.
iv. Removed the sentence ‘No medical evidence exists to suggest that she is transgender.’
v. Inserted a new body paragraph stating ‘On 4 February 2026, Khelif stated in an interview French sports newspaper L'Equipe that she had the SRY gene, located on the masculine Y chromosome’ under the heading ‘Confirmation of genetic deviation’.

It was for these edits in combination that the participants decided I had engaged in OR and POV violations. I was warned on that basis.

Reviewing those edits now, after editors on that page have engaged in an extremely careful, well-attended discussion about the appropriate way to address Khelif’s sex and gender, I believe this may be one of the occasions on which it would be appropriate for admins to reexamine their initial judgements. As a result of that process, the link to transvestigation has been removed from the lead. The statement that claims Khelif was male are false has been replace by the statement that claims Khelif was a man are false. The statement asserting a lack of medical evidence that she is transgender (which is contested for complex reasons) has been replaced by a much less controversial statement that she is not transgender. The L’Equipe interview has been re-added to the body. There is an ongoing discussion (which will probably require either an experienced closer or an RfC) dealing with whether certain physical deviations would confer an unfair advantage in sports and whether ‘born female’ is appropriate in the context of the sex/gender distinction. In other words, the community has evaluated the same sources I did (there have been no notable subsequent developments) and come to some similar conclusions.

I don’t believe the above proves that my edits were wholly correct (indeed a more nuanced position on several of the points has been arrived at, in the formation of which I actively participated). However, I do believe subsequent developments do indicate that I was not so far beyond the pale as to merit a sanction.

That being said, I understand that it is difficult to determine which edits will ultimately be deemed appropriate and which are merely disruptive in this topic area, and I think I will adopt (and indeed, have adopted since this sanction) an approach of less BOLDness, laying out reasoning on the talk page first.

TBAN

The following admins were involved in the TBAN discussion:
theleekycauldron (closer)
Arcticocean
Toadspike
Newslinger
Guerillero
Sennecaster (procedural)
Left guide (procedural)

Without rehashing the entire discussion, I think it is fair to say that the conduct was considered to be towards the less serious end of the severity scale. The most serious point raised was that I made off-colour comments about an innate characteristic. I did not intend those comments to wound, and the recipient did not take particular offence, but it was nevertheless inappropriate. I struck the ‘yank’ comment. I also freely admit that I was an active combatant in the high-charged talk page discussions at Imane Khelif, speaking sharply, and bringing that sharpness to the above discussion in my comments.

There was extensive discussion by the admins as to whether a logged warning would suffice. However, since I already had the above logged warning, that was deemed impossible. I would suggest that, if it is agreed that the previous warning was not an appropriate remedy in light of subsequent consensus, that it would be unfair to allow the TBAN to stand unmodified, seeing as the warning certainly influenced the severity of this sanction.

I believe a logged warning would have sufficed then, and I am certain either a logged warning or an unlogged warning would suffice now. I understand the restrictions. I have demonstrated an ability to act with extreme care since the comments which gave rise to the sanction. My contributions on the Imane Khelif page since then have been extensive and led to highly productive discussions. Above all, they have been decorous. I have a history of respectful contribution to talk pages in the topic area (as noted by theleekycauldron in the warning discussion). I don’t believe the community needs to have any concern that my contributions will be disruptive in future.

Riposte97 (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, theleekycauldron, I intended only to refer to my historical conduct. I took it as read that my subsequent comments were unacceptable. I didn’t mean to mislead in any way. Riposte97 (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

TarnishedPath thank you, I appreciate it. Riposte97 (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by theleekycauldron

I stand by what I said in those threads, and I don't there's much I could say here from an ADMINACCT perspective, but I do have two things to clear up.

One, Riposte, the part of your second thread where you quote me from the first thread saying that your behavior is courteous is deeply disingenuous. Because what I actually wrote, in that second thread you were ostensibly summarizing, was several paragraphs on how some of your behavior was the opposite of courteous – but you made no mention of that. Given how hard you went after Simonm for "selective quotation" in that second thread, I'm having trouble pinning down any uniform standards of conduct you abide by. Also, you still haven't admitted what even the people who agree with you in these threads have basically conceded: "yank" was an insult. And you've never really apologized for it.

Second, Clicriffhard, I totally understand where you're coming from, but I don't think I'd really be able to assemble all of the evidence necessary for a proper AE thread. If you think there's something there, I would encourage you to open those threads, and I'd be happy to provide my own perspective. I do agree with you that the claim of "racism" was pretty ridiculous. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Riposte97: ah, gotcha! you're good, thanks :)

@TarnishedPath: yeaaaaaah. my bad, sorry, that definitely fell off my radar. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93

Statement by Clicriffhard

  Clicriffhard's statement contains 659 words and complies with the 660-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 660 words. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

As an editor who has agreed with some but not all of Riposte97's content positions on Imane Khelif, the proceedings leading to this topic ban were eyebrow-raising.

Firstly, Riposte's pre-existing logged warning arose from a misconceived filing that attracted criticism but no sanctions for the filer, after which admins went looking for some other questionable grounds to warn Riposte. Riposte is right to say that the majority of the edits for which he was warned align with the current position of the article; where that isn't the case, those points have been discussed at length (/interminably) and Riposte has not been notably difficult or unfriendly in the face of good-faith disagreement. I wish I could say the same for everyone else.

In the most recent AE thread, Riposte was upbraided for referring to a "gang" seeking sanctions for him. Two types of people are likely to make that sort of comment:

• People who wrongly believe that they are being targeted by antagonistic partisans, and
• People who rightly believe that they are being targeted by antagonistic partisans.

With genuine respect to theleekycauldron, if you want that sort of accusation to be supported then why deny a word extension? It's not unimportant, and obviously not brief to evidence.

In respect of Riposte's "yank" comment, it was obviously rude, both to Simonm223 (who is not American) and to Americans (who are). Two qualifications, however:

• It was rude, not "racist" (against the American race?), as TarnishedPath claimed. It's very hard to see how that sort of grossly inflationary accusation can be levelled in good faith and yet, again, no consequences whatsoever for making it. No meaningful examination of the behaviour of editors who strongly appear to have taken a "side" against Riposte, and indeed anyone else who deviates from their content position. Paraphrasing Kingsindian: in failing to deal with this sort of thing again and again, you are incentivising antagonistic and conflict-seeking behaviour. In my view, this topic ban does that. For those of us who sincerely want the Khelif article to get a good deal calmer, trust me, it doesn't help.
• The comment was a response to a series (, , ) of semi-soapboxing comments that mischaracterised the arguments of editors Simon was disagreeing with and insulted their intelligence. Nothing major or worthy of sanction - I saw far worse on the thread - but annoying comments in a very annoying discussion. If you want to come down hard on a brief loss of composure in response, then wouldn't it be a good idea to examine some of the MANY steps that led up to it? And do you understand how it looks when you acknowledge the need to follow up, and then wander off in different directions without doing anything?

In summary:

• Please allow this appeal and substitute a clear warning to Riposte that he needs to be beyond reproach from now on. If he isn't then he knows what will happen.
• Please follow up on the follow-up in some form. theleekycauldron, I'm comfortable enough with my own behaviour to invite that scrutiny, and you are absolutely right about the need for it, but acknowledging the need alone doesn't do anything.

Thanks. Clicriffhard (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill, could I please have a short extension to cover this reply?

I haven't read any of Arcticocean's comments as "suggesting any lack of awareness of the context and relevance of the prior sanction". Nor have I said or implied that Arcticocean's comments contained any "suggestion of unfair collusion or bias against Riposte97". I didn't mention Arcticocean at all. Fairly confused by your response so I'm not sure how best to clarify, but let me know if there's anything I can usefully explain. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill Sorry, I get you now. A proper explanation of my issues with the logged warning & general approach would require more words than I can reasonably ask for, so I'll have to leave it there. Thanks for engaging anyway. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

I am only commenting because, again, I've been mentioned. I have been somewhat trying to avoid Riposte97 since I made my statement in the prior AE discussion. Please leave me out of this unless absolutely necessary. I have no opinion beyond that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by involved Kingsindian

Rosguill's comment is missing critical context. The AE discussion was not about whether a logged warning was sufficient -- it was about whether a second logged warning was appropriate. Every admin who supported a topic ban referenced the prior warning. Arcticocean called repeated warnings "highly unusual and not generally encouraged." Guerillero said to "bite the bullet" on a topic ban rather than issue a second warning. Newslinger shifted from warning to topic ban on that basis. theleekycauldron cited "a previous logged warning" directly. Toadspike, the lone dissenter, argued a second warning was permissible.

Riposte97's appeal asks whether that first warning was justified. If it was not, the escalation logic collapses. That is not a frivolous question. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

I unreservably apologise for my characterisation of Riposte97's words as being racist. I did reach out to leeky on their talk during the discussion to try and assertain if I was completely off my head. However, I got no response and thought no more of it (not that leeky was obliged to respond). In my defense I was relying on common usage of the term in my country where derogatory statements towards people on the basis of their percieved nationality are often considered racist. See Safework Australia which writes "Racism includes anything that offends, insults, humiliates, negatively views or unfairly treats a person or group of people because of their race, colour, descent, nationality, ethnicity, or migrant status". I accept that the term is interpreted in a different way by others and I should have been more careful with my words.
That said, I don't see that my characterisation had any impact on the end result. TarnishedPath^talk 23:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron, as I wrote you were under no obligation to respond in any case. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Riposte97

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Result of the appeal by Riposte97

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

• Having reviewed the prior AE discussion, I don't see any basis for this appeal. There was clear agreement from most admins responding that a logged warning was not sufficient, with extensive discussion of that question specifically; while there was one dissenting opinion, they did not insist on their point of view, and no objections were made to leeky's closing proposal of a TBAN. This is a rather typical AE procedure. Meanwhile, the near-immediate attempt to appeal the sanction on frivolous procedural grounds if anything further convinces me that a topic ban is appropriate and necessary to prevent further disruption. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Clicriffhard, my comment applies to the first part too. No real argument is advanced challenging the reasoning of the first warning. I don’t see how the article’s current status quo invalidates the concerns or reasoning of the logged warning. Further, these sanctions occurred within a a short time of each other. Arcticocean and leeky participated in both discussions, and a nontrivial amount of their commentary in the second discussion focuses specifically on a pattern of conduct proceeding from the first case, even independent of the logic of needing to escalate from a warning. It’s further significant that, when commenting on the first case, they thought that concerns at that time were minor, with Arcticocean at first calling to throw out the case entirely. In the second discussion, they commented on this directly and highlighted how their views had changed due to the further evidence entailed in the second report. I don’t see how you could read their comments as suggesting any lack of awareness of the context and relevance of the prior sanction, nor do they give the slightest suggestion of unfair collusion or bias against Riposte97. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Clicriffhard, I wasn’t trying to suggest those were your arguments, the “you could read” was only meant rhetorically, identifying possible avenues of objection to an action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• I don't see a reason to support this appeal either on the merits or procedurally. I was involved in the logged warning decision, but not the TBAN decision. I second what Rosguill says above about immediate appeals. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• I don't even want to count how many times has Imane Khelif-related filings have appeared at AE in the last two months. The logged warning was to be more mindful of BLP and NPOV in response to unsourced and/or overly POV content (depending on what diff you looked at, contained either or both). I don't see how that was wrongfully or improperly closed. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Clicriffhard; granted extension to 660. @Newyorkbrad; are you saying extend to 1,000 to cover the current statement, or grant pre-emptive extension to something like 1250/1500 to allow for further reply and cover the original statement? Sennecaster (Chat) 03:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• The appellant's section is listed at 998 words, basically double the default 500-word limit. Was there a word extension granted that I'm unaware of? There is none showing on the {{ACWordStatus}} template. Left guide (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t believe so; I had neglected to check the length before commenting _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  The additional headers broke the whole thing so I removed them and added ACWordStatus. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• I support granting the requested word extension as the appealing party has had to address two separate AE discussions and has done so in a reasonably straightforward way. I dont think it would be useful to require the opening statement to be cut by 50% at this stage. I'll address the merits tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)