Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Help desk (Request)
Content disputes
Third opinion (Request) Mediation Noticeboards Requests for comment Resolution noticeboard (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)

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.

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.

Shortcuts WP:ARCWP:ARC WP:A/R/CWP:A/R/C About this page Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. File an arbitration request 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-llists.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 This page is for statements, not discussion. Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning. Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page. Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse. Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Initiated by Newslinger at 01:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#Definition of the "area of conflict"

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

• Newslinger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Patternbuffered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Long-live-ALOPUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification to Patternbuffered
• Notification to ScottishFinnishRadish
• Notification to Long-live-ALOPUS

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#Definition of the "area of conflict"
  • Change "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace" to "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of the editor's own userspace"

I recently encountered a user talk page discussion titled "Views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Gaza war", in which Patternbuffered said, "I was going to just revert, but I'll give you a day or so to clean it up", in reference to article content related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. As Patternbuffered was not extended confirmed, the extended confirmed restriction (ECR) of WP:CT/A-I prohibited Patternbuffered from performing the described revert.

Per current practice (e.g. ScottishFinnishRadish's warning of Long-live-ALOPUS in another discussion for violating ECR by posting another user talk page comment), my understanding is that ECR also prohibited Patternbuffered from starting the user talk page discussion in the first place. However, Patternbuffered pointed out to me that the wording of the clause in question excludes "userspace" from the "area of conflict" without additional qualifiers. Long-live-ALOPUS also interpreted the clause as it was written.

I do not believe it is the intent of the userspace exception to allow non–extended confirmed users to openly discuss the Arab–Israeli conflict on other users' talk pages in ways that are prohibited in other namespaces and restricted on article talk pages. I ask the Arbitration Committee to amend the clause to limit the exception to the editor's own userspace, which better reflects existing practice. — Newslinger talk 01:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: The problem is that, in the lead section of WP:CT/A-I, the text "with certain exceptions as provided below" contains a link to WP:CT/A-I § ARBPIA General Sanctions, which does invoke the term "area of conflict" in the bullet point "Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict." An editor who is unfamiliar with the case history cannot be expected to know that ECR applies to the entire topic area (and not just the defined "area of conflict") after reading the WP:CT/A-I page. — Newslinger talk 14:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on my talk page I was fine with the warning and just curious about an apparent loophole. I agree it should be addressed to mitigate future confusion or conflict; how that should be done I will leave in more experienced hands. Patternbuffered (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While at first glance the simple change seems unproblematic, there does need to be some allowance for posting on other users' talk pages. The first scenario that comes to mind is:

• User:Example is not extended-confirmed. They make a good-faith edit to content related to the area of dispute on a page that is not ECP protected.
• User:Foo reverts this edit on the grounds that Example is not extended-confirmed
• User:Example posts on user talk:Foo seeking clarification (maybe they didn't understand jargon used in the summary)
• User:Foo replies
• User:Example posts a follow-up question (e.g. perhaps still not understanding, perhaps disagreeing that the content is related to the dispute)

As long as Example is not sealioning or otherwise acting in bad faith, we don't want to prohibit this sort of interaction yet a simple reading of the proposed language would do that. My first thought is a much-wordsmithed "this does not include discussion of actions taken regarding a user's own edits that takes place on the talk page of the user taking that action." While "discussion with the editor taking that action" is simpler, it would prohibit follow-up to a reply given by a talk-page stalker which I don't think would be desirable. Other things to consider are that good-faith, genuinely new editors are not guaranteed to know about pinging users to their own talk page, won't know how to determine whether some other editor is or is not extended-confirmed and if the queried actions relate to more than one editor (e.g. User:Foo reverted user:Example and user:Example2) it is better for all concerned for all discussion about it to happen on a single page. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:ARBPIA4#Definition of the "area of conflict" it says "For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing...edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace.". And the application of ARBECR to PIA is "The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict." (my bold). So, even if "topic area" at WP:ARBECR is more general than "area of conflict", the ARBPIA page explicitly exempts userspace from it.

To repeat myself, ARBPIA4 does not apply ARBECR to the PIA "topic area" but only to the "area of conflict", which is a defined domain.

If ArbCom wants to replace the motion, they should do so with a motion to repeal and replace it, as this is not the first time the issue has come up and it won't be the last unless it is put to rest.

Personally I think that there is nothing wrong with a general userspace exemption, but reducing it to own-userspace would not be a big problem. On the other hand, restricting non-ECs from making comments in their own userspace would seem to have no purpose whatever, as there are other mechanisms for handling disruption. What sense is there in allowing edit requests on article talk pages but disallowing the same on own talk? I think own-userspace should be a general exemption to ECR in all topics. Zero^talk 12:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• The userspace exception was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 128 § Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) (July to September 2024), which was closed as having "currently no appetite on the committee to change the definition of the area of conflict". (See the two abandoned motions and comments by arbitrators about the exception.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The area of conflict language isn't found in Extended confirmed restriction – only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, with certain exceptions as provided below. All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article. The most recent clarification and motion says The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions. The "area of conflict" language is just an artifact on that page because of older decisions. ECR applies to all edits related to the topic area, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thryduulf, I think that falls under WP:BANEXEMPT#2, and that's how I've always seen it handled and handled it myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Newslinger, yeah, that should probably be fixed. It looks like it's just a supplemental page so it doesn't need a full motion so if my views align with the rest of the committee it should be a simple matter to tidy up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much, SilverLocust. I was about to search for the discussion where I had analyzed this and said it should be changed. Here it is. My comment from 11:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC) is still my opinion on this matter. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with ToBeFree immediately above, and their comments (that they link to) last time it was at this page. Daniel (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts WP:ARMWP:ARM WP:ARBMWP:ARBM This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (arbitrators only) All editors are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension on this page below (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.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 comments or submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Looking to adjust the WP:ARBPIA preemptive EC protection to be allowed rather than required. There's a pretty significant burden on RFPP and the patrolling admins caused by the requirement to protect articles that will likely never see disruption. The aim is to allow admin judgement on whether or not articles need to be protected while still explicitly allowing preemptive protection while standardizing the preemptive protection language between PIA and CT/SA.

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

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6

Support:

1. I trust the judgement of our admins enough to give them the leeway to decide that although something may be covered by ARBPIA it doesn't need EC protection. This still allows preemptive protection when an admin believes there may be disruption. It also prevents someone dumping 60 articles at RFPP that technically must be protected. Lastly, it standardizes the language between the two topics that allow preemptive protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. I believe that this was one of our biggest mistakes this year, leading to a near-overwhelming amount of work to the point that the list of protections had to be split off from the main log. I wanted to repeal it entirely and leave the extended-confirmed restriction in its place instead, but I don't think that we would have a majority for that and pragmatically I think that this is a significant improvement over the status quo. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Daniel (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Z1720 (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Primefac (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. When the idea was first floated, I assumed it was a somewhat procedural attempt to standardize wording. But this is instead an outright rejection of one of the central findings of PIA5: ECP is a must everywhere. We voted 13 to 0 to implement global ECP for PIA topics. It would be nuts for us to undo that. Sure it may have created some extra work, but once all PIA topics are protected, the work goes way down--folks can't create that many new pages in a day about it. If we need to do some technical work to fix the logs, lets do that rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most importantly, this restriction is aimed at raising the cost for socking. Before we implemented this, 13% of PIA edits were from non-ECP accounts, and 7% were from socks. By releasing pressure, we are only going to invite trouble in our most troublesome topic. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. In every article whose main topic is extended-confirmed-restricted, it is reasonable to believe that they will be the target of disruption. This is not a mistake, this from practical experience. The disruption led to five ArbCom cases about the same topic; it led to the existence of extended-confirmed protection and to the fine solution we have today. If someone requests page protection for 60 articles and these articles' main topic is actually part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, then someone has found 60 pages that should actually be protected. Protection will never be requested again for these 60 pages, contrary to pages whose protection is individually examined, declined and later proven necessary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per CaptainEek. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Eek. Unfortunately I don't think anything has substantially changed since the conclusion of PIA5 to warrant this change, which was shown to be necessary at that time. - Aoidh (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I'm not sure that playing whack a mole with whatever Twitter, Bluesky, Reddit, advocacy orgs, etc. is unhappy about on any given day is preferable to the January status quo --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like this change for coming around to the "discretionary" part of what we use to call discretionary sanctions: admins are not compelled to protect, but we can do so at the slightest sniff of disruption, which strikes the right balance in my view. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm baffled by the motivation for this. The blanket restriction seems to be something that's worked well, from what I've seen around the place. The temperature at discussions around Israel/Palestine is markedly lower as a result of having only experienced editors present and reasoned decisions can be made without noise from canvasessed groups and other partisan interests. As Guerillero says, this is just going to mean admins have to cast around disabling disruption when it's already happened in a whack-a-mole fashion rather than us simply being able to apply restrictions everywhere.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru, the remedy being amended only applies to articles and the extended-confirmed restriction would continue to apply to discussions (and articles) regardless of whether this motion passes. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. But does that mean non-EC editors will be allowed to edit articles that haven't been protected, even though they can't participate in discussions on the talk page? If they're still prohibited, why would we not want to apply the protection to the page? It sounds like a recipe for confusion and potentially disrupting the relatively lower level of trouble we've had since the restrictions of the last big Arbcom case. I think I am of the same mind as CaptainEek here, it seems like we're risking increased disruption and increased potential for socks to cause damage, for largely bureaucratic reasons rather than because it's a good idea. If there's too much bureaucracy around applying ECP then we should address that, not roll back protections and hope for the best. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Say we have an article on Settlement X. Sixty years ago it was the site of a battle that was part of the Arab/Israel conflict, and discussion of that battle is half of the article prose. The article has existed for 18 years and has had fewer than 100 edits with no disruption. Non-EC edits have been related to demographics and geography.
Right now, that article must be protected. Someone could find 60 such articles and dump them all at RFPP and they cannot be declined. What this change does is let an administrator use their judgement to determine if there is enough likelihood of disruption to protect it. The protection can still be preemptive, without any existing disruption, if the admin believes that there could be disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ratnahastin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 11 August - Removes statement from Pakistani defence minister Khawaja Asif while himself detailing the statements from Indian Chief of the Air Staff Amar Preet Singh, thereby engaging in pro India POV pushing.
2. 18 August - Removes sourced content with a misleading edit summary.
3. 11 August - Edit warring to restore above edit.
4. 20 August - Overhauling the lead to show Chanakya explicitly as a historical figure, contrary to the fact that no historical evidence exists for Chanakya as per body of the article, thereby pushing pro Hindutva POV.
5. 27 August - Removes longstanding sentence from lead claiming it is "Undue" when the subject in question is an unreliable outlet, notorious for spreading misinformation.
6. 27 August - Engages in edit warring by restoring his revert and citing BRD when he is himself bringing a new edit to the article.
7. 27 August - Continues edit war by falsely claiming "added about a month ago".
8. 27 August - Derailing the thread and attacking another editor by bringing up how he "is t-banned from a closely related topic area".
9. 28 August - Even after being told to focus on content, he is still talking about "editorial behaviour". See WP:IDHT.
10. 28 August - This is the height of WP:BATTLE and WP:IDHT: "Yes, focus on content would have been done were you not restoring sock content willy nilly everywhere despite already being under sanctions. I would strongly suggest you take your time away from contentious topics."
11. 28 August - Poisoning the well by falsely accusing another editor of using "slurs in an offhand manner" and breaching "Wikipedia:Civility".
12. 29 August - WP:IDHT; Still repeating his above false accusations.
13. 29 August - Unnecessarily targeting another editor on the AfD by pointing out their edit count.
14. 29 August - Now falsely accusing this editor of "very COI".
15. 29 August - Now that above personal remarks failed to bait the editor, Gotitbro starts misusing ANI to get rid of this user anyhow by repeating his false accusations of "COI" and "SPA".
16. 30 August - Falsely accusing another editor of "hounding me around" despite this user edited ANI weeks ago after Gotitbro reported him there.[1]
17. Has made 4 reverts in 3 days to remove same content.[2][3][4][5] A look at the talk page (see (Talk:Pajeet#Edit_to_history) shows he is being WP:1AM here.
18. 1 September - Falsely labelling this source as "op-ed". He is not only showing his lack of understanding of WP:FRINGE but is also making chilling accusations that other editors "legitimize racist rhetoric (though this is also generally the case)".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• 3 Blocks for edit warring, 2 of which are relevant to this area.

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

[6]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• @Firefangledfeathers: In particular, diff #3 (which is a revert to #1), diffs #5, #6, #7 and all 4 diffs listed in #17, all of these demonstrate a recent history of aggressive edit warring in spite of the previous three edit warring blocks. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

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.

A baseless report with a clear misrepresentation of the diffs and discussions. Have been here for more than a decade without any major issues, an effort to get editors the filer disagrees with in content disputes off the project. I have had no interaction with them beyond some recent run ins, this follows from no intimation. This is a bit bizarre and the evidence is as thin as water.

• 2025 India–Pakistan conflict: merely paraphrased a quote which I think served better; added some claims from an unopposed proposal by other editors at Talk, followed by single back and forth edits between the filer and me. Started a detailed discussion for this at the Talk page where I explained the edits in detail. It remains ongoing, made no further bother with the content.
• Rama: A revert followed (by Koshuri Sultan) but the quotes I added later validate whatever was initially stated in the ES (had made the edits to counter historic mythmaking).
• Chanakya: There were changes to the lede of the article some months ago and a discussion followed at the Talk page, read it and tried to figure a compromise between the changes and those opposing it. The filer reverted them but the edits were also partially accepted by the original editor (Joshua Jonathan) who made the lede changes. The edits explicitly removed mythmaking e.g. removing that the subject wrote a text he did not (go sqaurely against the baseless "pushing pro Hindutva POV", pretty offensive). Started a discussion after a revert by the filer and made no further bother.
• Firstpost: a content dispute for the lede which has been challenged by multiple editors ever since it was introduced. Recent changes to the lede (by Koshuri) I believed went against the last concluded discussion and to have been restoring sock content. Promptly started a discussion which remains ongoing. The comments at the Talk page were for Koshuri, topic banned from the military topics (as the edits directly pertained to military content) and who had shortly restored sock content at different articles.
• Pajeet (an extremely offensive slur): The article itself was largely created by a chronic sock network. Despite the socking the exact article was restored by Koshuri and Ratnahastin. Went to the talk to find for e.g., 'despite the fact that it mostly hindus and sikhs that are called as "pajeet"'. Finding this a bit insensitive (shouldn't really be using slurs when discussing them), cited civil. SPA: the entire discussion and explanations can be seen at ANI. Calling any of it sanctionable is something. 1AM is unfounded, a look at the article's history and fringe noticeboard will tell us that. And just to highlight the extensive misrepresentation, the last diff I fully quote: "The AfD proposal by me has lead to a barrage of socks attacking me with vile racial abuse. So, indeed I am a bit partial against edits which appear to legitimize racist rhetoric (though this is also generally the case)."

The previous disparate blocks have nothing to do with anything here.

The filer hasn't really engaged in any of the discussions that I did start. And I am not sure why they think AER is an alternative to dispute resolution. Could list a myriad problematic edits by them but that won't lead to a frivolous AER report. Gotitbro (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

During last month on 1984 anti-Sikh riots, he was misrepresenting "stable" version and edit warring to remove sourced content which was critical of Hindutva party Bharatiya Janta Party and Hindutva organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.[8][9] He also engaged in mass canvassing.[10] This is all when he had more than a month to address how his false claim of "misrepresentation of sources"[11] was any correct.

The concerns over pro-Hindutva POV pushing are correct. You can see he is alone at Talk:Kashmir Files where he is opposing the label "propaganda" for this Hindutva movie, without offering any rebuttal.[12]

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

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

• @Ratnahastin:, you're over the diff limit. I wouldn't worry about editing your filing, but it would help to know which 4 or 5 diffs you think most demonstrate misconduct. Please answer briefly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not seeing anything actionable in 1, 3, 5, 6, or 7. Probably going to close this soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Gotitbro, you can have an extension up to 750 words total, but you may want to save words for when an admin actually responds to the evidence.

  Ok, I won't close this soon. I'm having trouble with both the volume of evidence and the low quality I've seen so far. I asked for the 4 or 5 worst diffs from Ratnahastin. In the first 5 mentioned, I saw one revert from G at 2025 India–Pakistan conflict and the absolute mess of a content dispute at Firstpost. Ratnahastin calls G's edit there a "new edit", and Azuredivay calls it "Hindutva POV pushing". I have not seen evidence to prove that G's edit was either. Azuredivay says that G is 'opposing the "label" propaganda for this Hindutva movie, without offering any rebuttal', but G offers a substantial argument for their position at Talk:The Kashmir Files, which is not opposition to the label but concern about its placement and attribution. If this gets closed, or archived without action, no one should take that as an approval of G's actions, just that no admin felt compelled to act based on the quality of evidence provided. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Firefangledfeathers, I'm having trouble understanding your conclusion here: my first impression reading all but the last sentence of this comment is that you find the filing tendentious. The final sentence, however, does not seem to really follow from the rest. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't find the filing to be tendentious, just poor. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Talk:Serbia men's national basketball team/Archive 1#Final disscussion: Results/medals history (a WP:CONS was reached in 2014, later user AirWolf, who participated in reaching a WP:CONS, reaffirmed this WP:CONS in 2018, but user Theonewithreason oppose it)

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

1. 19:04, 8 September 2025 - reverted my attempt to implement a WP:CONS and a position of the FIBA's official website (see: HERE);
2. 22:56, 8 September 2025 - continue to oppose my edit in talk page;
3. 20:15, 10 September 2025 - continue to oppose a reached WP:CONS by also stating that "the discussion is over" and threaten to report me at WP:Ani;
4. 20:36, 10 September 2025 - continue to oppose a reached WP:CONS;
5. 22:11, 10 September 2025 - another user Sadko came to support him (with rollbacker rights in English Wikipedia and most of his edits in Serbian Wikipedia), so this is also concerning;
6. 19:49, 11 September 2025 - user Theonewithreason: "You are going in circles without any argumentation" (even though I quoted other users WP:CONS statements, which contradict his POV).

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

User Theonewithreason wrote in one of his statements in article's talk page that "this is very sensitive topic (the Balkans) there are very strict rules biding every single editor on Wikipedia" (his edit), so I think he is well aware about the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The FIBA's official website do not attribute the results and won medals by the Serbia and Montenegro men's national basketball team (it represented Serbia and Montenegro / in 1992–2003 called Yugoslavia) exclusively to the Serbia men's national basketball team (see: HERE) and a WP:CONS was also reached in this article's talk page (see: HERE) that in Wikipedia we should comply with the position of the FIBA, so we should count Serbia's team results only since 2007 (for quicker reading of WP:CONS discussion see my quotes of its participants statements in this edit). The former state Serbia and Montenegro (1992–2006) is now represented by three separate national teams: Serbia team, Montenegro team, Kosovo team.

Another article Serbia at the Olympics only count Serbia's medals since the 2008 Summer Olympics, not earlier (same point of view as FIBA), so the same should be in article Serbia men's national basketball team. Now we have one article (Serbia men's national basketball team) claiming that Serbia won 1996 Olympic silver medal and another claiming that it did not (Serbia at the Olympics), so such contradictions cannot exist in different articles.

Moreover, a relevant example is the Russia men's national basketball team who is not attributed the results of the Soviet Union men's national basketball team even through the Russian Federation is a sucessor state of the Soviet Union.

I request assistance to implement WP:CONS in the article as I cannot do that when user Theonewithreason revert it. Furthermore, I think Template:Contentious topics/talk notice (topic=b - the Balkans or Eastern Europe) should be added to this article's talk page to ensure a reached WP:CONS and WP:LISTEN.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

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.

This is getting ridiculous, Pofka is obviously unable to reach their POV on the Serbia Basketball team talk page which has been wp:stable in this form for several years now, in fact one other editor also opposed their statement [[13]], they were openly canvassing pinging several editors for whom they think that they are going to side with them based on that conversation from 2014 [[14]], then they did that again today [[15]] and now they are trying to remove me from that page because they WP:IDONTLIKE. I mean this editor has over 20 000 edits on Wikipedia they should know better to use other tools to resolve the discussion, instead they reported me directly here. Sorry but WP:boomerang should be imposed here. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also since you closed the ANI report we obviously need to deal with Pofka behaviour here which exceeds the discussion about this article and goes directly against the rules implemented in sensitive topics. First Pofka claims that Serbia "stole" those medals [[16]] and what is even more concerning is that Pofka is labelling other editors by their ethnicity or what they believe is their ethnicity and thus trying to discriminate their comments as non valid, [[17]], [[18]] - that kind of behaviour is actually problematic and concerning. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Joy all of my reverts on Nikola Tesla page were according to 20 years of discussions and implemented rules by admins and other editors, and since you are regularly invested in that article you should also know that, there is nothing trigger happy in this especially if I am reverting someone who is openly posting death threats on my user page [[19]], so if you trying to expand this report even further, first we need to address why this report by Pofka was directly posted here, which is inappropriate, and second why are you trying what I now understand to broadly disqualify me from Balkan related topics, which is not your first time, example writing this post to admin Ivanvector page [[20]] 2 years after my SPI block (for which I was properly punished in 2020) asking them to revaluate my status, in which ivanvector clearly explained that my case was borderline and that my concerns were reasonable [[21]] after which you admitted that you are often WP:involved in Balkan related topics [[22]] - in the last five years I was never blocked nor did I used other accounts, the comment you are referring to in May I did apologise for, and never used in this form again. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Joy thank you for only confirming what was obviously clear for the last few years, that you are probably to often WP:involved in Balkan related topics and that you should take more neutral stances regarding reports to others, [[23]] let us not forget that you were also blocked from Wikipedia for abusing admins powers, so maybe you too might not be well-suited for this contentious topic area. Theonewithreason (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Extraordinary Writ [[24]] this last edit from Pofka is now clear WP:ASPERSION against me and the other editors, also those accusations against me and assumptions about my location or to which nation I belong to is a direct attack against my privacy which has nothing to do with this article or my edits on Wikipedia. I am now asking indefinite block against Pofka. We are not going to have of discussions about my personal information online. Especially because Pofka is repeated offender with topic ban on other articles in 2024 [[25]], [[26]] and previously in 2022 [[27]]. Theonewithreason (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Theonewithreason subsequently started an ANI thread against Pofka, WP:ANI#User:Pofka trying to impose their POV by using WP:battlefield, which I've now closed so we can sort things out here. In no particular order:
  • An RfC is going to be the best way to handle this. It's been over a decade since the (apparently never-implemented) 2014 discussion, so I don't think it's unreasonable to want to revisit the issue, and I'm certainly not going to sanction for "oppos[ing] a reached WP:CONS".
  • Both of you need to be careful about selective pinging; see WP:VOTESTACK. It's fine to notify everyone who participated in a previous discussion or everyone who's contributed to the article recently, but choosing particular people to ping is often going to be a problem.
  • Pofka, I don't understand why you think it's concerning that Sadko participated in the discussion. If you're trying to imply canvassing, you're going to need much better evidence, especially since he had edited the page before and could easily have watchlisted it.
  • Theonewithreason, I'm really troubled that you think [33][34][35] are reliable sources—they're obviously self-published and shouldn't be cited at all, much less to say that The sources are clear, the discussion is over. Frankly I'm not sure you should be editing in this area at all if you don't have a good grasp of what a reliable source looks like. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Extraordinary Writ in context of AE, Sadko is actually generally concerning because they had been banned from this topic area once before. They got unbanned in the meantime, which I remember because I've had to complain about that at Guerillero's talk page last year. Thankfully this didn't escalate since. I don't know if Pofka just has some random bias against Serbian editors, but this particular one is still a matter of legitimate concern. --Joy (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

  @Guerillero thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of that. As it happens, I just noticed a new incident of weird wikilawyering by Sadko at Talk:Nikola Tesla#Infobox (now in...). I don't think this level of shit-stirring is in any way appropriate - they appear to be testing the boundaries of what level of advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle is acceptable. We need to enforce the principles of WP:ARBMAC and WP:NOT#BATTLE again. --Joy (talk) Joy (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm uninvolved in this specific matter because this is the first I hear about it, but I've participated in other discussions like it, for example in the previous talk discussion there or at a football list. Suffice it to say that we have had a lot of issues in the past trying to figure out the most appropriate formatting for the description of these succession matters. Often times, these discussions are rather intricate and are just not very interesting to the general public and are not frequented by a lot of uninvolved editors, so it's genuinely hard to gauge actual consensus. For example, Pofka cites a discussion from '14, but then there's also this discussion from '18. It's hard to say that any of these discussions are really determinative.

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

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

• Sadko, please add new replies to other editors on your own section. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pofka and Theonewithreason are over their word limits. No more comments unless an extension is granted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, having read through this case, it seems like the dispute is a case of editors disagreeing over whether a recent discussion trumps a prior consensus. Given that the prior consensus was over a decade old it's valid to reopen the question; given that evidently multiple editors do stand by their prior comments in favor of the old consensus, an RfC would be the best way to resolve the matter, with the old consensus treated as the status quo ante. Frankly, the most concerning interactions exhibited here are the raising of canvassing allegations, and the response to them. Pofka's framing of Theonewithreason's activity on Serbian Wikipedia isn't great, but I'm also concerned by Theonewithreason's response of demanding a block for aspersions, without addressing the substantive evidence of canvassing that they had preferentially pinged editors with references to Serb identity in their usernames; the correct response would have been to either demonstrate that the pattern of pings was not partisan, or to apologize and commit to observing WP:CANVASS. Separately, the first, second and fifth of the diffs presented by Uniacademic do cause concern (for the third and fourth, I think that Uniacademic is giving undue weight to the WP:PRIMARY source). I'm uncertain exactly which remedies to propose at the moment, although my first instinct is to recommend a logged warning to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for Theonewithreason and a logged warning to refrain from making unnecessary comments about editors' backgrounds for Pofka. I am nevertheless open to proposals from other admins for greater or lesser sanctions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Downgraded to semi --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Matrix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 22:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Sanction being appealed ECP protection of Italian brainrot Administrator imposing the sanction Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator [36] Statement by Matrix Daniel Case protected Italian brainrot with indefinite ECP. ARBPIA remedy 7 says "the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment" instead. I feel this would be more appropriate, along with lowering the protection to PCP, since the only section affected by this case would be "Controversial audios". (Moved from ACE by me) —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 22:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Tamzin: what are your thoughts on maybe enforcing this with an edit filter targeting the "Controversial audios" section instead? —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 15:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Tamzin: thought this would be #3 of Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#On_community_review, since 1) Italian brainrot as a trend has largely died down, and 2) people may want to edit the rest of the article, and this places a large roadblock to that. But ultimately if you don't agree, feel free to close and archive. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 16:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Pppery: I think you have the wrong mentality - it's not about whether there's a problem, but how we can encourage new editors. We've already got two edit requests on the talk page of this article, which is a lot in the space of 2 weeks, and a lot of people have pointed this protection out here. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and protecting pages tangentially related to ARBPIA excessively for no reason is contrary to that. An edit filter doesn't have to cover every edge case, and I think we should still have semi/PCP on this page to prevent the usual IP vandalism. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 18:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Daniel Case I don't have any inclination on this one way or the other, save to say that given how contentious this contentious topic area has been and continues to be, any reduction in this protection level should be taken through this process and not unilaterally. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Matrix Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2) Result of the appeal by Matrix This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. So, for what it's worth, both Pbritti and Thegoofhere violated the ARBPIA 1RR in the edits in April that preceded this protection. A general reminder to all that that 1RR applies to all content related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, regardless of what page it's on. As to the protection Daniel made, would I have imposed it? I'm not sure. But under Wikipedia:Contentious topics § On community review, the action was not out of process, was a reasonable anti-disruption measure at the time, and the existence of continued disruption in the PIA topic area, including on related content, means that it's still "reasonably necessary" even if some other restriction could be used. I think the best approach here is to decline this appeal, but explicitly not endorse the action as an AE-consensus restriction either, meaning that come April 2026 the protection will be eligible for review under normal WP:UNPROTPOL rules instead of the heightened CTOP standard. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Matrix: In principle I have no problem with that idea, but again the issue is I don't see any procedural basis to overturn Daniel's action. Policy builds in a fairly strong presumption of deference to the discretion of the enforcing admin for the first year of a sanction's existence. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Daniel Case's statement implies that he is fine with this being reconsidered here from scratch rather than under the heightened standards of WP:CTOPAPPEALS that favor leaving in place whatever he initially imposed. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I am. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] In that case, the idea of doing this by edit filter has some appeal for me. I'd already been thinking about how one might go about that... WP:ECR authorizes us to do it but I don't think anyone's invoked that to date. What I'm thinking is something like: Create templates called {{START EXTENDEDCONFIRMED-RESTRICTED SECTION}} and {{END EXTENDEDCONFIRMED-RESTRICTED SECTION}}; these would not return anything visible. Have a standardized hidden comment that would go along with these, something like "Edits between this template and the {{END EXTENDEDCONFIRMED-RESTRICTED SECTION}} will be blocked by a filter if your account does not have extendedconfirmed access. Please see the notice above the editing window for more information." Have a parameter for the CTOP editnotice to provide said explanation. Create a filter that prevents non-admins from adding or removing these templates. Have a extendedconfirmed-show part of the disallow message that says that if you're trying to BLAR the page or remove the ECR'd content in its entirety, just remove all the content between the tags but leave the tags themselves, and ask an admin to tidy up after you. Create a filter that prevents non-EC users from changing the wikitext that the template wraps. (Off the top of my head, something like restricted := "\{\{\s*START EXTENDEDCONFIRMED-RESTRICTED SECTION\s*\}\}(.*?)\{\{\s*END EXTENDEDCONFIRMED-RESTRICTED SECTION\s*\}\}"; get_matches(restricted, old_wikitext) != get_matches(restricted, new_wikitext), after a removed_lines check for performance? Haven't tested this, but something like it should work.) Have a disallow message that mirrors the explanation in the CTOP editnotice. The biggest catch with all this is that someone could still just add content above the START tag or below the END one, or do something like comment out the whole section. (Sure we could whac-a-mole these approaches but there'd always be something else.) But for pages where disruption is relatively low, I could see this being a good way to keep an honest editor honest, especially if paired with semi-protection or pending changes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] There has been a grand total of one edit request on the talk page since the section was imposed. I think that shows there isn't enough of a problem here to warrant inventing new technology, and I would just decline this entire request. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] If there's no appetite for something more radical, I propose we close this with a downgrade to semi. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] I support reducing to semi at this point. It can be increased again at a single admin's discretion in response to continued disruption. I think the edit filter idea would be better proposed to the community or ArbCom rather than decided here. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By a consensus of administrators, Alaexis is placed under the balanced editing restriction. Smallangryplanet is warned to assume good faith and not treat Wikipedia as a battleground. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Alaexis User who is submitting this request for enforcement Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Alaexis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBPIA Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Violations of WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:BLP throughout the ARBPIA CTOP. These are only some of the relevant diffs, there are others across multiple articles showing violations of WP:CANVASSING/WP:BATTLEGROUND, which can be provided upon request. 2017 Hamas charter Alaexis disputes use of WP:COMMONNAME, RS and MOS-compliant "2017 charter", systematically and intentionally removes & misrepresents RS to push this POV, violating WP:RS/WP:VER/WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:BRD. Engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour to minimise references to the 2017 charter, violating WP:BRD: diff1, diff2, diff3,diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8 Deliberately misrepresented sources in an RM discussion table to argue for a name change: diff9 (NOTE: Fixed link 18:42 2025-09-23) Removed a reliable source (Brenner) supporting "charter" terminology under false pretences: diff10, diff11, diff12 Refused to restore the removed source after the misrepresentation was pointed out: diff13, diff14, diff15, diff16 Repeatedly removed and minimised the same source in the Hamas article, violating BRD: diff17, diff18, diff19, diff20, diff21 POV pushed in disambiguation page in violation of MOS:DABSHORT/BATTLEGROUND/EDITWAR/BRD after RM failed: diff22, diff23, diff24, diff25, diff26 Added a misrepresented, out-of-context source violating WP:V, restored after rv including when proper WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT context was added violating WP:BRD, then deleted properly sourced content outright in violation of WP:NPOV: diff27, diff28, diff29, diff30, diff31, diff32, diff33, diff34 Added a misrepresented cherrypicked source to push the same POV violating WP:V and WP:NPOV: diff33, diff35 Hamas Alaexis engaged in POV-pushing and misrepresentation of RS, violating WP:RS/WP:NPOV. Broke prior consensus on the "Recognition" section by removing RS content and adding non-RS sources: diff36, diff37 Encouraged an IP editor to post on AC/DS-covered pages improperly: diff38 Ramy Abdu and Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor Alaexis misrepresented sources re: Ramy Abdu/Euro-Med Monitor, violating WP:BLP/WP:NPOV Cherry-picked a line from The Independent to imply affiliation with Hamas, misrepresenting the source: diff39 Note: Alaexis has a recent formal warning for a similar BLP violation, see relevant section. Added a non-RS fringe source to make the same allegation: diff40, diff41 October 7 attacks and related pages Introduced a partial quote with an ellipsis, omitting text that contradicted his POV: diff42 Restored a NPOV-violating photo caption: diff43 Battleground, Canvassing, non-EC encouragement in WP:ARBECR talk Alaexis cooperates with editors to request edits on his talk page, engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and WP:CANVASSING: diff44, diff45, diff46 Alaexis encouraged non-EC users to engage on WP:ARBECR'd talk pages, e.g.: diff47, diff48, diff49 Regarding reliability of sources, Alaexis voted 3 (50) in the RfC on Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, a human rights organisation that reports on Israeli human rights violations and is used by high quality RS. However, he voted 1 for Jerusalem Post (51), 2 for NGO Monitor (52), 2 for ADL for ARBPIA (53), and 1 for Pirate Wires (54), for which he cited WP:USEBYOTHERS despite the relevant source quality being distant to Euro-Meds. These are highly partisan pro-Israeli sources with a record of false claims per RS. This further suggests Alaexis does not judge reliability of sources by consistent standards of accuracy or editorial oversight. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Violated WP:1RR in Hamas, restricted to WP:0RR for ten days [37] by SilverLocust (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Violated WP:BLPRS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV in Anas al-Sharif, given a logged CTOP warning [38] by SilverLocust (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Alaexis is a long-term editor with years of experience in this topic area and should be well aware of core policies. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Diff count extension granted by Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) here. @Vanamonde93 I was granted an extension to 55 diffs prior to filing this report, please see above Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Vanamonde93 I'm running up against the word count a bit here but it's explained in diffs 13 and 15. Basically Alaexis confirmed and kept a source from 2022, and then on another article saw the same author and same page used but with the wrong year, and instead of fixing it he removed it completely. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Alaexis misrepresents the chain of events re the Brenner source removal per diff13 (the post he links too!). On 31 May, Alaexis removed the Brenner 2017 edition with the summary: there is nothing about it on p. 206 - probably it's a mistake, considering that it's a 2017 book. Two days before, 29 May, Alaexis removed another source from a sentence containing the exact same content from the Hamas article while keeping the correctly cited Brenner p. 206, 2022 edition for the sentence (the source title is identical). Alaexis did not restore the Brenner source to the Charter article after this was pointed out to him, further evidence imo of deliberate removal of RS ahead of his RM. Re diff9, I got the links mixed up and have sorted it now. @Vanamonde93 sure, the "Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch" fails WP:RS by lacking any credible journalistic standards, editorial oversight, and functions as a WP:SPS by the person who runs it, Steven Merley. This is a non-notable non-expert whose background includes work for the Sheldon-Adelson funded Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, which is the Israeli government's often used think tank routinely cited by Netanyahu's office. Hardly a neutral or reliable source. Merley's "Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch" includes such articles as: FEATURED: Joe Biden Addresses US Muslim Brotherhood Conference; Continues To Legitimize the US Brotherhood FEATURED: Biden Shares Virtual Stage With US Muslim Brotherhood Leaders- Stage Set For His Administration? This is clearly a WP:FRINGE source and very far from meeting WP:DUE and WP:BLP standards. The other source, Linkiesta, is also far from sufficient to meet these standards. This is an obscure newly founded Italian online outlet which briefly mentions that some figure who supposedly "coordinates" for the Euro-Med Monitor is "known by French intelligence" to be linked to Hamas, and that its current director Ramy Abdu is "blacklisted by the Tel Aviv government" (it does not state why). It then goes on to cite the NGO Monitor, founded by the Sheldon Adelson funded Jerusalem Center. As was noted in the edit summary for a revert by another editor, this is pure innuendo from a very weak source. Alaexis introduced the claim that the Euro-Med's leadership is credibly tied to Hamas, and then when reverted for failing WP:RS, WP:DUE and WP:BLP standards he restored it, and then went back to do it again later with another misrepresented source on the Abdu article as I note in subsequent diffs. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] There are some serious accusations being levelled at me with no evidence. WP:BOOMERANG requires more than just vague insinuations that the filer has misbehaved. I'm not going to respond because I am up against the word count, but I'm confident that my edits and behaviour will stand up under scrutiny. If admins would like me to reply here and grant an extension, I will, otherwise please lets don't derail this filing further. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notification diff. Discussion concerning Alaexis 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 Alaexis I disagree with the claims made by u:Smallangryplanet. For cherrypicking, due weight, NPOV it would require quite a lot of diffs to show the context and prove that no policy was violated. However it's very easy to show that it's simply false that I Removed a reliable source (Brenner) supporting "charter" terminology under false pretences. This is the diff. I checked the source (2017 edition of Brenner's Gaza Under Hamas: From Islamic Democracy to Islamist Governance, p. 206), didn't find anything related to the charter and removed it from the article with a clear edit summary on 31 May 2024. A discussion at the talk ensued, other editors said that the charter was discussed in the 2022 edition. On June 11 I explained why I removed it and requested a quotation, it was provided, I acknowledged it and added the book to the list of sources I was preparing for the RM on the name of the article. It is also untrue that I Refused to restore the removed source after the misrepresentation was pointed out. Since the matter was resolved on June 11 I never removed this source from the article. @Vanamonde93: - I'm pinging you since you've asked a question about this claim. Also, the claim that I Deliberately misrepresented sources in an RM discussion table to argue for a name change is untrue. The link leads to a table of sources I prepared for a RM. No specific examples of misrepresentation have been provided so I'm not sure how I can prove that it didn't happen. @Tamzin:, could you clarify what evidence you're referring to in the last comment (18:32, 28 September 2025)? I'm asking since I haven't commented on the majority of claims made by u:Smallangryplanet and focused mostly on the issue with Brenner. If it's something specific I believe I can explain the rationale of my edits. I think I'm over 500 words already so I'd need an exemption too. Responses to u:Vanamonde93 @Vanamonde93: Regarding this revert, I wasn't the author of the caption. I agree that the use of the word "Palestinians" is improper and that I should've been more careful there. Regarding the GMBW, it was more than a year ago, so I can't quite remember what my reasoning was. Possibly the author could be considered a subject-matter expert for the purposes of WP:SPS but I'm not sure about it. In any case the information I added was supported also by Linkiesta newspaper whose reliability hasn't been challenged. Responses to u:Butterscotch Beluga The paragraph about the closeness of EuroMed and Hamas doesn't mention the Israeli government and the NGO Monitor, the statement is made in the newspaper's own voice. I'd be happy to discuss the reliability of Linkiesta at the appropriate venue - I'm pretty sure it's reliable given that it's used hundreds of times on it-wiki and here. I think that it's clear that using such a source was not a violation of WP:RS. Responses to u:Raskolnikov.Rev Regarding #2, when I removed Brenner in May 2025 I didn't recall that the same discrepancy had been discussed half a year ago. The proper way to address this would've be to simply add the correct edition of Brenner's book with an appropriate edit summary. Responses to u:Vanamonde93 @Vanamonde93:, see my response above. I didn't feign ignorance in May 2025, I really didn't remember the earlier discussion. Note that before removing the incorrect citation (Brenner 2017) on May 24 I let other editors know about the failed verification on May 13 (might have missed something - corrections are welcome. I found two discrepancies compared to the previous list. Radonic doesn't seem to use the term "charter" while Brenner's book was published in 2017 and doesn't mention the new document.). Probably other editors also didn't remember the earlier discussion, otherwise this would've been resolved earlier. @Vanamonde93:, I appreciate that you've taken time to review the evidence but I hope you reconsider. My behaviour was absolutely not consistent with any nefarious purposes. In addition to the heads up I gave (see the diff right above) the removal of this inaccurate citation had zero impact on the article since the content was supported by other sources as well. It would've made zero sense for me to do this on purpose. I didn't remember the previous discussion and other editors like u:Raskolnikov.Rev who also participated in the November 2024 discussion also *likely* didn't recall it immediately - otherwise they would've responded to my May 13th note or fixed the year right after my edit on May 24, rather than waiting until June 11 and responding with lots of unfounded accusations. Responses to u:Thebiguglyalien @Thebiguglyalien: I don't think that Wikipedia would benefit form having both of us tbanned. In the course of our editing, new content was added, new RS were introduced, unsourced content was removed and various mistakes were fixed. Obviously, both of us have a POV but so does everyone. I've tried to follow the letter and spirit of the policies and if there is an edit or group of edits that looks like pov-pushing to you, I'd be happy to explain my reasoning behind it. Statement by Butterscotch Beluga @Vanamonde93 - The source "The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch" appears to be a WP:SPS. According to their FAQ "The GMBDW is the creation of its editor who has sole editorial control of its content.", i.e. Steven Merley. The only previous discussion I can find regarding consensus is [39] - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Alaexis - With regards to coverage of Euro-Med Monitor, the article from Linkiesta seems to be citing WP:NGOMONITOR & the Israeli government. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Thebiguglyalien - Why are you proposing sanctions against @Smallangryplanet? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Raskolnikov.Rev @Tamzin, the edit with "the palestinians" was reverted specifying NPOV/problematic language. While we should WP:AGF, the violation was spelled out and ignored. @Vanamonde93, on EuroMed addition that they are Hamas: Alaexis inserted/restored citing fringe source he can't defend now, and Italian-language post of few hundred words with no original reporting, only repeating allegations from Israeli government, advocacy org NGO Monitor and intel services that moreover per its own claims has no bearing on EuroMeds leadership. This is far below WP:DUE standards especially for BLP-sensitive content. That Alaexis is defending it now while already having a BLP warning is deeply problematic. Further context for Brenner removal, why this was highly problematic by itself and given related edits. N.B., minimizing uses of "charter" in sources while padding uses of "document" bolstered his RM for 2017 Hamas Charter page: 1. 24 May 2025, removes Brenner 2017 source twice stating 2017 charter accepts 1967 borders from Charter page. 29 May 2025, retains 2022 edition of Brenner with identical title citing exact same content on Hamas page. 31 May 2025, again removes Brenner 2017 source for same content from Charter page. 2. He was closely involved in writing Hamas page section including 2022 Brenner p. 206 source, and had already been told by multiple editors 2022 edition contains this information when inquiring about its absence in 2017 edition: AlaexisBrenner1, AlaexisBrenner2, AlaexisBrenner3, AlaexisBrenner4, AlaexisBrenner5, AlaexisBrenner6 3. He didn't restore Brenner correct edition after told of erroneous removal, nor provide explanation for how he could have mistakingly removed it given 1-2. 4. Brenner 2017 also calls it "new de facto charter", as cited in talk discussion Alaexis was active in. He said he incorporated sources from this discussion and the main Hamas page in his "charter versus documents" table, but left out Brenner 2017 and 2022, thereby padding uses of "document" bolstering his RM case. 5. That is not the only misrepresentation of sources in the table to pad "document". Given context, combined with other source misrepresentations to pad "document" usage ahead of RM, subsequent behavior on disambiguation page per @Smallangryplanet diffs22/26, I believe it stretches AFG far beyond breaking point to say it was not intentional. Engages in WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:BRD, WP:V and WP:BATTLEGROUND violations routinely always in same pro-Israeli POV direction, e.g.: Misrepresenting source to push POV: diff1, diff2 Adding fringe/non-RS content casting doubt on Gaza Health Ministry death toll, violating WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV: diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8, diff9 Regarding RSN, Alaexis is defending COVID disinformation spreader WION which reads like an AI-generated site and has no WP:USEBYOTHERS basis as 1/potentially 2, 1 for Jewish Chronicle, 2 for Heritage Foundation, while voting 3 on EuroMed and Al Jazeera. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Alaexis it's not credible you forgot as you were and remain deeply involved with writing/editing the Hamas page Recognition section and specifically Brenner being cited for that identical content, and you again edited there and retained it cited for the same content in the very same days as you systematically removed it from Charter page. You also didn't restore when told. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Thebiguglyalien Speaking as a member of the community, I support measures against both Alaexis and Smallangryplanet to limit battleground behavior and POV issues in the topic area. I'm specifically looking at Vanamonde's comment A large number of the diffs show a consistent POV, but in my view fall within the realm of reasonable interpretation of the meaning and emphasis of a source, which treads dangerously close to endorsing the type of WP:CPUSH behavior that AE admins are here to prevent. My first choice would be topic bans, or logged warnings if these editors have enough social capital to avoid tbans. Alternatively, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5#Balanced editing restriction can be imposed without finding fault. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS The community should not tolerate any editing restrictions "imposed without finding fault" as suggested by Thebiguglyalien. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Striking. Probably not the place for this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] The problem with Alexis' editing is one of quality not quantity. BER wouldn't address that; plus Alaexis would still be able to continue making the same number of edits in the topic area simply by expanding the number of their edits elsewhere. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by The Kip Would like to endorse TBUA’s comment/proposed solutions here. From their respective editing histories, the filer and accused are the sort of temperature-raising partisans that we’ve previously attempted to remove from the area, and this case is in many ways a microcosm of some of the issues PIA5 attempted to address - several of the diffs provided are significant enough to reveal at-best careless/reckless and at-worst blatantly misleading and/or partisan editing by the accused party (who themselves were a named party to PIA5, but avoided being the target of any proposed remedies, let alone sanctions), but the considerable assumptions of bad faith/casting of the worst-possible-light on the more minor diffs in turn comes off as the filer hoping to use AE to remove an opponent from the topic area. As such, the “nuclear option” of sorts is once again needed. Despite some claims to the contrary, it worked well with PIA; with a handful of exceptions, the area is broadly more cohesive/less chaotic than it was at this time last year, with blatant incivility, POV-pushing, and the general temperature all becoming considerably lower after the TBANs of some of the worse offenders. Noticeably, this is the first major AE PIA case I’ve seen in a while; most PIA AE cases since January have been with respect to newer/less-experienced editors. As expected, TBUA’s approach does not go over well with partisans (see several comments above from both the accused party and a third party), which is in turn exactly why it’s necessary. The Kip (contribs) 07:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] As an addendum, despite my stated belief in TBANs I will say that a BER for both filer and accused may be my slightly-preferred solution here - I’d like to see it in a sort of trial-run with some of the more visible partisans in the area, given it hasn’t often been utilized since it was created. Perhaps it does end up a less “destructive” alternative. The Kip (contribs) 07:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Parabolist If third party editors want to make serious behavioral claims of misconduct by the filer, they should actually be required to substantiate them, otherwise what the hell are we doing here? Or is doing that without diffs something we WOULDN'T describe as "temperature-raising"? I, too, am a member of the community, if that helps (Whatever that means.). Parabolist (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Peter Gulutzan Re Regarding reliability of sources, Alaexis voted 3 (50) etc. I don't think it's enough to dismiss this, WP:AE accusations about a person's RfC !votes should be condemned. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result concerning Alaexis This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Smallangryplanet, reports are limited to 20 diffs, you are at 54. Please trim the report: this is far too much material for AE to parse. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Striking - I missed the exemption, in no small part because of the aforementioned 54 diffs, but I can't say you don't have permission. Reading through now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Smallangryplanet You say Alaexis removed content from the Brenner source "under false pretenses": does this mean the pages in question contained the information Alaexis said they didn't contain? Can you illustrate with a quote, please, inside a collapsed section? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Smallangryplanet Can you please explain which source added in diffs 40 and 41 are fringe, and if that designation has any consensus on Wikipedia, or if they obviously fail our criteria for RS? You may set aside the word limit for this reply. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] I have now read through all the diffs and I believe I have the context I need. The vast majority of these diffs do not feel actionable to me, and in some cases are being interpreted in the most negative light possible in a way that does not impress me. This discussion, for instance, shows Alaexis redirecting a different editor to the article talk page and informing them about canvassing - I cannot reasonably read that as "engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and WP:CANVASSING", and I would be minded to remind Smallangryplanet about assuming good faith. A large number of the diffs show a consistent POV, but in my view fall within the realm of reasonable interpretation of the meaning and emphasis of a source. I also cannot acquiesce to Smallangryplanet's description of the incident related to the use of Brenner 2017. Three pieces of evidence do concern me. The caption Alaexis chose to add here (diff 43) contains a sweeping generalization not present in the article and verging on the inflammatory. To be clear, I am objecting to the constructions "by the Palestinians", and not anything else. That said, that diff is eleven months old. I am concerned by the apparent lack of consistency in applying WP:USEDBYOTHERS at WP:RSP (diffs 50/54). I am concerned by the use of the "Global Muslim Brotherhood Watch" source in diffs 40/41, but that set is 17 months old. I am not enamored of consecutive logged warnings, but I can't support something harsher when the evidence predates the previous warning. I would like to hear from Alaexis as to their assessment of sources however. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] As I said, I would like to hear from Alaexis on the last two points. However, I still cannot read anything into the Brenner issue. The charge is that in removing some content on 29 May, Alaexis saw the Brenner 2022 source, read it, realized it was related to the Brenner 2017 source, and two days later failed to replace rather than remove Brenner 2017? I find the explanation that they did not notice the similarity more in keeping with WP:AGF. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Commenting just on one point here, "the Palestinians" can mean two things: the people of Palestine generally, or those specific folks we're talking about who are from Palestine. In the context it was used, it's definitely uncomfortable in that it can be read as the former, but I do feel inclined to extend some AGF on this point, particularly for a non-native English speaker (per previous versions of userpage). I know that when I speak other languages, subtle nuances of similar identity-based constructs can be very hard to keep track of (e.g. French "un Noir" literally means "a Black" but lacks the problematic connotation of its English equivalent). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] I now see credible evidence that Alaexis was feigning ignorance with respect to Brenner. I would like to see a response related to that. I would also appreciate responses from other administrators here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] I think there's at least enough evidence here to meet WP:BER's threshold of it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area. Their current PIA editing percentage is 56.25%. I'll note that, even assuming arguendo that Smallangryplanet lowering activity would also be net-positive, there wouldn't be any point in imposing such a restriction on them at this time, since they're below the 33.3% threshold regardless. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Again, while there's technically no requirement that someone put under a BER be currently below the percentage threshold, to me that goes against the principle of preventative sanctioning, unless it's something like they've routinely been above it and only briefly dipped below. All that a BER would do at that point is apply a TBAN outside of mainspace/draftspace/their talkspaces, which, if there's a reason to do that specifically, then it should be that, not backdoor through a BER. This is again without reaching any conclusion as to whether one would be merited for SAP regardless. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] With respect to TBUA's comment that I'm endorsing civil pov-pushing: that's not a reasonable reading of my responses at AE over the years. I'd argue that I place greater weight on factors such as source misrepresentation and stonewalling. But any analysis of source use needs to recognize that there is usually space for reasonable editors to disagree with respect to the interpretation of a source. The individual instances presented in the first report largely fall within this realm. That said, having considered the additional evidence provided here, and having slept on this, I have to conclude that while each individual edit may be defensible, the totality shows Alaexis exercising less care with respect to content that serves their POV vs content that does not. I don't know if a BER would address this, but I don't think I'm willing to levy a TBAN on this evidence alone, and so I would support a BER. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] I would be willing to consider the need for a BER on Smallangryplanet as well - there are hints in this evidence that that might be necessary - but their behavior is not a large part of the evidence seen here, and so I would want a separate filing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] I was hoping more administrators would opine here, but it would seem it's not to be. Absent objections I will close this with a BER in a day or so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Sorry - it's crunch time for me last month and this month so I've been scarce. I think a BER works but I'd also informally warn Smallangryplanet that I felt their filing veered a bit close to battlegroundy behavior at times so they should watch that in the future. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] I looked through many of the diffs but not all. My impression was similar to Vanamonde's, and I think BER for Alaexis and an (informal) warning for Smallangryplanet is reasonable. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EC revoked as a regular admin action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Exper-maelstrom User who is submitting this request for enforcement MCE89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Exper-maelstrom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBIMH Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it WP:PGAMING to reach WP:XC, e.g. this sequence of 20 edits and this sequence of 16 edits to individually add spaces between words, this series of edits to individually capitalise words in a phrase, and this series of 7 edits to delete the words "it was" letter by letter. Most of their edits made before reaching XC status were on the topic of Indian military history, in violation of the topic's extended-confirmed restriction. For instance their edits on the pages Shahaji, Tanaji Malusare, Peshwa, Balaji Kunjar and Hadapsar among others. These edits were all made after being informed of the IMH extended-confirmed restriction, and after they had responded to the notification confirming that they had seen it. Immediately after hitting 500 edits, they started editing the ECP page Vanjari caste. Their edits to the page so far have primarily been sourced to 19th-century Raj-era sources (e.g. [40] [41] [42] [43]). Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) [44] Additional comments by editor filing complaint I was advised to report this at AE and this is my first time filing a report here, so I apologise if I've made any mistakes. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [45] Discussion concerning Exper-maelstrom Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Exper-maelstrom Statement by (username) Result concerning Exper-maelstrom This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Good first report. EC revoked (technically not an AE action since it's not in WP:STANDARDSET). Probably all that needs to be done here for now, since further gaming means an indef and further caste editing can be handled as an ECRvio. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a month by SilverLocust as a standard admin action --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning 73.250.111.41 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Mikewem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested 73.250.111.41 (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/Antisemitism in Poland#Amendment (September 2021) Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Oct 3 After being warned on their talk page that they cannot engage in discussion of this topic or make edits per ecr, they once again restored the archived discussion Oct 2 restored archived discussion Oct 1 deleted their first ecr warning in collapse top note and un-collapsed discussion Sept 26 threat to blank the page at the discussion in question, Accuracy of LGBTQ Death Toll Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Oct 3 user talk page Additional comments by editor filing complaint An IP started the topic Accuracy of LGBTQ Death Toll at Talk:Victims of Nazi Germany. It was not a proper edit request per WP:CHANGEXY, though it could be seen to be in the spirit of an edit request (though probably not actionable). It was an objectively silly take on a serious topic, and other editors weighed in to clarify the misconceptions that the IP was expressing. This 2nd IP (the one I am reporting here), engaged in the discussion, threatened to blank the page, reverted a collapse of the discussion, and reverted an archiving of the discussion twice. Their general conduct looks WP:NOTHERE to me. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Oct 3 Discussion concerning 73.250.111.41 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 73.250.111.41 Statement by WhatamIdoing The IP has also been edit-warring a comment that Someone's fee-fees got hurt! into a discussion at WT:RSP.[46][47][48][49][50] I was considering a trip to ANI when I saw the notification about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username) Result concerning 73.250.111.41 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Blocked for a month as a normal administrative action. I believe that is sufficient. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

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

Administrator imposing the sanction

Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[diff]

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

• Timing

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

• 500 productive, non-gaming edits

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

History of Togo (diff)

History of Benin (diff)

Salt evaporation pond (diff)

Germanium (diff)

Neodymium magnet (diff)

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

• Competence improvement (WP:CIR)

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban on transgender topics, imposed here

Administrator imposing the sanction

Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

diff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The important context here, though, is Liliana's long history of disruption in the topic area. You can take a look at the evidence I presented last December that led to her agreeing to the 6-month bans. Since those bans ended nothing has changed in her fundamental battleground attitude. Here you can see yet another attempt to relitigate the Times's reliability on trans topics at a completely inappropriate time. Then there's the series of edits regarding Charlie Kirk's assassination, most notably [51], that led me to reïmpose the AP2 TBAN indefinitely. In that context, the fact that Liliana made this comment, not just with the aspersions, but with the explicit battleground and right-great-wrongs mentalities (If all three don't get at the very least a complete GENSEX TBAN, you won't ever see me on Wikipedia again, because clearly you don't care about civil POV pushers trying to erode my rights one edit at a time), shows that there's no reason to expect any further constructive contributions from her in the topic area—something that I'll note, unlike any of the parties in the ArbCom case, she has essentially no history of. I don't think I've ever seen Liliana make a constructive edit about GENSEX; her participation is exclusively pot-stirring like this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, I can't think of another editor who is more consistently a net negative in talk discussions.

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

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

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

• We should decline this appeal. Taking a previous administrative (or arbitration) action does not make an admin involved. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @LilianaUwU, please read the first part of the second paragraph of INVOLVED (emphasis in original):

  One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area.

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

  @Black Kite: Guerillero's notice to Liliana makes clear that this is an example of conduct that lead to the TBAN, not the sole conduct. Threatening to leave Wikipedia and/or pushing for other editors to be banned/blocked can be disruptive/indicative of a battleground mentality. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite: Guerillero clarified the reasons above. Your post here and on the PD talk page was POINTy and warrants a warning under GENSEX, not a TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

  @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: see WP:GOODBYE. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This appeal doesn't show an adequate basis for overturning the sanction. A prior administrative action doesn't make you involved. If the sanction was not out of process (e.g., involved), what needs to be shown is that the sanction is "not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption". Threatening to leave Wikipedia unless particular editors are banned is treating Wikipedia as a battleground and (as Voorts points out) tendentious editing. Together with a history of battleground behavior (e.g., as previously sanctioned by Tamzin), this is a reasonable sanction. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]