Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/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

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-enwikimedia.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. Hatted requests will later be archived by an admin (often after a few days to a week).
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:

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

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.
18 August - Removes sourced content with a misleading edit summary.
11 August - Edit warring to restore above edit.
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.
27 August - Removes longstanding sentence from lead claiming it is "Undue" when the subject in question is an unreliable outlet, notorious for spreading misinformation.
27 August - Engages in edit warring by restoring his revert and citing BRD when he is himself bringing a new edit to the article.
27 August - Continues edit war by falsely claiming "added about a month ago".
27 August - Derailing the thread and attacking another editor by bringing up how he "is t-banned from a closely related topic area".
28 August - Even after being told to focus on content, he is still talking about "editorial behaviour". See WP:IDHT.
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."
28 August - Poisoning the well by falsely accusing another editor of using "slurs in an offhand manner" and breaching "Wikipedia:Civility".
29 August - WP:IDHT; Still repeating his above false accusations.
29 August - Unnecessarily targeting another editor on the AfD by pointing out their edit count.
29 August - Now falsely accusing this editor of "very COI".
29 August - Now that above personal remarks failed to bait the editor, Gotitbro starts misusing ANI to get rid of this user anyhow by repeating his false accusations of "COI" and "SPA".
30 August - Falsely accusing another editor of "hounding me around" despite this user edited ANI weeks ago after Gotitbro reported him there.[1]
Has made 4 reverts in 3 days to remove same content.[2][3][4][5] A look at the talk page (see (Talk:Pajeet#Edit_to_history) shows he is being WP:1AM here.
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): [6]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Firefangledfeathers: In particular, diff #3 (which is a revert to #1), diffs #5, #6, #7 and all 4 diffs listed in #17, all of these demonstrate a recent history of aggressive edit warring in spite of the previous three edit warring blocks. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [7]

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

Gotitbro's statement contains 643 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

A baseless report with a clear misrepresentation of the diffs and discussions. Have been here for more than a decade without any major issues, an effort to get editors the filer disagrees with in content disputes off the project. I have had no interaction with them beyond some recent run ins, this follows from no intimation. This is a bit bizarre and the evidence is as thin as water.

2025 India–Pakistan conflict: merely paraphrased a quote which I think served better; added some claims from an unopposed proposal by other editors at Talk, followed by single back and forth edits between the filer and me. Started a detailed discussion for this at the Talk page where I explained the edits in detail. It remains ongoing, made no further bother with the content.
Rama: A revert followed (by Koshuri Sultan) but the quotes I added later validate whatever was initially stated in the ES (had made the edits to counter historic mythmaking).
Chanakya: There were changes to the lede of the article some months ago and a discussion followed at the Talk page, read it and tried to figure a compromise between the changes and those opposing it. The filer reverted them but the edits were also partially accepted by the original editor (Joshua Jonathan) who made the lede changes. The edits explicitly removed mythmaking e.g. removing that the subject wrote a text he did not (go sqaurely against the baseless "pushing pro Hindutva POV", pretty offensive). Started a discussion after a revert by the filer and made no further bother.
Firstpost: a content dispute for the lede which has been challenged by multiple editors ever since it was introduced. Recent changes to the lede (by Koshuri) I believed went against the last concluded discussion and to have been restoring sock content. Promptly started a discussion which remains ongoing. The comments at the Talk page were for Koshuri, topic banned from the military topics (as the edits directly pertained to military content) and who had shortly restored sock content at different articles.
Pajeet (an extremely offensive slur): The article itself was largely created by a chronic sock network. Despite the socking the exact article was restored by Koshuri and Ratnahastin. Went to the talk to find for e.g., 'despite the fact that it mostly hindus and sikhs that are called as "pajeet"'. Finding this a bit insensitive (shouldn't really be using slurs when discussing them), cited civil. SPA: the entire discussion and explanations can be seen at ANI. Calling any of it sanctionable is something. 1AM is unfounded, a look at the article's history and fringe noticeboard will tell us that. And just to highlight the extensive misrepresentation, the last diff I fully quote: "The AfD proposal by me has lead to a barrage of socks attacking me with vile racial abuse. So, indeed I am a bit partial against edits which appear to legitimize racist rhetoric (though this is also generally the case)."

The previous disparate blocks have nothing to do with anything here.

The filer hasn't really engaged in any of the discussions that I did start. And I am not sure why they think AER is an alternative to dispute resolution. Could list a myriad problematic edits by them but that won't lead to a frivolous AER report. Gotitbro (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another user with no interaction (beyond 2025 India–Pakistan conflict). Discussions/detailed P&G rationales for both the film and the riots are being misrepresentated here under bizarre claims of 'POV'. Needn't make any personal comments but for the PA aspersions of "pro-Hindutva POV": been here for more than a decade, people familiar know just the amount of time and effort I've spent to combatting such stuff but adherence to P&G in a CTOPS will not be abandoned despite any personal views. None of the content disputes present a case under ARBIPA. Gotitbro (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Azuredivay

@Firefangledfeathers: You should take another look at this report. You surely cannot say edit warring (see Ratnahastin's latest comment), false accusations of COI (see #14, #15), falsification of sources (see #2) mislabelling reliable sources as opinion pieces (see #18), falsely accusing editors of legitimizing racism (see #18), battleground mentality (see #10), Hindutva POV pushing (see #4, #5) and more violations do not warrant a sanction especially when the editor 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.[8][9] He also engaged in mass canvassing.[10] This is all when he had more than a month to address how his false claim of "misrepresentation of sources"[11] 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.[12]

Yes there is a long term pattern of this user when it comes to removing sourced content (which comes into conflict with pro-Hindutva POV), before edit warring to restore his edits and then personalizing the dispute. Closing the report without action would approve of his actions and disruption will only spread further. Azuredivay (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gotitbro

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

@Ratnahastin:, you're over the diff limit. I wouldn't worry about editing your filing, but it would help to know which 4 or 5 diffs you think most demonstrate misconduct. Please answer briefly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything actionable in 1, 3, 5, 6, or 7. Probably going to close this soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotitbro, you can have an extension up to 750 words total, but you may want to save words for when an admin actually responds to the evidence.

Ok, I won't close this soon. I'm having trouble with both the volume of evidence and the low quality I've seen so far. I asked for the 4 or 5 worst diffs from Ratnahastin. In the first 5 mentioned, I saw one revert from G at 2025 India–Pakistan conflict and the absolute mess of a content dispute at Firstpost. Ratnahastin calls G's edit there a "new edit", and Azuredivay calls it "Hindutva POV pushing". I have not seen evidence to prove that G's edit was either. Azuredivay says that G is 'opposing the "label" propaganda for this Hindutva movie, without offering any rebuttal', but G offers a substantial argument for their position at Talk:The Kashmir Files, which is not opposition to the label but concern about its placement and attribution. If this gets closed, or archived without action, no one should take that as an approval of G's actions, just that no admin felt compelled to act based on the quality of evidence provided. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, I'm having trouble understanding your conclusion here: my first impression reading all but the last sentence of this comment is that you find the filing tendentious. The final sentence, however, does not seem to really follow from the rest. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find the filing to be tendentious, just poor. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing all the evidence again, I also find it underwhelming. While it is asserted that there is Hindutva POV pushing at play, it has not been demonstrated that Gotitbro is selectively interpreting policy to this end. The one pattern of misconduct that is evident here is edit warring: while there are somewhat mitigating circumstances of general chaos at Pajeet and Firstpost, given their past history of edit warring sanctions I'm thinking that a 1RR restriction for Gotitbro may be appropriate at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theonewithreason

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 Theonewithreason

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Theonewithreason (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: Talk:Serbia men's national basketball team/Archive 1#Final disscussion: Results/medals history (a WP:CONS was reached in 2014, later user AirWolf, who participated in reaching a WP:CONS, reaffirmed this WP:CONS in 2018, but user Theonewithreason oppose it)

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

19:04, 8 September 2025 - reverted my attempt to implement a WP:CONS and a position of the FIBA's official website (see: HERE);
22:56, 8 September 2025 - continue to oppose my edit in talk page;
20:15, 10 September 2025 - continue to oppose a reached WP:CONS by also stating that "the discussion is over" and threaten to report me at WP:Ani;
20:36, 10 September 2025 - continue to oppose a reached WP:CONS;
22:11, 10 September 2025 - another user Sadko came to support him (with rollbacker rights in English Wikipedia and most of his edits in Serbian Wikipedia), so this is also concerning;
19:49, 11 September 2025 - user Theonewithreason: "You are going in circles without any argumentation" (even though I quoted other users WP:CONS statements, which contradict his POV).

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

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Theonewithreason

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 Theonewithreason

Theonewithreason's statement contains 741 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

This is getting ridiculous, Pofka is obviously unable to reach their POV on the Serbia Basketball team talk page which has been wp:stable in this form for several years now, in fact one other editor also opposed their statement [[13]], 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 [[14]], then they did that again today [[15]] 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)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ when I wrote that discussion is over what I`ve meant is that those discussions were long time ago, and since then this article was in this form (not edited in that way by me) for the last 7 or 8 years, what I also noticed that editors who participated in that discussion occasionally would revert users who would go in other way around, posting all the medals from SFR Yugoslavia (the medals won before 1991 when the country was larger than today), as for the sources I was using them in discussion to show there are other opinions, however, in those previous discussions it was clear that even editors were not certain how to approach this subject i.e. one of the editors that Pofka pinged stated that: It looks like the FIBA ranking points for SFR Yugoslavia was carried over to FR Yugoslavia, which was then carried over to SCG, then finally to Serbia. However, it seems the FIBA archive has a team for each IOC code: so YUG, SCG & SRB are "3 different" teams; same with ROC & TPE, and URS & RUS (and CIS). It doesn't happen between FRG & GER, but GDR is a separate team. There's no clear-cut solution on how to deal with this. We can safely ignore the successor states problem. ROC and TPE records are at the Chinese Taipei national basketball team, same with FRG and GER at Germany national basketball team, while URS/CIS/RUS are separated, and SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia-SCG-Serbia are separated. etc which Pofka was ignoring.

Also since you closed the ANI report we obviously need to deal with Pofka behaviour here which exceeds the discussion about this article and goes directly against the rules implemented in sensitive topics. First Pofka claims that Serbia "stole" those medals [[16]] and what is even more concerning is that Pofka is labelling other editors by their ethnicity or what they believe is their ethnicity and thus trying to discriminate their comments as non valid, [[17]], [[18]] - that kind of behaviour is actually problematic and concerning. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joy all of my reverts on Nikola Tesla page were according to 20 years of discussions and implemented rules by admins and other editors, and since you are regularly invested in that article you should also know that, there is nothing trigger happy in this especially if I am reverting someone who is openly posting death threats on my user page [[19]], so if you trying to expand this report even further, first we need to address why this report by Pofka was directly posted here, which is inappropriate, and second why are you trying what I now understand to broadly disqualify me from Balkan related topics, which is not your first time, example writing this post to admin Ivanvector page [[20]] 2 years after my SPI block (for which I was properly punished in 2020) asking them to revaluate my status, in which ivanvector clearly explained that my case was borderline and that my concerns were reasonable [[21]] after which you admitted that you are often WP:involved in Balkan related topics [[22]] - in the last five years I was never blocked nor did I used other accounts, the comment you are referring to in May I did apologise for, and never used in this form again. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joy thank you for only confirming what was obviously clear for the last few years, that you are probably to often WP:involved in Balkan related topics and that you should take more neutral stances regarding reports to others, [[23]] let us not forget that you were also blocked from Wikipedia for abusing admins powers, so maybe you too might not be well-suited for this contentious topic area. Theonewithreason (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ [[24]] this last edit from Pofka is now clear WP:ASPERSION against me and the other editors, also those accusations against me and assumptions about my location or to which nation I belong to is a direct attack against my privacy which has nothing to do with this article or my edits on Wikipedia. I am now asking indefinite block against Pofka. We are not going to have of discussions about my personal information online. Especially because Pofka is repeated offender with topic ban on other articles in 2024 [[25]], [[26]] and previously in 2022 [[27]]. Theonewithreason (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sadko

Sadko's statement contains 327 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I have stated my opinion and I stand by it. FIBA had a clear stance on this question, and there is nothing concerning about that in my view. I did not edit this page much, nor is it of particular interest to me; therefore, bringing up concerns from 14 months ago is a bit unusual. The fact that this is the topic of such a report is concerning. I think it was premature, and that more could have been achieved with further rounds of discussions and debates, in good faith. Theonewithreason fights vandals on a daily basis, swiftly and smartly, and is a valuable editor. He kept the Nikola Tesla article safe from vandals for years, alongside other great editors. I can also see that Pofka has made many valuable contributions. I am sure and I hope that this will be resolved in a good way and in the best interest of the project. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by Pofka: Sorry to disappoint, but unfortunately, I have no communication with Theonewithreason, a credible and honest editor, via email or any other platform. You can freely ask for this to be checked; any day.

Of course, I am keeping this article on my watchlist, considering that just recently several editors and I worked on the article on SWP and there's a lot of references on EWP. My tweaks, led to it getting featured article status on my home project. Double check this, by all means. And I am quite active at that time of the day.

Additionally and more importantly, the undertones of this message are somewhat problematic. Checking out and talking about someone's location based on his Google search? Stating that there are many Serbs in Croatia? What? Just, what in the world is that all about?

My question is, why not start an RfC yourself, rather than going back and forth and making empty accusations? Focus on content and sources. — Sadko (words are wind) 16:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by Pofka

@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)[reply]

Statement by TylerBurden

All I'm going to say here is that Theonewithreason naming Sadko as ″one other editor also opposed their statement″ as if that is meant to be indicative of Pofka being in the wrong is not particularly convincing, since while there doesn't seem to be any evidence of coordinated editing, they're both clearly of the same POV and constantly back each other up when it comes to disputes within the topic area. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uniacademic

Hi @Extraordinary Writ, Joy, Isabelle Belato, 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:

[28] – Reintroduced thousands of bytes of uncited text while simultaneously removing maintenance tags that requested citations. There is also POV-pushing by framing Kosovo as part of Serbia.

[29] – Added some sources that do not mention either Marin Barleti or Voisava (the former being a primary source on the latter, who is the subject of the article). The only medieval author who linked Voisava with the Triballi, Barleti, was a Venetian, not Byzantine. Instead, he should have added modern academic sources which say that Voisava was of Serbian origin or that Barleti used the term "Triballi" to refer to Serbs.

[30] – Says that the “Bulgarian theory” on Voisava's origin should be removed solely because it “does not agree with other sources,” disregarding the fact that it is a documented scholarly position. This is selective editing that dismisses reliable sources for POV reasons.

[31] – Claimed that Barleti’s testimony “doesnt matter,” despite Barleti being a primary source on the subject. This amounts to rejecting sources simply because they do not align with the editor’s preferred interpretation.

[32] – After an edit war on Llapusha, another editor started a discussion and requested that Theonewithreason provide a direct quote to substantiate their reverts and edits. Instead of doing so, Theonewithreason repeatedly evaded the request, failed to provide a single quotation, and continued to argue without evidence. This indicates that they did not actually have access to the source and were reverting purely to obstruct.

These diffs are obviously not isolated mistakes. They show a clear pattern of blind reverts without verification, adding irrelevant or misleading sources, removing reliably sourced material for POV reasons, and engaging in unproductive arguments while failing to provide evidence. This behavior disrupts Balkan-related content, 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)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Theonewithreason

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

Theonewithreason subsequently started an ANI thread against Pofka, WP:ANI#User:Pofka trying to impose their POV by using WP:battlefield, which I've now closed so we can sort things out here. In no particular order:
- An RfC is going to be the best way to handle this. It's been over a decade since the (apparently never-implemented) 2014 discussion, so I don't think it's unreasonable to want to revisit the issue, and I'm certainly not going to sanction for "oppos[ing] a reached WP:CONS".
- Both of you need to be careful about selective pinging; see WP:VOTESTACK. It's fine to notify everyone who participated in a previous discussion or everyone who's contributed to the article recently, but choosing particular people to ping is often going to be a problem.
- Pofka, I don't understand why you think it's concerning that Sadko participated in the discussion. If you're trying to imply canvassing, you're going to need much better evidence, especially since he had edited the page before and could easily have watchlisted it.
- Theonewithreason, I'm really troubled that you think [33][34][35] are reliable sources—they're obviously self-published and shouldn't be cited at all, much less to say that The sources are clear, the discussion is over. Frankly I'm not sure you should be editing in this area at all if you don't have a good grasp of what a reliable source looks like. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ in context of AE, Sadko is actually generally concerning because they had been banned from this topic area once before. They got unbanned in the meantime, which I remember because I've had to complain about that at Guerillero's talk page last year. ~~Thankfully this didn't escalate since.~~ I don't know if Pofka just has some random bias against Serbian editors, but this particular one is still a matter of legitimate concern. --Joy (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: The new motion announced at WP:AC/N might interest you -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of that. As it happens, I just noticed a new incident of weird wikilawyering by Sadko at Talk:Nikola Tesla#Infobox (now in...). I don't think this level of shit-stirring is in any way appropriate - they appear to be testing the boundaries of what level of advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle is acceptable. We need to enforce the principles of WP:ARBMAC and WP:NOT#BATTLE again. --Joy (talk) Joy (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uninvolved in this specific matter because this is the first I hear about it, but I've participated in other discussions like it, for example in the previous talk discussion there or at a football list. Suffice it to say that we have had a lot of issues in the past trying to figure out the most appropriate formatting for the description of these succession matters. Often times, these discussions are rather intricate and are just not very interesting to the general public and are not frequented by a lot of uninvolved editors, so it's genuinely hard to gauge actual consensus. For example, Pofka cites a discussion from '14, but then there's also this discussion from '18. It's hard to say that any of these discussions are really determinative.

On the other hand, I remember seeing Theonewithreason act in a bit of a trigger-happy manner reverting at Nikola Tesla and the talk pages there. I went to check further, and found this warning I gave them in May, for which they apologized in a subsequent edit summary. Now that I read that again, this does show a bit of an odd confusion: I didn´t accuse anybody [of being a Nazi by citing the NONAZI essay], since I dont know who posted this. - even if we don't know who posted something we disagree with, that should not prevent us from treating them with a modicum of respect. Maybe this all rises to the level of a violation of the WP:ARBMAC that needs to be acted upon further. --Joy (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theonewithreason, thank you for reminding me of that 2022 discussion about your 2020 sockpuppeteering, I completely forgot about that. I didn't say I'm improperly involved, rather that I tend to set aside my admin privileges in favor of contributing to content and discussions. I understand you're necessarily defensive after being called out here, but in my mind this interaction just reinforces the idea that you might not be well-suited for this contentious topic area. --Joy (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadko, please add new replies to other editors on your own section. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pofka and Theonewithreason are over their word limits. No more comments unless an extension is granted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, having read through this case, it seems like the dispute is a case of editors disagreeing over whether a recent discussion trumps a prior consensus. Given that the prior consensus was over a decade old it's valid to reopen the question; given that evidently multiple editors do stand by their prior comments in favor of the old consensus, an RfC would be the best way to resolve the matter, with the old consensus treated as the status quo ante. Frankly, the most concerning interactions exhibited here are the raising of canvassing allegations, and the response to them. Pofka's framing of Theonewithreason's activity on Serbian Wikipedia isn't great, but I'm also concerned by Theonewithreason's response of demanding a block for aspersions, without addressing the substantive evidence of canvassing that they had preferentially pinged editors with references to Serb identity in their usernames; the correct response would have been to either demonstrate that the pattern of pings was not partisan, or to apologize and commit to observing WP:CANVASS. Separately, the first, second and fifth of the diffs presented by Uniacademic do cause concern (for the third and fourth, I think that Uniacademic is giving undue weight to the WP:PRIMARY source). I'm uncertain exactly which remedies to propose at the moment, although my first instinct is to recommend a logged warning to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for Theonewithreason and a logged warning to refrain from making unnecessary comments about editors' backgrounds for Pofka. I am nevertheless open to proposals from other admins for greater or lesser sanctions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Matrix

Downgraded to semi --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Appealing user: Matrix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 22:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: ECP protection of Italian brainrot

Administrator imposing the sanction: Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [36]

Statement by Matrix

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 me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 22:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: what are your thoughts on maybe enforcing this with an edit filter targeting the "Controversial audios" section instead? —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 15:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: thought this would be #3 of Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#On_community_review, since 1) Italian brainrot as a trend has largely died down, and 2) people may want to edit the rest of the article, and this places a large roadblock to that. But ultimately if you don't agree, feel free to close and archive. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: I think you have the wrong mentality - it's not about whether there's a problem, but how we can encourage new editors. We've already got two edit requests on the talk page of this article, which is a lot in the space of 2 weeks, and a lot of people have pointed this protection out here. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and protecting pages tangentially related to ARBPIA excessively for no reason is contrary to that. An edit filter doesn't have to cover every edge case, and I think we should still have semi/PCP on this page to prevent the usual IP vandalism. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 18:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel Case

I don't have any inclination on this one way or the other, save to say that given how contentious this contentious topic area has been and continues to be, any reduction in this protection level should be taken through this process and not unilaterally. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Matrix

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 Matrix

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

So, for what it's worth, both Pbritti and Thegoofhere violated the ARBPIA 1RR in the edits in April that preceded this protection. A general reminder to all that that 1RR applies to all content related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, regardless of what page it's on. As to the protection Daniel made, would I have imposed it? I'm not sure. But under Wikipedia:Contentious topics § On community review, the action was not out of process, was a reasonable anti-disruption measure at the time, and the existence of continued disruption in the PIA topic area, including on related content, means that it's still "reasonably necessary" even if some other restriction could be used. I think the best approach here is to decline this appeal, but explicitly not endorse the action as an AE-consensus restriction either, meaning that come April 2026 the protection will be eligible for review under normal WP:UNPROTPOL rules instead of the heightened CTOP standard. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Matrix: In principle I have no problem with that idea, but again the issue is I don't see any procedural basis to overturn Daniel's action. Policy builds in a fairly strong presumption of deference to the discretion of the enforcing admin for the first year of a sanction's existence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Daniel Case's statement implies that he is fine with this being reconsidered here from scratch rather than under the heightened standards of WP:CTOPAPPEALS that favor leaving in place whatever he initially imposed. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the idea of doing this by edit filter has some appeal for me. I'd already been thinking about how one might go about that... WP:ECR authorizes us to do it but I don't think anyone's invoked that to date. What I'm thinking is something like:
Create templates called {{START EXTENDEDCONFIRMED-RESTRICTED SECTION}} and {{END EXTENDEDCONFIRMED-RESTRICTED SECTION}}; these would not return anything visible.

Have a standardized hidden comment that would go along with these, something like "Edits between this template and the {{END EXTENDEDCONFIRMED-RESTRICTED SECTION}} will be blocked by a filter if your account does not have extendedconfirmed access. Please see the notice above the editing window for more information."

Have a parameter for the CTOP editnotice to provide said explanation.

Create a filter that prevents non-admins from adding or removing these templates.
Have a extendedconfirmed-show part of the disallow message that says that if you're trying to BLAR the page or remove the ECR'd content in its entirety, just remove all the content between the tags but leave the tags themselves, and ask an admin to tidy up after you.

Create a filter that prevents non-EC users from changing the wikitext that the template wraps. (Off the top of my head, something like restricted := "\{\{\s*START EXTENDEDCONFIRMED-RESTRICTED SECTION\s*\}\}(.*?)\{\{\s*END EXTENDEDCONFIRMED-RESTRICTED SECTION\s*\}\}"; get_matches(restricted, old_wikitext) != get_matches(restricted, new_wikitext), after a removed_lines check for performance? Haven't tested this, but something like it should work.)
Have a disallow message that mirrors the explanation in the CTOP editnotice.
The biggest catch with all this is that someone could still just add content above the START tag or below the END one, or do something like comment out the whole section. (Sure we could whac-a-mole these approaches but there'd always be something else.) But for pages where disruption is relatively low, I could see this being a good way to keep an honest editor honest, especially if paired with semi-protection or pending changes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a grand total of one edit request on the talk page since the section was imposed. I think that shows there isn't enough of a problem here to warrant inventing new technology, and I would just decline this entire request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no appetite for something more radical, I propose we close this with a downgrade to semi. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support reducing to semi at this point. It can be increased again at a single admin's discretion in response to continued disruption. I think the edit filter idea would be better proposed to the community or ArbCom rather than decided here. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

73.250.111.41

Blocked for a month by SilverLocust as a standard admin action --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning 73.250.111.41

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mikewem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 73.250.111.41 (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/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Amendment (September 2021)

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

Oct 3 After being warned on their talk page that they cannot engage in discussion of this topic or make edits per ecr, they once again restored the archived discussion
Oct 2 restored archived discussion
Oct 1 deleted their first ecr warning in collapse top note and un-collapsed discussion
Sept 26 threat to blank the page at the discussion in question, Accuracy of LGBTQ Death Toll

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)

Oct 3 user talk page

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Oct 3

Discussion concerning 73.250.111.41

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 73.250.111.41

Statement by WhatamIdoing

The IP has also been edit-warring a comment that Someone's fee-fees got hurt! into a discussion at WT:RSP.[37][38][39][40][41] I was considering a trip to ANI when I saw the notification about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 73.250.111.41

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

Blocked for a month as a normal administrative action. I believe that is sufficient. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Boutboul

Appealing user: Boutboul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Imposed at boutboul talk page ([diff]) and logged at AE log 2025.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [diff]

Statement by Boutboul

I’d like to appeal my topic ban, which was imposed for WP:CIR. Valereee advised me to go with appealing at AN or AE after three months and 500 productive non-gaming edits outside the topic. That would put [me] at ~2000 edits.

Timing

The topic ban started on 6 May 2025. As of 4 October 2025, that is ~5 months.

500 productive, non-gaming edits

As of 4 October 2025, my total edit count is ~2,100, which exceeds the advised 500 additional edits outside the topic. Examples of pages I improved:

History of Togo (diff)

History of Benin (diff)

Salt evaporation pond (diff)

Germanium (diff)

Neodymium magnet (diff)

I believe these contributions are productive and non-gaming; all information is sourced. I also created tables, pie charts, and even a map.

Competence improvement (WP:CIR)

I misunderstood several points and didn’t pay enough attention to Valereee’s warnings. In particular, I took the “Lorem ipsum” example literally because I didn’t know it was placeholder text. I’ve learned from this: I now check context and policy notes before editing.

I’m appealing because I have met the advice given and I believe I have addressed the WP:CIR concerns. – Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Boutboul

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 Boutboul

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

@Tamzin: Just checking you've seen this and if you had any thoughts? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong feelings about this, but given the way Valereee and I framed the unblock, and that Boutboul has followed that advice, I think the default outcome here should be a WP:LASTCHANCE unban. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I don't have any issues with Boutboul's editing since the TBAN that would make the think it can't be removed but given there haven't been other admin comments I don't have the required consensus to remove the TBAN. Are you willing to do it yourself as the enforcing admin or give your okay for me to do it? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. If there is no further objection in about 72 hours (at which point this will have been open for a week), I will close this with something to the effect of "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". But that's without prejudice against any other resolution if anyone has anything further to say. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by LilianaUwU

Appeal declined. LilianaUwU blocked for two weeks as an ordinary admin action by Tamzin. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Appealing user: LilianaUwU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban on transgender topics, imposed here

Administrator imposing the sanction: Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: diff

Statement by LilianaUwU

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)[reply]

Also what Black Kite says. Anti-trans editors have done so much worse, yet have escaped consequences. How come I'm the one who gets consequences over what is essentially a shared sentiment among a lot of editors? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, you're not wrong with any of what you've wrote. Maybe you're right and I shouldn't expect my TBANs to be lifted anytime soon. But I will reiterate that GENSEX, as well as AP2, is absolutely packed with people who will push a harmful POV in such a civil way that they repeatedly evade sanctions, which is what I alluded to on your talk page. No wonder I'm always angry all the time when people get to spread harmful misinformation and do so with impunity.

As for the canvassing accusations, I maintain that I was never accusing anyone of canvassing, and that IMO, all the Kirk AFDs were "canvassed" in a way due to the news coverage sending people to them. But this is not an AP2 appeal, this is a GENSEX appeal. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

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 checkuser-en-wp VRT queue would like to take a look. The battleground stuff mostly lives in the archives of arbcom-en (I can send arbs the thread title if they are interested). There is a strong public example that I can provide, but it is useless without the context that I feel is covered by the way the community sees the boundaries of my NDA. In that case, as well as this one, I acted in a purely administrative capacity. None of my editing reaches the level of WP:INVOLVED.

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)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

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 [42], 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 (If all three don't get at the very least a complete GENSEX TBAN, you won't ever see me on Wikipedia again, because clearly you don't care about civil POV pushers trying to erode my rights one edit at a time), shows that there's no reason to expect any further constructive contributions from her in the topic area—something that I'll note, unlike any of the parties in the ArbCom case, she has essentially no history of. I don't think I've ever seen Liliana make a constructive edit about GENSEX; her participation is exclusively pot-stirring like this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Liliana for two weeks for personal attacks / harassment in her most recent comment here. This is not an AE action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've had time to talk to OS (who declined to suppress but affirmed revdel), just for transparency's sake for non-admins, here is a redacted version of the edit I blocked over: I want to point out that the 'evidence Guerillero posted below was illegitimately acquired by (Redacted), who abused their power (Redacted) and lurked in the AARoads Wiki Discord server with the sole intent of trying to 'get' one of the roads editors. The person in question, whom Liliana pinged, is not involved in any of the rest of this, so this was a purely gratuitous personal attack over a years-old grudge; I also note that Liliana doesn't actually challenge the accuracy of the evidence that person obtained. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by LilianaUwU

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 Black Kite

Never mind the WP:INVOLVED stuff. Can we look at the actual edit that she was tbanned for? Because I'm pretty sure there's a significant number of editors that feel the same way. Is that edit really a TBANnable offence? It's not, is it? We've let other editors really double down on the bigotry before we even think of TBANning them; there's a chance that some of the anti-trans editors in that ArbCom case might even escape it - though I hope not. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

voorts In that case the other behaviour should have been stated, because I'm seeing nothing in that diff. Oh, by the way I've just suggested that the anti-trans element at this case should be removed from Wikipedia as well (see the PD comments), so I will be expecting my TBAN soon. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

voorts Whatever - I hardly edit in the GENSEX area these days because it's so toxic, and the reason it's so toxic is because there are not enough admins willing to take action against problematic editors in trans-related areas when they undoubtedly would do in other culture war topics. Black Kite (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved FIM

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)[reply]

Threatening to leave Wikipedia ... can be disruptive/indicative of a battleground mentality. How? WP:FLOUNCE might only be an essay, but it's pretty highly regarded, and it suggests nothing of the sort. (Note: I agree that pushing for other editors to be banned/blocked can be disruptive, hence my elision.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EggRoll97

On the merits of this, I think it's pretty clear that the topic ban imposed on Liliana is well-past justified. Less-so on the merits, and moreso on their behavior in this AE, I'm surprised Liliana was only blocked for 14 days, and not indefinitely, especially considering the remarks they made here are just more of a continuation of their prior behavior in the case, and considering their attitude of "I'll leave if you don't do what I want", which has resulted in indefinite blocks before for less established users. I think it's a good idea to give some thanks, though, to both Guerillero and Tamzin here for their quick action. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Liliana does show self reflection in their post when they write: No wonder I'm always angry all the time when people get to spread harmful misinformation and do so with impunity. Practically every other talk, user talk, Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespace post I read from them is unhelpful in some way or another. Whether that be pot stirring, aspersions, battlegrounding, or generally raising the tone of a discussion unnecessarily (all the aforementioned can be seen in their appeal here, and the associated talk posts on Guerillo and Tamzin's talks). Aside from all the stuff Tamzin cited in their recent ban, this stuff also wasn't so long ago. It's not egregious, but this was also a pretty mistaken, unhelpful/unnecesary and probably demotivating contribution, which in isolation isn't worth mentioning, but it's a pretty strong pattern imo. I also recall some pretty egregious posts in past years relating to gender from Liliana, so while perhaps it's getting better, I think it's still way below the bar for contentious topics.

The other thing I recall is Liliana saying some variant of Things aren't going well for me, and for some reason I thought it was a good idea to lash out against someone who didn't do anything. I'm sorry. (here), or Not like I should be on Wikipedia for a while anyways while I get my behavior fixed (which will likely happen soon, thankfully, as I have a meetup scheduled in regards to that after the holidays). (here), and other instances. I don't think this is really acceptable, especially when all too often Liliana's contributions either start a chain of events that wastes editor time, or are just abusive. I think an indefinite ban is the appropriate sanction here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

(Guerillero is not a current arb.) Loki (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by LilianaUwU

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

We should decline this appeal. Taking a previous administrative (or arbitration) action does not make an admin involved. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU, please read the first part of the second paragraph of INVOLVED (emphasis in original):
One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area.

voorts (talk/contributions) 18:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Guerillero's notice to Liliana makes clear that this is an example of conduct that lead to the TBAN, not the sole conduct. Threatening to leave Wikipedia and/or pushing for other editors to be banned/blocked can be disruptive/indicative of a battleground mentality. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: Guerillero clarified the reasons above. Your post here and on the PD talk page was POINTy and warrants a warning under GENSEX, not a TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwU: I don't know who has/has not escaped consequences. If you have evidence of selective enforcement on Guerillero's part, I'm happy to look at it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: see WP:GOODBYE. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appeal doesn't show an adequate basis for overturning the sanction. A prior administrative action doesn't make you involved. If the sanction was not out of process (e.g., involved), what needs to be shown is that the sanction is "not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption". Threatening to leave Wikipedia unless particular editors are banned is treating Wikipedia as a battleground and (as Voorts points out) tendentious editing. Together with a history of battleground behavior (e.g., as previously sanctioned by Tamzin), this is a reasonable sanction. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Guerillero was acting as an arb with their previous action but that is immaterial, as an Arbitrator acting in their capacity as an arbitrator is not INVOLVED nor is an admin and an admin taking an action against someone they have previously sanctioned is not prohibited by the rules. The comment does display a battleground behavior, and an indefinite topic ban is a reasonable escalation from a six-month (voluntary but enforceable) topic ban that expired in June. As such I find no grounds, based on the criteria, to overturn the topic ban. Independent of that, I have, as a measure of first resort, suppressed the previously RD'ed comment and brought it to the OS list for discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct Loki. But the claim to being INVOLVED is from when he was. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like there is agreement among uninvolved admins that the appeal is to be declined. The OP has also been blocked for two weeks and is now retired from Wikipedia. Maybe it would be best to close this thread, then? Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 11:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] 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.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models (LLMs) Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards