Arequest forarbitration is thelast step ofdispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. TheArbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by thearbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please seeguide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions ordiscretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to/Requests/Enforcement.
Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs4 net votes to "accept" (or amajority).
Arbitration is alast 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 thearbitration 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.
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 emailingclerks-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 (seeWikipedia: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 therendered 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 orword count tool).This internal gadget andthis 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 orclerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via thecommittee 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 votingaccept/decline/recuse.
Use this section to requestclarification oramendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)
Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Guidance on participation and word limits
Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general.Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs.During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the{{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailingclerks-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 (seeWikipedia: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 therendered 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 orword count tool).This internal gadget andthis report may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.
General guidance
Arbitrators andclerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
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 ofthe editor's own userspace"
Per current practice (e.g.ScottishFinnishRadish's warning ofLong-live-ALOPUS inanother discussion for violating ECR by postinganother user talk page comment), my understanding is that ECR also prohibited Patternbuffered from starting the user talk page discussion in the first place. However, Patternbufferedpointed out to me that the wording of the clause in question excludes"userspace" from the"area of conflict" without additional qualifiers. Long-live-ALOPUSalso 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. — Newslingertalk01:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Iwrote 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]
Statement by Long-live-ALOPUS
Statement by Thryduulf
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]
Statement by Zero0000
AtWP: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 theapplication of ARBECR to PIA is"The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on thearea of conflict." (my bold). So, even if "topic area" atWP: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.Zerotalk12:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Rosguill
I think Elli raises a valid concern, and would suggest that any extended-confirmed editor should be allowed to remove such a notice. If we're concerned about these notices as a locus of disruption (would they be so moreso than anything else to do with the conflict?), you could adopt language to the effect that any gaming or editwarring in relation to such notices be treated with extreme prejudice or some other such guidance.signed,Rosguilltalk01:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion
Thearea of conflict language isn't found inExtended 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 motionsaysThe 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 toall edits related to the topic area, broadly construed.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)10:52, 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]
Done below, copied fromL235's 2024 motion. I mean, as it previously failed to pass, I guess even if it normally didn't need a motion, it now does ...~ ToBeFree (talk)23:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remedy 4 of thePalestine-Israel articles 4 case ("Definition of the 'area of conflict'") is amended to read as follows:For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" is theArab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.
Remedy 5 is amended by appending the following text:The{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} editnotice and the{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} talk page notice should be used on pages within the area of conflict. When only parts of a page fall within the area of conflict, if there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisiblecomment. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator.
I'm not keen on expanding this restriction if not strictly necessary, but the ambiguity between the different pages is causing confusion amongst editors and resulting in editors being sanctioned for making edits they they believe they are permitted to make because of the way things are worded. I considered proposing a less vague wording that would make a userspace exception more clear, but having a different set of ECR rules specifically for this topic area is unnecessarily complicating the issue. Standardizing the wording to match ECR's scope is the best route towards uncomplicating this as much as possible. -Aoidh (talk)03:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While this narrows the topic area a little bit, I think this will help lessen confusion and bureaucracy. If problems come up later, editors are invited to go to the appropriate noticeboard to find a resolution.Z1720 (talk)00:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the implementation here: allowing someone to add a comment that only admins can remove seems like a bad idea. What if there's an article that has a section that touches on this conflict (and is appropriately tagged), but someone wants to remove that section (for example, they think it's out of scope for the article)? They wouldn't be allowed to do so here (or they'd need to keep a comment around for a section that no longer exists). Abstaining because no better solution comes to mind for me right now.Elli (talk |contribs)01:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view is it arguably is technically possible for contesting a speedy deletion to be an edit request but it's of so little benefit it's not worth saying it is lest it confuses people. Let's remember an edit request isn't for simply requesting a change to an article but requesting a change either already has consensus or so simply that it clearly has consensus even for someone unfamiliar with anything about the article (i.e. uncontroversial) e.g. a typo correction, adding details to a ref etc. Edit requests shouldn't be used for proposing controversial changes, editors should start a discussion and gain consensus first. If they cannot start a discussion because of ARBECR, then using an edit request to initiate a discussion is IMO a clear abuse of ARBECR even if they stay out of it after. Given all that, it's technically possible for contesting a speedy deletion to be an edit request when it's so simple that any editor with extended confirmed status even one who knows almost nothing about speedy deletion would be willing to remove the speedy deletion template because there's something so problematic about it that they do not need to let an admin or at least someone more familiar with speedy deletions look it over. But in such cases, surely an admin would see that without needing to be told. And so all this is doing is hoping some other extended confirmed editor sees it first and removes it to slightly reduce the workload on admin. But if we say it's okay, it's far more likely that it will be mostly used by non EC editors in cases where it's not so simple why the speedy deletion template shouldn't be removed but this isn't allowed similar to the way editors cannot make "edit requests" which are actually an attempt to start discussion on controversial changes.Nil Einne (talk)08:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Extended confirmed restriction: Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Extended confirmed restriction: Arbitrator views and discussion
It doesn't matter much. "Contesting" a speedy deletion is a non-formal process adding a mostly meaningless message to a talk page that, if we're honest, often won't even be read before deletion. It isnot the start of a formal internal project discussion such as an actual deletion discussion atWP:AfD. And itis equivalent to creating a formal edit request for "Please replace{{the CSD template}} by nothing". To me, it doesn't matter if we explicitly forbid making the last protesting comment before the page and the comment are removed forever. We should perhaps clarify that blocking someone for clicking a button inviting them to do so, and de-facto for creating an edit request, would be rather inappropriate.~ ToBeFree (talk)20:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I think the only reason why this blue button exists is to secretly discourage users from removing the speedy deletion template by letting them send a meaningless message, channeling their frustration to a place where it doesn't disrupt the process, instead.~ ToBeFree (talk)23:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to find myself in the minority here, but I think that the example given by ToBeFree is exactly how a contested deletion request should be taken. "Please remove this deletion nomination because..." is a request to edit a page they should not normally be able to edit. Just because it is not headed by{{edit protected}} should not immediately invalidate it, and just because they cannot participate any further thanmaking the request does not mean the request needs to be invalidated.Primefac (talk)23:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CSD is a deletion process that falls outside article content. Since one of the main points of ECR was to keep non-EC editors out of internal processes it seems to me that they shouldn't be making arguments as to why a page shouldn't be deleted. It's the same as RMs not falling under edit requests even though they're requesting a change to the article.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)10:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a very edge case but I agree with TBF. "Please don't delete this page" is largely equivalent to an edit request. It's an action that doesn't have much effect anyway because if the page unquestionably meets the CSD it will be deleted anyway, and if it clearly doesn't the speedy will be declined but I wouldn't want to rule out an edge case within an edge case where a non-EC editor can add vital context. But more importantly blocking somebody for contesting a speedy deletion would seem absurdly bureaucratic, and policing the content of a talk page that is about to be deleted is probably a waste of time and would come across as mean-spirited.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?14:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that CSD contesting is one of the few areas where consensus isn't a factor, I don't really see the harm in allowing it, especially when they wouldn't be allowed to follow up at AN or DR.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)18:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4) Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect. This sanction supersedes his March 2017 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
[diff of notification Username]
[diff of notification Username]
Information about amendment request
4) Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect. This sanction supersedes his March 2017 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
I want it to be clear this clause allows me to participate in categories for discussion
Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
State the desired modification
Statement by Johnpacklambert
The restriction on my participation in deletion discussions and related discussions was imposed in July 2022. I understand that I was at times too combative on issues and apologize for that. The discussion at the time focused only on my participation in article deletion discussions. However when the restriction was written it was written in a way to cover topic discussions on things other than articles. This included a ban on participation in discussions about categories. After almost 38 months I am asking that that specific part of the restriction be lifted so that I can participate in discussions about deleting, merging and renaming categories. I understand these restrictions were imposed for wise reasons back in 2022, but I feel allowing me to participate in Category discussions would be reasonable at this time. The decision speaks of reconsideration after 12 months. There has been no discussion on this restriction now for I believe 22 months, and I better understand now how to cooperate with others. I feel allowing me to participate in Categories for discussion discussions would be a reasonable modification of this restruliction at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk)16:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong in my actions in late 2022 that lead to a total editing ban for a time. That was over 3 years ago and I have not done anything like that since. I have tried to avoid discussing deleting articles at all. My understanding was that the ban applied to articles. I did not think it prevented me from making comments on the organization of categories. I was under the impression that I was not able to participate at CfD because the pan on Afd was extended to other general discussion formats. My understanding though was that the broad ban on discussing deletion was a ban on deleting of articles, broadly construed, and did not apply to non-article things such as categories.John Pack Lambert (talk)19:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by GoodDay
The best way to learn if an editor has learned their lesson, is to allow them to prove it. Recommend lifting the aforementioned restrictions.GoodDay (talk)16:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gave Mr. Lambert a note about this last year, and it seems the behavior has continued. However,AE seems to think that merge/rename nominations arenot covered by the topic ban. I strongly believe that merger discussions are covered; the only difference at CFD between "merge" and "delete" is whether the former contents of the category are added to another before deletion. I have no firm opinion on whether rename discussions at CFD are covered, though a sizeable minority of rename nominations end with deletion or merging. If the ban is not lifted or narrowed, some clarification on what is and is not permitted would be appreciated.
Harry, I was deliberately vague about that because I don't have a firm opinion on the matter :) ... consider my above comment something of aBrandeis brief.
From what I can tell, the restriction was a deliberately overbroad; to paraphrase arecent vote of yours, it was ensuring the same caravan did not pack up and move on to overzealous deletion of categories or files or drafts. Mr. Lambert was already under a community XFD restriction, an unrelated topic ban in religion,his block log is not super pretty, and a site banwas on the table and was seriously considered; in those circumstances, broad strokes would seem wise. Using more refined strokes would not be a terrible idea, though I would oppose repealing the ban wholesale; the article deletion processes (PROD, AFD, BLARing articles) should continue to be covered. A suspended removal, allowing uninvolved admins to reinstate the ban if need be, would be wise. In other words, I think a probationary lift allowing all participation regarding CFD would not be a terrible idea.
My impression of Mr. Lambert's comments are that they are helpful, though I have not read them in detail. I would be curious to hearSmasongarrison's thoughts on lifting the topic ban; she is a category superstar, CFD regular, and has interacted with Mr. Lambert frequently. My real advice would be to listen to whatever she says :)
This topic ban was imposed for overzealous behavior in AfD discussions. It never made sense to expand its scope beyond AfD discussions and I would suggest it be narrowed to that.* Pppery *it has begun...18:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, I do think he's shown real growth. When editors are willing to put in the time to work with him, he's open to the feedback and able to have productive conversations. On the other hand, consistent follow-through on that feedback hasn't been his strong suit.
All that said, I don't think the answer is to exclude him entirely. He does have good ideas and, given structure and oversight, can make valuable contributions.I'd support allowing him to comment inCFD discussions but not to make proposals himself. I think that that would strike the balance between giving him the opportunity to demonstrate his growth, without disrupting the project.SMasonGarrison05:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by FOARP
I've beenvery occasionally keeping tabs on JPL and as far as I can see the ban converted them into an effective, productive, gnoming member of the EN WP community, and they have (admittedly with some shakiness at the start) kept their nose clean. I can't claim to have reviewed every edit they've made since the ARBCOM decision, but the ones I've reviewed have been entirely on-point. In the spirit ofWP:ROPE I think at the very least the request can be granted, and that possibly loosening of restrictions can go further.FOARP (talk)10:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall
As a participant in the Arbcom case being modified, I wouldsupport thisprovided that JPL's reintroduction to deletion discussions rate-limited in some way, such as for example: (a) participating in no more than one XfD at a time (he can choose a new one to participate in when the previous one is closed); or (b) editing no more than one XfD page per day.
At the time of the decision, JPL asked if merges were included in the topic ban, and then arbL235answered yes something that I, as another then arb agreed with at that time. I believe there might have been more discussion about this either on arbwiki or the list (or maybe it was IRC) at the time. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)23:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion
I'm reasonably receptive to this request but XfD is not my area of expertise.HouseBlaster should I take your comment as opposition to the request? Besides the ambiguity of whether the restriction applies to CfD, have JPL's contributions there been disruptive or unhelpful?HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?23:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was some discussion of whether merge discussions are incorporated into this sanction at that AE thread, but I think the controlling factor was really the nature of his participation and the question wasn't fully dissected. I would hold that participating directly in a merge discussion almost certainly violates the restriction. They involve whether a standalone page should exist or not, which gives them a lot of the same personal-philosophy baggage as AfD. As for amending the sanction to allow weighing in on categories, I'm hesitant. As I understand it, the category area combines a lot of procedural rigor with a tendency for controversy disproportionate to the weight of the matter a la ARBCAPS. If we were to do something that allows him to show he's here to contribute constructively, I'd say an unban that allows for a maximum of 3 CfD comments per day – limited to 1 comment per thread, 500 words per comment, and no nominations – would be my starting place.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)18:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived atWikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.
Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visitWP:ARC orWP:ARCA for potential alternatives.
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 emailingclerks-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 orclerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.
request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or acontentious topic restriction imposed by anadministrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against apreviously alerted editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
requestpage restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
Onlyautoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as anextended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it.Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.(Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Administrators may remove or shorten comments that are overlong or unconstructive, and may instruct users to stop participating or impose AE sanctions in response to disruptive contributions such aspersonal attacks orgroundless complaints.
The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each, unless AE admins waive this rule. Any uninvolved admin may furtherrestrict participation by non-parties at their discretion.
To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template{{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions
All contentious topic restrictions (andlogged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using theapplicable template.
A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.
Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction
An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
the restriction was an indefinite block.
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:
aclear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
aclear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.
Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
On Arbitration Committee review
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at arequest for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
^The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Information for administrators processing requests
Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.
A couple of reminders:
Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.
Closing a thread:
Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between{{hat}} and{{hab}} tags. Hatted requests will later be archived by an admin (often after a few days to a week).
Please considerreferring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates{{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or{{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
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 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Gotitbro
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
20 August - Overhauling the lead to showChanakya explicitly as a historical figure, contrary to the fact that no historical evidence exists for Chanakya as per body of the article, thereby pushing pro Hindutva POV.
27 August - Removes longstanding sentence from lead claiming it is "Undue" when the subject in question is an unreliable outlet, notorious for spreading misinformation.
27 August - Engages in edit warring by restoring his revert and citing BRD when he is himself bringing a new edit to the article.
27 August - Continues edit war by falsely claiming "added about a month ago".
27 August - Derailing the thread and attacking another editor by bringing up how he "is t-banned from a closely related topic area".
28 August - Even after being told to focus on content, he is still talking about "editorial behaviour". SeeWP:IDHT.
28 August - This is the height ofWP:BATTLE andWP: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."
29 August -WP:IDHT; Still repeating his above false accusations.
29 August - Unnecessarily targeting another editor on the AfD by pointing out their edit count.
29 August - Now falsely accusing this editor of "very COI".
29 August - Now that above personal remarks failed to bait the editor, Gotitbro starts misusing ANI to get rid of this user anyhow by repeating his false accusations of "COI" and "SPA".
30 August - Falsely accusing another editor of "hounding me around" despite this user edited ANI weeks ago after Gotitbro reported him there.[2]
1 September - Falsely labellingthis 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.
@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]
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Gotitbro
Gotitbro's statement contains643 words andexceeds the 500-word limit.
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 (beyond2025 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]
Statement by Azuredivay
@Firefangledfeathers: You should take another look at this report. You surely cannot say edit warring (see Ratnahastin's latest comment), false accusations of COI (see #14, #15), falsification of sources (see #2) mislabelling reliable sources as opinion pieces (see #18), falsely accusing editors of legitimizing racism (see #18), battleground mentality (see #10), Hindutva POV pushing (see #4, #5) and more violations do not warrant a sanction especially when the editor has3 blocks for edit warring, 1 of them being in the last 6 months. Similarly, Gotitbro has made 4 reverts to remove reliably sourced content onPajeet (see #17).
During last month on1984 anti-Sikh riots, he was misrepresenting "stable" version and edit warring to remove sourced content which was critical ofHindutva partyBharatiya Janta Party andHindutva organizationRashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.[16][17] He also engaged in mass canvassing.[18] This is all when he had more than a month to address how his false claim of "misrepresentation of sources"[19] was any correct.
The concerns over pro-Hindutva POV pushing are correct. You can see he is alone atTalk:Kashmir Files where he is opposing the label "propaganda" for this Hindutva movie, without offering any rebuttal.[20]
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]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Gotitbro
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
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 atTalk: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,Rosguilltalk19:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing all the evidence again, I also find it underwhelming. While it is asserted that there isHindutva POV pushing at play, it has not been demonstrated that Gotitbro is selectively interpreting policy to this end. The one pattern of misconduct that is evident here is edit warring: while there are somewhat mitigating circumstances of general chaos atPajeet andFirstpost, given their past history of edit warring sanctions I'm thinking that a 1RR restriction for Gotitbro may be appropriate at this time.signed,Rosguilltalk19:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the edits atNazi punk andRock Against Communism, Gotitbro does appear to be edit warring overmuch, although I'm frankly more alarmed by EarthDude also edit warring in order to shoehorn mentions ofHindutva pop into infoboxes without there being any relevant text or sources in the articles themselves. This is a backwards method of writing an article; on that basis I'm disinclined to consider Gotitbro's ANI thread against EarthDude as a mark against Gotitbro, and I find EarthDude's replies to PARAKANYAA and Gotitbro in that thread to generally be missing the point at best and IDHT at worst. All that having been said, the 1RR limitation for Gotitbro still may help reduce disruption, but I think if we go forward with that we need to open a more thorough examination of EarthDude's conduct here, as per the two party rule and EarthDude's absence from this discussion it would not be appropriate to run straight to sanctions at this time.signed,Rosguilltalk19:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Well, @Rosguill, it looks like a 1RR wouldn't really have stopped much disruption in the more recent cases, given that these recent ones are all pretty rightful reverts following obvious P&G justifications like "lead follows body" and "citations needed". I think I'd prefer a really strong warning, along the lines of "do your absolute best to provide a full justification in the initial revert" and "remember to go to the talk page ASAP if reverted", rather than a formal 1RR, which will have other editors trying to play "gotcha". --asilvering (talk)19:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with a logged edit warring warning. As I mull this over, I'm also not sure what to make of the fact that Ratnahastin considers the evidence that we just addressed meaningful examples of continuing misbehavior by Gotitbro; it seems like it's stretching towards willful ignorance to present them asmisuse of ANI to get rid of authentic opponents when EarthDude's edits were clearly problematic.signed,Rosguilltalk19:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine by me. Addressing Rosguill's points about Ratnahastin, I do plan to give Ratnahastin and Azuredivay non-formal, non-warning advice about evidentiary standards at AE. I'm on the fence about something more substantial, but unless anyone is pushing for it, I'm fine with closure.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)17:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[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 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Theonewithreason
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
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).
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 theWikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe.
I request assistance to implement WP:CONS in the article as I cannot do that when user Theonewithreason revert it. Furthermore, I thinkTemplate: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 andWP:LISTEN.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Theonewithreason
Theonewithreason's statement contains741 words andexceeds the 500-word limit.
This is getting ridiculous, Pofka is obviously unable to reach their POV on the Serbia Basketball team talk page which has beenwp:stable in this form for several years now, in fact one other editor also opposed their statement [[21]], 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 [[22]], then they did that again today [[23]] and now they are trying to remove me from that page because theyWP: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 butWP: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 [[24]] 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, [[25]], [[26]] - that kind of behaviour is actually problematic and concerning.Theonewithreason (talk)06:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joy all of my reverts onNikola 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 [[27]], 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 [[28]] 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 [[29]] after which you admitted that you are oftenWP:involved in Balkan related topics [[30]] - 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 oftenWP:involved in Balkan related topics and that you should take more neutral stances regarding reports to others, [[31]] 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 [[32]] this last edit from Pofka is now clearWP: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 [[33]], [[34]] and previously in 2022 [[35]].Theonewithreason (talk)15:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Sadko
Sadko's statement contains327 words and complies with the 500-word limit.
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 aremany Serbs in Croatia? What? Just, what in the world is that all about?
@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 theFIBA 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 thatWP: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 inthis 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 Sadkoedits 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 hadTalk: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 inCroatia where are manySerbs of Croatia. So if you ask me, there seems to be many Serbian connections. --Pofka14:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by TylerBurden
All I'm going to say here is that Theonewithreason naming Sadko as ″one other editor also opposed their statement″ as if that is meant to be indicative of Pofka being in the wrong is not particularly convincing, since while there doesn't seem to be any evidence of coordinated editing, they're both clearly of the same POV and constantly back each other up when it comes to disputes within the topic area. --TylerBurden (talk)17:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Uniacademic
Hi@Extraordinary Writ,Joy,Isabelle Belato, andFirefangledfeathers: 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:
[36] – 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.
[37] – 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.
[38] – 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.
[39] – 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.
[40] – After an edit war onLlapusha, 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, violatesWP:V,WP:NPOV andWP: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]
Statement by Griboski
As someone who patrols the Balkan topic area, I do think that Theonewithreason occasionally is a little too trigger-happy, but they also do a lot of anti-vandalism activity. The sockpuppetry occurred in 2020 and since then they've had a clean block log. I think Rosguill's proposal for a logged warning is appropriate--a reminder to be calm, follow protocol and be more open to others' points-- and a topic ban to be excessive for what is essentially a content dispute over basketball. Probably the reason why Sadko and Theonewithreason often come into contact is because a lot of the same pages are on their watchlist and they have similar interests. I don't see anything egregious on the part of Sadko, however, since their reinstatement. I have just seen much worse things in this topic area. Just my two cents. --Griboski (talk)19:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning Theonewithreason
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
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; seeWP:VOTESTACK. It's fine to notifyeveryone who participated in a previous discussion oreveryone 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'sconcerning thatSadko participated in the discussion. If you're trying to imply canvassing, you're going to need much better evidence, especially since hehad edited the page before and could easily have watchlisted it.
Theonewithreason, I'm really troubled that you think[41][42][43] are reliable sources—they're obviouslyself-published and shouldn't be cited at all, much less to say thatThe 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 thatat 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]
@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 atTalk: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 ofadvocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle is acceptable. We need to enforce the principles ofWP:ARBMAC andWP: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 examplein the previous talk discussion there orat 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 alsothis 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 atNikola Tesla and the talk pages there. I went to check further, and foundthis warning I gave them in May, for whichthey 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 theWP: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]
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 observingWP: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 theWP:PRIMARY source). I'm uncertain exactly which remedies to propose at the moment, although my first instinct is to recommend a logged warning to avoidWP: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,Rosguilltalk20:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary Writ,Joy,Rosguill, just trying to give this discussion a kick. Having not read the case itself and just tried to judge what the admin consensus is here, it looks to me like there's a general agreement that the prior consensus is stale enough that a new RfC is recommended. There are some concerns about Pofka but I'm not seeing anything I'd be comfortable calling (Rosguill is the only one with a proposal, unless I missed something), and to a lesser extent the same goes for Sadko. So I think this is a "speak now or hold your peace" re: both of them. Regarding Theonewithreason, though, it looks like everyone agrees things are going wrong here and we shouldn't let that one drop. Ros proposed a logged warning. EW, Joy, is that sufficient?Guerillero, any opinion? --asilvering (talk)17:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case of Sadko and Theonewithreason, we know we are dealing with editors who have engaged in serious policy violations, over a period of years. The assumption of good faith has been long exhausted. Why are we afraid to ban them from the topic area, broadly construed? --Joy (talk)08:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, maybe I wasn't making myself clear earlier. I see the level of acrimony these editors create in this topic area and it's a net negative. Maybe it's a draconian measure, but the topic area will be just fine without a few troublemakers. There's many Serbian editors who haven't engaged in sockpuppeteering, improper coordination of edits, displaying battleground mentality, etc, who will continue to edit just fine without these two.
We could also have the ban be more specific, for example about the topics of 19th and 20th century international history in the Balkans, broadly construed. This should prevent the axe-grinding from Dalmatian politics in the era of romantic nationalism, Tesla's allegiances, to Yugoslav sport medal history, but still allow edits on ancient, medieval and contemporary topics, and of course anything not involving history. --Joy (talk)07:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[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 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning إيان
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
12 October 2025 Characterises two disagreeing editors asWP:IDL and their own 'side' as "[expressing] support", despite both opposing editors invoking policy
13 October 2025 Again characterises said editors as IDL, argues for discarding one "!vote" (despite this being an informal discussion) on the basis of them being canvassed (whether this is within the bounds of reasonable interpretation idk, but certainly ABF). Seems to be trying to circumventWP:CONSENSUS in a disagreement between 2 and 3 editors.
Making this report after discussion atUser talk:Tamzin#POV pusher? (my first report so apologies if there're any errors). My main concern was a lack of NPOV editing, scrolling through their contribs reveals a consistent POV. But I only met them recently and my impression is based off of a small sample size, they're an experienced editor with a clean block log and no bans. They started an RM atTalk:New antisemitism where, at best, they don't appear to have consulted the literature nor policy (at worst intentionally contradicted them), and it looks like they just saw a (weakly implied) POV in the clearlycommon name/term they didn't like. But POV pushing is notoriously difficult to illustrate and I'm not going to attempt a proper investigation. PerN95 70% of their edits are in the PIA topic area,Tamzin's initial thoughts were to imposeWP:BER which I thought would be good.Kowal2701 (talk)19:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 إيان
Hi, this user had never raised an issue with my editing, as far as I know, and I had never interacted with them beyond having happened to participate in some of the same talk page discussions, so I was surprised to bepinged with complaints on an admin's talk page. I apologized for my mistakes andoffered to take the warning and affirm that I would be more conscientious and adhere toWP:Civility. Would that be possible here or do I have to take up everyone's time with a full contextualization and thorough defense of the accusations brought against my editing here? As the accuser has correctly noted, my record is clean and I would very much like to keep it that way. Is there a risk that I would receive a sanction without prior discussion or warning?إيان (talk)20:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Zero'ssummary, it should perhaps be stated explicitly that the accuser's objection to my editing is not only one of civility, but it is also one of substance: the accuser has demonstrateddisagreement with the content of my edits, and the dispute over content is even evident in the accuser's complaint as well.
Ordinarily, this should not matter, but while another editor and Idid engage in some minor antagonism inthat discussion, the accuser has not complained about the other editor, with whom they happen to agree on the basis of content. The accuser did not complain about that editor's antagonism (which actually introduced the incivility, withan accusation that I hadn't done my reading and further failure to demonstrate good faith, whichI addressed), nor has the accuser acknowledged that editor's apparentcanvassing. Instead, without ever having contacted me about an issue with my editing, the accuser went straight to the admin's talk page withcomplaints about only about me. I assume good faith but it's hard to escape the conclusion that this incongruity, this concern about lack of civility from an editor the accuser disagrees with on substance, on the one hand, and, on the other, indifference when it comes to an editor the accuser agrees with, might be motivated by a disagreement based on content.
Ihave acknowledged that I was not perfect in maintaining civility (though I was not alone in it), I haveapologized, and I haveaffirmed my intent to keep my cool and abide by it with more dedication. That should have been it, but here we are.It would be unfair to in any way punish me alone here—just the editor with whom the accuser appears to disagree with on content.إيان (talk)12:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Zero0000
I fail to see anything actionable here.
The first diff is unnecessarily snarky, but not actionably so.
The second diff says "As of now, there are three editors who have expressed support and two that don't like it", where "it" is an image. It is a plain statement of fact and not an IDL accusation at all. "Don't like it" is just the opposite of "expressed support" and neither is accusatory.
The third diff suggests that someone's vote should not be counted because they were canvassed to the discussion. The accusation of canvassing relates tothis edit and in my opinion is reasonable given that Zanahary pinged the two non-TB editors from the earlier discussion that agreed with him and didn't ping the other two non-TB editors from the earlier discussion. And, again, saying that another editor doesn't like an image when they have stated their opposition to it is a fair statement of fact.Zerotalk07:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning إيان
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
This seems minor enough that, with the added apology, a formal warning will suffice, though I'd lean toward a temporary TBAN from the area instead of BER if issues were to persist in the future.Isabelle Belato🏴☠️11:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Isabelle Belato, @Tamzin, since there have been no further comments and no objections, I'd close this as consensus for a logged warning, but I'm not sure exactly what warning you had in mind. "To remain civil"? "To maintain npov"? "To avoid battleground behaviour"? --asilvering (talk)05:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[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 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Gicarke
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
2025/Oct/21 22:33: Requesting another unrelated user assess their edits while repeating a CASTE-related claim
2025/Oct/21 23:03: Claiming (falsely) they haven't edited in the topic area while reiterating their Indian user request
In addition, practically every edit made toUser talk:Gicarke since the sanctions alert has been arguing about GSCASTE, with many also beingchatbot output; said edits make up practically all of their contributions since then.
I was alerted to this at#wikipedia-en-help, where the user came in in what seems to me to be an attempt to gain validation for their actions. They did not get a responce before they left (and it's unlikely they would have as CTOPs and content disputes are generally out of scope there). —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques23:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Gicarke
Hello administrators,
I acknowledge that this discussion concerns edits and talk-page participation related to the Kapol community topic. My position is straightforward: every action I took was directed toward maintaining factual accuracy about a real community and its institutions. My edits were sourced, relevant, and neutral. The page and related links were deleted almost immediately without any review of the sources or verification of facts.
After the deletions, I made no new edits on the topic. The only comments I made were on talk pages asking how to request review or factual correction. I did not add new material, ask others to edit for me, or attempt to bypass any restriction. I asked questions on my talk page. For doing so, I was repeatedly told that even asking about accuracy is “not permitted,” and several of my good-faith responses were mocked or dismissed instead of being addressed on substance. The result is that editors with real community knowledge are completely excluded from even discussing factual matters, while administrators with no subject familiarity decide what inaccurate information can exist. This appears inconsistent with Wikipedia’s mission of open, verifiable knowledge.
The enforcement of the “extended-confirmed restriction” appears to have been applied in a way that completely prevents participation or even discussion about ensuring accuracy. This creates a situation where truth and verifiable information cannot be represented if it involves South-Asian communities. I believe that is contrary to Wikipedia’s core policy of verifiability and open collaboration.
I am not seeking special permission to edit right now. I am simply stating that the record should reflect that my actions were factual, transparent, and in the interest of accuracy — not disruption.
I request that administrators review the diffs objectively and confirm that I have not violated any editing restrictions. I also ask that the committee consider whether current enforcement practices can allow genuine subject-matter contributors to provide reliable information through appropriate channels, rather than being completely excluded. Also, current policies of not even allowing discussion or blocking post seeking guidance is helpful.
Statement by 331dot
This user has had several notices about the restrictions but for some reason isn't getting it and thinks we are in the wrong. Their LLM use isn't helping.331dot (talk)23:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Gicarke
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Aesurias
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Aesurias
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanationhow these edits violate it
19 September 2025 Responded to second warning from admin by asking the same admin to engage inWP:PROXYING on their behalf
23 September 2025 AddedWP:FALSEBALANCE to politician's article with weasel-wording about their support of Palestine relief groupUNRWA - they had previously tried to insert the same unsourced information into the article back in March ([45])
28 September 2025 Reclassified an Israel-sponsored trip by right-wing political figure, implying such trips are not controversial
29 September 2025 Removed sourced quote from pro-Israel politician's article where she equated Palestinians to barbarians
2 October 2025 Removed passage identifying group's founder asGerald Ronson and his connection to Netanyahu - Aesurias acknowledged the information is correct and should be in lead instead, but chooses to delete everything
9 October 2025 Admonished another user for removing a tag from an article they created, telling them "DO NOT REMOVE A TAG WITHOUT IT BEING DISCUSSED, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS YOUR OWN ARTICLE"
12 October 2025 Removed notability tag fromJEXIT, an article Aesurias created, without allowing any discussion
13 October 2025 Created page on the pro-IsraelZioness Movement, with half the sources either dead links or direct links to the Zioness website
14 October 2025 Removed sourced passage explaining that Israel's doctrine they use to justify denial of theGaza genocide was authored by biased individuals
18 October 2025 Started anAN investigation into a userpage having a vague reference toHezbollah, which was promptly closed after the consensus was that Aesurius was wasting everyone's time
21 October 2025 Moved article on Track AIPAC, a watchdog group monitoring pro-Israel groupAIPAC to draftspace, calling it improperly sourced and non-notable
21 October 2025 Created page onBetter Australia, a group supporting pro-Israel politicians, using only five sources - two of which are primary, and one of which is a blog
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Aesurias
I previously opened an NPOV discussion against this user,here, over an image taken of a political candidate in 2007, which the user uploaded to Wikimedia as their 'own work'. The user, paradoxically, insisted that they had no COI with the candidate. Other editors questioned the user about this, because by insisting on 1) the image being their own work and 2) them having no connection to the person in the image, they were lying about at least one thing.
After I opened that discussion, I was incessantly hounded by the user, who has been reprimanded by administrators for his behaviourhere, but didn't acknowledge it.
Theythanked me dozens of times, spamming me with notifications, seenhere.
Their recent edit history, seenhere, is made up almost entirely of my articles -- they created talk pages for more than a dozen of them, adding the 'contentious topics' tag to each one, notifying me.
Their recent edit history also shows they were adding tags onto my articles without explaining why on the talk pages.
OnBetter Australia, they added an NPOV tag and opened a talk page discussion (the only page where they explained why they added the tag!)here. I was receptive to this, adding things they wanted to the article. The user then stopped replying. Another editor replied to the talk page saying I didn't need to add any of what this user wanted in the first place, as it was not relevant.
Additionally, they previously received a 48hr ban for personal attacks against me, seenhere. They have received other bans of various types, including another ban for personal attacks on other users.
Creating articles on Wikipedia is not a crime, as the user is trying to insinuate. Other editors approved these articles with no problem. I stand by all of my own reviews of pages, they weren't ready for mainspace. Cherrypicking a few of them relating to Israel-Palestine and ignoring the dozens that weren't is disingenuous.My edits were fine -- for example, the Israeli-American one was false info, it was a poll asking Israelis in Israel who they would theoretically vote for if they could, which is why I removed it. I removed some parts of 'criticism' sections because they didn't contain criticisms, rather they contained things that the editor who added them didn'tpersonally like. A failed AfD is not relevant, some editors agreed with me, some didn't.
This request is unserious. The user's assumption of bad faith, accusing me of "inserting pro-Israel messaging into Wikipedia", is not only offensive to me, but offensive to the dozens of well-respected editors who have approved my pages.
User:Sean.hoyland I had not seen this post before you sent it, and although I have a Reddit account I am not active in that subreddit. I would have disclosed this in the AfD if I had seen it prior. :)
Statement by TheNewMinistry
Asilvering (talk·contribs) is literally the administrator who advised me on October 15, 2025 to open an investigation on this very forum when I asked them for advice regarding Aesurius' biases in Israel/Palestine editing:
As for Aesurias, if you have npov concerns regarding Israel-Palestine, the place to raise those is aten:WP:AE.[47]
10 October 2025 Tagged The Holocaust and the Nakba for deletion...
Looking at the timing and the fact that the nomination for deletion was, I think, Aesurias' first visible interaction with that page, I would be interested to know from Aesurias whether the action was in response tothis Reddit thread or perhaps another site. If so, I do think for ARBPIA, for processes susceptible to external influence like AfD, it would be helpful if people just openly described the off-wiki discussion/social media post etc. that caused them to take action on-wiki whenever it happens as part of the nomination. That way we might have better visibility into the off-wiki/on-wiki causal connections that exist. Just a simple - saw this post/discussion... - might help.Sean.hoyland (talk)07:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Disclosure: I was the administrator who warned TNM about hounding Aesurias ([48]), having earlier blocked TNM for harassment regarding the same. I have also responded to Aesurias's questions about where to take various disputes, and about the word limit in AE proceedings. I do not feel that either of these prejudice me unfairly in this case, but am more than willing to move my comments up if other admins think I ought to. Regarding the evidence against Aesurias, I have not fully investigated but it looks at least good enough that we should investigate, not reject this filing out of hand for being retaliatory. However, the filingis quite clearly the most recent salvo in a pattern of harassment that I warned TNM over just yesterday. Clearly, some sanction for harassment on the part of TNM is required, regardless of the ultimate outcome regarding Aesurias. --asilvering (talk)00:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @TheNewMinistry, I told you to raise complaints at AE. A week ago. In the intervening time, instead of raising concerns at AE, you continued to harass Aesurias, and I then gave you a final warning, as I stated. As I have said, if other admins think I should move my comments up, I am happy to. I have, however, only been involved here in an administrative capacity. --asilvering (talk)01:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Aesurias's assertion that TNM has been cherrypicking, I'm not sure that can possibly be true, given that, unless I am much mistaken, TNM's evidence does not contain anything aboutTalk:Pallywood, Aesurias's most-edited talk page. That discussion has also spilled out toWP:NPOVN#'Pallywood' (though, note also the personal attack on them here[49]). Their position appears to be that Pallywood is "real". Pallywood is both a slur and a conspiracy theory. Someone who cannot distinguish betweenPallywood andMisinformation in the Gaza war should not be editing inWP:CT/PIA. --asilvering (talk)07:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think asilvering is fine to participate. I also think that Aesurias deserves a topic ban at minimum from PIA. TNM should get an interaction ban with Aesurias for the harassment at this point.Sennecaster (Chat)02:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked TNM indefinitely for their comment above in which they acknowledge that they used the "thank" button in response to an edit by Aesurias that they characterize as part of a conspiracy to "retaliate against me offsite"—obviously not sincere thanks, but a continuation of the same harassment Asilvering warned them for. I might have gone with a p-block from thanking, or a longer tempblock, but their complete lack of self-awareness that this is harassment suggests a problem broader than this one issue, and so for now at least an indef siteblock is the least restrictive remedy that addresses the disruption. This is not an AE action, and should not lead to an early closure of this thread. For now I have no opinion on TBANning Aesurias, but support an IBAN on TNM, blocked or not. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)05:42, 23 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 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Thisischarlesarthur
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanationhow these edits violate it
28 September 2025This page will be confusing until it recognises that athletes such as Caster Semenya (XY 5-ARD)are male. They added this to the talk page.
10 October 2025between the years 2000 and 2023, between 50 and 60male athletes with differences of sex development (DSDs)]who were wrongly recorded as female at birth took part in 135 female elite international finals ..... This was added to the article.
I only listed the worst offending comments by the editor who, since 11 August 2024, has edited nothing else by topics that are related to GENSEX (nibbling at them to see how far they can push what they truly believe in)..M.Bitton (talk)01:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Thisischarlesarthur
Thisischarlesarthur's statement contains1055 words andexceeds the 500-word limit.
Update: Howwonderful! I tripped over another invisible laser beam: nowhere in the submission system does it say you have to keep topics to 500 words.
responding to M.Bitton
Reyour first diff: I wasn't aware of the restrictions that are placed on this discussion.A paper co-authored by a biologist supports what I said there.Reyour second diff: as I point out below, theGuardian article that I linked to in the edit directly implies what I wrote. There is no other reasonable interpretation of the phrase "athletes with differences of sex development (DSD), who have a 46 XY karyotype with male testes but were reported female at birth". Male testes are found in males. Only. The phrase "Assigned female at birth" implies the potential for mistakes in registering birth sex.
The content ofSpecial:Diff/1316517130 is defensible as fact. The Imane Khelif page describes "false claims" which were never made: there has never been any credible suggestion that Khelif is trans (ie: someone registered as male at birth who later identifies as female). Yet the phrase "false claims" links to "transvestigation", which this never was. To represent the Olympic boxing controversy in those terms misleads the casual reader, while leading the informed reader (ie anyone who has read a few articles on the topic) to conclude Wikipedia is wrong, and to wonder why a theoretically world-editable wiki remains wrong.
However the BLP rules create a Catch-22 where it is disallowed to point out what the actual topic of the controversy is, on the basis that this is a BLP violation. So now I know why Wikipedia remains wrong.
responding to Simonm223
"It seems like this editor's only interest in editing Wikipedia is to engage in debates about how to define the gender of women athletes" - Not true. My interest on those pages was to correct inaccuracies. I have accepted that my initial attempts were clumsy.
responding to TarnishedPath
"Without extremely strong sourcing, these sorts of claims/speculation should not be occuring."The phrase "unsubstantiated allegations" might be more appropriate, given the BLP. But asthis discussion on a Talk page on a different page points out, the BLP handcuffs clear explanation of what the allegations around Khelif are. I don't think any reasonable person believes Imane Khelif was not registered female at birth.
responding to @theleekycauldron
I reject @theleekycauldron's claim that I am "only here to push the idea that SRY testing is completely determinative of sex". I have never said that, because it isn't true. SRY screening does not determine sex. It determines the presence or absence of the SRY gene. However, it was used in the 1992 and 1996 Olympics to determine entry to the F category, and has now been reintroduced by multiple global sporting organisations. Therefore it is important in understanding modern and past sporting categorisation systems: currently theSex verification in sports page is lacking this information, so I tried to add it. My attempts to introduce edits about this were however reverted, without any explanation or offer of help. Go Wikipedia!
responding to Tamzin
"If in 450 edits TICA [ie me] has been dispelled of their fringe views" - thank you, but I don't find the offer of doing it to Julia instead enticing. What if it'syour views that are fringe, and wrong?A paper co-authored by a biologist explicitly contradicts the views you and others here hold about multiple athletes, and shows its reasoning, with scientific references. (In passing, the word "intersex" was determined by medics to be outdated due to being "confusing" and "potentially stigmatising" by aconsensus meeting in 2005. The phrase "DSD" has been preferred in the literature for the past 20 years.)
The tenor of accusations here holds that the group is correct, and this individual wrong. However scientific resources (as above) support the view that it is the group which is wrong. I don't expect this to be accepted, since absorbing a new and different opinion into the group is challenging. But you should always wonder: what if you're wrong?
I suggest that the rapid adoption of SRY screening by multiple sporting organisations which have independently done their own scientific enquiry shows that those organisations hold significantly different views about DSDs (or "intersex") in sports than those reporting me here. To quote from theGuardian article that I tried to add into the Sex Verification page,"In a presentation to a scientific panel in the Japanese capital on Friday, Dr Stéphane Bermon, head of health and science at World Athletics, outlined why the sport’s governing body believes such screens are necessary as he presented data collected over the past 25 years. He said it showed that athletes with differences of sex development (DSD), who have a 46 XY karyotype with male testes but were reported female at birth, were significantly “over-represented” in major finals…"
Wait -"but" were reported female at birth? What could Bermon have been implying?Tamzin attempts to thread a needle on this:using the conjunction "but" to describe an AFAB person having some male sex characteristics, does not imply that it's the view of The Guardian (let alone of Bermon or any actually reliable source) that it is incorrect to assign such a person as femaleWho exactly is doing the "assigning" here? The midwife? Tamzin?Testes are not"some" male characteristics. They aredefining male characteristics. The phrase "with male testes"appears again and again in every article about the presentation, so a reasonable conclusion is that these were Bermon's words. Bermon isdirector of health and science at World Athletics with a long history in medicine, and those are clearly his words. For Wikipedia to reinterpret them as meaning something else would be perverse and against the obvious sense of the words, in the absence of any explanationby Bermon that such athletes belong to the female sex.
If you allow me to continue editing, I will do my best not to knock over the furniture; for the newcomer, these important topics have invisible laser beams linked to alarms everywhere, and I feel as though I tripped them all. At the same time, I take my guidance about the facts from the scientific literature and (on this topic) the sporting bodies - which is how references should work - not from the beliefs of other Wikipedia editors.
It concerns me to see this continuing from Thisischarlesarthur. On October 8 they conceded their comportment was a BLP violation:[50] as such it's rather concerning that, instead of stopping with an approach theyknow to be a BLP violation, they just moved the discussion to other pages.[51][52]. It seems like this editor's only interest in editing Wikipedia is to engage in debates about how to define the gender of women athletes.Simonm223 (talk)15:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I can't see how Thisischarlesarthur's editing is consistent with the expectations of GENSEX and BLP. Given that Thisischarlesarthur is a new editor, I think a GENSEX TBAN that automatically expires when they qualify for extended confirmed would be appropriate at this point.Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)07:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't thinkTamzin's second TBAN is necessary at this point as the issue seems to be centred on a broader gender-related dispute taking place on BLPs. Just by bringing up the issue Thisischarlesarthur would be creating a gender-related dispute. I'm also fine with SilverLocust's any admin removal after 500/30.Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)06:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Poking around, it seems like Thisischarlesarthur isonly here to push the idea that SRY testing is completely determinative of sex, and that if someone hasn't undergone SRY testing,their sex is undetermined (shifting the burden of proof that applies to contentious BLP claims). People who do have 5-ARD, likeCaster Semenya, are labeled as "male" (see M.Bitton's diffs). Curiously, thisonly seems to apply to sportswomen who have been transvestigated – but somehow, someone being "male" and identifying publicly as femaledoesn't make them transgender. In other words, this seems like an attempt to invent a policy and factual framework for labelling sportswomen who have been transvestigated as "male" or of "undetermined" sex in a way no RS comes even close to supporting (while also trying to avoid getting painted with the same brush as transvestigators). I would support something stronger than a 'til-ECR GENSEX topic ban, but I'll support that at a minimum.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)01:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think this is a bit overly charitable to TICA's rhetoric. There's been some debate about where we draw the line onWP:FRINGE on trans medical issues, it being an area where academic consensus is still developing, but describing woman athletes who may have DSDs as"wrongly recorded as female at birth" is utterly fringe, possiblymore so than your typical "secretly trans" conspiracy-theorizing. Yes, there are reliable sources that think such women have a sufficiently unfair advantage that they ought to be categorized separately in sports, but I have never seen a single such source say that assigning those women as female at birth iswrong. The absolute best-case analysis here is that TICA dramatically misunderstands what "female" means, as that term is used in essentially all scholarly sources—and I don't mean "woke" gender stuff, I mean the basics of the science of sex, in which "female" is not mutually exclusive with "intersex" and in which no single genotypic or phenotypic attribute is the sole determinant of whether someone is male or female. I always want to be careful at AE about not promoting any one side's view as right, but this is not reasonably in dispute among any subject-matter experts, even those strongly in favor of excluding trans and intersex women from women's sports.That's the best-case analysis. The worst-case analysis is deliberate misrepresentation of science to libel living persons. If I were convinced it were the latter, I would just indefblock. Lacking a smoking gun in that regard, though, I think the minimum I'd support here is two related topic bans: one from GENSEX, and one underWP:CT/BLP (of which TICAis aware) forbidding them from commenting on the actual or alleged gender or sex of any living person (except implicitly through using the pronouns/etc. already in place in an article). I oppose any automatic lifting upon extendedconfirmed. If in 450 edits TICA has been dispelled of their fringe views, I'd like to see them make that case to an administrator to get the ban lifted. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)04:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian—not Bermon, butThe Guardian, which is not areliable medical source, paraphrasing Bermon—using the conjunction "but" to describe an AFAB person having some male sex characteristics, does not imply that it's the view ofThe Guardian (let alone of Bermon or any actually reliable source) that it isincorrect to assign such a person as female. "But" implies some level of unexpectedness, but not necessarily that one of the two statements is incorrect. Picture a source that talks about people who "Had no COVID symptoms but tested positive for it"; that "but" doesn't mean that the tests were all incorrect, just that most people who test positive also have symptoms. Again, this isn't a question of which side one is on in the trans and intersex sports debates, but rather a basic foundational scientific understanding necessary to understand those debates. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)04:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support aWP:CT/GENSEX TBAN that may be lifted at an administrator's discretion after they qualify for extended confirmed. I'm fine with Tamzin's additional TBAN, though I struggle to imagine when that wouldn't already qualify as a "gender-related dispute" (broadly construed). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬)05:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the second one is necessary because "gender-related dispute" doesn't clearly extend to something about an individual person's gender or sex, if that hasn't been the subject of political or cultural controversy. Claiming that Imane Khelif is male would fall under GENSEX, but saying "obscure athlete ABC has disorder of sexual development XYZ" might not. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)05:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that at least a GENSEX topic ban is appropriate. As others have said, a number of this user's edits are inconsistent withWP:NPOV. Their statement in this enforcement request heightens my concern, particularly at para 5 where there is an apparent attempt to refute one view on scientific consensus by cherry-picking a single citation. The final paragraph seems to reflect a troubling intention to edit as anWP:SPA.Arcticocean ■14:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Selim beg
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: Per therules 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 sectionsbut 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 (seeWP:UNINVOLVED).
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with adiff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by Selim_beg
I have finally understood thatWP:GS/AA includes every politic, ethnic, and historical context related to Armenia or Azerbaijan and the Armenian genocide and not just direct conflicts. I take responsibility for my previous misunderstanding and violations of wikipedia broadly construed.
Until I am extended confirmed, I will avoid editing any pages under WP:GS/AA relating to Enver Pasha, Ottoman Armenian relations or the Basmachi movement.
As blocking admin, I think this is a good unblock request and will go ahead and accept it myself. In particular, on reviewing the history of this case from before I was involved in it (I became involved by accepting their prior unblock request), it looks like another admin previously gave them directly opposite advice as to whether Enver Pasha's political and military activity in Central Asia is covered by the restriction. I stand by my assessment that the pan-Turkic political activity of the principal figure associated with the application of the Armenian Genocide is covered broadly construed by GS/AA and should be avoided, but in light of this information this block should have been a caution.signed,Rosguilltalk04:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Selim_beg
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Selim_beg
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Tomruen
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Tomruen
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Recently, I noticed while checking recent changes the comment noted above onUser talk:Tomruen, which seems a straightforward violation of his GENSEX topic ban. I'll note for completeness that the ChatGPT portions of the comments were added by an IP ([55]), but Tomruen added the comments introducing them and edited that exact portion afterward ([56]), so I think we can fairly say that either he was the IP or endorsed the addition. This is almost exactly the same as the material that Tomruen was blocked for shortly after being topic banned ([57]), so, while the new edit is over a month old, I really don't think it should be ignored. I'd hoped to be able to find out what was going on and maybe resolve it through discussion, but Tomruen has made very clear that he does not care about violating the ban ([58]), so I'm bringing it here to discuss what to do on it.SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Tomruen
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Tomruen
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Given that the last topic ban violation occurred in 2023, resulting in a 30 day block, and the misconduct in this instance occurred on Tom's talk page in a discussion with a single editor who brought up Tom's, I'm leaning towards a 60-90 day block.voorts (talk/contributions)20:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a straightforward, andapparentlydeliberate, breach of the indefinite t-ban. Voorts' proposed 90-day block is a proportionate response. For Tomruen's benefit, I would add that should he breach the t-ban again, admins are likely to conclude he is incapable of complying with it, and an indefinite block from editing would likely have to follow.Arcticocean ■11:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ItalianTourist
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning ItalianTourist
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanationhow these edits violate it
24 Oct 2025 – Comment at RSN discussing the reliability of German-language sources reporting onSaleh al-Jafarawi, a recently-deceased Palestinian journalist.
26 Oct 2025 – After being informed their first diff above violates ECR, they make a very similar comment two days later, this time atTalk:Saleh al-Jafarawi
Following their comments on RSN (from diff 1 above), an administrator,Rosguill, posted a CTOP introduction on their talk (Special:Permalink/1318399802). ItalianTourist removed it, with the edit summaryAnother beaurocratic rule of Wikipedia...figures (Special:Diff/1318450868).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
In addition to the templated CTOP introduction, Rosguill specifically said that their comment fromDiff 1 was in violation of the ECR restriction, and included links toWP:ECR &WP:ECREXPLAIN, which explains that, whilst non-XC editors may post on Talk pages, they are restricted to non-controversial edit requests that followWP:EDITXY. Instead of following this restriction, ItalianTourist tried to make a very similar comment again, but this time atTalk:Saleh al-Jafarawi inDiff 2.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 ItalianTourist
Statement by (username)
Result concerning ItalianTourist
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I'll wait a day or so to provide time for ItalianTourist to comment, but absent something convincing, I intend to do a 1-week block for breaching ECR. The diffs provided above, including in Nil NZ's comment, appear to demonstrate that ItalianTourist does not intend to comply with ECR and so a block seems appropriate at this point.Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)06:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
Gotitbro's statement contains643 words andexceeds the 500-word limit.
Sadko's statement contains327 words and complies with the 500-word limit.