Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Wikimedia project page From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Shortcuts

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
More information Request name, Motions ...
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Tag-teaming in North African topics   14 March 2026 0/0/0
Close
[edit]
Open cases
More information Case name, Links ...
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Pbsouthwood (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)
Close
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

More information Request name, Motions ...
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 none (orig. case) 28 February 2026
Amendment request: Indian military history none (orig. case) 13 March 2026
Close

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Tag-teaming in North African topics

Initiated by asilvering (talk) at 02:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by asilvering

There is a long-term pattern of tendentious editing in this topic area that inhibits the normal consensus-building processes and drives out newcomers. In particular, this pattern is centred around two editors, M.Bitton and Skitash, who edit so closely together that WP:3O is impossible and edit wars inevitably end in their favour as they can "force" a WP:3RR violation on the opposing party. This pattern has resulted in several sockpuppetry reports about the pair. The two accounts are, in my view, extremely unlikely to be operated by the same person, but the editor interaction tool illustrates the problem nicely: . I don't believe I have ever seen such extensive overlap between two accounts.

I've picked these AN/ANI links as prior attempts at resolution because a) they demonstrate that normal admin/community processes have been unable to handle this and b) because ignoring these processes is part of the problem (see for example - M.Bitton has never, not once, showed up to dispute resolution). In addition, I believe arbcom is better equipped to handle fact-finding and discussion of this case because its processes mitigate the stonewalling and sealioning that characterize many of these prior disputes. POV-pushing is also heavily involved.

I am filing this case request following the no-action archiving of the February ANI thread linked above. Accordingly, Bananakingler and R3YBOl have been added as parties; R3YBO1 was also accused of co-ordinated editing with M.Bitton and Skitash, and Bananakingler was the "opponent" in the dispute.

You will notice that Bananakingler stands out among the parties as having significantly less experience. M.Bitton and Skitash are typically able to get their opponents, who have much less experience with Wikipedia processes than they have, sanctioned at WP:ANEW and WP:ANI. Other discussions break down because of stonewalling, or because they are seen as content disputes. Counter-accusations of off-wiki co-ordination, such as this one, are common. As an experienced editor who has obviously not come here via a content dispute, Reddit, or wherever else, I have decided to bring the case myself. I have never, to my recollection, been involved in a content dispute with M.Bitton or Skitash, though in the interests of full disclosure, I was LEvalyn's sanity check in the shakshouka dispute, which still strikes me as some of the most absurd stonewalling I have ever seen in my time on Wikipedia. I have responded to, but not taken action in, the ANI discussion that led to this case, because I was the most recent admin to sanction M.Bitton.

Statement by Bananakingler

I'm busy with personal things for the next 7-9 days but I'll try to respond to direct questions.

Statement by M.Bitton

Statement by R3YBOl

Statement by Skitash

@Asilvering: I understand why you may see it this way. We do share many similar topics on our watchlists and are in similar time zones which naturally leads to overlapping editing patterns. But that is simply normal collaboration among editors who agree on certain things. Me and M.Bitton obviously had disagreements before, and the same goes for R3YBOI and M.Bitton. Moreover, there are many other editors with whom my interests overlap and who I have rarely (or never) disagreed with. As was discussed in the recently archived ANI report, and as @TarnishedPath has pointed out, the allegations appear to rest primarily on speculation by editors who "cannot say yes with certainty" rather than concrete evidence. As for claims of driving out newcomers and inhibiting consensus, I tend to explain all of my edits and reverts substantively in edit summaries and talk pages to support open discussion rather than obstructing it or WP:STONEWALLING (i.e. reverting without policy-based rationale). Skitash (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Super Goku V

Given my participation in that last discussion, I should probably post the comment that I didn't finish, but was working on. I am going to wait on an extension request given that the unfinished version was nearing 1,000 words. In the meantime, I will mention that during the latest ANI discussion, I felt that the Maghreb region should likely be viewed as a contentious topic, which would be the Committee's jurisdiction. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Kowal2701

Thanks to Asilvering for taking this on, seconding the need for a case here per my comments at the ANI thread . FTR I've commented in a couple of their disputes, usually ones that become RfCs. The community has been hopeless at dealing with this. While M.Bitton's battleground conduct isn't limited to North African topics nor newbies ( , these sort of comments illustrate that nicely), it's the driving away of newbies from already quiet topics through baiting and weaponisation of conduct noticeboards that is particularly antithetical to Wikipedia's ethos and goal. It's extraordinary how admins have turned a blind eye to this. Following his last block, an editor commented "this particular user, M.Bitton, while prickly, is one of the important barriers against nationalist POV pushing in multiple topics", and it appears this is widely and uncritically accepted, despite it being possible for someone with only cursory knowledge on the topic to perceive his own editing as "nationalist POV pushing". IIRC, I first became aware of Skitash after participating in an RM to move a page they created away from "Sunni Arab genocide in Iraq", which didn't have a single source supporting the genocide label. I refer to conduct in other areas so arbs don't assume misconduct is limited to North African topics. I'd recommend arbs do a bit of reading up on Maghrebi politics and nationalisms, only so that they can recognise possible biases, if they are to accept this. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:07, 14 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.

Tag-teaming in North African topics: Clerk notes

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

Tag-teaming in North African topics: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Recuse, obviously. -- asilvering (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Waiting for statements. @Super Goku V: a 1k word statement is rarely helpful at this stage, especially when it is effectively a part of a previous discussion. Please try to provide a focused statement on if we should accept a case or not. The rest may be useful at the evidence stage. My guide to arbitration may be useful. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

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

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

Initiated by Chaotic Enby at 23:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Chaotic Enby

Do conflicts between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran, that do not directly involve Arab countries, fall under the scope of the extended-confirmed restriction? I've recently seen several PIA-related actions in that regard (most recently, this protection of Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei), and, while I see the connection if we are considering the topic as broadly construed (given the indirect role of Iran in the conflict through its proxies), having an explicit clarification one way or the other could be helpful.

To clarify, I'm not requesting any action against The Bushranger (whose action only happens to be the latest example I've seen of this), just wanting to clarify the limits of where ECR applies.

Statement by The Bushranger

Requesting removal from the case as a party per the OP's statement. On the position itself: the limitations of the search function mean I can't find it to link it right off hand, but this did come up at ANI or AN recently (during 2025) and agreement was that the Israeli-Iran conflict falls under it; of course it's entirely possible Arbcom may see otherwise! - 00:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Removed as a party. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

I think that some arbs are displaying a lack of familiarity with the subject matter at hand when they express doubt that this should be covered, or that this is a post-1979 concern. Prior to the 1979 revolution, agitation around the Pahlavi monarchy’s ties to Israel and their policies towards Palestinians was a central element of the ayatollah’s polemics against the monarchy (see the Timeline section of Iran–Israel relations, particularly the two subsections about the Pahlavi period focusing respectively on Pahlavi’s policies and the activities of the Islamic opposition). The current Iranian government’s claims to legitimacy (as in, how it justifies its rule to its population) are directly tied to its opposition to Israel, and Israel’s own hostility to Iran following the 1979 revolution is based on the reciprocal recognition of this ideological commitment by the Iranian government. Military confrontations between the two are thus deeply intertwined with the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole, at least for as long as the Iranian and Israeli states continue to exist in their current forms. signed, Rosguill talk 05:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that the suggested rescoping of the restriction to cover "Israeli politics" would also be workable, although I would amend that to "Israeli politics and/or Palestinian politics", since the political activities of Palestinian factions should be covered by the topic even when it's not something immediately impacting Israeli politics. In a sense, the "Arab-Israeli conflict" framing is an atavism of the 1930s-70s when it could be said almost without exaggeration that there was a general conflict between Zionism/Israel and the whole Arab world. Successive peace treaties with Arab governments, as well as the expansion of the conflict to non-Arab states, complicates the designation of "Arab-Israeli". signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I think the statement "It also armed the terrorist proxies around us in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Judea and Samaria, and it shed our blood." from "Read Netanyahu's full statement on Iran attacks" is probably enough to designate it as "Part of the Arab–Israeli conflict". Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

I don't think the Israeli-Iranian conflict is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it should definitely be considered a contentious topic anyway of course. Perhaps just make it simple and clear that Any military action or violence by or against the State of Israel is designated as a contentious topic on Wikipedia. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Per Guerillero's comment, if Iranian politics and American politics are CTOPs, probably so too should be Israeli politics. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
In fact, maybe instead of the Arab-Israeli conflict being a CTOP, PIA (Palestine-Israel articles) should be slightly rescoped to be simply PIP: Palestinian and Israeli politics. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The current hostilities are certainly "related to AIC" per leekycauldron, and are certainly "deeply intertwined with the Arab-Israeli conflict" per Rosguill, but that doesn't make them wholly "part of" that conflict.
The entirety of the State of Israel and its very existence is inseparable from the Arab-Israeli conflict, so really anything to do with Israeli politics should be ECR unless that's too restrictive. In which case something like the "national and international politics of Israel" or "Israeli foreign policy" should be ECR. That way local/small-scale/municipal/minor Israeli politics and the like wouldn't be ECR, which would be the drawback to applying the restriction to all of "Israeli politics" in general. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

The Iranian government is deeply embedded in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Iran's support for Hamas is frequently cited as the rationale for hostilities between Iran and Israel. I don't see how the Israeli-Iranian conflict would not be covered by PIA. Broader Iranian politics may fall outside it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Abo Yemen

While I believe that the Iranian-Israeli conflict is a CTOP, I do not think that it should fall under the name of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran is not Arab. See also Rosguill's statement. I think that there should be a rescope 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

In reply to @CaptainEek's suggestion that the definition should be extended to the '"Israeli-Middle Eastern" conflict' (which is technically a wrong wording, since it isn't everyone in the Middle East but Israel against Israel), I suggest that all post-1948 Middle Eastern politics be designated as a CTOP 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by ToBeFree

Practice is a bit faster than process here. I've already placed some protections based on the statements here on this page after initially saying "Iran is not an Arab country". Rosguill's statement above is very helpful. I think it would be time for a formal close or perhaps ideally even a motion amending WP:CT/A-I similarly to the current "Clarifications and amendments" section of the South Asia contentious topics page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:59, 5 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.

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Yes, to my understanding the general conflict between Iran and Israel (Iran–Israel proxy conflict) is considered "Part of the Arab–Israeli conflict". That's what the main article on the topic says, and many articles about it are placed under EC protection as being within PIA. As to why, my understanding is that the origin of the enmity between Iran and Israel after the 1979 Islamic revolution is mainly the Arab–Israeli conflict (particularly the Palestine–Israel conflict/the dispute as to the legitimacy of the State of Israel). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    I'd be inclined to extend the CTOP (not the ECR) to other content about either Israel or Palestine. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes, I believe it does. Daniel (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Iran is not an Arab country, so I am hesitant to say that the Iran–Israel conflict is entirely covered by the Arab–Israeli conflict ECR. Parts of Iran–Israel conflicts are covered via the broadly construed clause, but I don't think there is a blanket rule. (On a related note, for contentious topic actions, Iranian politics is probably more applicable.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

    The Arab–Israeli conflict is our most fraught topic area, and it has a long history at ArbCom. Five PIA cases, plus many related cases (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13), plus the innumerable times we have considered PIA-related ARMs and ARCAs (not least the most recent fiasco).

    We are well past wit's end in PIA. Consequently, we have consistently employed our most bitter medicine to the topic area. Anything that PIA touches is a contentious topic, and subject to 1RR, and subject to ECR, and (until November) all formal discussions have a 1,000 word limit. We created a bespoke restriction which forces editors to spend time not touching the cesspit. We depart from WP:PREEMPTIVE—a policy that comes from our bedrock principle of anyone can edit—by mandating that ECR be enforced automatically, without room for admin discretion. Upon PIA misconduct, we allow admins to issue restrictions with and severely limit the right to appeal, and we permit broadening topic bans beyond PIA.

Before broadening PIA, I would want evidence that we need all of that to quell disruption. I agree with leeky when she said I don't agree that all conflict between Israel and Iran is inherently AIC, it should be case-by-case; but I do agree that the current hostilities are broadly related to AIC. I disagree we should expand all of PIA before we try less extreme measures, such as expanding just a contentious topic (either PIA or IRP). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  • The present conflict absolutely does. -- asilvering (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I would argue that the most recent strikes do fall under the ECR. WP:BROADLY specifies that Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic. In other words, anything that falls under the topic area is always covered by the CT, broadly construed or not; but when a CT is broadly construed, anything broadly related to the topic area, which necessarily includes being broadly related to key subtopics of the topic area, is also covered by the CT. While it's debatable whether the most recent strikes fall under the CT – like House said, Iran isn't a direct belligerent to the Arab–Israeli conflict, Israeli wars with Arab proxies notwithstanding – they are very closely related to the Gaza war and the proxy conflict, and as such I would say the strikes are covered. I think the spirit of the rule also supports this interpretation: this topic area is going to see a lot of the same disruption that the Arab–Israeli conflict area normally gets, because of that close relation to PIA, and I think it only make sense that admins will be able to address the same disruption with the same set of tools. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    To be clear, I don't agree that all conflict between Israel and Iran is inherently AIC, it should be case-by-case; but I do agree that the current hostilities are broadly related to AIC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • It probably isn't under a plain reading of the text passed by previous arbcoms. Iran isn't an Arab state. However, it is clear that between IRANPOL, AMPOL, and PIA this should be covered due to all of those topic areas touching the current conflict to some degree. To limit confusion, we should pass a motion explicitly stating that this is covered by one to three of the three existing CTs. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Guerillero, it's clearly covered by IRANPOL and AMPOL. But PIA has ECR, so it's important whether it's under this one specifically. -- asilvering (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    I am willing to vote that the scope of CT, ECP, and topic bans for PIA explicitly includes conflicts between Iran and Israel. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I admit that for some reason I'd always thought of Iran as being Arabic, although I realize it is more properly considered Persian. In a technical sense, Iran isn't really an Arab state; it has only a handful of Arab speakers. But it is part of the middle east, and obviously has a long history of conflict with its neighbors and also Israel. Iran also supports the proxy conflict between the Arab Hezbollah and Israel, which is obviously covered under Arab-Israeli conflict. I would support expanding our definition to "Israeli-Middle Eastern" conflict, if that would help cover the current conflict. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    I would also support amending the scope :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    I would also support amending it, it seems necessary given the present circumstances. - Aoidh (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Although a strictly literal reading would say no, the current conflict is undoubtedly an extension of the ongoing Gaza War and Israel-Iranian relations in general overlap considerably with the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'm not sure I'd say historical conflicts/relations between the two would automatically be covered by the CTOP but some will and current events certainly are in my opinion. As others have noted, aspects are also covered by the CTOPs for American and Iranian politics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Amendment request: Indian military history

Initiated by EarthDude at 08:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Indian military history arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. 2) The topic of Indian military history is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

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.

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

Motions

Requests for enforcement

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

More information Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions, Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions ...
Close
Arbitration enforcement archives (index)


Quick enforcement requests

This section may be used for short requests for enforcement intended to be answered by a single administrator. This can include requests for page restrictions or requests to revert violations of a restriction, but should not be used to request that an editor be blocked, banned, or given other editor restrictions – for those, file a long-form enforcement thread.
To add a quick request, copy the following text box, click to edit this section, paste in the copied text at the bottom, and replace "Heading", "Page title", "Requested action", and "Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated)" to describe the request. For how a quick request should look when properly formatted, see this example request.
=== Heading ===
* {{pagelinks|Page title}}
'''Requested action''': Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated). ~~~~

Permission gaming.

More information Permission removed. Arcticocean ■ 15:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC) ...
Close

Talk:List of Palestinians

More information This has already been handled. If there are further problems related to a quick request, it's obviously not a "quick request" anymore and should be handled in another manner. asilvering (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC) ...
Close

Melat Kiros

More information This is not the place to request CSD. asilvering (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC) ...
Close

Violations of WP:ARBECR

More information PP done by ToBeFree; request to strike non-EC comments not done by Sennecaster. Arcticocean ■ 09:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC) ...
Close

Yet another Gaza Genocide move request

Davefelmer

Ganesha811

More information Closing without formal action per my comments below. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC) ...
Close

IvanScrooge98

More information User:IvanScrooge98 blocked 1 week for personal attacks and bludgeoning. ...
Close

CistronSSF

Riposte97

Comments in this thread are restricted because an administrator has placed this enforcement request under an Arbitration Enforcement participation restriction (AEPR). Comments violating the restriction may be moderated or removed and may result in sanction of the commenting user. Further information on the scope of the restriction is available at WP:AEPR.

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

Request concerning Riposte97

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Riposte97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
GENSEX
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

There's a discussion on the Donald Trump talk page regarding whether the Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration can *really* be called persecution in wikivoice. I am on that page arguing yes. Riposte has taken the opposite stance, saying that it is extremely bad taste to compare the same measures against other minority groups throughout history (wrt to the appropriate use of the word "persecution") to the actions being discussed here. Not because of the stance he has taken, but in the course of his discussion of that stance and more widely in the GENSEX topic area, Riposte's conduct since his last GENSEX AE thread two weeks ago has been subpar.

I would have waited for more severe conduct before filing this, however @Tamzin previously said to please bring GENSEX AE cases much more often. Kindly give him the trout or something?

  1. Mar 1, 2026 Personal attack
  2. Feb 18, 2026 Aspersions on a talk page discussion about Imane Khelif
  3. Feb 18, 2026 Personal attack on the Imane Khelif page

Previous edits raised in the last thread by various users:

  1. Feb 6, 2026 Editing the Imane Khelif page without sourcing for the purpose of, per theleekycauldron, casting doubt on Khelif being cisgender
  2. Dec 28, 2025 OR to a similar effect


Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Feb 14, 2026 Just two weeks ago, he was warned for GENSEX conduct.
  2. June 22, 2024 BRD warning on Hunter Biden. Not relevant to GENSEX, but the jump from the Hunter Biden page to the Donald Trump page is not a far one.
  3. TBan from indigenous peoples of North America for conduct raised at ANI
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  1. Feb 14, 2026 Being warned for GENSEX conduct two weeks ago.


Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  1. Has a userbar calling himself a member of the God Emperor's Inquisition. I trust we're all nerds enough here to recognize the connotation.


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Riposte97

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 Riposte97

Riposte97's statement contains 677 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

Bruh. Riposte97 (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath are you saying Americans are a race? Be serious. In any case, we’re both Australian, and you know as well as I do that yank is not used as an insult. Riposte97 (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron re the two edits of 18 Feb, I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek. My detractors have failed to mention that I apologised once it was made clear to me that it was coming across wrong.
The comment today was the gentlest possible rebuke to somebody appearing to indirectly suggest that I would support the holocaust. Riposte97 (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
I see we’re getting the band back together. Well, I’ve no interest in responding to everyone point-by-point. Uninvolved admins can assess the strength of those arguments. I still find bizarre the hand-wave that Imane Khelif, an Algerian Arab, is ‘basically black’ because…why? She’s from Africa? That is actual racism, not just an accusation that can be weaponised in a petty online crusade. Riposte97 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
As a side note, she is not an ‘indigenous Algerian’ either, as far as I can tell. That term in a domestic context does not mean what it means in the West, and would seem to imply she is a Berber. Riposte97 (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
@Simonm223 read the sentence after the one you selectively quoted. Riposte97 (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
@Newslinger, I stand by that comment, and if that means I fall on my sword, so be it. Simonm223 said Riposte97 has asked the lead to introduce doubt as to whether Khelif is a woman (emphasis mine), quoting me as saying "stating unequivocally that she is female is, in my view, no longer responsible". In the very next sentence, I say, "It would be more responsible to say that Khelif was born a woman." I don't believe it is battleground behaviour to call our that kind of selective quotation. Riposte97 (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
@Arcticocean Could you please tell me exactly what I've said that violated content rules severely enough to merit a ban? Or is the rule that if enough mud is thrown at someone, some has to stick? Riposte97 (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants I doubt you'll need to retire to your fainting couch, particularly considering that just since the start of February, and just on that page, you have attacked fellow editors again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Riposte97 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
...and again and again and gearing up for some gravedancing re this very thread here. Riposte97 (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm probably close to the word limit, so I will content myself with one final observation: something that is hugley disruptive to this project is when a brigade comes together to systematically pursue someone with a different opinion on noticeboards. It wastes an unbeliveable amount of editor time, and when successful, is a large contributor to the systemic bias of this website, weakening the experience for readers. Riposte97 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

As the Alans, Goths, and Vandals continue to circle the borders, I'd like to request a modest word extension to defend any other points that emerge. Riposte97 (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron I'm not alleging a coordinated conspiracy, just making what I think is a pretty obvious observations about how noticeboard discussions operate. They are far more likely to be an extension of a content disagreement than some kind of neutral community assessment of behaviour. The person filing this complaint freely owned (with commendable honesty) that we had a content disagreement. Some of my other accusers in this thread have said far more objectionable things in GENSEX from an objective standpoint, but decided to lay the boot into me, I assume because our disagreements trump consistency. Riposte97 (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
As a sidenote, are delusions of grandeur not permitted? Apologies, I was unaware. I will restrict self-comparisons to the Mughal Empire and smaller. Riposte97 (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

Noting that the two comments towards Simonm223 at Talk:Imane Khelif (Special:Diff/1339082921 and Special:Diff/1339091605) aren't just personal attacks, they're also explicit acts of racism. TarnishedPathtalk 03:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Riposte97, you and I both know that tone and usage are large parts of whether terms like that are meant as insults. Telling someone to stop acting like a yank, after they've told you that they aren't a yank is unambiguously using the term in an insulting and racist manner. TarnishedPathtalk 03:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause, writes the following:
Editing on Political pages can often be a heightened and contested area to start with, and it seems that some added latitude should be allowed in the cases where Politically centered questions are disputed (my emphasis). This is entirely incorrect. The exact opposite is expected in CTOP areas. Refer to Wikipedia:Contentious topics#General provisions. TarnishedPathtalk 22:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

I'm commenting here because I was mentioned. I wasn't personally very offended by Riposte97 erroneously calling me a "Yank". People forgetting Canada is a sovereign country with people who are influenced by but distinct from the United States is, frankly, kind of normal online. I was even willing to extend the AGF that they didn't intend the expression as an insult. But I do have some racism related concerns with Riposte97's comment that I think are more serious. And that's to do with the real thrust of their comment here: she isn't black. Khelif is an indigenous Algerian and Algeria is a north-African country with a recent history of severe colonialism. My comment was to situate the culture war furor which has made managing that page difficult for two years in the context of intersectional marginalization. "Black" was effectively used as short hand for North-African woman of colour. Attempting to suggest there is some specifically American thing about recognizing how her ethnicity was impactful upon the media circus seems almost willfully obtuse. I've had concerns with Riposte97 and race issues long before I encountered them on gender issues. This was present in their disruptive editing of Canadian Indian residential school gravesites of which this diff is a good example and their contributions to the Grooming gangs scandal talk page such as this . I was unaware of the dispute about Donald Trump and his patently obvious oppression of trans people because I don't watch the Donald Trump page very closely but I would say there is a consistent pattern to Riposte97's editing across political topics. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

These diffs from this morning are also pertinent to this discussion as Riposte97 has asked the lead to introduce doubt as to whether Khelif is a woman, saying stating unequivocally that she is female is, in my view, no longer responsible: . Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants

  MjolnirPants's statement contains 395 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I don't have a whole lot of experience interacting with Riposte. In fact, most of my interactions with them consisted of them apparently fishing for a reaction that they could use to get me removed from this topic.

The result of those efforts was a narrow escape from a boomarang. Which, of course did not seem to register, as no sooner was that thread shut down, they decided to cast more aspersions on editors who disagree with them.

See specifically this comment of mine in the above-linked ANI discussion, where I lay out some problematic diffs I'd found with a look at just part of the first page of their edit history. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  • The argument that Riposte is deliberately provoking other editors in an effort to get them sanctioned may also warrant investigation.
@Toadspike:, see the statement by M. Bitton, who observed the same behavior. I would note that I can be a sort of lightning rod for this sort of nonsense, as I'm generally unafraid of using sarcasm, foul language and colorful euphemisms in my communications, and that creates the impression of a hotter head than I actually have. Also, being the author of WP:NONAZIS doesn't help. So it's not surprising that efforts to the same end directed elsewhere weren't followed through as far as they were with me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I woke up today to find that Riposte is still engaged in the exact same type of behavior that almost caused their WP:BOOMARANG back at AN. They decided to cast some aspersions again. For context, the comment they are replying to was one in which I said that the transvestigation of a successful female athlete was motivated by "hate", and in which I implied a distinction between the editors here and those engaged in pushing this narrative. It's quite telling that they would take an attack on a minority belief as a personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Many of the diffs of mine Riposte just posted were previously posted in the ANI thread they started about me. I've documented how that went, above. This one in particular illustrates how bad-faith Riposte's attack is: I'm literally directly answering a question without providing any commentary or interpretation. Just a factual answer to a direct question.
(Apologies if I have exceeded my word count. I will not post here again unless asked a question.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I note that Riposte97 is still trying to bend the edges of WP:BLP at Talk:Imane_Khelif#Lead:_Transvestigation_and_Genetic_Sex. Just read that opening comment and ask yourself what the motivations are of someone who thinks this is important. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by ErnestKrause

I'm not a participant in the topic discussion under question here and am responding mainly to the conduct issues being raised against Riposte97. The comment from Toadspike below needs to be taken seriously as to whether the high bar of conduct issues has in some way been breeched, which Toadspike states does not appear to be the case here. Editing on Political pages can often be a heightened and contested area to start with, and it seems that some added latitude should be allowed in the cases where Politically centered questions are disputed. Siding with Toadspike seems to be a good path to take here, with emphasis that care should be taken when Political issues are being disputed. Going with Toadspike on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by M.Bitton

I second what Black Kite said. Claims such as The second issue with the above phrase is that is asserts that claims Khelif is biologically male (again, nothing to do with her gender identity) are false. I simply do not believe we can make that assertion anymore, given the weight of sourcing that go so far as to say she is male. can only mean one thing and one thing only.

As for them deliberately provoking other editors, I will quote what Tamzin said in a previous report: "Riposte decided who their allies are, and who their enemies are, and are treating users accordingly":

Statement by Valereee

Commenting here because I am involved w/re:GENSEX at Imane Khelif. IMO that talk page needs to be ECR'd. It's bad enough when multiple experienced editors are being disruptive in ways that are just not quite disruptive enough to get them pblocked from it, but the talk also gets heavy attention from newer-but-AC editors drawn there by every bit of breaking news sparking outrage in social media. This is a BLP, and things being posted at that talk are overwhelming for well-intentioned editors there. Valereee (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fiveby, discussion among/between non-party commenters here is almost never helpful and causes more work for workers here. If you disagree with something another commenter has said, it's generally more helpful to express that to the workers here rather than starting a discussion with that commenter. Happy to discuss at my talk, though. Valereee (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Toadspike has invited me to point out he probably should have mentioned here that he was asked by Kingsindian to respond to AO's intention to close. Valereee (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by fiveby

Valereee, if as you say "multiple experienced editors are being disruptive" then why is the solution ECR? Can you demonstrate that these newer editors are not "well-intentioned"? fiveby(zero) 14:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

I will begin with a disclosure: I voted in the recent RfC on the Imane Khelif article, and I have written about this matter on Wikipediocracy. I have not edited the article itself. I note that none of the other participants in this discussion appear to have made the equivalent disclosure, despite the requirement that Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement with parties (if any). That omission is worth noting, given that most of the commenters here are in active content disputes with Riposte97, including on the RfC above, which did not go their way.

The original filing contained three diffs showing talk page comments, for which Riposte97 has already apologized and which Toadspike has found not sanctionable -- noting that the first diff came in response to another editor comparing a viewpoint to failure to condemn the Holocaust. In my view, the original filing was thin. What followed was a series of additional allegations made by several parties. The current approach -- assessing each charge in turn and moving on when it proves unactionable -- is procedurally inadequate, because it provides no disincentive whatsoever to bad-faith filing. It structurally rewards a "throw mud and see what sticks" strategy, whether or not that is anyone's intention here. From the perspective of someone casting a wide net, the downside is zero.

The racism allegation illustrates this problem directly. Toadspike has found it unactionable, stating that the evidence is not clear enough to be sanctionable. But that finding raises a follow-up question this discussion has so far avoided: does making an unsubstantiated allegation of racism against a fellow editor constitute casting aspersions? That is explicitly prohibited in enforcement discussions: Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. "Not actionable against the subject" and "appropriate to have said" are not the same standard, and treating them as equivalent lets the conduct pass without examination.

These are experienced editors familiar with AE procedures. They should be aware that The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If they believe there is a genuine case, they should file their own focused request with specific evidence, with the understanding that their own conduct would then be in scope. The current proceeding, as conducted, rewards exactly the behavior the policy is designed to deter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Emeraldflames

I don't know the particulars of every one of Riposte97's comments, but I looked through a sampling and the ones I have seen did not seem to cross a line. Some of the interpretations of certain things he has said do not appear to be at all reasonable to me.

I would also like to 100% support his point that a number of the individuals commenting here have, themselves, come across quite aggressively and WP:Incivil. Far, far more aggressive and incivil than anything I have ever seen him comment on the Imane Khelif page. The most egregious example is MjolnirPants.

Very recent examples: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3

For him to be here commenting on civility is actually quite remarkable. And this is rather typical of the attitudes of a certain bloc of editors on Wikipedia.

I would also *completely* agree that there is the appearance of a brigade here with a very similar WP:POV, very similar interests, etc. It absolutely is a large contributor to the systemic bias, which, unfortunately, as per the previous examples is actually both blatant and rampant on Wikipedia.

This is a very serious issue and existential threat to the goals of Wikipedia and I hope there are admins that understand and will act to remedy this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeraldflames (talk • contribs) 18:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

I looked over Riposte97's userpage. I don't see any "God Emperor's Inquistion" membership bar. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Riposte97

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Riposte, regardless of what -isms those comments might be described as, can you explain what your thought process was in deciding that those comments were constructive before posting them? (From Feb. 18 onward, to be clear. The other edits have already been considered.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Riposte97: It's certainly one of the bolder strategies i've seen to – at an AE where you're accused of being incivil to people you disagree with – accuse every editor who disagrees with you of being in a conspiracy against you in which you compare yourself to the Roman Empire and do not provide evidence. and, re the word extension: no, you are not getting one preemptively, and even if you did have actual text to respond to, I'm not exactly inclined to have you contribute more to the discourse in considering what your contributions have been so far. I still think that the edits from previous AEs aren't live controversies, but I agree with Arcticocean that they should be examined here as part of the pattern of conduct. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • While Riposte97's edits before 18 February were reviewed in the previous AE report, the edits are still relevant now. Enforcing admins previously (including me) then regarded the breaches of decorum as trivial, but the breaches are continuing to mount up. With the benefit of a longer period of analysis, I think it is also becoming apparent that the breaches are invariably directed at users with opposing editorial views and taking place within live discussions of BLP controversy. I think this is rising to the level of topic ban to prevent further disruption. I'd like to hear the view of other enforcing admins. Arcticocean ■ 09:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
    Repeated warnings are highly unusual and not generally encouraged under CTOP. In my view, another warning would be an inappropriate outcome from this enforcement request. Enforcing admins have broadly agreed that there has been misconduct and battleground editing. Unless another admins objects or raises a new concern, I will impose a topic ban as the enforcement request outcome. Arcticocean ■ 22:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
    As Toadspike has now objected, I am going to wait a few days for further comment from other admins. We don't by any means require unanimity here, and indeed only one admin appears to think a warning is the maximum justified sanction, but leaving more time for admin discussion cannot hurt. Arcticocean ■ 17:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • The first diff was not really an appropriate response to what came before it, but considering what came before it was a comment comparing another editor's views to failure to condemn the Holocaust followed by a frustrated rant, I don't think Riposte is responsible for derailing that conversation. The comments on nationality (diffs 2 and 3) were in poor taste, especially the second one (diff 3). However, since Riposte apologized for these and struck the offending term, and since Simon says he "wasn't personally very offended", I don't think any action is warranted.
In my view, the evidence supporting the accusations of racism is not clear enough to be sanctionable, and similarly the two diffs linked in Simon's first reply do not seem sanctionable. To sanction an editor for expressing a point of view, that point of view must be so extreme that it is disruptive. The points of view expressed here have not, in my view, reached that high bar.
MjolnirPants's first diff shows Riposte speculating on other editors' motivations, which is basically never appropriate and might warrant a warning about personal attacks. I have not reviewed all the diffs linked in MjolnirPants's ANI comment , which argues that there is a broader pattern of disruptive talk page conduct. That ANI thread was closed with a recommendation to take complaints against Riposte to AE, but it doesn't look like that was done or that these diffs have been reviewed here, so we may want to review them. The argument that Riposte is deliberately provoking other editors in an effort to get them sanctioned may also warrant investigation. Toadspike [Talk] 14:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
After reviewing the comments made by my colleagues' and others since my last post, I remain undecided. Riposte's behavior has not been exemplary, but neither has the behavior of several others here, not least the repeated and in my view spurious accusations of racism in this very thread. I fear hewing strictly to the two-party rule and letting a lot of concerning behavior slide will be seen as an endorsement of that behavior and will not be the best outcome we can get for the project. Toadspike [Talk] 00:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
@Toadspike: I think you're right that there's more to do here, but it might make more sense to start with a fresh thread on one or more of the people we also want to look at. Doesn't have to be a super-detailed filing, just "follow-up on this thread, concerns that were raised include x y z". This thread is already pretty big and I worry that expanding the scope now would be unwieldy. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I've reviewed all the diffs in the ANI comment linked by MjolnirPants, as well as the others they linked. The only two I found possibly actionable are and . The former seems to be implying that Naomi Klein's political views make her book unreliable for a sentence on Trump's communication style, which was also supported by other sources. The latter is just a really insensitive statement to make. I'm not impressed by how many of the MjolnirPants's descriptions of diffs in their ANI comment are inaccurate at best. I also don't like how many of them are effectively arguing that an editor expressing their opinion on a talk page is some kind of behavioral violation. Users are allowed to express their opinion about sources and blocks, even if those opinions are wrong.
Riposte has since dumped three dozen diffs of alleged personal attacks by MjolnirPants. Several of these are obviously not personal attacks, which reflects poorly on him. Many may be, but that is out of the scope of this thread and should be reviewed in a separate filing. As an aside, I strongly recommend that MjolnirPants stop threatening other editors with admin action; it is generally sufficient and more polite to call out misbehavior without explicitly spelling out the potential consequences.
Reviewing M.Bitton's comment, the only parts that seem actionable are Riposte's speculation on other editors' motivations (e.g. "People feel their personal credibility is at stake"), which I already covered in my first comment.
I think that covers most of the evidence here. I would support a warning for Riposte97, primarily on grounds of civility. I oppose a topic ban as the previous warning was for different issues ("Riposte97 is warned to be more mindful of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV" ) and I do not see the violations here as sufficient to justify a topic ban, especially in relation to the vast quantity and severity of accusations made. More broadly, we should not refuse to issue a second warning simply because we have issued a previous warning in the same topic area. Toadspike [Talk] 13:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
@Toadspike: To issue a warning at AE, I think we have to conclude that either 'no actual violation occurred' or 'exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate'. If I may ask, are you viewing the receipt of a previous warning for disrupting the topic area as an exceptional circumstance? Or is it the possible tit-for-tat conduct that you regard as exceptional? Arcticocean ■ 13:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
That's not how I understand the quoted bit. A logged warning is an editing restriction. We are allowed to issue warnings even if a violation occurred.
Re: "tit-for-tat" – the high proportion of irrelevant diffs and unsupported accusations here makes clear to me that we have two camps of editors here going after each other primarily because of their content disputes. In CTOPs this is not "exceptional", but on the project as a whole it is. I took this into consideration as I don't want to reward this kind of behavior. Toadspike [Talk] 13:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I understand your position better now. Thanks for responding. Arcticocean ■ 17:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I support a logged warning of Riposte97 for persistent battleground conduct (including violations of the policy against personal attacks), which would be Riposte97's second logged warning in the WP:CT/GG (gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them) contentious topic. It is already rare for an editor to receive two logged warnings for the same topic area instead of a topic ban, so if Riposte97 does not improve their conduct in this contentious topic, their next reported policy violation in WP:CT/GG is likely to result in a topic ban (instead of a third logged warning) even if it is of similar severity to the ones reported here. — Newslinger talk 12:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC); edited to strike superseded position 11:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    If you are thinking about a second warning, you should probably bite the bullet and issue a topic ban instead -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    That is certainly one of the rules of thumb that have been used on this noticeboard. With Riposte97 continuing to engage in battleground editing in this enforcement request itself (e.g. Special:Diff/1341588355), I would not support closing this enforcement request without some kind of action for Riposte97, and I am looking for a remedy that would curb this conduct issue in a proportionate manner. Riposte97 appears to apply different behavioral standards for other editors than they do for themself, as seen in the list of diffs they allege to be personal attacks in Special:Diff/1342638113, which suggests that Riposte97 is behaving in the WP:CT/GG contentious topic in a manner that they already understand to be below Wikipedia's conduct standards. — Newslinger talk 13:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Riposte97: Speculating about another editor's motivations based on what you assumed their nationality is (Special:Diff/1339082921) and then telling the editor that they should stop acting like a person of that nationality after they stated their nationality is different than what you had assumed (Special:Diff/1339091605) are both instances of battleground conduct. Unless an editor cites their own nationality in the discussion, there is no valid justification for bringing it into the conversation as part of your argument. While Simonm223 did not take serious offense, that does not make your comments about their nationality acceptable.
    Please note that you have exceeded your word limit here to post additional accusations against editors who are not even within the scope of this enforcement request ("the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported"), despite having been denied a word extension due to the quality of your participation here, which is yet another example of battleground conduct.
    Based on Riposte97's behavior in this enforcement request and the fact that Riposte97 had already received a logged warning in WP:CT/GG, I agree with Guerillero that a logged warning for Riposte97 would be insufficient, and I would support an indefinite topic ban of Riposte97 from WP:CT/GG for persistent battleground conduct, although I would also support a lesser remedy if there is one that can adequately moderate Riposte97's talk page behavior. — Newslinger talk 10:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC); edited to add missing word 14:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I have applied the AE participation restriction to this enforcement request, as editors are continuing to make arguments that are outside the scope of this request ("the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported"). Anyone who wants to post a complaint about any other editor's conduct may file a new report. — Newslinger talk 11:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Edittttor

ZNático

More information There is a rough consensus of admins that ZNático has not engaged in conduct which is disruptive. There is also agreement that extended confirmed restrictions are intended to prevent disruption by making sockpuppetry harder and by giving editors necessary experience before they edit a contentious topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC) ...
Close

Martimix

More information Martimix was partial blocked from the mainspace by asilvering as a normal admin action --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ...
Close

Faronnorth

More information Blocked indefinitely as an ordinary admin action. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ...
Close

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI