Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive360
Exper-maelstrom
[edit]| EC revoked as a regular admin action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Exper-maelstrom[edit]
None
I was advised to report this at AE and this is my first time filing a report here, so I apologise if I've made any mistakes.
Discussion concerning Exper-maelstrom[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Exper-maelstrom[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Exper-maelstrom[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Matrix
[edit]| Downgraded to semi --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Matrix[edit]Daniel Case protected Italian brainrot with indefinite ECP. ARBPIA remedy 7 says "the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment" instead. I feel this would be more appropriate, along with lowering the protection to PCP, since the only section affected by this case would be "Controversial audios". (Moved from ACE by me) —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 22:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Daniel Case[edit]I don't have any inclination on this one way or the other, save to say that given how contentious this contentious topic area has been and continues to be, any reduction in this protection level should be taken through this process and not unilaterally. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Matrix[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by Matrix[edit]
|
73.250.111.41
[edit]| Blocked for a month by SilverLocust as a standard admin action --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 73.250.111.41[edit]
Oct 3 user talk page
An IP started the topic Accuracy of LGBTQ Death Toll at Talk:Victims of Nazi Germany. It was not a proper edit request per WP:CHANGEXY, though it could be seen to be in the spirit of an edit request (though probably not actionable). It was an objectively silly take on a serious topic, and other editors weighed in to clarify the misconceptions that the IP was expressing. This 2nd IP (the one I am reporting here), engaged in the discussion, threatened to blank the page, reverted a collapse of the discussion, and reverted an archiving of the discussion twice. Their general conduct looks WP:NOTHERE to me.
Discussion concerning 73.250.111.41[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 73.250.111.41[edit]Statement by WhatamIdoing[edit]The IP has also been edit-warring a comment that Someone's fee-fees got hurt! into a discussion at WT:RSP.[8][9][10][11][12] I was considering a trip to ANI when I saw the notification about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning 73.250.111.41[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by LilianaUwU
[edit]| Appeal declined. LilianaUwU blocked for two weeks as an ordinary admin action by Tamzin. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by LilianaUwU[edit]I believe this is an INVOLVED TBAN, due to Guerillero previously blocking me as an arb over similar battleground mentality concerns (which are completely false, by the way). If anything, I want someone else to impose the TBAN, because with the history between us two, I don't believe there is any way for Guerillero to remain neutral with me. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Guerillero[edit]My block in October of 2023 was for, mostly, canvasing in another topic area; however, battleground behavior came in to the decision when choosing if a week block over a warning or a block of lesser duration. The evidence of blatant canvasing is archived in ticket:2023102110003332 if anyone with access to the In a vacuum, the diff I cited would not have resulted in more than a warning for battleground behavior. It should not be lost in this discussion that the diff has to be the clearest example of what treating Wikipedia like a battleground looks like: seeing disputes as having factions, casting aspersions with a wide net based on those factions, and "its either them or me". In the context of Liliana's topic ban from GENSEX that expired in June as well as the recent topic ban from AMPOL that hinged on similar conduct, it was clear to me that the other sanctions have not changed the behavior. @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Liliana is not a party to the case. If she was, in my experience, this would be a diff that would get added to a FoF while voting is happening. It is past my bed time here. I will respond more in the morning. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC) Statement by Tamzin[edit]I'm not involved in the WP:INVOLVED sense, but I think I'm involved in the sense meant by the appeals rules, given that I imposed Liliana's previous voluntary-but-enforceable 6-month GENSEX+AP2 TBANs and her recent indef AP2 TBAN, so I'll comment up here. Re Black Kite, on its own the edit is... not great, not terrible. It includes aspersions against three editors, but we can charitably say that the evidence presented in the case is meant to be the evidence for those aspersions, in which case it's more like aspersions against one editor. (I think the evidence presented makes a reasonable case for Liliana's claims with respect to Void and Sweet, less so Colin; based on the voting so far, ArbCom seems to agree.) Still, one aspersion does not a TBAN make. The important context here, though, is Liliana's long history of disruption in the topic area. You can take a look at the evidence I presented last December that led to her agreeing to the 6-month bans. Since those bans ended nothing has changed in her fundamental battleground attitude. Here you can see yet another attempt to relitigate the Times's reliability on trans topics at a completely inappropriate time. Then there's the series of edits regarding Charlie Kirk's assassination, most notably [13], that led me to reïmpose the AP2 TBAN indefinitely. In that context, the fact that Liliana made this comment, not just with the aspersions, but with the explicit battleground and right-great-wrongs mentalities (
Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by LilianaUwU[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by uninvolved Black Kite[edit]
Statement by uninvolved FIM[edit]I don't know whether this constitutes an involved action by Guerillero or not, but I'm interested in its trigger. Since LilianaUwU's last edit to the transgender topic area appears to have been on 24 September, then presumably the trigger must have been her latest comment at the arbcom page. However, it's not particularly egregious; I don't necessarily agree with her position, but it's a fairly reasonable one to hold. Are we really, now, topic banning people for commenting on Arbitration cases that they are a named party to? Sure there must be something along the lines of "subject tio the usual exceptions"? —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Statement by EggRoll97[edit]On the merits of this, I think it's pretty clear that the topic ban imposed on Liliana is well-past justified. Less-so on the merits, and moreso on their behavior in this AE, I'm surprised Liliana was only blocked for 14 days, and not indefinitely, especially considering the remarks they made here are just more of a continuation of their prior behavior in the case, and considering their attitude of "I'll leave if you don't do what I want", which has resulted in indefinite blocks before for less established users. I think it's a good idea to give some thanks, though, to both Guerillero and Tamzin here for their quick action. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC) Statement by ProcrastinatingReader[edit]Liliana does show self reflection in their post when they write: The other thing I recall is Liliana saying some variant of Statement by LokiTheLiar[edit](Guerillero is not a current arb.) Loki (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by LilianaUwU[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Boutboul
[edit]| Boutboul's topic ban is lifted per WP:LASTCHANCE. Given that this TBAN followed a previous XCON revocation, Boutboul is advised that, should he find himself sanctioned in the topic area again, he is likely to find it very difficult to appeal that sanction. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by Boutboul[edit]
Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Boutboul[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by Boutboul[edit]
|
FellowMellow
[edit]| FellowMellow blocked for 48 hours for 1RR vios. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning FellowMellow[edit]
1RR and consensus violations (Gaza genocide)
1RR violation (Allegations of genocide in the October 7 attacks)
Assumption of bad faith (Gaza genocide)
@CommunityNotesContributor: that discussion didn't take place at their talk page because of their bad faith assumption. Since it wasn't their first time either (see diff), I deliberately avoided their talk page after that, and took the opportunity to raise the issue once they pinged me. They continued to assume bad faith with me (something that I ignored). That obviously had nothing to do with the rest (them assuming bad faith with others, editing against consensus, breaching 1RR multiple times and even describing the AE notification as
Discussion concerning FellowMellow[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FellowMellow[edit]
Statement by berch[edit]I'm not sure whether this user is just very enthusiastic and doesn't realize how often they're replying without saying anything new.. or if they're trying to be problematic. But at least a warning to them regarding bludgeoning would be ideal. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Statement by CommunityNotesContributor[edit]I just wanted to flag that there was a hatted conversation that imo really didn't help matters at all here, nor should have occurred on that talk page per WP:FOC. If that discussion had appeared on the user's talk page, as should of occurred, it might not have contributed to aggravating the situation which ultimately resulted in the issues raised in this request. I otherwise didn't read the entire discussion beyond that part as it had already devolved into all sorts, but am also far from surprised given how it started. This comment isn't intended to point fingers, only encourage self-reflection. Regards, CNC (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning FellowMellow[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by BZPN
[edit]| Appeal unanimously declined. Widening the tban was proposed, but, given the WP:AN thread, appears moot. -- asilvering (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
|
Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by BZPN[edit]I am respectfully appealing the indefinite topic ban imposed on me by @Tamzin on 17 October 2025, concerning "anti-LGBTQ sentiment, broadly construed and including mirror concepts such as heterophobia." This is my first edit involving LGBTQ-related content, with no prior history of contentious editing in this subject area. I have no prior sanctions, warnings, or ArbCom-related issues involving gender or sexuality wiki content. My edit history shows compliance with BRD and other content policies. The sanction was imposed without a proper basis under the contentious topics procedure. No edit warring in my entire edit history before this situation, no personal attacks, or advocacy were present. The sanction was issued solely due to my disagreement with the inclusion of a quote from a non-academic personal webpage, which fails the standards of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. The dispute was purely content-related, not behavioral. Under WP:CTOPIC and the ArbCom’s own precedent, sanctions must be applied for disruptive conduct, not for engaging in policy-based content criticism. The disputed edit was fully compliant with Wikipedia’s core content policies. The removed quote (by Raymond J. Noonan) came from a non-peer-reviewed personal website (bway.net), whose domain belongs to a private internet provider ("New York City’s Best Internet Service Provider Since 1995"), not an academic publisher, and the very existence of this Nooan's statement is not even confirmed on the basis of this source. The content used subjective and non-neutral language ("pseudoscience", "victimology") and was not contextualized with scholarly balance. My edit replaced it with a neutral, well-sourced definition based on peer-reviewed psychological and sexological literature (APA, Merriam-Webster, Parent et al. 2019, Haldeman 2006, etc.). This is verifiably within WP:V and WP:NPOV. The ban targets the editor (me) personally, not the behavior. User:Tamzin explicitly justified the sanction by referring to my "strong views" and not to any editing misconduct. This contravenes WP:AGF and the principle that sanctions must address disruptive conduct, not the mere possession of views. The edit itself was not reverted for inaccuracy, bias, or lack of sources, but due to perceived association with "anti-LGBTQ sentiment" - which I firmly deny. The sanction has a chilling effect on policy-based editing. Imposing a CT ban in response to a legitimate policy-based removal discourages editors from enforcing WP:RS and WP:V when dealing with poorly sourced material. This undermines editorial neutrality and sets a precedent where criticism of non-academic sources becomes sanctionable depending on topic sensitivity. Previous issues with user space MfD were procedural or administrative matters (controversial issues - with different opinions on the subject) and did not concern content disputes, nor do they reflect on my ability to edit neutrally. Given the above, I respectfully request: I am willing to discuss content disputes through the article’s talk page or relevant noticeboards (e.g., RSN) and to abide by collaborative standards in all further edits. I have not engaged in any advocacy, disruption, or incivility. Thank you, BZPN (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Tamzin[edit]This isn't about the content merits, which it's not up to AE to decide. This is about BZPN's zero-to-sixty battleground approach in a topic area in which they've already expressed strong partisan views (MfD 1, MfD 2), causing sufficient disruption as to prompt a U4C member to comment, in voting to throw out their case over a ban from Discord for anti-LGBTQ advocacy, that local enforcement processes should take action. Usually, when someone enters a topic area and causes trouble, there is a degree of AGF accorded based on the assumption that they are here to build an encyclopedia rather than push a political ideology. BZPN has made it very clear up till now, and continuing now in how they've approached this dispute itself, that their purpose on Wikipedia is to reduce a perceived pro-LGBTQ bias—not because they have evidence that that supposed bias runs against WP:DUE, but because they feel their own, differing views are entitled to equal or greater respect. They seem to be under the mistaken impression that other editors are not allowed to take note of that agenda. But we are, just as much as ArbCom has taken note of both pro- and anti-trans agendas in WP:ARBTRANS. Whether someone's edits are geared toward building an encyclopedia is at the core of user conduct enforcement. I'll refer to an essay I recently wrote, Wikipedia:Partisans, for more on that subject. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Statement by SarekOfVulcan[edit]In view of BZPN's repeated statements that they have not edited LGBT content, I suggest that the appeal not be granted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Simonm223[edit]I've said as much elsewhere today but I honestly think Tamzin's action was, if anything, too lenient. BZPN does very little but stir up drama regarding their personal beliefs about LGBTQ+ people. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by BZPN[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GoodDay[edit]BZPN, recommend you withdraw your appeal & accept your t-ban. Move on to other areas of the project. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC) BZPN's recent comment at WP:AN, suggests retirement. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Statement by (uninvolved editor 3)[edit]Result of the appeal by BZPN[edit]
|
Gicarke
[edit]| I have indef'd Gicarke (talk · contribs) per NOTHERE/CIR as a normal admin action. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Gicarke[edit]
Discussion concerning Gicarke[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Gicarke[edit]Hello administrators, I acknowledge that this discussion concerns edits and talk-page participation related to the Kapol community topic. My position is straightforward: every action I took was directed toward maintaining factual accuracy about a real community and its institutions. My edits were sourced, relevant, and neutral. The page and related links were deleted almost immediately without any review of the sources or verification of facts. After the deletions, I made no new edits on the topic. The only comments I made were on talk pages asking how to request review or factual correction. I did not add new material, ask others to edit for me, or attempt to bypass any restriction. I asked questions on my talk page. For doing so, I was repeatedly told that even asking about accuracy is “not permitted,” and several of my good-faith responses were mocked or dismissed instead of being addressed on substance. The result is that editors with real community knowledge are completely excluded from even discussing factual matters, while administrators with no subject familiarity decide what inaccurate information can exist. This appears inconsistent with Wikipedia’s mission of open, verifiable knowledge. The enforcement of the “extended-confirmed restriction” appears to have been applied in a way that completely prevents participation or even discussion about ensuring accuracy. This creates a situation where truth and verifiable information cannot be represented if it involves South-Asian communities. I believe that is contrary to Wikipedia’s core policy of verifiability and open collaboration. I am not seeking special permission to edit right now. I am simply stating that the record should reflect that my actions were factual, transparent, and in the interest of accuracy — not disruption. I request that administrators review the diffs objectively and confirm that I have not violated any editing restrictions. I also ask that the committee consider whether current enforcement practices can allow genuine subject-matter contributors to provide reliable information through appropriate channels, rather than being completely excluded. Also, current policies of not even allowing discussion or blocking post seeking guidance is helpful.
Statement by 331dot[edit]This user has had several notices about the restrictions but for some reason isn't getting it and thinks we are in the wrong. Their LLM use isn't helping. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Gicarke[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Selim beg
[edit]| Accepted by blocking admin. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Selim_beg[edit]I have finally understood that WP:GS/AA includes every politic, ethnic, and historical context related to Armenia or Azerbaijan and the Armenian genocide and not just direct conflicts. I take responsibility for my previous misunderstanding and violations of wikipedia broadly construed. Until I am extended confirmed, I will avoid editing any pages under WP:GS/AA relating to Enver Pasha, Ottoman Armenian relations or the Basmachi movement. I have read and understood the guidelines at WP:GS/AA, WP:ECREXPLAIN, and WP:BROADLYCONSTRUED to the end and i pledge to follow them. I ask for another chance to add reliable content while respecting Wikipedia's rules Thank you. Selim beg (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC) Statement by Rosguill[edit]As blocking admin, I think this is a good unblock request and will go ahead and accept it myself. In particular, on reviewing the history of this case from before I was involved in it (I became involved by accepting their prior unblock request), it looks like another admin previously gave them directly opposite advice as to whether Enver Pasha's political and military activity in Central Asia is covered by the restriction. I stand by my assessment that the pan-Turkic political activity of the principal figure associated with the application of the Armenian Genocide is covered broadly construed by GS/AA and should be avoided, but in light of this information this block should have been a caution. signed, Rosguill talk 04:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Selim_beg[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by Selim_beg[edit]
|
Gotitbro
[edit]| Gotitbro is warned to use clear edit summaries when reverting, and reminded to follow WP:BRD rather than edit-war. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Gotitbro[edit]
@Asilvering and Rosguill: Yes, issue persists even during this report, see slow burning edit war at Nazi punk (concerning inclusion of Hindutva pop)[20][21][22] and removal of warning with a combative edit summary for the same [23]. Another instance at Rock Against Communism.[24][25] There is also continued misuse of ANI to get rid of authentic opponents.[26] I believe the proposed restriction would be more than enough to control the edit warring. Ratnahastin (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Gotitbro[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Gotitbro[edit]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.
The previous disparate blocks have nothing to do with anything here. The filer hasn't really engaged in any of the discussions that I did start. And I am not sure why they think AER is an alternative to dispute resolution. Could list a myriad problematic edits by them but that won't lead to a frivolous AER report. Gotitbro (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Azuredivay[edit]@Firefangledfeathers: You should take another look at this report. You surely cannot say edit warring (see Ratnahastin's latest comment), false accusations of COI (see #14, #15), falsification of sources (see #2) mislabelling reliable sources as opinion pieces (see #18), falsely accusing editors of legitimizing racism (see #18), battleground mentality (see #10), Hindutva POV pushing (see #4, #5) and more violations do not warrant a sanction especially when the editor has 3 blocks for edit warring, 1 of them being in the last 6 months. Similarly, Gotitbro has made 4 reverts to remove reliably sourced content on Pajeet (see #17). During last month on 1984 anti-Sikh riots, he was misrepresenting "stable" version and edit warring to remove sourced content which was critical of Hindutva party Bharatiya Janta Party and Hindutva organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.[28][29] He also engaged in mass canvassing.[30] This is all when he had more than a month to address how his false claim of "misrepresentation of sources"[31] was any correct. The concerns over pro-Hindutva POV pushing are correct. You can see he is alone at Talk:Kashmir Files where he is opposing the label "propaganda" for this Hindutva movie, without offering any rebuttal.[32] Yes there is a long term pattern of this user when it comes to removing sourced content (which comes into conflict with pro-Hindutva POV), before edit warring to restore his edits and then personalizing the dispute. Closing the report without action would approve of his actions and disruption will only spread further. Azuredivay (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Gotitbro[edit]
|
إيان
[edit]| إيان warned "to remain civil, assume good faith of other editors, and avoid inflammatory remarks". -- asilvering (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning إيان[edit]
None
Making this report after discussion at User talk:Tamzin#POV pusher? (my first report so apologies if there're any errors). My main concern was a lack of NPOV editing, scrolling through their contribs reveals a consistent POV. But I only met them recently and my impression is based off of a small sample size, they're an experienced editor with a clean block log and no bans. They started an RM at Talk:New antisemitism where, at best, they don't appear to have consulted the literature nor policy (at worst intentionally contradicted them), and it looks like they just saw a (weakly implied) POV in the clearly common name/term they didn't like. But POV pushing is notoriously difficult to illustrate and I'm not going to attempt a proper investigation. Per N95 70% of their edits are in the PIA topic area, Tamzin's initial thoughts were to impose WP:BER which I thought would be good. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning إيان[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by إيان[edit]Hi, this user had never raised an issue with my editing, as far as I know, and I had never interacted with them beyond having happened to participate in some of the same talk page discussions, so I was surprised to be pinged with complaints on an admin's talk page. I apologized for my mistakes and offered to take the warning and affirm that I would be more conscientious and adhere to WP:Civility. Would that be possible here or do I have to take up everyone's time with a full contextualization and thorough defense of the accusations brought against my editing here? As the accuser has correctly noted, my record is clean and I would very much like to keep it that way. Is there a risk that I would receive a sanction without prior discussion or warning? إيان (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000[edit]I fail to see anything actionable here.
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning إيان[edit]
|
Theonewithreason
[edit]| Theonewithreason given a logged warning re BATTLE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Theonewithreason[edit]
User Theonewithreason wrote in one of his statements in article's talk page that "this is very sensitive topic (the Balkans) there are very strict rules biding every single editor on Wikipedia" (his edit), so I think he is well aware about the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe.
The FIBA's official website do not attribute the results and won medals by the Serbia and Montenegro men's national basketball team (it represented Serbia and Montenegro / in 1992–2003 called Yugoslavia) exclusively to the Serbia men's national basketball team (see: HERE) and a WP:CONS was also reached in this article's talk page (see: HERE) that in Wikipedia we should comply with the position of the FIBA, so we should count Serbia's team results only since 2007 (for quicker reading of WP:CONS discussion see my quotes of its participants statements in this edit). The former state Serbia and Montenegro (1992–2006) is now represented by three separate national teams: Serbia team, Montenegro team, Kosovo team. Another article Serbia at the Olympics only count Serbia's medals since the 2008 Summer Olympics, not earlier (same point of view as FIBA), so the same should be in article Serbia men's national basketball team. Now we have one article (Serbia men's national basketball team) claiming that Serbia won 1996 Olympic silver medal and another claiming that it did not (Serbia at the Olympics), so such contradictions cannot exist in different articles. Moreover, a relevant example is the Russia men's national basketball team who is not attributed the results of the Soviet Union men's national basketball team even through the Russian Federation is a sucessor state of the Soviet Union. I request assistance to implement WP:CONS in the article as I cannot do that when user Theonewithreason revert it. Furthermore, I think Template:Contentious topics/talk notice (topic=b - the Balkans or Eastern Europe) should be added to this article's talk page to ensure a reached WP:CONS and WP:LISTEN.
Discussion concerning Theonewithreason[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Theonewithreason[edit]This is getting ridiculous, Pofka is obviously unable to reach their POV on the Serbia Basketball team talk page which has been wp:stable in this form for several years now, in fact one other editor also opposed their statement [[34]], they were openly canvassing pinging several editors for whom they think that they are going to side with them based on that conversation from 2014 [[35]], then they did that again today [[36]] and now they are trying to remove me from that page because they WP:IDONTLIKE. I mean this editor has over 20 000 edits on Wikipedia they should know better to use other tools to resolve the discussion, instead they reported me directly here. Sorry but WP:boomerang should be imposed here. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Sadko[edit]I have stated my opinion and I stand by it. FIBA had a clear stance on this question, and there is nothing concerning about that in my view. I did not edit this page much, nor is it of particular interest to me; therefore, bringing up concerns from 14 months ago is a bit unusual. The fact that this is the topic of such a report is concerning. I think it was premature, and that more could have been achieved with further rounds of discussions and debates, in good faith. Theonewithreason fights vandals on a daily basis, swiftly and smartly, and is a valuable editor. He kept the Nikola Tesla article safe from vandals for years, alongside other great editors. I can also see that Pofka has made many valuable contributions. I am sure and I hope that this will be resolved in a good way and in the best interest of the project. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Second statement by Pofka[edit]@Extraordinary Writ: @Joy: I agree that the 2014 WP:CONS seems to be quite weak, however I believe it is worth respecting because in it five experienced users: AirWolf, HTD, Dirtlawyer1, Jetstreamer, Zagalejo (check their user pages) expressed support that we should follow how the FIBA tractate this question and this 2014 WP:CONS comply with information provided in the FIBA's official website. I think that instead of immediately reverting my edit and soon declaring that "the discussion is over" (his edit) user Theonewithreason should have started a RfC procedure to reach a new WP:CONS. I think that WP:STABLE when there seems to be obviously wrong information presented in the article (per FIBA position) is not a valid argument. Nevertheless, I have doubts that Wikipedia's article should include contradictory information to the FIBA's official website, so do we really need a RfC about possibly denying FIBA's official website position? I think we need WP:AE clarification about it. I will of course not oppose a RfC if it is really necessary about this question. This question should be solidly solved to avoid disruption in the future. Regarding user Sadko: I noticed that in user Theonewithreason's talk page there are positive messages from user Sadko (e.g. check these edits: first in 2020, second in 2025, maybe more are deleted), so it seems like they know each other well for a long time. Moreover, user Theonewithreason pinged in this edit many unrelated users (possibly all Serbians because some of their user names are: Soundwaweserb, Vikipedijasrbija0, other pinged users IPs locations and maybe interactions with user Theonewithreason should be checked to determine whenever in the talk page user Theonewithreason attempted to gather support of exclusively Serbian users, who previously never participated in this article's talk page discussion). As I already mentioned, most of user Sadko edits are in Serbian Wikipedia, so I presume he is Serbian as well (IP location check could be helpful, but with over 300,000 edits in the Serbian Wikipedia he certainly has an excellent command of Serbian language). Of course, I cannot confirm whenever user Theonewithreason communicate with user Sadko using external sources, however the fact that user Theonewithreason attempted to gather support of unrelated Serbian users raises suspicion how user Sadko in just ~2 hours came to "absolutely" support user Theonewithreason position (if administrators can check whenever user Sadko had Talk:Serbia men's national basketball team in his watch list before joining the talk page discussion, then it could be helpful to at least partly check the possibility of communications via external sources between users Sadko and Theonewithreason). User Theonewithreason in the talk page inserted links "www.google.hr" (in this edit), so I presume he is residing in Croatia where are many Serbs of Croatia. So if you ask me, there seems to be many Serbian connections. -- Pofka 14:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC) Statement by TylerBurden[edit]All I'm going to say here is that Theonewithreason naming Sadko as ″one other editor also opposed their statement″ as if that is meant to be indicative of Pofka being in the wrong is not particularly convincing, since while there doesn't seem to be any evidence of coordinated editing, they're both clearly of the same POV and constantly back each other up when it comes to disputes within the topic area. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC) Statement by Uniacademic[edit]Hi @Extraordinary Writ, Joy, Isabelle Belato, and Firefangledfeathers: As an editor of the Kosovo and Serbia topic area, I have noticed that Theonewithreason consistently displays obstructive editing behavior in Balkan-related articles, with a tendency to perform blind reverts and push particular POVs, often without regard for sourcing or established consensus. This may be of relevance here, so I'll provide evidence from things I have noticed in the past year or so. Below are a series of diffs illustrating this pattern:
These diffs are obviously not isolated mistakes. They show a clear pattern of blind reverts without verification, adding irrelevant or misleading sources, removing reliably sourced material for POV reasons, and engaging in unproductive arguments while failing to provide evidence. This behavior disrupts Balkan-related content, violates WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and wastes community time. I am therefore not surprised at all that he is showing such behavior in the topic discussed above. I see a clear pattern here. Thank you. Uniacademic (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC) Statement by Griboski[edit]As someone who patrols the Balkan topic area, I do think that Theonewithreason occasionally is a little too trigger-happy, but they also do a lot of anti-vandalism activity. The sockpuppetry occurred in 2020 and since then they've had a clean block log. I think Rosguill's proposal for a logged warning is appropriate--a reminder to be calm, follow protocol and be more open to others' points-- and a topic ban to be excessive for what is essentially a content dispute over basketball. Probably the reason why Sadko and Theonewithreason often come into contact is because a lot of the same pages are on their watchlist and they have similar interests. I don't see anything egregious on the part of Sadko, however, since their reinstatement. I have just seen much worse things in this topic area. Just my two cents. --Griboski (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Theonewithreason[edit]
|
Tomruen
[edit]| Indeffed by voorts as a CTOP action. Action is being appealed below. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Tomruen[edit]
Topic ban from GENSEX: [57]
Recently, I noticed while checking recent changes the comment noted above on User talk:Tomruen, which seems a straightforward violation of his GENSEX topic ban. I'll note for completeness that the ChatGPT portions of the comments were added by an IP ([59]), but Tomruen added the comments introducing them and edited that exact portion afterward ([60]), so I think we can fairly say that either he was the IP or endorsed the addition. This is almost exactly the same as the material that Tomruen was blocked for shortly after being topic banned ([61]), so, while the new edit is over a month old, I really don't think it should be ignored. I'd hoped to be able to find out what was going on and maybe resolve it through discussion, but Tomruen has made very clear that he does not care about violating the ban ([62]), so I'm bringing it here to discuss what to do on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Tomruen[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Tomruen[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Tomruen[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Tomruen
[edit]| Appeal unanimously declined. No rough consensus for a specific restriction on subsequent appeals, but it should be abundantly clear that unless Tomruen agrees to follow his topic ban, any subsequent appeal will have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding (especially with the "clear consensus" required to overturn the block within a year). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Tomruen[edit]Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I have done nothing wrong. My contributions over 21 years have been made under my real name, with transparency and integrity. I’ve consistently engaged in good-faith editing and discussion, even on difficult topics. I believe the enforcement actions taken against me reflect ideological bias rather than genuine violations of Wikipedia’s core principles. I stand by my right to express reasoned dissent and to uphold editorial standards rooted in evidence and neutrality. I reject the judgment that has been imposed on me, and I ask for a fair and open review. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC) Statement by voorts[edit]Tom, I blocked you because you violated your topic ban willingly during a discussion about you violating your topic ban. I don't know why you were topic banned in 2023, but if you wanted to discuss gender and sexuality on wiki, you should've appealed instead of quadrupling down and claiming that you're being censored. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Tomruen[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by Tomruen[edit]
|
Thisischarlesarthur
[edit]| tbanned from GENSEX -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Thisischarlesarthur[edit]
I only listed the worst offending comments by the editor who, since 11 August 2024, has edited nothing else by topics that are related to GENSEX (nibbling at them to see how far they can push what they truly believe in).. M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Thisischarlesarthur[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Thisischarlesarthur[edit]Update: How wonderful! I tripped over another invisible laser beam: nowhere in the submission system does it say you have to keep topics to 500 words. (It says it in teeny type so people can miss it. And there's no word counter.) responding to M.Bitton Re your first diff: I wasn't aware of the restrictions that are placed on this discussion. A paper co-authored by a biologist supports what I said there. Re your second diff: as I point out below, the Guardian article that I linked to in the edit directly implies what I wrote. There is no other reasonable interpretation of the phrase "athletes with differences of sex development (DSD), who have a 46 XY karyotype with male testes but were reported female at birth". Male testes are found in males. Only. The phrase "Assigned female at birth" implies the potential for mistakes in registering birth sex. The content of Special:Diff/1316517130 is defensible as fact. The Imane Khelif page describes "false claims" which were never made: there has never been any credible suggestion that Khelif is trans (ie: someone registered as male at birth who later identifies as female). Yet the phrase "false claims" links to "transvestigation", which this never was. To represent the Olympic boxing controversy in those terms misleads the casual reader, while leading the informed reader (ie anyone who has read a few articles on the topic) to conclude Wikipedia is wrong, and to wonder why a theoretically world-editable wiki remains wrong. However the BLP rules create a Catch-22 where it is disallowed to point out what the actual topic of the controversy is, on the basis that this is a BLP violation. So now I know why Wikipedia remains wrong. responding to Simonm223 "It seems like this editor's only interest in editing Wikipedia is to engage in debates about how to define the gender of women athletes" - Not true. My interest on those pages was to correct inaccuracies. I have accepted that my initial attempts were clumsy. responding to TarnishedPath "Without extremely strong sourcing, these sorts of claims/speculation should not be occuring." The phrase "unsubstantiated allegations" might be more appropriate, given the BLP. But as this discussion on a Talk page on a different page points out, the BLP handcuffs clear explanation of what the allegations around Khelif are. I don't think any reasonable person believes Imane Khelif was not registered female at birth. responding to @theleekycauldron I reject @theleekycauldron's claim that I am "only here to push the idea that SRY testing is completely determinative of sex". I have never said that, because it isn't true. SRY screening does not determine sex. It determines the presence or absence of the SRY gene. However, it was used in the 1992 and 1996 Olympics to determine entry to the F category, and has now been reintroduced by multiple global sporting organisations. Therefore it is important in understanding modern and past sporting categorisation systems: currently the Sex verification in sports page is lacking this information, so I tried to add it. My attempts to introduce edits about this were however reverted, without any explanation or offer of help. Go Wikipedia! responding to Tamzin "If in 450 edits TICA [ie me] has been dispelled of their fringe views" - thank you, but I don't find the offer of doing it to Julia instead enticing. What if it's your views that are fringe, and wrong? A paper co-authored by a biologist explicitly contradicts the views you and others here hold about multiple athletes, and shows its reasoning, with scientific references. (In passing, the word "intersex" was determined by medics to be outdated due to being "confusing" and "potentially stigmatising" by a consensus meeting in 2005. The phrase "DSD" has been preferred in the literature for the past 20 years.) The tenor of accusations here holds that the group is correct, and this individual wrong. However scientific resources (as above) support the view that it is the group which is wrong. I don't expect this to be accepted, since absorbing a new and different opinion into the group is challenging. But you should always wonder: what if you're wrong? I suggest that the rapid adoption of SRY screening by multiple sporting organisations which have independently done their own scientific enquiry shows that those organisations hold significantly different views about DSDs (or "intersex") in sports than those reporting me here. To quote from the Guardian article that I tried to add into the Sex Verification page, "In a presentation to a scientific panel in the Japanese capital on Friday, Dr Stéphane Bermon, head of health and science at World Athletics, outlined why the sport’s governing body believes such screens are necessary as he presented data collected over the past 25 years. He said it showed that athletes with differences of sex development (DSD), who have a 46 XY karyotype with male testes but were reported female at birth, were significantly “over-represented” in major finals…" Wait - "but" were reported female at birth? What could Bermon have been implying? Tamzin attempts to thread a needle on this: using the conjunction "but" to describe an AFAB person having some male sex characteristics, does not imply that it's the view of The Guardian (let alone of Bermon or any actually reliable source) that it is incorrect to assign such a person as female Who exactly is doing the "assigning" here? The midwife? Tamzin? Testes are not "some" male characteristics. They are defining male characteristics. The phrase "with male testes" appears again and again in every article about the presentation, so a reasonable conclusion is that these were Bermon's words. Bermon is director of health and science at World Athletics with a long history in medicine, and those are clearly his words. For Wikipedia to reinterpret them as meaning something else would be perverse and against the obvious sense of the words, in the absence of any explanation by Bermon that such athletes belong to the female sex. If you allow me to continue editing, I will do my best not to knock over the furniture; for the newcomer, these important topics have invisible laser beams linked to alarms everywhere, and I feel as though I tripped them all. At the same time, I take my guidance about the facts from the scientific literature and (on this topic) the sporting bodies - which is how references should work - not from the beliefs of other Wikipedia editors. --Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Simonm223[edit]It concerns me to see this continuing from Thisischarlesarthur. On October 8 they conceded their comportment was a BLP violation: [64] as such it's rather concerning that, instead of stopping with an approach they know to be a BLP violation, they just moved the discussion to other pages. [65] [66]. It seems like this editor's only interest in editing Wikipedia is to engage in debates about how to define the gender of women athletes. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC) Statement by TarnishedPath[edit]Admins, please refer to Special:Diff/1316517130, in which Thisischarlesarthur suggests that Imane Khelif is male. Without extremely strong sourcing, these sorts of claims/speculation should not be occuring. TarnishedPathtalk 03:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Thisischarlesarthur[edit]
|