Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Wikimedia project page

Arbitration​Committee

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

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Shortcuts

• WP:RFARWP:RFAR
• WP:A/RWP:A/R
• WP:ARB/RWP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQWP:ARBREQ

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Removing connected user disclosure and stalking article content		1 September 2025	0/5/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Transgender healthcare and people	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	11 Aug 2025	25 Aug 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Article titles and capitalisation 2	22 August 2025

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Venezuelan politics	none	(orig. case)	6 August 2025
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	25 August 2025

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
CTOP/AE page protection logging	21 August 2025

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts WP:ARCWP:ARC WP:A/R/CWP:A/R/C About this page Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. File an arbitration request Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits. Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced. In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs. Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.) Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted. Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions. Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises. Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~). Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them. Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget and this report may also be helpful. Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process. General guidance This page is for statements, not discussion. Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning. Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page. Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse. Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Removing connected user disclosure and stalking article content

Initiated by LateFatherKarma (talk) at 17:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

• LateFatherKarma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Acroterion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Orange sticker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David J Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Onorem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [diff of notification Acroterion]
• [diff of notification Orange sticker]
• [diff of notification David J Johnson]
• [diff of notification Onorem]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stalking
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#

Statement by LateFatherKarma

 

   LateFatherKarma's statement contains 557 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

Over a decade ago, I made a contributions to two pages, Winsor & Newton and & Reeves and Sons. At the time I worked for ColArt. I have experienced harassment regarding this, that I believed was off Wikipedia only. I attempted to access that account, to add a connected contributor disclosure, but my email provider would not let me recover my account. I later, much more recently rejoined and edited those pages, declaring this.

I recently started to contribute to the stalking page. I found content suggesting some people who excessively complain may go on to stalk and be excluded from where they work (for example). Checked the source, which was a journal (relatively unknown), from 1994. It had no citations, it included no research, but was written by a 'subject expert', in a subject unrelated to stalking (Ombudsman, so complaint management related). I researched and found no other research or sources that supported this, only that stalkers sometimes make vexatious complaints as part of stalking behaviour which I later added to the page. I felt it was an opinion largely, but yet on the Wikipedia page the copy I explain above, made a claim this was something that is in some cases true. The source material even labelled people with serious mental illness, without the author being medically trained. I felt this was misleading and unreliable. I removed it, explaining in the edit summary why.

This was reverted. I subsequently edited the article, to explain more this was an opinion, that the source contained no primary or secondary research, yet was in a journal. As the copy in the article did not reflect completely the source material, I also added from the source material more relevant info, such as sometimes people tell complaints staff they are being stalked, which is in the source material. This was reverted.

I opened a discussion on the talk page. I feel I made valid points about this removal, which another user supported. Acroterion made valid points about keeping it and then invited users to convince him further. I had become frustrated because my only aim was to try and improve the article.

As this content discussion took place, Acroterion removed my connected contributor disclosure on the stalking page. I didn't feel another user should do that and reinstated it. A different user then removed it. I reinstated it. I was immediately accused of starting a content war/disruptive edits. At this stage, no effort had been made to establish if I was a connected contributor or not. In my view, I have experienced stalking so felt this needed disclosure. LateFatherKarma (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC) (edited 19:04)[reply]

Made the mistake of putting connected user disclosure back, immediately rectified. Discussion started on conflict of interest noticeboard by Orange sticker (who had removed a CC declaration. Contribute positively to that whilst other users called me 'ridiculous' were adding comments on the stalker talk page calling me 'pompus'. Within minutes of this case, discussion opened here: (ANI)

Complained I had not notified other users about this before I had the opportunity. Was then blocked for disruptive edits whilst putting in statement by sentence as I felt under pressure, so when first voted on it was incomplete. My talk page responds to that. Due to this whilst experienced users may have done this in good faith, I felt bullied. LateFatherKarma (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acroterion

Statement by Orange sticker

Statement by David J Johnson

Statement by Onorem

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Removing connected user disclosure and stalking article content: Clerk notes

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

• LateFatherKarma has requested an extension to add this comment mentioning the subsequent ANI thread and block. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I copied across a shortened comment. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing connected user disclosure and stalking article content: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/5/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Decline for multiple reasons. Firstly, insufficient prior dispute resolution has been conducted. Secondly, this is fundamentally a content dispute at its core, per the second, third and fourth pararaph of the filer's statement. As additional comments, 1) your addition of connected contributor tags to various articles is wildly unnecessary — you are not a connected contributor to any of the articles you have claimed to be, including the Stalking article; and 2) your insistence on not communicating with editors using your talk page is disruptive and not conducive with Wikipedia processes, and your justification that it is "to help avoid off Wikipedia harassment" does not pass the reasonableness test. I strongly suspect that the community will sanction you at the recently-opened ANI unless you quite significantly change your approach to editing and, especially, communication. Daniel (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as presented before us. The filer has indicated their concern is with the content on the article, which we are not here to litigate (nor have all of the available dispute resolution options been used). The COI/COIN issue does not appear to be entirely related to this, but I do agree with Daniel that they are quite unnecessary and stretching the meaning of "conflict of interest" well beyond its intended use. I highly suggest that the filer withdraw, reconsider their editing habits based on the discussions at COIN and ANI, and continue their discussion at the Stalker talk page to hopefully come to a resolution on the content under dispute. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• decline per above. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline - This is largely a content dispute, and any conduct issues are premature for an ArbCom. - Aoidh (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

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

Shortcuts:

• WP:ARCA
• WP:ARA
• WP:A/R/C&A
• WP:A/R/CL
• WP:A/R/A
• WP:A/R/CA
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133

Amendment request: Venezuelan politics

Initiated by WMrapids at 04:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Venezuelan politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#WMrapids banned

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

• WMrapids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#WMrapids banned
  • Request to appeal indefinite ban

Statement by WMrapids

 

     WMrapids's statement contains 301 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

After this time off, I want to return to my first passion on Wikipedia; providing images and information about local locations and places visited. This can be seen with my recent uploads on Commons (including my first quality images! [1][2]), which I wish to place on Wikipedia. I have no interest in Venezuelan topics or certain interactions, so please keep the two-way IBAN and topic ban in place to leave those problems in the past. Overall, I'm eager to collaborate with others on Wikipedia again and learn more along the way, like I have on Commons. Thank you for your consideration! --WMrapids (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, apologies! Due to word counts, I kept things brief for ArbCom. My other account created for privacy (which I still recognize/recognized was created improperly) was blocked and no other account has been created. I'm fairly certain ArbCom wouldn't consider an appeal if my IP showed up elsewhere during this time.--WMrapids (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm committed to using only one account and have no desire to use another. Thanks to everyone involved for having empathy and respecting my privacy even though we like our answers and want to hold each other accountable. I wish I could provide more answers, but due to past incidents (including people at my door), I politely ask you to put yourself into my shoes. I'm human; an average person from Michigan who wants to help build a good encyclopedia. My behavior wasn't perfect, but my edits were genuine, my own and I hold no animosity towards anyone. I know asking for respect is a lot, but I'm more than just another user. I'm a person on the other side of the screen and I'd do anything within reason to protect others from experiencing some of the things I've faced just for my edits.--WMrapids (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

WMRapids was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and was banned by ArbCom to recognize the CheckUser block. This request does not address the abuse of multiple accounts, which is an issue of trustworthiness. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223 (Venezuela)

As WMRapids is willing to return with the topic ban and the iban in place and as they have accounted for the sock puppetry issue and have committed to not repeating that mistake I think we should support allowing them to return. Simonm223 (talk) 11:04, 8 August 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.

Venezuelan politics: Clerk notes

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

Venezuelan politics: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I find this request persuasive and am currently inclined to support it, retaining the interaction and topic ban. Keen to provide the opportunity to potentially hear from other interested members of the community over the coming few days, before proposing a motion. Daniel (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Same as Dan. Inclined to support lifting the ban with the iban and tban in place, would like to hear from those who were party to the behavior that led to the ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Put me at support, with the tban and iban still in place and with the understanding that the committee can't prevent people from putting 2 and 2 together when it comes to other accounts and account restrictions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as the iban and topic ban remain in place, I'm not opposed to accepting this appeal. - Aoidh (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd also like to hear from the parties in the case, but if we do accept, can we add a single account restriction to the mix? One of the issues was misuse of multiple accounts, so we should make it clear that's not even potentially ok. Worm^TT(talk) 08:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline for private reasons. A one-account restriction is a distant second choice to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on some private discussions that have taken place, while I am okay with an unblock (keeping the existing other restrictions in place) I am uncomfortable doing so unless we limit WMRapids to using a single account. Primefac (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I was the only one who thought that a site ban was unnecessary, and I still believe that. Robert, please see my and Barkeep's comments there regarding use of multiple accounts (and at § Use of multiple accounts too). Sdrqaz (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Please consider me provisionally inactive on this thread unless I come back to cast a vote. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

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

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

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

Information about amendment request

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

Statement by Newslinger

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

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

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

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

Statement by Patternbuffered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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

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

Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARMWP:ARM WP:ARBMWP:ARBM This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (arbitrators only) All editors are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension on this page below (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended comments or submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

CTOP/AE page protection logging

CTOP/AE page protection logging: Clerk notes

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

Motion: Remove requirement for logging CTOP/AE page protections

Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Renewal of page restrictions and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Renewal of page restrictions are modified as follows:

If an uninvolved administrator (including the original enforcing administrator) decides that a page restriction is still necessary after one year, the administrator may renew the restriction by re-imposing it under this procedure and logging the renewal noting the CTOP invoked in the protection reason. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Logging and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Logging 2 are modified as follows:

Contentious topic restrictions, excepting page protections, must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action. Page protections must clearly note they are CTOP/arbitration enforcement and the CTOP being invoked in the protection reason.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Logging is modified as follows:

All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections, must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Page protections must clearly note they are CTOP/AE enforcement and the CTOP being invoked in the protection reason.

A central log of all page restrictions and sanctions (including blocks, bans, page protections or other restrictions) placed as arbitration enforcement (including contentious topic restrictions) is to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator views and discussions

Going to leave this up for discussion for a bit before I vote, on the (fairly high) chance that I'm missing an obvious reason to make people manually maintain a redundant log, and because I probably missed somewhere else these procedures are mentioned. In my view, the time investment of manually logging an enormous amount of page protections isn't worth the effort as we can just search the protection log for the CTOP name, and clearly see it in page histories. There might be some benefit to a specific language to use for the protection reason, so that's probably worth a discussion, too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea, though like Thryduulf I'd want to specify exactly how this needs to be noted in the log summary (my thought is a link to a specific shortcut for each topic) to make it so automated tools could comprehensively find each such protection. A bot that would then make a logpage from these somewhere would help alleviate concerns about this making the information harder to find. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the thing about in-summary logging is that if an administrator forgets, they need to undo and redo the protection because you can't modify a log entry after you've hit the button. so, it adds some logistical complexity. not a dealbreaker, but something that needs to be anticipated – and lots of AE admins are old hands that wouldn't necessarily love using an automated tool to pre-fill the edit summary. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's still less work than opening up a new tab, heading over to AE/Log, finding the right section, and logging it there. Especially if they're on a phone or tablet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

maybe a template that hails a bot to come over, do the protection, do the logging, and remove the template? or a work-order page? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My hope is to make it take as little effort as possible. One thing that became clear when I got access to revdel, and has been made crystal since I got oversight is that if something takes more than 3-10 seconds it's probably not getting done. I don't think having to change the protection on a page if you forgot to use the right reason in the initial protection is terribly onerous. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer a technical solution if we can wrangle one up. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm no technological wizard, but my first thought would just be "button in Twinkle page protection gadget that allows you to add page to relevant AE log." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion

Statement by Thryduulf

My first thought is that as CTOPs are (or at least should be) periodically reviewed to determine whether they are still required there needs to be an easy way to determine whether actions are being taken under it (some even have automatic sunset clauses if they aren't used). That doesn't have to be a manual log of page protections of course, but there needs to be some alternative if it isn't. My first thoughts are some sort of template for the talk page and/or standardised wording for the protection log that could be easily found by a bot or script. In "busy" ctop areas it wouldn't matter too much if 100% of page protections aren't recorded this way as there will be plenty of other actions that demonstrate its continuing need, but for quieter ones it is important because page protections might be the only actions being taken. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

I do think that we need to retain some log of this (and it could be automatic, as Thryduulf notes), particularly for CTOP that are not ECR by default, as these logs will later be what is evaluated to determine if the CTOP is still needed. For ECR-by-default topics, this is perhaps less important, as the protections will not necessarily be indicative of persistent disruption. There’s an edge case there as well, which is protection of Talk pages in ECR topics, especially when such protection is less than extended-confirmed. I’ve personally found temporary semi protection of high traffic article talk pages to be quite helpful for tamping down disruption without totally shutting the door on editors who have not hit XC _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Izno

I think this is a generally good idea, but it does extend to blocks as another example pretty trivially, so it needs support in a way that separates it from some kinds of editor restrictions.

Additionally, "searching the log" is a non-trivial point e.g. for metrics, as noted above. Consider ensuring you have the infrastructure in place to support that before passing a motion like this. There are a lot of ways a log summary can point to a CTOP. Izno (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are far fewer editor and page restrictions than page protections, so that's a pretty significant separation. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2025/Arab–Israeli conflict#Page sanctions (CT/A-I) is a tremendous waste of editor time and effort for very little gain. CT/SA is going to be the same. Blocks also fall in the high end of escalation of user sanctions, so it's good to have those logged alongside with warnings and such. Page protection is generally either ECR enforcement or the lightest touch to end disruption at a contentious article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

Administrator time is already a precious resource for AE. Making better use of it is always advisable. But the data a log provides is very useful, as others observe. In an ideal world the log would be entirely automated. We're not there yet, but perhaps there's a way to make logs automated for blocks and protections? I imagine we'd need to add some drop-down options to twinkle, which could add a tag that could be logged? Not my area of expertise, perhaps it's more complicated than that. But we had a bot maintain a list of ECR pages for a while, perhaps we still do, so this feels like it should be within reach. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of ways this can reasonably be done. Could add an edit filter that tags protection with CT/(whatever shortcut) to any protection that includes CT/(whatever shortcut) in the edit summary. Then you can look at the protection log and select a tag. Shabam, instant log. That just requires the protecting admin add CT/SA to all South Asian CTOP protections, or CT/A-I for Arab/Israel conflict protections to the edit summary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jéské Couriano

I would say that protections should stay in the centralised log, provided they are not ones put in place across an entire topic area due to a remedy (i.e. no ECPs for the Arab-Israeli conflict, South Asian social strata, or Indian military history topic areas should go to AELOG). Those ones can very easily get away with a link to the relevant remedy in the protection log and nothing in the centralised one. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

I think an automated replacement for page protections would be a good idea, but there would need to be a proper tool for it. On one side you'd have to enforce a machine-readable syntax. WP:CTOP, WP:AE, etc., might occasionally still be mentioned by reference, so I'm thinking something like [[WP:CTOP/<code>|Arbitration enforcement]] being the magic thing we look for. Policy could also note that any admin can update a protection to use that syntax if the protecting admin indicated an intent to invoke CTOP but used defective syntax. That part's all something ArbCom could mandate right now, but for the other side you'd need an easily available tool that can be used to search the protection logs for that magic string and refine by the relevant code, ideally such that we can do prefilled links to search results at the top of AELOG sections. That's not super hard, but it's also not like five lines of Python.

Sadly, I've already done my ArbCom tool development mitzvah for the year, but maybe someone else can come forward and take that on here. If not, though, perhaps this should be withdrawn until the technical infrastructure can be first set up—or passed as a suspended motion, pending that development.

Also, in any case, two edge cases that come to mind: One, what about salting? Strictly on a technical level that's title protection, not page protection, and it often coincides with deletion, which still would be logged manually. Two, if this goes the direction of only applying to ECR enforcement as some have suggested, in addition to Rosguill's point about discretionary protection of talkpages, what about ECR enforcement that intentionally underdoes it, e.g. semi-protection due to IPs violating an ECR on a related-content page? Do the exceptional nature of these protections merit a manual log? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like Kevin's idea of an automated detection system that writes directly to the AE log (or a subpage thereof), with admins having the option to manually remove false positives or add false negatives. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by L235

In response to this motion, I wrote a bot that produces this table of all CTOP protection actions. It uses edit summary heuristics to identify which CTOP applies, but the table can also be easily manually edited. If the committee desires, I can run this regularly (say, daily), and this can replace the logging of protections. (It can also be extended to blocks and partial blocks if desired, and any other AE actions that are fairly standard MediaWiki logged actions.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, looks good! I don't think blocks are a good use case because they often include diffs, either to behavior or AE threads. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L235, what triggers this logging? Is it CTOP or Arbitration enforcement in the protection reason? If so I'm fine with setting some standard language and rolling with the bot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: It's a kludge of various heuristics. Currently, the protection is assumed to be an AE action if one of the following trigger phrases appears (case insensitive): "arbitration", "arbcom", "ctop", "ct/", "30/500", "contentious topic", "blpct", "blpds", "arbpia". Then, sorting into various CTOPs relies on some more heuristics, largely here: [3].

If you were to impose some standard mandate, my preference would be to ask admins to link to the CTOP page for the specific topic, for example WP:CT/BLP (or Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons), which will allow for easiest extraction of both the AE nature and the specific topic associated with the protection. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could, by the way, incorporate this into the text of the procedure. For example, something approximately like:

All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections, must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections.

KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Raladic

if the manual logging of CTOP page protections gets removed, I would definitely like to still have an automated way that produces a table or page like the current log is so I can follow a very easy shortcut like going to WP:AELOG/2025#GG as a simplified overview. Having to do a manual search over edit summaries is not going to be useful for referring back to which pages were protected when. I find myself going to the AE log often enough when I need to check when certain CTOP pages were protected as it’s pretty good to have a very short list for each year to see patterns which can be helpful for SPI related investigations sometimes as they will sometimes go to similar pages. Raladic (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for enforcement

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

Important information Shortcuts WP:AEWP:AE WP:AREWP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against a previously alerted editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed 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 an extended-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 exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.   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. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so. 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 The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged 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; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable 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: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear 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. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: 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 a request 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 The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors 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; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en wikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators 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. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring 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. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

  Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Initiated by IdanST at 10:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

User_talk:IdanST#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban

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

• IdanST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
• I followed step #1 (contacting the administrator), which was rejected, and I'm now following steps #2 and #3.

Statement by IdanST

Hey,

Since I was topic banned nine months ago, I’ve made over 500 substantial edits on English Wikipedia, as well as more than 18,000 edits across Wikimedia projects.

I apologize for my past behavior and acknowledge that I wasn’t ready to contribute constructively to contentious topics at the time. However, I now believe I’m better prepared and could contribute more effectively if the topic ban were lifted.

asilvering, sure. Prior to the topic ban, I was blocked twice for WP:ECR violations. Then, I translated Rapid Response Unit (Israel) from its Origin[he] in he.wiki, which resulted in a fast deletion and topic ban for WP:ECR, reviewing RS of Air Force articles and using the word "terrorist" in that translated article . I specifically disagree with the latter part, since there are dozens of articles that use that word, and in this case it was simply a cross-wiki translation.

After I was topic banned, I began editing in he.wiki, where I have made over 20,000 edits and translated more than 300 cross-wiki articles. A lot of my work has focused on aviation-related articles, but I have also translated a few politically sensitive articles, such as Basel Adra, We Will Dance Again, and others. All of my articles have been received in good faith. While some of the political ones were later edited by other users who felt they were not fully NPOV, not a single article I translated there has been deleted — whereas all of the cross-wiki articles I translated here were deleted.

As for what I have learned: almost all of my blocks and sanctions were due to WP:ECR, but I have long since moved past that, so it cannot be repeated. In addition, when I first started editing, I did not always behave well because I was new, unfamiliar with procedures, and unsure how to remain polite in difficult situations (as SFR once wrote, I "must assume good faith"). Since then, I have learned these lessons while editing in he.wiki. Furthermore, due to my past experiences with translating articles here, I will no longer translate articles into en.wiki. IdanST (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, although all the articles I translated were deleted, Bybit was later recreated by another editor, but none of my earlier edits were restored. The rest of the deleted translated articles remain deleted. IdanST (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, I never said I had "run into POV issues" in he.wiki, nor was I ever involved in such. Also, please elaborate on your conclusion that I am "still having content faulted on hewiki for not being neutral by their standards," because I was never accused of not being neutral in he.wiki. All I said is that some editors made edits to a few articles I translated. To elaborate, some of them believe en.wiki articles themselves are not neutral. So, do you mean by your words that en.wiki is not neutral?

Tamzin, Anybody on he.wiki can edit articles; that doesn’t necessarily mean they are in bad condition or have NPOV issues. IdanST (talk) 09:06, 22 August 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.

Arbitrator response from when this was originally filed at ARCA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
IdanST appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion @IdanST: the Arbitration Committee generally isn't the right body to appeal a CTOP restriction to, if it's on the basis of changed behavior. We only overturn CTOP actions under very narrow circumstances, usually having to do with the CTOP action being problematic when it was placed. Like the sanctioning administrator said, a better place to plead this case would be at WP:AN or WP:AE, if that's the path you're looking to take. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Agree with leeky above; Wikipedia:Contentious topics#On community review (ie. AN or AE) allows for an appeal on the grounds that "the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption" which seems to best align with the purpose of this appeal, while the three criteria ARCA can consider does not include this. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Recused, as I placed this sanction. I do agree with what was said by my esteemed colleagues though, which is why I said to appeal at AE or AN in my response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning IdanST

• It seems nobody wants to comment on this, so I guess I'll tackle it. The appeal is a bit lighter on details than I would like, but at the same time IdanST seems to have gotten into no trouble at all in the hundreds of edits and many months since their most recent block expired in February, so we may as well give them a chance, and if there is recidivism a re-ban is always a possibility. (Other admins may well see differently; my positions on user conduct matters are idiosyncratic at best) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @ScottishFinnishRadish: Would you like to comment (as the sanctioning administrator, not as an arb) on this appeal? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My thoughts are roughly what I expressed at WP:ARCA recently, the topic is still to "hot", for lack of a better term, to unban editors in this topic right now. In this case, the behavior was less severe and there's recent editing that looks constructive, so I wouldn't be strongly opposed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• IdanST, can you give us a bit more to go on? For example, can you explain in your own words why you were banned, what you've learned since, and how you'll avoid the same problems? Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I appreciate Idan's candor in acknowledging having run into POV issues on hewiki, but to me that sounds like a pretty big deal. Idan's POV is closer to what hewiki defines as neutral than to what enwiki defines as neutral; if Idan is still having content faulted on hewiki for not being neutral by their standards, that bodes poorly for letting them back into the topic area here on enwiki. And the fact that there's no engagement with this issue—no introspection into why their edits were seen as non-neutral there—bodes even more poorly. I don't see grounds to unban. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @IdanST: I'm just going off of your own statement that some of the political ones were later edited by other users who felt they were not fully NPOV. If what you mean by that is that you were copying enwiki content blindly without regard for whether it complied with local policies, than that would seem to just be the mirror-image situation of what you describe happening here leading up to your TBAN. The English and Hebrew Wikipedias have different policies, guidelines, and norms, and an editor translating from one wiki to another is expected to ensure that their article is in compliance. You take responsibility for every edit you make to a wiki, even if it's derived from something elsewhere. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni888

Closing without further action - editor has now been properly warned about ECR asilvering (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Gianni888 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Gianni888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia#GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 10 August 2025 turns an article on a surname into a clan in violation of ECR 1-7 August 2025: Created Draft:List_of_Kamboj_Personalities_and_Families If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 1 August 2025 by Agent VII (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Additional comments by editor filing complaint See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1195#User:Kambojahistory is engaged in disruption only which discussed Gianni tangentially. I've already ECP-ed Sagoo as an AE action since it's been subject to a long, long history of hijackings of that sort, bringing this here to discuss sanctions for Gianni888, which is an area I prefer to stay out of as an admin (and promised I would in my RfA). * Pppery * it has begun... 15:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] In response to SilverLocust, at least the edits to Sagoo were disruptive on their own merits (unilaterally attempting to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagoo) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Bump to prevent this from being archived unanswered. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Gianni888 Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Gianni888 Sorry if i broke any laws of wikipedia but i was just trying to associate the saggu/sagoo page with caste identity because my grandmother is a saggu/sagoo and to find out her history ask my father and therefore i thought that it would be useful to show that Saggu/Saggoo Lineage belongs to Jat and Ramgharia And for the Draft:List_of_Kamboj_Personalities_and_Families, my fathers lineage is Kamboj and whenever i meet a Kamboj they never know anything about the history of the Kamboj community so i thought it would be a bright idea to show people and my family the notable Kamboj/Kambohs of history the main reason i origninally created my wiki account was to edit the Kamboj page Sorry if i broke any rules on Wikipedia Sincerely Gianni888 Statement by (username) Result concerning Gianni888 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Since Gianni888 apparently had not been specifically told about WP:ARBECR before this, I wouldn't sanction them merely for violating ECR (beyond a warning). The alert templates {{subst:Alert|topic=sa}} and {{subst:Alert/first|topic=sa}} have since been updated to include ECR information. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Particle

Tiny Particle tbanned from "transgender healthcare, broadly construed". asilvering (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Tiny Particle User who is submitting this request for enforcement LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Tiny Particle (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:GENSEX Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 15 August 2025 [4] [5] [6] Copies text from likely-to-be-deleted article Dutch Protocol to four other articles 15 August 2025 [7] [8] Reverts change with edit summary including text You are actively trying to salt the Dutch Protocol, so the depth is needed here. 17 August 2025 Makes strange comment linking to all the new articles at an ArbCom case. 17 August 2025 Another strange comment linking to comments made by several of the article subjects. 17 August 2025 Yet another strange accusatory comment, this time implying he's doing this for anti-trans POV-pushing reasons. 17 August 2025 When the above comments predictably get one of the people at the Dutch Protocol AfD to notice and bring the new articles to AfD also, accuses her of meatpuppetry for notifying the Dutch Protocol AfD of the other AfDs. (Update: this diff has been struck at the urging of other editors.) Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any N/A If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16 February 2025 (see the system log linked to above). Additional comments by editor filing complaint On 12 August 2025 an AfD was opened for the article Dutch Protocol, which Tiny Particle was largely responsible for writing based on the Dutch wiki's version. The issue, as pointed out by the opener, was that the article largely served as a WP:POVFORK to puberty blockers. As an apparent attempt to circumvent the AfD, Tiny Particle then created a bunch of other POVFORK articles about all the names mentioned in the Dutch Protocol article, explicitly copying text from Dutch Protocol to do so. When challenged on some of this new text they admit that they're doing it as a reaction to the AfD. Then, a few days later, they made a series of strange comments at an ArbCom case they're not a party to. In these comments they linked all the new articles and made a bunch of weird comments seeming to assert that being trans is a mental illness (against an explicit community consensus to the contrary). They also linked to several articles on a trans activist site saying the subjects of the new articles are anti-trans or gatekeepers, though they did so in apparent approval of the article subjects' (alleged) gatekeepiness. Another comment of theirs supportively quoted Wes Streeting saying that trans women are not women, which suggests to me they're doing all this for anti-trans POV-pushy reasons. Shortly after, probably because of the attention that these comments drew to the new articles, those were listed at AfD as well. In reaction to a notification of this new AfD on the original Dutch Protocol AfD, Tiny Particle accused the lister of meatpuppetry (which isn't even the right policy, I think they mean WP:CANVASSING). Basically I think this person is showing huge WP:OWNership behavior and is generally trying to circumvent AfD to push a POV through a bunch of POVFORKs. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [9] Discussion concerning Tiny Particle Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Tiny Particle        Tiny Particle's statement contains 445 words and complies with the 500-word limit. 15 August 2025 [10] [11] [12] Created Four articles, each one of which is WP:Notable so "building the encyclopedia" 17 August 2025 This is a Arbcom workshop Comment by others: which I am perfectly entitled to make I was asked a question. The OP post was in three parts and contained a question directly addressed to me 17 August 2025 I address point 3 17 August 2025 I address point 1&2 The remaining diffs presented: 15 August 2025 [13] [14] I believe the Reverts follow WP:BRD 17 August 2025 The accusation of meatpuppetry is due to blatant WP:Canvass Here It is nonsense that the dutch protocol is a WP:POVFORK/duplicate article to puberty blockers. I have never read or commented on the Puberty Blockers. The links I added were by means of CtrlF. Also the administration of PBs is just one disipline in the multi-displinary dutch protocol. Problems which don't require deletion, including articles needing improvement, duplicate articles, or POV problems. The Dutch protocol AFD is malformed claiming that the dutch author is banned. I believe this is untrue. Yes I am not party to the current ArbCom case which is why I left my comment at Comment by others: I believe I clearly made the point that, no matter what the consensus, You can't have your cake and eat it. If there is no illness then there will be no (free) medical care as it is not needed by definition. Addressing YFNS below I asked AI how to do an author-link3 I also asked for a reliable source link for Peggy C-K's dob to start the article. I find AI to be too verbose and inaccurate to be much use for a content writer. I copy alot from other articles because there is so much overlap. If someone has already written a sentence about say a football/soccer match there are potentialy 11x2=22 articles where that article could be incrementally improved. That you have a Phd does not change the fact that "Medication is a drug used to diagnose, cure, treat, or prevent disease" Your document [15] mentions "Non-Surgical Interventions". Per wiki Intervention (disambiguation): Medical intervention, therapy to treat health problems. They are WP:Notable by the sheer influence they have had outside their own country. I can see one editor blocked for 9 months. By repeating an error it becomes a lie @Asilvering::I commented above I asked AI how to do an author-link3 I also asked for a reliable source link for Peggy C-K's dob to start the article. I find AI to be too verbose and inaccurate to be much use for a content writer. I am not aware of the elsewhere that you mention? Statement by YFNS      YFNS's statement contains 547 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit. I raised issues with Tiny Particle's editing on their talk page which they never replied to[16] Some particular issues include: Using the "A Wider Lens" podcast by pro-conversion therapy group Genspect as a source despite being told repeatedly that's not good TP knew this was a bad source - at Dutch Protocol I removed poor sourcing[17], TP reverted and asked me to do it source by source, which I did, particularly noting the AWS podcast[18]. After that, TP makes an edit just to add the AWS podcast to a BLP[19], redirects the podcast name to it's host so knows who created it[20], and then adds the source to another BLP[21] Really weird / POV redirects (improperly redirecting terms about populations to medical articles)... Redirects transgender children from transgender youth to gender dysphoria in children[22] Redirects transgender and gender diverse to Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People [23] Further, I want to flag the use of AI, these articles where apparently written using ChatGPT as the UTM codes for chatGPT where present in the citations[24] Regarding what TP has said here: They are not WP:Notable, I explicitly said as much, noting the articles are written almost entirely based on OR of things the subjects wrote with little to no independent coverage[25][26] The comment left at ARBCOM was espouse a FRINGE view that the community has found MEDRS don't support[27] Moreover, they claim the NHS endorsed this view. I quote the NHS saying the opposite[28], Loki notes they're getting the definition of gender dysphoria backward[29] They claim Yes there is "Gender dysphoria with mental illness comorbidity" - we have a patient for treatment. "Gender dysphoria without mental illness comorbidity" - no taxpayer funded treatment necessary. - this seems like an LLM hallucination? I've written about trans healthcare for half a decade now, and am getting a PhD in it, I have no clue what this means. They then claim that an unelected health minister is the one we should look to, and accuses me of removing evidence The UK Health Minister has said those who used to argue “trans women are women” should have the “humility” to admit they were not right. He changed his mind when presented with evidence. The evidence is out there but YFNS likes to remove from this encyclopedia. Bizarelly, accuses a number of BLP's of pathologizing trans people because their studies used the term "gender identity disorder"[30]. I need to point out, when those studies where written, that was the name of the diagnosis (which was pathologizing, but was a field-wide issue addressed a decade ago). Regarding the article of the NLWiki Dutch Protocol being written by a banned editor, it absolutely was. No other editor has disputed that. TP keeps arguing they're not in a way that borders on sealioning[31][32][33][34][35] Here is the AE case that resulted in a near-instant NOTHERE block for that editor, which links to the NLWiki cases resulting in blocks[36]. If you ask me to dig it up, I can find account blocks and IP blocks across multiple wikis and globally for that user. Their behavior has been really weird. I don't have better words than that for it. I'd support a TBAN for wasting other editors time. I originally thought it wasn't necessary and tried explaining issues to them directly, but was ignored, so now we're here I guess. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Re LLM hallucination: The NHS only gives hormones when there aren't comorbities[37]. So another false claim. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Licks-Rocks Wasn't really planning to involve myself, but I ended up Warning this user pretty harshly just prior to their first escapade into arbcom because by then a visit to AE was already pretty much unavoidable. Safe to say they haven't listened.. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Asilvering (just pinging you in case you forgot about this, which seems to me to be the case) --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by DanielRigal A lot of this looks like an overconfident editor acting like a bull in a china shop, which is normally just grounds for a warning to dial it back a bit, but diffs 5 and 6 are different and more concerning. Those cross the line into unfounded accusations and personal attacks. The use of LLMs is also concerning as LLMs are very good at (intentionally or otherwise) making bad content that looks superficially plausible. Finally, the doubling down when problems are pointed out is definitely not encouraging. I think some sanction is required. I'm not sure how severe it should be but their statement above does not give me much hope that Tiny Particle will be able to edit constructively in this topic area. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Cdjp1 As a note on potential LLM content, the phrase highlighted by YFNS, Yes there is "Gender dysphoria with mental illness comorbidity" - we have a patient for treatment. "Gender dysphoria without mental illness comorbidity" - no taxpayer funded treatment necessary., I would argue isn't generated by an LLM, the structure is much more akin to human written shorthand. While I haven't done a deep dive through Tiny Particle's contributions, having a peruse of their comments around articles highlighted as evidence, there doesn't seem to be anything that causes me concern on LLM usage. I would honestly put down any concerns on the logic of the arguments down to poor reasoning and arguments. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username) Result concerning Tiny Particle This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Diff 6 is obviously inappropriate; YFNS's edit to the AfD was in no way WP:CANVASSing, but that post on the arb case might be. -- asilvering (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Tiny Particle, a number of editors have raised concerns about your use of LLMs, here and elsewhere. Would you comment on that, please? -- asilvering (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Tiny Particle, if you want to ping someone, you need to sign your post. As for the rest, well, the text copied into various articles from Dutch Protocol was also clearly an attempt to get around the ongoing AfD, transparently stated as such in the edit summaries. And if we're not looking at LLM hallucinations, we're looking at either pov-pushing or WP:OR indistinguishable from pov-pushing, the most striking example of which came in after this case was filed: [38]. Accordingly, unless another admin jumps in to object in the next 24 hours or so, I will tban from "transgender healthcare, broadly construed". Narrower than GENSEX, but appears to be sufficient in this case. -- asilvering (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks @Licks-rocks, I sure did (at least twice). Closing now. -- asilvering (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Add List of The New York Times controversies to Arab-Israeli conflict sanction

Page restriction declined. Newslinger gave reasons to decline, and a single-admin response is generally plenty for a request for page restrictions. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Moved from WT:AC/N § Request: Add article to Arab-Israeli conflict sanction Apologies if this is not the right venue for the request, but I would like to request that List of The New York Times controversies be added to the Arab–Israeli conflict sanctioned articles, as there has been a clear revert war on content related to this topic -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] You may request arbitration enforcement at WP:AE. Izno (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Discussion concerning List of The New York Times controversies Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by (username) Result concerning List of The New York Times controversies Sameboat, a page is only added to the arbitration enforcement log when a contentious topic page restriction is applied to that page. There are no active page restrictions on the article List of The New York Times controversies, so the article does not need to be logged at this time. The arbitration remedies within the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic (including the extended confirmed restriction and one-revert rule) already apply to edits related to the area of conflict that are made to any article, including List of The New York Times controversies, without needing the article to be logged. Because only a small part of List of The New York Times controversies (most prominently, the Coverage of Israel and Palestine section) is within the topic area, the article is not automatically extended confirmed protected by default. If you would like to request for a particular page restriction to be applied to the article, this page (the arbitration enforcement noticeboard) is the correct venue to do so. However, if you would like to request page protection as an arbitration enforcement action, I recommend posting the request on the page protection noticeboard instead, where you are likely to receive a faster response. The recent editing history of the article does not appear to be particularly disruptive, and there have been no recent violations of the extended confirmed restriction on the article page, so I would not apply page protection at this time. — Newslinger talk 17:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Edited to fix link. — Newslinger talk 21:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Icecold

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

Request concerning Icecold

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

GENSEX

Diffs:

Icecold has been just sort of, crashing out at people for the last month over what appears to be the Graham Linehan page, and making no other edits beyond that.

Jul 16 2025 [39] Accuses other editors of being activist editors

Jul 16 2025 [40] ditto

Jul 16 2025 [41] Accuses editors of gaslighting because a consensus didn’t go his way

Jul 1 2025 [42] Accuses editors of prioritizing their own feelings over “facts” because consensus didn’t go his way.

22 May 2025 [43] Aspersions against pretty much every editor that disagreed with him in consensus, among other things accusing other editors of “stalking”

22 May 2025 [44] Personal attacks

22 May 2025 [45] ABF, personal attacks

22 May 2025 [46] Personal attacks

22 May 2025 [47] Aspersions

22 May 2025 [48] Admits to using LLM for his text while attacking other editors

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

[49]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[50]

Discussion concerning Icecold

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Icecold

Over-length statement as of 26 August
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is my final statement on this matter, I will not be engaging with this process futher, I've spent far too much time on this arbitration already. I do request an additional 200 words (from my current 800 [51]) because this arbitation has been unarchived and reopened and I need to express my complete opposition to this. This case was previously archived without formal action. It was unarchived and reopened by an involved party, apparently due to dissatisfaction with the outcome. Reopening closed cases without new evidence or process error is against best practice (see WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:GAME) and undermines procedural fairness. My understanding is that such actions should be taken only by uninvolved administrators for legitimate reasons. @GraziePrego is not an uninvolved party in this arbitration. @Tamzin suggested a recent comment I made on another user's page was disruptive. The comment was made after this case was archived, and my intent was only to caution another editor to avoid the same difficulties I faced, not to canvass or disrupt. I now recognize such remarks could be misinterpreted and I will avoid them in the future. I think the worst criticism of me is that I'm NOTHERE. I think this is completely wrong. This account is 19 years old, this isn't a new fly by account here to edit on one topic. I've made small edits on varying different topics, from cleaning up vandalism [52] to adding new news [53] to challenging incorrect facts [54]. I've since made another unrelated edit after this arbitration was originally archived [55] So to accuse me of NOTHERE because of edits on talk pages about a contentious article is, in my opinion, disingenuous and casting aspersions on me for my reason for being here. People are also trying to criticise how half of my total edits are on the Graham Linehan talk page, I also think is disingenuous. I had proposed a change request and I obviously had to respond to people who were discussing that request. I've never been involved in a contentious discussion before, so it's clearly going to skew my stats. Pointing to this as evidence I'm only here for one thing, is trying to twist the narrative to get a result they want. People are trying to link me with a now banned editor, to try and make me look guilty by association. I reached out to this editor because we were arguing for the same changes to the article, and I reached out for advice and to help build a consensus as they appeared to be more knowledgeable about Wikipedia process. No, I hadn't studied their edits and realised they were relatively new editor when I spoke to them. Other involved editors also posted on the banned users talk page and no-one is criticising them for doing so. The other accusation I stand by, I do believe, fundamentally in all aspects of life that any accused person deserves a right of reply, even people who have committed the very worse of real life crimes, so the failure of Wikipedia to allow a user to have one is imo a failure of Wikipedia process. I never defended the user from the ban, just their right of reply. As for editors speculating on what I might do as an attempt to push for a full Wikipedia ban, you cannot punish people for what they might do. The only controversial article I've edited is Graham Linehan and its talk page. Despite what other people have said I will probably do, in the 2 months since my request was rejected, I haven't edited any other page, I haven't edited other GENSEX articles, or any other “culture war” topics. Then my stalking allegations. I stand by them, it was clear to me that GP was constantly appearing across 3 talk pages to respond to me when they hadn't been tagged [56] [57] [58]. Once or twice could be a fluke, sure, but more, implies they were following me around. Since this arbitration even, GP has also made a number of edits on my talk page, despite me asking them to leave me alone ([59], [60], [61], [62]. The argument that GP may have other friendly editors on their watchlists falls apart when we consider user Gazumpedheit, whom GP clearly disliked. Editors are defending GP and saying it's not stalking, but if I had engaged in similar behaviour to GP, that these editors would be accusing me of stalking. I was accused of all sorts, such as bludgeoning, when all I was doing was responding to people's arguments against my request, which I feel as someone proposing a request I had a duty to do. I also stand by my comment that at least one editor was editing based on personal feelings and not following the evidence [63] [64]. If I had said something similar, it would have been brought up against me at this arbitration. That editor earlier got banned for admitting they were editing based on a personal feeling not based on the evidence. Reminding people of that editor's comment isn't a personal attack. I apologise for accusing others of arguing in bad faith, my biggest frustration was that I was asked to find various reputable sources to support my claim, I did so (finding more reputable sources for my claim than reputable sources on the article supporting the status quo), and then this was still denied. My proposed change also brought that article more in line with other equivalent articles that use my wording, so I was following precedent, but that was still denied. That says to me that the article wasn't being evidence-led, but guided by people's opinions, against wikipedia policy. I am now p-banned as a direct result of this arbitration being unarchived and reopened, after originally being closed with no action. Since a sanction has now been imposed in response to the reopened process, despite my record of voluntary disengagement and the fact that no action was taken when this case was originally closed. Given this I believe that further action would be unnecessary and disproportionate. I request that this arbitration now be closed (again), and not revived for a third time. Off-topic, but replying to people on an arbitration from mobile is absolutely appalling and practially impossible.

Over-length statement as of 18 July (when SeraphimBlade said "Further responses from you will be removed")
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Firstly I'm quite suprised to have had this notification. I'm going to answer each accusation each in turn. > Jul 16 2025 [47] Accuses other editors of being activist editors > Jul 1 2025 [49] Accuses editors of prioritizing their own feelings over “facts” because consensus didn’t go his way. I'm going to answer these both together. I've had editors openly admit that they are editing based on their own feelings: "Yes, I'm biased against bigots. You'll find that's normal." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&diff=prev&oldid=1290708077 "Yes, I am absolutely taking a moral view, because I don't like bigotry. There is nothing "blinding" me, but I'm not going to bend to the whims of transphobes." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&diff=prev&oldid=1290695156 So the accusation that I've made is justified when I've had people actively tell me this. I also think that the very existance of this arbitaration to try and shut me down because I'm disagreeing with the editors that hang around that page kinda confirms my point. > Jul 16 2025 [48] Accuses editors of gaslighting because a consensus didn’t go his way No, i'm accusing someone of gaslighting by saying to a editor that they just need to find reputable sources and they can then get the page changed, because thats what I was told to do, I found these reputable sources (which outnumbered the existing reputable sources that countered it), and then was told my reputable sources didn't matter because editors that follow their own moral compass have already decided what to do. > 22 May 2025 [50] Aspersions against pretty m>uch every editor that disagreed with him in consensus, among other things accusing other editors of “stalking” > 22 May 2025 [54] Aspersions GraziePrego appeared to be stalking me. The full history of what happened is on my talk page, but as a quick summary. If I went to an editors (not GraziePregos) user page to ask a question of the editor, without being tagged GraziePrego would turn up and start getting involved in the discussion. This happened across 2 or 3 different editors talk pages. It felt like my contribution log was being monitored by GraziePrego and then they were jumping in and getting involved in everywhere I posted. I also was good enough to drop the matter and not persue it at arbitration, something that has clearly ironically been used against me now. > 22 May 2025 [51] Personal attacks I had just been accused of taking wikipedia too seriously with an accusation that I was "making a frightful exhibition of yourself." I just pointed out that it seems a bit rich to accuse me of taking wikipedia so seriously when they are a such a prolific editor, and dare say take wikipedia much more seriously than I do. But if that counts as a personal attack, I apologise. > 22 May 2025 [52] ABF, personal attacks Thats the same example as the previous one, so I'm not sure what your point is there > 22 May 2025 [53] Personal attacks Not a personal attack, I was disagreeing with their editing, made no personal references at all. > 22 May 2025 [55] Admits to using LLM for his text while attacking other editors Using an LLM isn't against the rules, and I haven't done it since people complained. The reference to attacking other editors is a direct reference to ref 49 which I've tackled there. So to summerise, I've been told that me saying that certain editors are making moral opinions and not looking at the facts, when at least one editor has ADMITTED that to me, is apparrently wrong. I've also been told that accusing someone of stalking me, when they appear to be stalking me, constantly appearing on other editors talk pages when I have posted on them, joining in the discussion, is apparrently wrong, which just seems like you're going after the victim rather than judging if the accused actually did have questionable behaviour (which I think they did). I haven't contributed to any GENSEX article since the last attempt in May, only 3 comments since May on a talk page. I hardly think thats disruptive behaviour. I have consistently been evidence led in my contributions to attempting to change an article. Like all editors I have a private view, but I am letting the sources guide the language and any attempt to change it. I personally think any kind of topic ban is a heavy handed approach, and I think sends out the wrong message. Moved from other sections @Seraphimblade:To summerise my response to your points as briefly as I can to keep within the word limit I have no problem disageeing with people, but I've had at least one heavily involved editor actually say > "Yes, I am absolutely taking a moral view, because I don't like bigotry. There is nothing "blinding" me, but I'm not going to bend to the whims of transphobes." then I think my stance that people who have a particular view of it and are not open to evidence changing their mind, is correct. I don't think reminding people of this comment is a personal attack. I also think the context of my comments is important, for example some comments that have been interpreted as personal attacks were in response to comments that could be interpreted as personal attacks against me. It also depends on your definition of a personal attack, posting a laughing emoji at a statement someone made about a page which I think is laughable, I don't think is a personal attack, I'm laughing at the sentiment expressed. I also am not happy that because I didn't persue formal action against a user I felt was hounding me, that is somehow a black mark against me - I was trying to stop the situation escalating and avoiding wikipedia drama. The user, to their credit, did stop following me after my comment and so I never persued it. I admit that some of my comments may not have been worded in the best way, and some may have been percieved as more agressive than they needed to be. However I stand by the core sentiment of my comments. I don't feel like people have been acting in accordance to wikipedia rules and sentiment. For discussion of being banned from things - I think it's a rather futile discussion because I've basically given up from editing any contentious articles on wikipedia because I feel like it's unfortunately being shaped by the views of editors and not being a well sourced neutral encylopedia. Unlike GraziePrego implies, I don't think it's a conspiracy, just that editors who are heavily on one side of the argument are totally dominanting GENSEX articles. My total contribution to Wikipedia since my change request was rejected is 5 edits to the Graham Linehan talk page, contributing to existing discussions and not starting new ones, so I don't think a ban is needed. Icecold (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] just to add in response @GraziePrego >I believe they will start participating in discussions on other GENSEX related pages making the same comments about how the consensus there is all artificially created by biased editors. I don't think what one editor believes I *might* do is a good enough reason to ban someone. As I've stated, I believe it's a waste of my time and my time could be used more constructively elsewhere than fighting losing battles. Icecold (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] @EvergreenFir:You've admitted I've had 261 edits over 19 years and have contributed to a varied range of articles and then you state I'm not here to build an encyclopedia.. I only tend to get involved if I see something that is wrong, I have a full time job and family and haven't got the time or desire to edit Wikipedia all the time... Icecold (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Springee:Hey, thanks for the constructive comment I do have a question about passing aspersions though, in my case the editor in question literally admitted to using their own moral compass to guide their decisions, and I don't think pointing to that comment is passing aspersions as that's what they literally said. As for other editors, I concede that some of my comments may have been a tad aggressive, but I did feel attacked. I have tried to reach out on user pages, and I feel like I was genuinely trying to improve the article, having picked the most neutral wording I could. I even (as others like to point out) ran it through an LLM in order to make sure it was as palatable to others as I could make it. I spent quite a bit of time researching sources, and went in with good intentions. I have largely stayed away, just making 4 or 5 small comments on the talk page, but not reopening the debate or anything, my comments were mainly to people who would come in with similar suggestions to mine, because I feel like that side of the debate is under represented on Wikipedia. As for your suggestions, I probably wouldn't propose a ban based on number of edits, only because it's taken me 19 years to reach over 200, so by that time frame it'll take me almost a hundred years to make those edits! Also, to be honest, this whole episode hasn't been a very welcoming or a positive experience, so I'm not in a rush to contribute more, but I'm happy to agree to a time exclusion ban. Also, sorry just a final question, I don't know how these things work, when you say don't reply in the admin section, just reply in yours, but I'm word limited and I've already gone over the word limit, so I don't understand how I can reply to people there? It will also be out of context won't it? Sorry I'm just not understanding :) I'm happy to move my comments if need be? Icecold (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] @GraziePrego you were making personal attacks against me too. You've likened me to a spent firework coming back to earth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraziePrego&diff=prev&oldid=1291620900, said I'm making an exhibition of myself https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraziePrego&diff=prev&oldid=1291619966, and you were jumping in on every discussion I had on people's user pages.. Was a bit odd. Icecold (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ I really take issue with your statement - you're attempting to link me to a banned user to imply that I am on wikipedia for the same reasons as that banned user is. I have been on wikipedia for 19 years, and over those 19 years I have made edits on various articles - yes I've not made thousands of edits, but small edits here and there. I reached out to that user (before they were banned) to possibly collaborate because they had been supportive of my request to change, and I thought together we might have been able to create a better request. I then expressed suprise that that user was banned within half an hour of being informed that there was an investigation into them with no right to reply. I stand by those comments - I think that anyone, on either side of any debate has a right to reply, I would defend anyone's right to reply even if I vehemently disagree with them. Icecold (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] @GraziePrego I apologise if I crossed the line - but I stand by my comment that you were stalking me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HandThatFeeds&diff=prev&oldid=1290348015 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HandThatFeeds&diff=prev&oldid=1290535049 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gazumpedheit&diff=prev&oldid=1290795322 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gazumpedheit&diff=prev&oldid=1290795569 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TarnishedPath&diff=prev&oldid=1291554802 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TarnishedPath&diff=prev&oldid=1291618219 Are all examples of you replying to me on other users talk pages when you weren't tagged or mentioned. So unless you regularly visit all those editors talk pages, you were clearly following my edits on wikipedia. As for your other points, we'll have to agree to disagree because I'm way over my word count I think. Icecold (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ I'm not sure what bigoted statement you're referring to, but just because I reach out to a user that doesn't mean I endorse all their viewpoints? I also didn't realise they hadn't been around for long. I was reaching out because I thought wikipedia encouraged people to reach out to gain consensus? I also fundamentally agree with everyones right to reply. I don't agree with aryan supremecy, but someone accused of advocating it in my opinion has a right to defend themselves. IMO Wikipedia is in the wrong here. @User:TarnishedPath I don't think that discussion shows that at all - I just wanted to make the page more accurate. I have been a member of wikipedia for 19 years, and since this Graham Linehan debate I haven't gone on to edit any other pages and I've only made 5 contributions to the talk page since. So to state I'm going to go on a culture war quest is clearly an incorrect assumption. And Maybe GraziePrego is on your page a lot, but yours wasn't the only page they commented directly to me on. It felt very much like I was being stalked.

@Icecold: Do not make any further comments or edits in this thread (including in other users' sections or the admin section) without explicit permission from an administrator, or they will be reverted and you may be blocked. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GraziePrego

 

   GraziePrego's statement contains 601 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

I think everything has been well covered, thank you Snokalok for starting this thread- I was strongly considering starting one myself about Icecold's behaviour. I would only add

• this, where Icecold casts aspersions and personally attacks User:HandThatFeeds, describing them with " it's clear that handthatfee... is a biased editor who has made up their mind to shut down all debate. I've tried to hash it out with them on their talk page, but it's clear that no amount of reliable sources I could provide will change their mind as they're pushing their own viewpoint on Wikipedia, which I think is pretty shameful". This is on top of repeatedly casting aspersions about HandThatFeeds in the previous discussion, the diff for that is already linked I think.

My personal feeling is that Icecold isn't going to move on from their previous discussion on Talk:Graham Linehan not going their way, and they are now going to reply in every single discussion that begins on that talk page to complain about a conspiracy of activists silencing their viewpoint. In my opinion, this is disruptive.

(Editing to add a little to my comment) I would be in favour of a GENSEX topic ban for Icecold, as their desire to work against "activist editors" is not just limited to Linehan's page, they believe it's a conspiracy that extends to other GENSEX related articles. I believe they will start participating in discussions on other GENSEX related pages making the same comments about how the consensus there is all artificially created by biased editors. GraziePrego (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my comments based on what Icecold has said so far. I think the fact that they can look at this diff where they called my editing "moronic in the extreme", and said "You argue in bad faith", and Icecold looks at that diff and denies that they were making personal attacks and just commenting on editing? Seriously? I'm not seeing much understanding from Icecold that they was being highly personal with their comments. GraziePrego (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Icecold, which is a personal attack out of "your editing is moronic in the extreme" and pointing out that you were making an exhibition of yourself by:

• bludgeoning one discussion,
• going to remonstrate with those who disagreed with you on their talk page,
• restarting the discussion immediately when it didn't go your way,
• then going and remonstrating with the closer when that also didn't go your way,
• and then making a second post on their talk page attacking them when they closed your first attack on them,
• and then coming to my talk page to accuse me of stalking you?

To me, that is making an exhibition of yourself- and that entirely describes your *editing*, and is not an attack on you personally. I never accused you of behaving in bad faith- you made no secret of accusing everyone who disagreed with you of acting in bad faith, including me. GraziePrego (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unarchiving this thread as it rolled into the archives without any decision being taken- it seemed like there was mood for action to be taken. GraziePrego (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Snokalok as this is originally your thread :) GraziePrego (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir@Guerillero@Seraphimblade@Valereee@TarnishedPath@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist@Springee pinging previously involved in the discussion GraziePrego (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation by @Icecold of forumshopping and gaming is clearly spurious. This thread was archived with *no outcome* by an automatic bot, not closed with a decision taken. The allegations only have weight if this discussion had concluded with no action being taken, and I had freaked out and just created a new thread. That's very different to what has actually happened. GraziePrego (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

Icecold, while your account isn't new, I would suggest based on your limited recent edits you should be granted a bit of wp:ROPE that is frequently given to new users. The path you're on is clearly not working and at best it will result in a tban and possibly an outright block. I think at least an outright block could be avoided if you understand and agree to the following.

• Do not comment on users (unless the statement is clearly positive). Many online forums draw the line at actually insulting people (exp: Editor Patel is stupid). Wikipedia's CIVIL policy is stricter than that. Suggesting someone's motives are other than trying to improve the content of the encyclopedia is casting aspersions. This means you should not suggest someone is "clearly a conservative/liberal/right/left/up/down/etc". It is of course acceptable to argue an edit might make a reader think the article is biased or that a source is biased and that negatively impacts it's WEIGHT etc. But just don't comment on the other editors as a person. If in doubt I'm sure the admins below, if contacted on their talk page, would help you understand where the limits are if you aren't sure about a comment.
• Stick to the facts, not emotions. Yeah, sometimes it's naturel to think, "what the Belgium[65] is that person thinking". However, sometimes it's just our own failure to understand their perspective that is the issue. Trying to reach out civilly on user talk pages may not always work but I've been pleased how often it does.
• Agree to stay away from the Graham Linehan page for a while. I would suggest 6 months or/and until you have say at least 1000 edits. The idea is to work on other parts of Wikipedia to show that you understand how to work with others. If you declare a self imposed tban, and stick with it, that will show that you are trying to avoid issues.

I think it you agree to the above and stick to it you should be able to avoid a formal tban and certainly an outright block. People around here can be quite forgiving if they see that an editor has understood and fixed a problem. Also, one more thing, don't reply in the admin space, just reply in your own section. Springee (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Icecold, unless the admins say you need to reply to the other editors, you don't. Also, it seems that the admins are open to the idea of you stepping away from the Linehan page. It's not clear they would accept a voluntary tban but if you feel you can stick to it I would offer it. Do make sure you understand what broadly construed means - don't edit content about Linehan on other pages. Even if you get an article/tban, it seems like they are otherwise giving you the benefit of the doubt and just a warning to not do the same things in the future. Again, no reason to reply to the other accusations unless admins ask. Springee (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by YFNS (Icecold)

Just want to note they were collaborating with and defending a user blocked for NOTHERE behavior and transphobic rants.WP:AE/Archive353/Gazumpedheit

In May 2025, IceCold went to User talk:Gazumpedheit to say (regarding Graham Linehan) , but it's clear that handthatfee... is a biased editor who has made up their mind to shut down all debate. I've tried to hash it out with them on their talk page, but it's clear that no amount of reliable sources I could provide will change their mind as they're pushing their own viewpoint on Wikipedia, which I think is pretty shameful. ... So I was reaching out to see if there's some way we can appeal in a way that doesn't allow them to shut down the discussion unilaterally, either through a RFC or DRN? While I would rather not lose the argument, if I feel like I've lost the argument fairly, by consensus, then I can take it, when it's artificially shut down by activist editors then I cannot take that lying down..

• When the response is Hi @Icecold, welcome to Wikipedia of 2025. I'm afraid I can't have much to offer rather than to ping Void if removed for their advice, as a person who has far greater knowledge of the mechanics of Wiki than I. I would wager that Hand That Feeds owes you an apology to be honest, for their unqualified dismissal of your valid point

• IC responded But yeah, it's very scary. In both the UK (due to the supreme court judgement) and the US (with Trumps exec order) the overton window is shifting to stopping the shutting down of gender critical viewpoints by calling them transphobic, but yet if you come onto wikipedia (or reddit), you're told that any criticism or worries raised is transphobic and bigoted. I've had gender critical accused of being the same as racism which is pure hyperbole. Wikipedia isn't representing society, and is clearly, on several contenious issues, just representing the opinions of a Wikipedia editors, like like how Reddit moderators enforce their opinions on their subreddits.

• Gazumhedit once again pinged in VIR
• IC responded I've just seen they've banned you without seemingly a chance for you to respond and then gloating about it on your talk page. Classy.

• Followed by arguing Gazumphedit's NOTHERE block was unfair since they couldn't defend themselves [66]

Pretty plainly WP:NOTHERE and seeking to WP:RGW IMHO. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Icecold, you reached out to request help from a user who, it had been noted in the thread they replied to you in, made bigoted comments[67]

An editor who'd made less than 20 edits (not a good idea to ask advice based on that alone) and who you reached out to as the only person who agreed with you. You insulted other editors on their talk page.

And WP supports no right to reply. If somebody came on insisting that the truth of Aryan supremacy would win over the next few years, they'd be blocked. Not given a chance to explain why they said it (because the answer is bigotry). Bigotry is a no-go here. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IC accusing GP of stalking over Gazumpedheit's page is particularly nonsensical. GP edited the page before IC did[68] so was presumably watching it, and gave IC a very neutral clear answer to their question about how blocks work.[69][70] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

The discussion which YFNS referred to at User_talk:Gazumpedheit#Linehan page, indicates that IC is WP:NOTHERE. It appears that they are here to engage in culture war WP:BATTLE. I don't see that a ban from Graham Linehan or from GENSEX more broadly is going to cease the disruption as there is plenty more in Wikipedia that editors can engage in culture war battle over. TarnishedPath^talk 02:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Icecold, I can tell you for a fact that it is not uncommon for GP to visit my talk page. We have overlapping interests and I would make a bet that they have my talk on their watchlist as I do with them. TarnishedPath^talk 02:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GraziePrego and @Icecold, please move your comments to your own sections. TarnishedPath^talk 11:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

If Graham Linehan is the 'only' article, that Icecold has been discussing, in relation to this report? Than as a preventative measure, I'd recommend a 1-month pageblock. This will give an editor enough time to cool off & reflect. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rankersbo

I am new to arbitration so not aware of what actions can be taken. The main issue with Icecold is that they use a passive-aggressive smokescreen of objectivity to try and reframe the debate around their own biases, claiming that neutrality lies around their own position, when it lies far from it. Their constant claims that other editors are "activist" constitute aspersions of bad faith, and use of performative victimhood such as accusations of stalking and cries of "leave me alone" in response to reasonable interactions are a continuation of this behaviour. The comments warning another user of a ban are inferring that the system is at fault rather than the behaviour.

The root does appear to be the Linehan page, but has spilled out onto user talk pages. Comments made in this arbitration and elsewhere on personal talk pages do not show someone who has accepted fault with their attitudes and behaviour with contrition, or who intends to take on board criticism in order to learn and grow.

I note a page block has been made, but am unclear as to whether this is sufficient, and given the nature of the behaviour, if anything beyond that can be done. Rankersbo (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Halbared)

The Graham Linehan page is blocked and taken care of, GoodDay's suggestion of a 1 month pageblock to allow matters to cool may be a suitable step forward, and perhaps also a two-way interaction ban between grazieprego and Icecold.Halbared (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Icecold

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

• So, as appearing in order:

  Diff 1 ([71]), comment on content, not editors. You're certainly free to disagree with other editors, but trying to assign bad motives to them is unacceptable. In many cases, reasonable people can disagree.

  Diff 2 ([72]), same as diff 1.

  Diff 3 ([73]), same as diff 1, and the "laughing" face at the end even more so. While again you are free to disagree with other editors, ridiculing them is totally out of line.

  Diff 4 ([74]), same as diff 1.

  Diff 5 ([75]), expressing frustration in one's own userspace, and users are allowed pretty wide latitude in their own userspace. Not as concerned about this one.

  Diff 6 ([76]), criticizing someone else for contributing a lot is completely inappropriate.

  Diff 7 ([77]), casting aspersions. If Icecold genuinely felt like someone was inappropriately stalking them, they should have brought that up in the appropriate venue, with actual evidence, to request action on that. However, it is not uncommon for editors interested in the same topic area to run into one another at more than one article. While one can tell other editors not to post on their user talk page, one cannot demand that another editor [l]eave me alone in general; that would effectively amount to a unilateral interaction ban.

  Diff 8 ([78]), the nastiness and sarcasm is unacceptable and unnecessary.

  Diff 9 ([79]), talk page discussions are open to participation by any interested editor; again, Icecold may not unilaterally decide that another editor should not participate. And, again, editors interested in the same area may have one another's talk page on their watchlist; that is neither uncommon nor inappropriate.

  Diff 10 ([80]), while the use of LLMs is not strictly forbidden, disruptive behavior is, and in practice, LLM usage often leads to disruption. Icecold has committed to no longer doing this, so as long as they uphold that, this is again not as much of a current concern.

• All that said, I think Icecold needs, at minimum, to be removed from the subject of Graham Linehan, as they clearly don't have the appropriate temperament to edit on that topic. I'll give Icecold an additional 300 words to explain why that shouldn't just be a GENSEX topic ban overall; as they're relatively new, I'd prefer a narrower restriction if possible, but not if that just means the disruption will get moved elsewhere. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• They are not relatively new. The account is 19 years old. The problem is that of their 261 edits, 100 are from 2025 and 70% of those are on Talk:Graham Linehan. This user is being disruptive and at minimum a partial block from Graham Linehan is needed. I would argue, however, that this is beyond AE and just a case of NOTHERE. I see no evidence that the user is here to improve the encyclopedia. I only see WP:BATTLEGROUND. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm applying "relatively new" in terms of experience at editing, not account age. There's a lot of fighting going on, certainly, but there seems to be at least some concern for article quality and reliability in with that, so I'm reluctant to give up any hope. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Icecold, you are far over the word limit. Further responses from you will be removed unless you request and receive an extension (which at this point is unlikely), and there is no need for you to reply to everyone who comments here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support a p-block from Linehan, certainly. If the problem recurs in other GENSEX topics, a tban. Icecold, you say I'm not allowed to respond to every allegation about me, due to the word limit. That is incorrect. You have plenty of space if you write short. Spit it out on the page, then edit it down to what's necessary. I could edit out a third of your statement easily. Learning to write short is extremely valuable here. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (I'd say learning to write concisely is a valuable skill in general, and on Wikipedia in general, not just for AE. Whether or not I'm always good at it is a separate question.) I was thinking as a topic ban from Graham Linehan enforced by p-block but also applying across the project, since a fair bit of the disruptive behavior was on user talk pages and the like related to that subject. I think Icecold needs to step away from that subject entirely until they've gained more editing experience elsewhere. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Icecold, a topic ban from Lineham means you cannot discuss him -- or anything closely related to him, such as his works -- anywhere on Wikipedia, including in talk pages. The only place you can even mention him is within an appeal of the topic ban. The reasoning behind a topic ban for a very inexperienced user is to prevent you from being disruptive while still giving you the opportunity to learn how to contribute productively by allowing you to edit in other topics.

  I (and most other experienced editors) would advise editing in noncontentious topics while you learn. Arguing about the appropriate use of "gender critical" vs. "anti-transgender" in a BLP is a minefield even for highly experienced editors. And accusing someone of stalking you because they appeared at the talk pages of other editors you both have interacted with is evidence of your lack of experience. That is completely normal. I do it literally every day, and it happens to me regularly. Valereee (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a full topic ban from GENSEX would be preferable --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Icecold claims "I have voluntarily stayed away from editing controversial pages". Yet only minutes before this thread was unarchived (which is procedurally permissible, to be clear), Icecold posted in support of another user who made the same types of POV-pushing comments regarding Linehan. Above I see a clear consensus for some kind of sanction, with admins on the fence between a narrow or broad TBAN. Given that we now have evidence Icecold saw the need to return to this disruptive editing a month after getting off on a technicality, I'm satisfied that they are not currently able to be a constructive presence in this topic area, and think a GENSEX TBAN is the minimum viable solution. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I've pblocked from Linehan and its talk as an individual admin action. No objection to anyone else deciding the make an AE tban from GENSEX, I just didn't see that yet, but felt the pblock was clearly indicated. Valereee (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @GraziePrego: You are also over your word limit. Do not add anything further (or remove anything to get more words for replies) without permission from an administrator. (And in the future, please ask an administrator to reopen an archived arbitration enforcement thread, even if it was never closed.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lt.gen.zephyr

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

Request concerning Lt.gen.zephyr

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ZDRX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lt.gen.zephyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 23 August - Created problematic Battle of Rajasthan (1965) by copy pasting an article created on Simple Wiki by an LTA (banned on English Wiki) just 2 days earlier. [81][82]
2. 24 August - Wrongly claims that "Mentioned pages doesn't cite the casualties number", when the source supports it.[83]
3. 24 August - Unnecessarily asking another editor to "Show where it is mentioned" despite getting exact URL to the page number.
4. 24 August - Restores his misrepresentation of sources and accuses me of not reading the source.
5. 24 August - Doubles down with his misrepresentation of sources by citing page numbers that don't support his claims.
6. 24 August - Continues to double down with his claims
7. 25 August - Still misrepresenting the source. He is still wrongly claiming that "victory claim is mentioned" on this page, when it is not.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

[84]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Lt.gen.zephyr is not addressing the concerns about his edits here and he is not admitting any of his faults. He cites "victories in the deserts of Sindh" (see Thar Desert of Sindh) to be descriptive of "Battle of Rajasthan" when Sindh and Rajasthan are both separate from each other. He is still doubling down with his misrepresentation of sources. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 02:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is clearly stated in the opening paragraph of the article that The Battle of Rajasthan refers to several clashes and skirmishes fought between Pakistan and India in India's Rajasthan state and Pakistan's Sindh state during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965.

If one examines the reference book, under the title Sulemanki and Munabao (A town in Rajasthan) (page number 124-125 in slider), it notes that Pakistan's 51 brigade repulsed the Indian attack on Sindh and subsequently captured Indian town Munabao alongwith the railway station. Just a few lines later it says Their victories in the Sindh were welcomed. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[85]

Discussion concerning Lt.gen.zephyr

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Lt.gen.zephyr

• About Indo-Pakistan war of 1965

1. 2- Source number 9 (Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492–2015, 4th ed) says Indian killed in action was 3,712 and Pakistani killed in action was 1,500. That's why I had used an range to determine the losses. Later when I was given additional reference, I didn't revert it and let it stay there. Sadly I couldn't access the other source, source number 11 (The Roots and Consequences of 20th-Century Warfare: Conflicts That Shaped the Modern World).
2. 3- Unfortunately the user who had shared me a link didn't take me to the page number. I could only see the book's name, topic and the information about the writer. Later I was provided additional sources by another user, I proposed to add both of the casualties figure. The meesage where I was provided with additional sources to cross verify - [86].

I didn't make a change later as it was proven to me that the numbers for India and Pakistani losses were 3,00 and 3,800 respectively. The sole reason for me to change was the source in the infobox which was accessible said 3,712 and 1,500 whereas the inaccessible source said the other thing. The 9th source is accessible and is mentioned here -> [87]. Another major thing is source 10, (Encyclopedia of Wars) which is used as neutral claim also says APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: India, 900,000; Pakistan, 233,000 CASUALTIES: India, 3,712 killed, 7,638 wounded; Pakistan, 1,500 killed, 4,300 wounded TREATIES: Conference at Tashkent, 1966. Since there are two different numbers, I used a range to clearify it. Another speech I'd like to share regarding source 11 (The Roots and Consequences of 20th-Century Warfare: Conflicts That Shaped the Modern World) is the page cited 267 talks about Byzantine–Ottoman Turk War (1453–1461),(1422) and (1359–1399), not about the 1965 war. So the claim of the 3,000 and 3,800 goes null and void.

• Edit 1 : Attaching Encyclopedia of Wars's link here for users to verify my statement - [88]
• Edit 2 : Replaced Encyclopedia of Wars's link as that version was partially available. The page number is 602.

Battle of Rajasthan (1965),

I already mentioned the territorial change's source in the talk page when the user asked. [89]. Anyone may crosscheck by seeing page 256 - (Origins of Political Extremism: Mass Violence in the Twentieth Century and Beyond)

About Pakistan victory, it is mentioned in (A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections, 5th Edition) in page 108 (as per slide 125) saying Their victories in the deserts of Sindh were welcomed, which I told earlier in the talk. [90]

I never claimed Bharat Rakhshak to be official publication, I stated they publish official Indian documents in public ___domain. I have changed each and every sources written by Pakistani officers who took part in the war, only one or two are there and that only exists in the article for the information of the commanders in the battle. I hope you'd check the sources before commenting. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBlaze Lightning

I share the same observation that Lt.gen.zephyr's conduct in these contentious war articles of late has been troublesome. While this very report remained open at this board, they edit warred on Battle of Hussainiwala, making three reverts in a matter of hours,[91][92][93], to anyhow retain an unreliable source Bharat Rakshak, falsely claiming them to be Indian military official publication and thus an WP:RS, while the website stated in its very self-description that it was run by everyday "military enthusiasts".[94]. They have also posted long blocks of texts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hussainiwala, and continue to clutter the discussion and bludgeon others with same arguments, all the while refusing to get that blogs written by military officials who fought the battle did not constitute WP:SIGCOV according to our policies. Given their present conduct despite this open report, I don't think they plan to comply with the Wikipedia guidelines in this highly contentious topic going forward either. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Lt.gen.zephyr

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

Alaexis

Alaexis is warned to be more careful when interacting with primary sources, especially regarding living or recently deceased people. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Alaexis User who is submitting this request for enforcement IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Alaexis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 11 Aug 2025 POV pushing and BLP violation at the article Anas al-Sharif, a Palestinian journalist recently killed by the Israeli military. Alaexis changed a sentence from "Since October 2023, Al-Sharif became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza, refusing to evacuate the north despite repeated Israeli orders and direct threats to his life." to "Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks and became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza, [...etc]". The only source they added for this claim is an unverified primary source, supposedly an "archived link to a post he made on Telegram".[95] Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any No previous sanctions that I'm aware of. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Long time editor in the topic area. Additional comments by editor filing complaint This is a long time editor in the topic area who is fully aware of our policies regarding NPOV and BLP. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @SilverLocust, I wasn't aware of WP:BLPSPS. The editor who reverted Alaexis' edit cited WP:BLPPRIMARY. Having now read BLPSPS I'm not sure I understand how these two policies don't contradict each other. Also I didn't rush here seeking sanctions, I first emailed an admin about my concerns and asked how to proceed and was told "I would agree it violates NPOV (specifically DUE) and BLP, as well as OR since it goes beyond straightforward paraphrase. I would suggest bringing the matter to AE." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Swatjester, don't you think there's a big difference between Alaexis' edit stating as a fact that "Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks", compared to how The Times reported it using phrases such as "an Israeli journalist has claimed" and "allegedly"? Another article in The Times reports it as "Eitan Fischberger, an Israeli journalist and former IDF soldier, also published an archived Telegram post which purported to show Sharif celebrating the Hamas-led attacks on Israel of October 7, 2023, in which 1,200 Israelis died."[96] and +972 Magazine reports it as "The message, which appears completely inconsistent with Al-Sharif’s posting history on or after the events of October 7, was deleted soon after it was published. Many of Al-Sharif’s news updates on that day were copied and re-posted from other groups, chat rooms, or news sites. This means that the statement could have been an accidental post that he deleted as soon as he was made aware of it."[97] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Vanamonde that an important element of this is that the claim was "not presented as an isolated statement about his views, but as a negative veneer for his career". What kind of sentence is "Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks and became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza [...]"? This is not how RS describe Al-Sharif. RS speak of him how Wikipedia did/does as ~"[Since October 7th 2023,] Al-Sharif became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alaexis#Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion Discussion concerning Alaexis Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Alaexis Just saw that there is a complaint against me. I understand that the problem was with using primary sources for a BLP topic (WP:BLPPRIMARY). I did exercise caution in using a primary source: I checked that this comes from the same account that was listed in the article about Al Sharif and looked at other content in that channel. We have RS that cite the same channel without any caveats. Another issue noted below was with my wording: I wrote that Al Sharif "celebrated" the attacks whereas he wrote heroes are still roaming the country, killing and capturing... Oh God, how great you are. I'm not sure it counts as an interpretation but if this were the main problem then the right way to fix it would've been to replace it with text that follows the source more closely. I believe that I could've been more careful with sourcing and I'll definitely be more careful with BLP topics from now on. The contentious content was removed from the article some time ago, and I would have been open to discussing these concerns at the talk page to reach consensus on proper sourcing. Alaexis¿question? 19:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by LokiTheLiar As a totally uninvolved editor who stumbled across this filing, I'd like to point out that in addition to the problems Tamzin pointed out with step 6, there are also problems with steps 2 and 5: The issue with step 2 is that, just like how Alaexis did not cite an interpretation of that Telegraph post, he also didn't cite a source saying that that is in fact the subject's Telegraph account. Now, reliable sources agree it is, but for a similar reason to why interpreting the post himself is bad, not giving a source that proves this account is the subject's account is a BLP violation, and a separate one to the OR interpretation of the post. It's not like it's impossible to impersonate someone on social media: if you want to cite someone's social media for a controversial statement you do in fact have to have some kind of evidence that it's actually them saying that. The issue with step 5 is IMO much more clear: WP:NONENG says directly that Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people, and this is clearly both, so relying on Google Translate is definitely inappropriate. Now, there's actually no reason necessarily to believe that Alaexis did this: Alaexis used the Arabic directly as the source (which is separately problematic for a BLP since it's hard to verify but that's neither here nor there). But I think that AE very clearly should not use machine translation to support any interpretation of that Telegraph post, positive or negative. We don't know if al-Sharif called anyone "heroes". We know Google Translate says he did, but Google Translate is itself not a reliable source and very easily could have mistranslated a word or missed nuances of language like sarcasm. Loki (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Zero0000 Incidentally, the statement is a Quranic allusion and partly a direct quote (Q17:5). If this ends up in the article, then +972's report that it was soon removed and contradicts his other posts should also be there. We don't know the story behind it and shouldn't pretend that we do. A possibility is that he praised it as a battle but removed the post on learning that it was more of a massacre. Zerotalk 03:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by TylerBurden While I'm not familiar with Alaexis's edits in this topic area, they recently made this edit within WP:RUSUKR creating a section about ″energy infrastructure″ on the Russian invasion of Ukraine consisting mostly of content about Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure or Ukrainians being arrested for sabotage. I think this was a pretty plain violation of WP:NPOV, albeit in a different CTOP, given the fixation on Ukraine being the main culprit of attacks on energy infrastructure despite Russia being widely covered in WP:RS targeting Ukrainian infrastructure, particularly during winter times, their edit mostly focused on attacks damaging Russian energy incomes. TylerBurden (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username) Result concerning Alaexis This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. @IOHANNVSVERVS: Which of the following steps, if any, do you disagree with/object to (enough to merit sanctions)? WP:BLPSPS allows use of social network posts by the subject as sources of material about himself. Seemingly nobody has contested that https://t.me/anas1020304050 is his Telegram account. The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine is the web archive most frequently used on Wikipedia (and any evidence that one of its archives has ever been faked would be of great interest). The archived text on "Oct 7" is "9 ساعات ولا زال الأبطال يجوسون خلال الديار يقتلون ويأسرون.. الله الله ما أعظمكم 💚💚💚." Google Translate's translation of that is "9 hours and the heroes are still roaming the country, killing and capturing... Oh God, how great you are." Alaexis wrote, citing that post, that "Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks". ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] I don't think the difference between celebrated the October 7 attacks versus referred to October 7 attack participants as "heroes" "killing and capturing" is so significant as to require a sanction. (What IOHANNVSVERVS questioned on Alaexis's talk page was just the authenticity of the post, not anything about there being another way to interpret it.) It's certainly fair to respond that it should just quote precisely what he said (to avoid interpretation) or that available secondary sources should be included alongside the post (and separately from the refs not related to the post). All I'd support is an informal reminder to do those things. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Though I said informal reminder, I'm also fine with a warning. Regarding the comments about the +972 piece's (mistaken) assertion that it was deleted soon after, the post was archived 50 days later and then again earlier this year, so the deletion was sometime between this April and August. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The edits in question, about Sharif's telegram account and his celebration of October 7 appear to have been previously in the article here where they were cited to The Times, a reliable source. "Anas Al-Sharif celebrated the protagonists of the October 7 terrorist attacks as “heroes” while the pogrom was under way, an Israeli journalist has claimed." The same The Times source also reiterates many of the same claims found in the Times of Israel source which details the IDF's claims and evidence of Sharif's status as an actively-paid Hamas rocket-launching team commander -- claims which have been scrubbed from the article in the past two weeks. So, I'm struggling to see how this is UNDUE, insignificant, or not published by a reliable source. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @IOHANNVSVERVS: Quibbling over the exact wordsmithing is one thing, but that didn't happen here, did it? From what I can tell the edits were reverted wholesale, at least twice. If the content would have been acceptable with some better variation of including the word "alleged" and noting that the Times is reiterating another journalist, that raises the natural follow-up question of "why that didn't happen and why this was escalated to AE instead." ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yes, this is a conduct noticeboard; but this is not a conduct dispute. This is a content dispute in which very little attempt has been made to seriously justify any claims of misconduct nor do there appear to have been significant attempts to resolve this directly with the user in question. We don't get to have it both ways -- either this is not subject matter for this forum in the first place (in which case it should be summarily closed), or it is and the substance of the edits in question are relevant to the dispute. The WP:PRIMARY argument holds zero weight with me when there had been pre-existing attempts to include the same information sourced to perennially reliable secondary sources, and it was summarily removed. Come on, we're supposed to be better than that kind of procedural nitpicking, something that resembles the Committee's recent finding that "Highly tendentious disputes over objectively minor issues hurt the Wikipedia project. They hurt the project by reducing editor co-operation, and can drive editors away from working in the areas of the encyclopedia in which they occur. The fact that something may contradict Wikipedia policies or guidelines is not enough to justify disruption that exceeds the harm caused by the underlying issue. Editors are expected to maintain proper perspective about the issues under discussion, and act to further the greater good of the encyclopedia." Do you think that sanctioning Alaexis for this on the basis of WP:PRIMARY demonstrates the degree of perspective that satisfies the greater good of the encyclopedia when we *know* that non-primary sources use the exact wording in question and the only underlying issue is around categorizing it as an allegation? I certainly don't. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 07:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] A serious BLP violation doesn't stop being a serious BLP violation just because there's a way to make a similar edit that wouldn't be a BLP violation. If there weren't the case, we'd never be able to sanction anyone who overstates the extent of a felon's crimes or pushes some gossipy stuff that happens to be true. That's not procedural nitpicking or objectively minor. That is a major aspect of BLP enforcement. There's two questions for us to answer here: 1) Did Alaexis introduce policy-violating content to an article? 2) Is a sanction necessary to prevent them from doing that again? On (1), the answer is straightforwardly yes. On (2), I reserve judgment pending response from Alaexis. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Except the subject is dead, and was confirmed dead by reliable sources at the time the edit was made, and this is a further reason why WP:BPD is bad policy, because it states a general rule that Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. but then goes on to state that The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. So how long does it extend here and where/when was that decided vis-a-vis this article? An indefinite, indeterminate period providing zero guidance as to how that period should be calculated as an exception to a general rule that it would not apply, is too vague to reasonably be grounds to sanction an editor IMO.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 08:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] You're welcome to start another RfC on the wording of BDP; I closed the most recent one, which restored the current wording after a previous undiscussed weakening of the rule. But just as it isn't AE's place to decide whether Alaexis is on the right side of the content dispute, it isn't AE's place to rewrite policy. There is no ambiguity as to whether BDP, as currently written, extends BLP to Anas Al-Sharif, who had been dead for all of a day at the time the edit was made. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] I was the one who suggested that Iohannvs file here. In my view, the answer to SilverLocust's question is point 6: It's an editorialization—a plausible editorialization, perhaps, but still an editorialization—and thus violates WP:PRIMARY (Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.) and WP:BLPSOURCES. Pace Swatjester, it makes no difference to me whether other sources exist that would support including that sentence, because Alaexis didn't cite those sources. This is a conduct noticeboard, not a content noticeboard, and if Alaexis does not understanding the issue with saying a recently deceased person celebrated the October 7 attacks sourced only to their own analysis of a social media post he made, that is a matter that needs to be addressed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] We require editors writing about BLPs to rely on secondary sources to characterize them, not on their own analyses of the subject's own words. If secondary sources attribute a position to this person, add that by all means, but OR from a telegram channel? This is basic stuff: I would call this a more clear-cut NPOV violation than is usually brought to this board. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Swatjester and SilverLocust: The subject's recent death is secondary. Interpreting a person's own words to paint them in a negative light in a lead sentence that was about their career, not their views, is a violation of NOR and NPOV. We've been over this many times with other subjects with a penchant for controversial soundbytes. Secondary sources are required for interpretive statements, and I'm surprised admins think otherwise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] I agree that the BLP policy applies. I'm not aware of an alternative reading of those words having been offered by any source or editor (saying those words do not celebrate participants (i.e., "extol or honour"), namely as الأبطال (the heroes)), and another reading isn't obvious to me, which is why I don't see it as sanctionable interpretation absent reason one should have known that it wasn't permissible description but rather just one possible interpretation. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] It still requires editorial interpretation, no matter how obvious, and it was not presented as an isolated statement about his views, but as a negative veneer for his career, in the article's lead. It is a long-standing principle of NPOV that we do not interpret primary sources in this way. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Alaexis' response here satisfies me that they understand the issues with their edit. I'd support closing this with a logged warning to be more careful when interacting with primary sources, especially regarding living or recently deceased people. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] I would support such a closure. The response misses some things: the key point here is not verifiability, it's neutrality and due weight. I don't think people realize how easy it would be to construct an unfavorable biography of anyone who's active by cherry picking their social media content. But it's sufficiently reflective and conciliatory that nothing further would be justified. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Viceskeeni2

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

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

Appealing user

Viceskeeni2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from Armenia and Azerbaijan topics, broadly construed
(imposed at AN § Disruptive editing of Viceskeeni2, logged at AEL § User sanctions (AA))

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Notification diff

Statement by Viceskeeni2

 

     Viceskeeni2's statement contains 745 words and complies with the 800-word limit.

 

 Y Extension granted to 800 words. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby ask the Arbitration committee to please lift the sanctions put on me in March of 2025, which restrict me from editing on topics associated with Azerbaijan and Armenia. Since the sanctions, I have made approximately 385 edits to Wikipedia in various topics, contributed to various topic areas, made 4 articles (Sawt Safir al-Bulbul, Jabal e-Malaika, Altes Rathaus, Deggendorf, Ya Ali (phrase)), greatly contributed to 3 articles (2025 Iranian strikes on Al Udeid Air Base, Abu Fanous, Ya Ali), gotten into 0 problems or conflicts (atleast I cannot remember getting into any, if I have done so please correct me), become more mature over the last 5 months and gained more knowledge in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict and other topic areas. I genuinely regret past mistakes and promise to try not to repeat those mistakes, e.g. when I mistakenly edited on GS/AA article and then didn't contest the sanctions, knowing I did a mistake and will have to pay for it. I ask you to please lift the sanctions on topics associated with Azerbaijan and Armenia, including the conflict, because I have been on sanctions in connection to these 2 countries for almost a year now and have learnt from my mistakes, promising to become a better editor now and in the future. I would be very happy if the committee accepts this request, have a nice day. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Rosguill's section: I thought editing on userpages and sandboxes doesn't have anything to do with topic bans as they're not public articles or areas. If it actually violates the ban, I will immediately remove it and apologize for my mistake. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The first time I was banned due to being new to Wikipedia and not understanding what I supposed to do and what not, and due to that breaking GS/AA multiple times and doing mistakes the admins could not keep up with properly (and we're fed up with me - I understand why), so I got banned, but then successfully got unbanned and was on a clean streak up to March where I stupidly edited on a page about the conflict (more specifically where I updated information about an Armenian church) and then got TBANed, not resisting though because I knew and admitted my mistake. Now 5 months have gone by, I'm on a clean streak and so on (everything I have referenced above). To answer your second question: My plan for if I get unbanned from that topic is NOT to go on an "offensive" again like I did earlier by 24/7 editing on pages about the conflict but rather update information on specific articles, expand information, correct grammar or other mistakes, update photos (look at my Wikimedia Commons page, I have tons of photos I prepare to upload) with new high quality ones and so on. I, again, apologize for past mistakes I have made and admit to them, and promise to continue trying to be on a clean streak, avoid conflict and not violate anything. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Voorts The last time I was in a conflict was around Nowruz when I got into conflict with an Armenian editor on the page for Gata (food), when I wanted to insert the fact that it is apart of Azerbaijani cuisine but he/she resisted it and then it escalated quick but that's another topic (my ban was not because of the conflict with the editor, no violation there, but because of the afformentioned violation with the church). I'll try to avoid conflicts like these by not getting into contentious areas at first and rather focusing more on the things I mentioned than editing the conflict (I'll of course, if I'm unbanned, edit on the conflict too but not as offensively as I've done before but try to calm things down and back up from editing high-conflict pages). Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Voorts because I'm very familiar with the topic, have become better over the past 5 months, believe I can edit again without causing problems like I did in the past, when I was new to Wikipedia, and because WP:5P, WP:OWN and WP:HOW state anyone can freely edit on Wikipedia and contribute to it and WP:BOLD states that if you see something wrong or bad you SHOULD correct if, which I already stated before is my first aim if I get unblocked from the topic, e.g. with newer and high quality pictures. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Voorts What should I do from this point on? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

 

     Rosguill's statement contains 346 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I'm generally well-inclined to the written content of the request (demotion of Altes Rathaus, Deggendorf to draftspace notwithstanding as notability/translations were not related to the issues for the original block/ban), but asked Viceskeeni2 that they bring it here given that there's a longer history of related blocks and bans that I think is worth considering before moving forward. My understanding is that the full chronology of prior sanctions is:

• 28 August 2024 -- Blocked by me for 31 hours for GS/AA violations
• 6 September 2024 -- Blocked by me, indefinitely, for further GS/AA violations, battleground attitude, and noting quality issues with edits outside GS/AA
• 19 November 2024 -- Unblocked by HouseBlaster with a conditional topic ban from Armenia and Azerbaijan, both individually and the conflict.
• 18 February 2025 -- Tban partially lifted by HouseBlaster, now applies only to the conflict, not the two countries individually.
• 20 March 2025 -- Tban from Armenia and Azerbaijan individually reimposed by me, following report of violations of the conflict-only tban at AN (Special:Diff/1281448939#Disruptive_editing_of_Viceskeeni2).

My overall impression is that the latest appeal says the right things, and there don't appear to have been signs of disruption since the last ban. I am a bit concerned, however, by the repeated problems with prior iterations of the tbans, which, in line with my assessment at the time of the 6 September 2024 block, would seem to indicate a persistent battleground attitude towards this conflict. Reviewing all of this now, I do also note that on 1 March 2025, while still facing a tban from the conflict, Viceskeeni2 added a custom userbox to their userpage expressing This user opposes ethnic separatism in Nagorno-Karabakh... and most of the rest of the post-Soviet separatist conflicts, which seems like another straightforward topic ban violation that went unnoticed and which is still on their userpage at the moment (the contraposition of opposing these "separatist conflicts" while supporting Chechen and Turkestan independence is left as an exercise to the reader I guess). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Viceskeeni2

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Viceskeeni2

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

• @Viceskeeni2: what did you do to get TBAN-ed? How will you avoid getting blocked/banned again going forward? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Viceskeeni2: please make comments in your own section. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Viceskeeni2: I've granted you an extension of another 300 words. When was the last time you were in a conflict? If the TBAN were lifted, how would you avoid conflict in this contentious topic area going forward? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you feel the need to edit in this topic area again? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm neutral on an unban at this point and could be persuaded either way by other admins. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Viceskeeni2: wait for other admins to weigh in here. If they have questions, they will ask. Please note that you're almost at 800 words. If you're asked another question and need more words, please ask for an extension. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edard_Socceryg

Blocked indefinitely as a non-AE action for battleground-y personal attacks and harassment. I recommend that any unblock be conditional on TBANs from WP:CT/A-I and WP:CT/IRP. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Edard_Socceryg User who is submitting this request for enforcement Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Edard_Socceryg (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:CT/A-I and WP:CT/IRP Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it I think Edard was just posted on the WP:AN/EW board by @AlexBobCharles: here [98], but looking back, issues are much more significant. 17 July 2025, 18:35, 18 July, 7:45 Violation of the WP:1RR rule in the arab-israeli conflict area 28 August 2025 17:08 30 August 22:01 31 August 2:28 edit warring and constant reversion to suggest Reza Pahlavi is "the current Leader of the Iranian Transitional Government since February 2025" in WP:LEDE. Some comments include incendiary comments about the sourcing and editors, "Wikipedia is not IRIB or IRGC propaganda tool", or "Three Pro Palestinian users co operating to play the system :) I will open a case soon" 17 July 2025July 9 21:20 July 9 21:28 Aug 20 9:53 The edit warring and reversion to WP:OWN the article and push the POV in lead that Pahlavi is leader of a transitional government has been ongoing since at least July. first diff is to remove a POV tag someone added on, next few are to basically keep the lead Edard approves of. July 17 18:32 July 18 7:45 more edit warring, refusal to listen to community consensus on Al Jazeera 2:28 August 31 2025 deleted my comment on the talk page of article with no real edit info 2:31 August 31, 2025 I know what you are doing and I will review the edits of all three of you users soon. This is not a place for Hamas advertising and propaganda. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None, I think user is newly WP:XC If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Given an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 4:31 16 July 2025 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Was gonna wait to give more WP:ROPE, but decided to just go ahead and do this after the WP:AN/EW section was created. Think this is the correct venue. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [99] Discussion concerning Edard_Socceryg Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Edard_Socceryg The case of these three users is very extensive. They all support each other in Palestine-related articles. They are trying to remove me. Interestingly, I was not even the one who added that content and was just protecting the article. If I need to be more respectful of the discussion with these users, fine. But to the reviewer/admin: They are strangely adding their biased views to Palestine-related articles and I am sure I will soon discover their connection to each other. I'm sorry if you feel i ignored the Talkpage recently. I am willing to discuss the issue further now. Edard Socceryg (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Bluethricecreamman It appears edard is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me on pages I created and contributed significantly towards immediately after I started this. See [100] and [101] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Didn’t notice but also seems like battleground response here. [102] justifying editwaring by suggesting needing to protect Wikipedia from myself and continuing to call editors Hamas propagandists Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result concerning Edard_Socceryg This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Regioncalifornia

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

Request concerning Regioncalifornia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

1. 15:27, 24 August 2025 Regioncalifornia (RC) adds Hebrew name to Beit Hanina
2. 23:09, 24 August 2025 I remove it
3. 00:22, 25 August 2025 RC readds it, breaking the 1RR
4. 08:24, 25 August 2025 Editor 1 pings RC, "You just violated 1RR and I invite you to self-revert"
5. 20:25, 25 August 2025 Editor 2 (me) ask them on their user-page to please revert
6. 22:55, 27 August 2025 Editor 3 gives RC "Last chance to self revert"

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

• Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 22:17, 8 October 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

3 different editors have asked RC to revert, we have all been ignored. AE is last resort, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As to RC "more than 24 hours had already passed since the edit, so I didn't consider a self-revert necessary.": you were notified, again, for the third time, on the 27th and given "Last chance to self revert". You totally ignored it. Why?

And, as I noted on Talk:Hader, Quneitra Governorate, "Nowhere in the Mariupol infobox does it say that Russia occupy/control it", why should it be different for Israeli occupation? Huldra (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified, Huldra (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Regioncalifornia

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Regioncalifornia

First of all, I acknowledge that I violated the 1RR. At the time, I didn't realize it. I logged out after reverting, and when I returned, more than 24 hours had already passed since the edit, so I didn't consider a self-revert necessary. My sincere apologies for the 1RR violation.

My motivation was to apply the same standard that User:Huldra previously required of me in the article Hader, Quneitra Governorate, where she demanded an RfC before allowing one of my edits. Huldra claims that I "added the Hebrew name" in Beit Hanina. That is not accurate. The name had been part of the article for a long time, practically since its creation. Huldra removed it (21:06, 17 August 2025) without prior discussion or clear justification. I reverted her removal and asked that she seek consensus before making such a change.

Rather than engage in discussion, she insisted that I initiate an RfC to restore longstanding content that she had unilaterally removed. While I understand and again apologize for the 1RR violation on my part, I believe this situation reflects an inconsistent standard: why is it acceptable to remove content that has existed for years without prior discussion, while requiring an RfC to reintroduce it?

I hope this can be addressed in a fair and balanced way, with equal expectations for all users.

Again, more than 24 hours already passed. Now it's been almost a week.

Read the talk on the RfC you made me do. Regioncalifornia (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thepharoah17

Just because a Hebrew name was on the page for a long time doesn’t give you the right to break the 1RR. I removed the Hebrew name on Gaza City even though it was there for seven years except there the user self-reverted. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Regioncalifornia

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

Fullquarter

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

Request concerning Fullquarter

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fortuna imperatrix mundi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Fullquarter (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:CT/SA

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

1. 08:22, 23 August 2025 Removed non-contentious sourced material.
2. 08:21, 23 August 2025 Attempted to tag CSD.
3. 08:24, 23 August 2025 Tagged for CSD A7 (declined).
4. 08:28, 23 August 2025 Moved a long-standing page to draft.
5. 07:25, 25 August 2025 PRODed (contested).
6. 06:15, 29 August 2025 Removed non-contentious sourced material.
7. 06:17, 29 August 2025 Removed non-contentious sourced material.
8. 06:18, 29 August 2025 Tagged CSD G7 (declined).
9. 08:08, 1 September 2025 Removed non-contentious sourced material.
10. 08:08, 1 September 2025 Removed sourced material.
11. 08:09, 1 September 2025 Removed sourced material.
12. 08:11, 1 September 2025 Removed non-contentious sourced material.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, at 11:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Appears to be an attempt at whitewashing Abhishek Verma (arms dealer) (with similar tendentious editing, including mass deletion of material and an attempt to CSD on the Parvesh Verma article), all of which has been reverted (although that on Parvesh Verma has yet to be) by repeatedly removing material (some negative, some vanilla and all sourced per WP:BLPSOURCES) and/or the page itself. Myself, users @Sumanuil, Explicit, Zuck28, and Mz7: and doubtless others have cleaned up after them, Zuck28 asked them about their page moves, no reply; Sumanuil warned them for their deletions, and got a 100% AI-generated response). CTOP/BLP also applies (noticed). (Noting for the record, although not as evidence, that Fullquarter is the primary editor of the E& PPF Telecom Group article with its attendant hint of both UPE and AI generation, per GPTZero.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 12:15, 1 September 2025

Discussion concerning Fullquarter

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Fullquarter

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Fullquarter

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

I've indef'd this editor as NOTHERE as an individual admin action without prejudice to AE action. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotitbro

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

Request concerning Gotitbro

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 11 August - Removes statement from Pakistani defence minister Khawaja Asif while himself detailing the statements from Indian Chief of the Air Staff Amar Preet Singh, thereby engaging in pro India POV pushing.
2. 18 August - Removes sourced content with a misleading edit summary.
3. 11 August - Edit warring to restore above edit.
4. 20 August - Overhauling the lead to show Chanakya explicitly as a historical figure, contrary to the fact that no historical evidence exists for Chanakya as per body of the article, thereby pushing pro Hindutva POV.
5. 27 August - Removes longstanding sentence from lead claiming it is "Undue" when the subject in question is an unreliable outlet, notorious for spreading misinformation.
6. 27 August - Engages in edit warring by restoring his revert and citing BRD when he is himself bringing a new edit to the article.
7. 27 August - Continues edit war by falsely claiming "added about a month ago".
8. 27 August - Derailing the thread and attacking another editor by bringing up how he "is t-banned from a closely related topic area".
9. 28 August - Even after being told to focus on content, he is still talking about "editorial behaviour". See WP:IDHT.
10. 28 August - This is the height of WP:BATTLE and WP:IDHT: "Yes, focus on content would have been done were you not restoring sock content willy nilly everywhere despite already being under sanctions. I would strongly suggest you take your time away from contentious topics."
11. 28 August - Poisoning the well by falsely accusing another editor of using "slurs in an offhand manner" and breaching "Wikipedia:Civility".
12. 29 August - WP:IDHT; Still repeating his above false accusations.
13. 29 August - Unnecessarily targeting another editor on the AfD by pointing out their edit count.
14. 29 August - Now falsely accusing this editor of "very COI".
15. 29 August - Now that above personal remarks failed to bait the editor, Gotitbro starts misusing ANI to get rid of this user anyhow by repeating his false accusations of "COI" and "SPA".
16. 30 August - Falsely accusing another editor of "hounding me around" despite this user edited ANI weeks ago after Gotitbro reported him there.[103]
17. Has made 4 reverts in 3 days to remove same content.[104][105][106][107] A look at the talk page (see (Talk:Pajeet#Edit_to_history) shows he is being WP:1AM here.
18. 1 September - Falsely labelling this source as "op-ed". He is not only showing his lack of understanding of WP:FRINGE but is also making chilling accusations that other editors "legitimize racist rhetoric (though this is also generally the case)".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

[108]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[109]

Discussion concerning Gotitbro

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Gotitbro

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.

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.