| |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EC revoked as a regular admin action. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)02:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Exper-maelstrom[edit]
None
I was advised to report this at AE and this is my first time filing a report here, so I apologise if I've made any mistakes.
Discussion concerning Exper-maelstrom[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Exper-maelstrom[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Exper-maelstrom[edit]
|
| Downgraded to semi --GuerilleroParlez Moi12:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| 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 sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (seeWP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Matrix[edit]Daniel Case protectedItalian brainrot with indefinite ECP.ARBPIA remedy 7 says "the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment" instead. I feel this would be more appropriate, along with lowering the protection to PCP, since the only section affected by this case would be "Controversial audios". (Moved from ACE by me) —Matrixping mewhen u reply (t? -c)22:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Daniel Case[edit]I don't have any inclination on this one way or the other, save to say that given how contentious this contentious topic area has been and continues to be, any reduction in this protection level should be taken through this process and not unilaterally.Daniel Case (talk)20:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Matrix[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by Matrix[edit]
|
| Blocked for a month by SilverLocust as a standard admin action --GuerilleroParlez Moi12:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 73.250.111.41[edit]
Oct 3 user talk page
An IP started the topic Accuracy of LGBTQ Death Toll atTalk:Victims of Nazi Germany. It was not a proper edit request perWP:CHANGEXY, though it could be seen to be in the spirit of an edit request (though probably not actionable). It was an objectively silly take on a serious topic, and other editors weighed in to clarify the misconceptions that the IP was expressing. This 2nd IP (the one I am reporting here), engaged in the discussion, threatened to blank the page, reverted a collapse of the discussion, and reverted an archiving of the discussion twice. Their general conduct looksWP:NOTHERE to me.
Discussion concerning 73.250.111.41[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 73.250.111.41[edit]Statement by WhatamIdoing[edit]The IP has also been edit-warring a comment thatSomeone's fee-fees got hurt! into a discussion atWT:RSP.[8][9][10][11][12] I was considering a trip to ANI when I saw the notification about this.WhatamIdoing (talk)18:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning 73.250.111.41[edit]
|
| Appeal declined.LilianaUwU blocked for two weeks as an ordinary admin action byTamzin.voorts (talk/contributions)13:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| 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 sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (seeWP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by LilianaUwU[edit]I believe this is an INVOLVED TBAN, due to Guerillero previouslyblocking me as an arb over similar battleground mentality concerns (which are completely false, by the way). If anything, I want someone else to impose the TBAN, because with the history between us two, I don't believe there is any way for Guerillero to remain neutral with me.LilianaUwU(talk /contributions)17:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Guerillero[edit]My block in October of 2023 was for, mostly, canvasing in another topic area; however, battleground behavior came in to the decision when choosing if a week block over a warning or a block of lesser duration. The evidence of blatant canvasing is archived inticket:2023102110003332 if anyone with access to the In a vacuum, the diff I cited would not have resulted in more than a warning for battleground behavior. It should not be lost in this discussion that the diff has to be the clearest example of what treating Wikipedia like a battleground looks like: seeing disputes as having factions, casting aspersions with a wide net based on those factions, and "its either them or me". In the context of Liliana's topic ban from GENSEX that expired in June as well as the recent topic ban from AMPOL that hinged on similar conduct, it was clear to me that the other sanctions have not changed the behavior. @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Liliana is not a party to the case. If she was, in my experience, this would be a diff that would get added to a FoF while voting is happening. It is past my bed time here. I will respond more in the morning. --GuerilleroParlez Moi19:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Tamzin[edit]I'm not involved in theWP:INVOLVED sense, but I think I'm involved in the sense meant by the appeals rules, given that I imposed Liliana's previous voluntary-but-enforceable 6-month GENSEX+AP2 TBANs and her recent indef AP2 TBAN, so I'll comment up here. Re Black Kite, on its ownthe edit is... not great, not terrible. It includesaspersions against three editors, but we can charitably say that the evidence presented in the case is meant to be the evidence for those aspersions, in which case it's more like aspersions against one editor. (I think the evidence presented makes a reasonable case for Liliana's claims with respect to Void and Sweet, less so Colin; based on the voting so far, ArbCom seems to agree.) Still, one aspersion does not a TBAN make. The important context here, though, is Liliana's long history of disruption in the topic area. You can take a look atthe evidence I presented last December that led to her agreeing to the 6-month bans. Since those bans ended nothing has changed in her fundamental battleground attitude.Here you can see yet another attempt to relitigate theTimes's reliability on trans topics at a completely inappropriate time. Then there's the series of edits regarding Charlie Kirk's assassination, most notably[13], that led me to reïmpose the AP2 TBAN indefinitely. In that context, the fact that Liliana made this comment, not just with the aspersions, but with the explicit battleground and right-great-wrongs mentalities (
Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by LilianaUwU[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by uninvolved Black Kite[edit]
Statement by uninvolved FIM[edit]I don't know whether this constitutes an involved action by Guerillero or not, but I'm interested in its trigger. Since LilianaUwU's last edit to the transgender topic area appears to have been on24 September, then presumably the trigger must have beenher latest comment at the arbcom page. However, it's not particularly egregious; I don't necessarily agree with her position, but it's a fairly reasonable one to hold. Are we really, now, topic banning people for commenting on Arbitration cases that they are a named party to? Sure there must be something along the lines of "subject tio the usual exceptions"?—Fortuna,imperatrix18:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by EggRoll97[edit]On the merits of this, I think it's pretty clear that the topic ban imposed on Liliana is well-past justified. Less-so on the merits, and moreso on their behavior in this AE, I'm surprised Liliana was only blocked for 14 days, and not indefinitely, especially considering the remarks they made here are just more of a continuation of their prior behavior in the case, and considering their attitude of "I'll leave if you don't do what I want", which has resulted in indefinite blocks before for less established users. I think it's a good idea to give some thanks, though, to both Guerillero and Tamzin here for their quick action.EggRoll97(talk)21:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by ProcrastinatingReader[edit]Liliana does show self reflection in their post when they write: The other thing I recall is Liliana saying some variant of Statement by LokiTheLiar[edit](Guerillero is not a current arb.)Loki (talk)02:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by LilianaUwU[edit]
|
| Boutboul's topic ban is lifted perWP:LASTCHANCE. Given that this TBAN followed a previousXCON revocation, Boutboul is advised that, should he find himself sanctioned in the topic area again, he is likely to find it very difficult to appeal that sanction. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)10:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
Statement by Boutboul[edit]
Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Boutboul[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by Boutboul[edit]
|
| FellowMellow blocked for 48 hours for 1RR vios.Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)06:21, 14 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. Request concerning FellowMellow[edit]
1RR and consensus violations (Gaza genocide)
1RR violation (Allegations of genocide in the October 7 attacks)
Assumption of bad faith (Gaza genocide)
@CommunityNotesContributor: that discussion didn't take place at their talk page because of theirbad faith assumption. Since it wasn't their first time either (seediff), I deliberately avoided their talk page after that, and took the opportunity to raise the issue once they pinged me. They continued to assume bad faith with me (something that I ignored). That obviously had nothing to do with the rest (them assuming bad faith with others, editing against consensus, breaching 1RR multiple times and evendescribing the AE notification as
Discussion concerning FellowMellow[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FellowMellow[edit]
Statement by berch[edit]I'm not sure whether this user is just very enthusiastic and doesn't realize how often they're replying without saying anything new.. or if they're trying to be problematic. But at least a warning to them regarding bludgeoning would be ideal. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!01:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by CommunityNotesContributor[edit]I just wanted to flag that there was ahatted conversation that imo really didn't help matters at all here, nor should have occurred on that talk page perWP:FOC. If that discussion had appeared on the user's talk page, as should of occurred, it might not have contributed to aggravating the situation which ultimately resulted in the issues raised in this request. I otherwise didn't read the entire discussion beyond that part as it had already devolved into all sorts, but am also far from surprised given how it started. This comment isn't intended to point fingers, only encourage self-reflection. Regards,CNC (talk)13:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning FellowMellow[edit]
|
| Appeal unanimously declined. Widening the tban was proposed, but, given theWP:AN thread, appears moot. --asilvering (talk)16:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (seeWP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by BZPN[edit]I am respectfully appealing the indefinite topic ban imposed on me by @Tamzin on 17 October 2025, concerning "anti-LGBTQ sentiment, broadly construed and including mirror concepts such as heterophobia." This is myfirst edit involving LGBTQ-related content, with no prior history of contentious editing in this subject area. I have no prior sanctions, warnings, or ArbCom-related issues involving gender or sexuality wiki content. My edit history shows compliance with BRD and other content policies. The sanction was imposed without a proper basis under the contentious topics procedure. No edit warring in my entire edit history before this situation, no personal attacks, or advocacy were present. The sanction was issued solely due to my disagreement with the inclusion of a quote from anon-academic personal webpage, which fails the standards of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. The dispute was purely content-related, not behavioral. Under WP:CTOPIC and the ArbCom’s own precedent, sanctions must be applied for disruptive conduct, not for engaging inpolicy-based content criticism. The disputed edit was fully compliant with Wikipedia’s core content policies. The removed quote (by Raymond J. Noonan) came from anon-peer-reviewed personal website (bway.net), whose domain belongs to a private internet provider ("New York City’s Best Internet Service Provider Since 1995"), not an academic publisher, and the very existence of this Nooan's statement is not even confirmed on the basis of this source. The content used subjective and non-neutral language ("pseudoscience", "victimology") and was not contextualized with scholarly balance. My edit replaced it with a neutral, well-sourced definition based on peer-reviewed psychological and sexological literature (APA, Merriam-Webster, Parent et al. 2019, Haldeman 2006, etc.). This is verifiably within WP:V and WP:NPOV. The ban targets the editor (me) personally, not the behavior. User:Tamzin explicitly justified the sanction by referring to my "strong views" and not to any editing misconduct. This contravenes WP:AGF and the principle that sanctions must address disruptive conduct,not the mere possession of views. The edit itself was not reverted for inaccuracy, bias, or lack of sources, but due to perceived association with "anti-LGBTQ sentiment" - which I firmly deny. The sanction has a chilling effect on policy-based editing. Imposing a CT ban in response to a legitimate policy-based removal discourages editors from enforcing WP:RS and WP:V when dealing with poorly sourced material. This undermines editorial neutrality and sets a precedent where criticism of non-academic sources becomes sanctionable depending on topic sensitivity. Previous issues with user space MfD were procedural or administrative matters (controversial issues - with different opinions on the subject) and did not concerncontent disputes, nor do they reflect on my ability to edit neutrally. Given the above, I respectfully request: I am willing to discuss content disputes through the article’s talk page or relevant noticeboards (e.g., RSN) and to abide by collaborative standards in all further edits. I have not engaged in any advocacy, disruption, or incivility. Thank you,BZPN (talk)09:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Tamzin[edit]This isn't about the content merits, which it's not up to AE to decide. This is about BZPN's zero-to-sixty battleground approach in a topic area in which they've already expressed strong partisan views (MfD 1,MfD 2), causing sufficient disruption as to prompt a U4C member tocomment, in voting to throw out their case over a ban from Discord for anti-LGBTQ advocacy, that local enforcement processes should take action. Usually, when someone enters a topic area and causes trouble, there is a degree ofAGF accorded based on the assumption that they are here to build an encyclopedia rather than push a political ideology. BZPN has made it very clear up till now, and continuing now in how they've approached this dispute itself, that their purpose on Wikipedia is to reduce a perceived pro-LGBTQ bias—not because they have evidence that that supposed bias runs againstWP:DUE, but because they feel their own, differing views are entitled to equal or greater respect. They seem to be under the mistaken impression that other editors are not allowed to take note of that agenda. But we are, just as much as ArbCom has taken note of both pro- and anti-trans agendas inWP:ARBTRANS. Whether someone's edits are geared toward building an encyclopediais at the core of user conduct enforcement. I'll refer to an essay I recently wrote,Wikipedia:Partisans, for more on that subject. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)10:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by SarekOfVulcan[edit]In view of BZPN's repeated statements that they have not edited LGBT content, I suggest that the appeal not be granted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)14:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Simonm223[edit]I've said as much elsewhere today but I honestly think Tamzin's action was, if anything, too lenient. BZPN does very little but stir up drama regarding their personal beliefs about LGBTQ+ people.Simonm223 (talk)14:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by BZPN[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GoodDay[edit]BZPN, recommend youwithdraw your appeal & accept your t-ban. Move on to other areas of the project.GoodDay (talk)14:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] BZPN's recent comment at WP:AN, suggests retirement.GoodDay (talk)20:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Statement by (uninvolved editor 3)[edit]Result of the appeal by BZPN[edit]
|
| I have indef'dGicarke (talk ·contribs) per NOTHERE/CIR as a normal admin action.voorts (talk/contributions)23:53, 21 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. Request concerning Gicarke[edit]
Discussion concerning Gicarke[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Gicarke[edit]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[edit]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)[edit]Result concerning Gicarke[edit]
|