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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nil NZ (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)03:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:PIA

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

1. 24 Oct 2025 – Comment at RSN discussing the reliability of German-language sources reporting onSaleh al-Jafarawi, a recently-deceased Palestinian journalist.
2. 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

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

• 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

• Special:Diff/1318810183

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.

• Yeah ok, I initially misunderstood how ECR worked and now I will avoid contributing to all the articles that have extended confirmed protection as well as their talk pages.ItalianTourist (talk)00:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• To clarify, I misunderstood when Rosguill posted mainly about contentious topics while my edits at RSN were an offence not because they were on the topic of the Arab-Israel conflict, but because they were from someone who didn't have 500+ edits already. It added to my misunderstanding when I read inWP:ECPGUIDE: "Pages within contentious topics that are not covered by ECR are not automatically eligible for ECP." I would've understood clearly if Rosguill posted something like: "Hello. RSN is under extended confirmed restriction, which means that only those with 500+ edits can contribute. Those with less than 500+ edits also cannot contribute to the talk pages of ECP articles unless it is to make an edit request. You can find more info on this atWP:ECREXPLAIN etc." Anyway, everything is clearer now so it won't happen again.ItalianTourist (talk)06:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm satisfied from IT's explanation that this was a good faith misunderstanding of howWP:ECR is applied, and trust that they will be more cautious with regards toWP:PIA in the future. I'd support a caution as a sensible outcome.Nil🥝00:32, 30 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'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]
• I think that this was a genuine failure to comprehend procedure. My preference would be to warn the user for breaching ECR, but I don't think a 1-week block would be inappropriate either.Arcticocean ■18:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This appears to be a genuine misunderstanding, so I think a caution should be sufficient at this time.Newyorkbrad (talk)19:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]