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}}
For quick requests: use the Quick enforcement requests section.
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 (including community-designated contentious topics),
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics,
request enforcement of, or appeal sanctions arising from, community-imposed general sanctions,^[1] or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only registered users who are autoconfirmed may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by temporary accounts 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, appeals, 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. Administrators may remove or shorten comments that are overlong or unconstructive, and may instruct users to stop participating or impose AE sanctions in response to disruptive contributions such as personal attacks or groundless complaints.

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, unless AE admins waive this rule. Any uninvolved admin may further restrict participation by non-parties at their discretion.

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.
Word counts may be added using the following template: {{ACWordStatus|page=AE|section=REQUEST NAME|user=USERNAME}}. Extensions may be granted using the following template: {{ApprovedWordLimit|words=NEW TOTAL|sig=~~~~}}.

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 (index)

Quick enforcement requests

This section may be used for short requests for enforcement intended to be answered by a single administrator. This can include requests for page restrictions or requests to revert violations of a restriction, but should not be used to request that an editor be blocked, banned, or given other editor restrictions – for those, file a long-form enforcement thread.
To add a quick request, copy the following text box, click to edit this section, paste in the copied text at the bottom, and replace "Heading", "Page title", "Requested action", and "Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated)" to describe the request. For how a quick request should look when properly formatted, see this example request.

=== Heading ===
* {{pagelinks|Page title}}
'''Requested action''': Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated). ~~~~

Permission gaming.

Permission removed. Arcticocean ■ 15:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

User talk:Tzedekha (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested action: Permission gaming. See their talk. 🐈Cinaroot 💬 09:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see this plot and the revisions => select 'any ECR page (ECR Except PIA)' to see Gaza war related edits shortly after acquiring the EC grant. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done - permission removed. Arcticocean ■ 10:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Palestinians

This has already been handled. If there are further problems related to a quick request, it's obviously not a "quick request" anymore and should be handled in another manner. asilvering (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Insteadcoffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested action: Could someone please inform this user of the restrictions covering ARBPIA pages? And keep an eye on that page? A canvassing call was made off wiki and there are attempts to mass delete and ignore reliable sources. Thank you. Tiamut (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this. There are now several editors new to English wikipedia at this page, most of them from Hebrew wikipedia. Don't understand why they are being allowed to overrun it in response to an off wiki canvassing call. Imagine Talk:List of Israelis was suddenly a source of interest to Arabic wiki editors all advancing a similar POV due to an off wiki call. Please some action would be appreciated. Tiamut (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lisa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has mass deleted content at List of Palestinians twice now in less than 24 hours. Tiamut (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Content that contradicts the page as it was, and without even an attempt to see consensus. Nor was it in less than 24 hours. Why make a claim that's so easily disproven? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I simply mixed up the times, thinking it was 22 hours, rather 26 hours. Please note this page has been unedited for months before your changes, which are mass deletions, including of well sourced material that was subject to previous talk page discussions. So your claims are false. Tiamut (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain that the hostility evident above and elsewhere is entirely productive. Different editors may have different opinions. What claims are false? And, even if they are, might it be put in a more tactful manner? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, what hostility? I have been accused of several things I have not done, simply for protesting mass deletions that followed off wiki canvassing that no one has addressed For example, see here. I think I am being quit patient all things considered. Tiamut (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've given that editor a CT alert. This is something any editor can do at any time. I've also protected the article for 2 days to encourage discussion rather than reversion. Valereee (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With no consensus, Lisa deleted a very large amount of content, most of which had been in the article for a long time (more than 10 years in some cases). Tiamut put it back. Then Lisa deleted it again, accusing Tiamut of making "an enormous change to the page with zero consensus" (which is exactly what Lisa did, whereas Tiamut had not edited the page since 2012) and demanding that Tiamut is the one who should get consensus. This is text-book edit warring on Lisa's part. Zero^talk 01:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Length of time does not mean it can't change. There were discussions on the talk page pointing out the absurdity of including certain people on the list. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change but there are mechanisms for that. Zero^talk 05:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is in progress on the talk page, so let’s use it. Michael Boutboul (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Til discussions conclude, we shouldn't engage in edit wars, which is what Lisa did by reverting twice — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 07:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This section of AE is for quick requests, not for arguing over whether Lisa was edit warring or not. Let's move on. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Melat Kiros

This is not the place to request CSD. asilvering (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Melat Kiros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested action: Delete the page as a G5 violation, as the creator is not extended-confirmed. The G5 tag was declined because she is also running for Congress, even though, according to the creator, "[she] is most notable for publishing an open letter criticizing big law firms for their silence on the genocide in Gaza." Kelob2678 (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the admin who examined the article for speedy delete. I determined the article was not eligible for speedy delete b/c for multiple reasons, including that it didn't fall within the restrictions at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. This article is about an American lawyer who is also running for the US House of Representatives. While she has spoken out about issues related to Israel, that in itself does not automatically pull the subject under this particular contentious topic, especially when she's running for higher office in the USA. As I told Kelob2678, if there are concerns about the article bring it up for AFD, which Kelob2678 has now done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melat Kiros.SouthernNights (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that in this case, the article is not directly related to the Arab–Israeli conflict per the contentious topics listing because it is instead about an American lawyer and politician who merely protested against Israel in the USA. Saying that anyone who protests against or registers an opinion about the Arab–Israeli conflict should be covered by this contentious topics would pull in tens of thousands of additional articles. Nowhere in the contentious topics enforcement procedure does it say we should apply the topics listing this widely. SouthernNights (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Certain parts of the article are indeed related to PIA, so I went in and indicated this. ECR should be enforced by reverts of edits to these sections. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperPianoMan9167@SouthernNights The user who wrote the article is not ECR confirmed. If the non-ECR content is removed, the article is just about the campaign.

@Edittttor has made other edits that could be considered ECR.

Diff 1: [1]

Diff 2: [2]

Diff 3: [3]

Also has created multiple other articles with sections that may be considered ECR

Example 1: [4]

Example 2: [5] EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Counting those edits as falling under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict is an extremely broad interpretation I don't agree with. To get clarification on if the interpretation should be this broad, I've asked about this on the Arbitration_Committee talk page. That said, I will, of course, follow whatever the consensus ends up being on all this. SouthernNights (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SouthernNights I'm not sure if they would fall under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict or not, but the diffs do show edits involving inserting/removing content relating to allegations of AIPAC donations to candidates the article isn't about, removing a claim that an attack was anti-Israel, and replacing anti-semitism with anti-Israel about how some people view Nida Allam's positions on I/P (the next line and the source in the next line is Allam apologizing for past actions related to statements on I/P that some could view as antisemitic.

@Edittttor's justification in AFDs for the Chevalier and Kiros are specifically related to their activism regarding I/P.

Diff 1: [6]

Diff 2: [7]

@Edittttor created both of those pages, and their justification for the article being an exception to WP:NPOL was the subject's activism in I/P. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an extremely broad application of the contentious topic tag. The subject of this article lives in the US and simply commented on the conflict 2.5 years ago. There's no evidence that she has personal or professional connections to the topic and she has no influence over the course of events. While her comment and the public response to it made her notable, she has received lots of high quality news coverage for other topics that are not related to the conflict since then. Edittttor (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since certain parts of the article are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, I indicated this with hidden notes. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of WP:ARBECR

PP done by ToBeFree; request to strike non-EC comments not done by Sennecaster.
Arcticocean ■ 09:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:2026 Iran conflict (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested action: Multiple non-extended-confirmed users are violating the restriction in place on discussing this topic (Arab–Israeli conflict related). Namely, User:RealFactChecker101, who has 35 edits, was already warned three times of the contentious topic on their talk page, and continued to violate the restriction thereafter. User:Editorofwiki9998 has 68 edits, and has also been actively participating in discussions in violation of the restriction; I've just warned them of the contentious topic prior to making this request. Requesting that comments made by non-extended-confirmed users be marked or striked. 9ninety (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC) Note: updated link following page move 13:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wirmaple73 with 54 edits is also violating WP:ARBECR on this talk page, despite having previously been warned and even blocked for the same thing a month ago. 9ninety (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@9ninety

Done - ToBeFree has ECP'd the page for a month, and it looks like all the ones have either been removed, struck, or blocked on the current RM. Considering the pace of requests and discussion, trying to strike every last non-extended-confirmed comment is going to be counterproductive. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Gaza Genocide move request

This closure request is out of scope for arbitration enforcement, but would be welcome at Wikipedia:Closure requests. — Newslinger talk 17:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gaza Genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Snow Close: WP:PIA area RM. Vast majority of responses are snow close, there is nothing fundamentally changed. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I don't think this is within the scope of a quick enforcement request, @Bluethricecreamman. As far as I know, requested moves aren't closed as an AE action (unless they were started by a non-extended confirmed editor or something). Maybe you should make a closure request. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

its in the conflict area on the most contentious page in all of wikipedia, so i thought it would be appropriate here, as I suspect only an uninvolved admin can do a snow close this early. There have been editors sanctioned in WP:PIA5 for attempting to do their own snow-close instead of notifying an admin, i think, on that article no-less.

thought it best to post here, but I'll make a closure request if this was an inappropriate quick enforcement request. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bluethricecreamman is absolutely correct. إيان (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bluethricecreamman, arbitration enforcement is strictly limited to conduct-related matters, and this matter does not appear to involve misconduct, so I have to close your request as out of scope. I recommend submitting a standard closure request, as Chess enjoyer advised. — Newslinger talk 17:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Davefelmer

Davefelmer is warned for conduct that falls short of behavioral expectations in the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic, including uncivil communication related to his edit warring. — Newslinger talk 11:12, 9 March 2026 (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 Davefelmer

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Davefelmer (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:ARBPIA

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

This editor frequently engages in edit warring on the Zionism article, violating consensus and revert rules.

Davefelmer made the following sequence of edits:

19:45, 27 January 2026 (initial change)
18:17, 28 January 2026 (first revert)
18:56, 28 January 2026 (second revert - 1RR violation)

@M.Bitton notified Davefelmer of the violation and repeatedly requested self-reversion. Davefelmer refused to self-revert, instead incorrectly accusing M.Bitton of violating 1RR.

I was pinged into the conversation and confirmed that the edit was indeed a second revert within 24 hours and that Davefelmer should have self-reverted, but this was ignored.

On 24 January 2026 Davefelmer changed "Jewish settlers over the local Palestinian population" to "Jews over the local Arab population". I reverted this and asked Davefelmer to seek consensus. (The note I'm referring to is the edit note on the Zionism page alerting editors to the consensus requirement for content challenged by reversion.) Davefelmer then reinstated the change without doing so: 31 January 2026. TarnishedPath notified Davefelmer of having violated 1RR, but again he refused to self-revert.
On 24 January 2026 Davefelmer adds language to the page ("ingathering...")
On 13 February 2026 it is reverted by @Paprikaiser
Also on 13 February 2026 Davefelmer restores the content without seeking consensus, incorrectly claiming that it's long standing consensus

There are also examples of this editor casting aspersions when challenged and not WP:AGF:

23 February 2026
Notified about the consensus required policy on the Zionism page by myself in edit summary (as above) and by @TarnishedPath 1 February 2026.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

In other CTOPs (i.e. US politics), Davefelmer has displayed a similar disregard for policies, especially around reverts i.e.:

Indef blocked in 2015 for 3RR violations (obviously later appealed)
Banned for one month in 2021 under WP:ARBAP2
SPI issues in 2015

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

Given an alert about CTOP in the relevant area in May 2025.
Notified about the 1RR policy on the Zionism page (and other reversion policies) by @M.Bitton and later, myself, 28 January 2026.
Notified about the consensus required policy by myself in edit summary (as above) and by @TarnishedPath 1 February 2026.
Notified again about consensus required policy by @Paprikaiser 13 February 2026
Notified again about 1RR and consensus by @إيان on 22 February 2026

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Across these incidents in the ARBPIA CTOP as well as others, Davefelmer has demonstrated:

A long-standing commitment to violating revert limitations with refusal to self-revert despite multiple notifications
Violation of consensus-required restriction after explicit admin warning (and multiple other editors warning them)
Pattern of making spurious counter-accusations (accusing others of WP:TAGTEAMING, claiming others violated 1RR)
Refusal to engage with editing restrictions in good faith

Despite receiving an explicit warning from ~~an administrator~~ another editor (TarnishedPath) that the next violation would result in escalation, Davefelmer continued the same pattern of behaviour less than two weeks later.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification diff

Discussion concerning Davefelmer

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 Davefelmer

Bizarre hodgepodge. Central claim is from 1 month ago over few words that was settled on talkpage and not brought up until now. Subsequent edits brought up from Feb 13 and 22 were not 1RR with no rules violated. User then attempts to claim I have history of misconduct by citing overturned block from 11 years ago. Appears to simply not like the content of my recent editing. Davefelmer (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Response to new statement from TarnishedPath^talk - brings up nothing new. The rule violation claim is the same one from 1 month ago with him based on a technical dispute over a few words that was resolved within a day (I was working and can’t edit all the time, and as he admits it had been less than a day before I could log on again). Consensus to use some of that wording was then reached on the relevant article talkpage as seen in Section 1 here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=1338987651. TarnishedPath knows this, as he opposed the change in that discussion and was accused of WP:STONEWALLING by another editor. The Feb 13 edit was both not about the same content and, as mentioned before, not 1RR. As can be seen from my talkpage, I made an entirely different change that wasn’t a revert, Paprikaiser made a new edit 3 weeks later that was NOT a reset of the relevant section before my change, and I directly reverted him. Based on the editing rules of the Zionism page, he must now get consensus on talk, which he hasn’t attempted to do in the 2 weeks since the debate. Davefelmer (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath^talk, the editor can state what he thinks but we had the discussion on my talkpage, he wasn't able to answer the core point that it was not 1RR, and he has not responded back for a week now. It is obvious they are different edits, from the content that shifted sections to content that was removed to content changes in the middle part. The only reversion in the highlighted set is my one of him, which means he must now get consensus on talk per the rules of the page if he wants to use that version, something he has not attempted. Davefelmer (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Toadspike [Talk] - if I may respond, I would just like to say that I disagree with the part that I didn't indicate I would abide by the restrictions. The rule complaint was filed 1 month after the fact, almost 2 weeks after I worked to achieve consensus for part of the wording on the article talkpage (seen above) per proper procedure and since when it has not been crossed. I thought the indication was implicit even if I didn't positively affirm. But if not then I'd like to state that I am happy to accept the need to be vigilant and more than happy to follow 1RR/3RR guidelines. Davefelmer (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess enjoyer

@Smallangryplanet, TarnishedPath is not an administrator. ~~Please strike the part where you say they are.~~ Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested content was struck. Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by إيان

Personal attacks here. إيان (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Toadspike, I would be grateful if administrators could address the personal attacks for which Davefelmer has not recanted or apologized, particularly since I've been singled out for a logged warning for less in a filing made after I had already apologized for having matched another user's incivility.

Additionally, here is another instance of Davefelmer boldly editing in the topic area against demonstrated consensus in a discussion to which I had kindly invited them. إيان (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

Please see talk discussion at User talk:Davefelmer#Zionism where I notified Davefelmer of the consensus required restriction in place at Zionism and requested they self revert a violation of that restriction. They failed to do so after just shy of a day and so I was forced to do so to bring the article back to the stable wording. At that time I provided them a warning. Following that, and in the same discussion, @Paprikaiser requested they self-revert for the exact same sort of violation, on the exact same page, on 13/02/2026. Davefelmer then spent the next 7 days refusing to self revert and accusing Paprikaiser of committing the violation that Davefelmer had committed. Davefelmer's claim that this is all stale and that it didn't happen is incorrect. That discussion was last edited by Davefelmer 6 days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 03:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Davefelmer, that consensus was subsequently arrived at for the particular change that I left a message about, is irrelevent. What is relevent is that you have been explicitly advsied of the restrictions in place for the article and that other editors are now bringing up what they state to be they same type of violation in relation to different parts of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 05:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paprikaiser

The Zionism article is subject to ARBPIA discretionary sanctions and a consensus-required restriction. On 24 January 2026, Davefelmer introduced lead material that had been removed in April and October 2024. On 13 February 2026, I partially reverted that material, noting in the edit summary that the wording did not accurately reflect the cited sources. Later that same day, Davefelmer restored the challenged material in full without obtaining talk-page consensus or addressing the sourcing concerns. He asserted that the material was "longstanding" and therefore exempt from the restriction, even though it had been absent from the article for well over a year prior to his reintroduction of it. He declined to self-revert and argued that the rule did not apply to him, despite multiple prior warnings from other editors in this topic area for separate violations.

What I find most concerning is that he continues to maintain that he did nothing wrong, which in my view diminishes the effectiveness of temporary sanctions. Taken together with his editing history, as noted by other editors above, which reflects a pattern of tendentious and rule-violating conduct in a highly contentious topic area, this suggests that longer-term measures may be warranted. An ARBPIA topic ban could perhaps provide an opportunity for him to demonstrate constructive editing elsewhere, prior to any eventual appeal that includes a clear acknowledgment and understanding of having engaged in sanctionable behavior. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Davefelmer

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

The initial report presents a violation of 1RR and the consensus required restriction on the Zionism article. Further, Davefelmer's response does not indicate that he intends to abide by these restrictions. I think a short block is in order, either 31 or 48 hours, similar in duration to standard blocks for 3RR violations. Toadspike [Talk] 09:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, Davefelmer. Since you have agreed to follow these restrictions going forward, and edit warring is the kind of violation where blocks are only really preventative in the moment, I'm not sure any action is needed. However, I would like to more thoroughly review the other evidence, which some participants allege shows a broader pattern, before formally closing this. Toadspike [Talk] 21:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of 3RR violations, I have no difficulty with Toadspike's no-action proposal. But on the question of Davefelmer's conduct broadly, I remain with a number of concerns. Generally, talk page comments should receive more latitude than article edits, as it is the approved forum for discussing policy and resolving disagreements. I agree with some of the analysis in this report, however, that Davefelmer's comments at the talk page thread have been contrary to policy and unhelpful in tone. I don't feel comfortable closing the report without dealing with that. I also don't think that it would be proportionate to sanction a user for, in effect, a single isolated incident on a single talk page. The user has no previous misconduct in this topic area, so we should assume education and warning will be effectual. I would propose issuing Davefelmer with a formal warning to comply with the principles of decorum and editorial process in this topic area. Arcticocean ■ 09:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The violation of 1RR is quite clear-cut. While the number of words is small, the reverts were related to contentious labels, and I cannot excuse them for being trivial. It bothers me that Davefelmer has not explicitly acknowledged this violation. Promising to abide by 1RR doesn't count for much if there is no understanding of what 1RR means. That said, I agree with Toadspike that we are in NOTPUNITIVE territory. The talk page participation is aggressive but with this exception within the bounds of tolerance. I would support a logged warning, but Davefelmer should recognize this means a sanction for future edit-warring may occur without further warning. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs in the filing do indeed show that Davefelmer has violated the WP:1RR policy and the consensus required provision with his edits to the Zionism article. During the two weeks this enforcement request has been open, Davefelmer "didn't positively affirm" his violations, per his own words, and instead stated that he would be "happy to accept the need to be vigilant and more than happy to follow 1RR/3RR guidelines" while pointedly avoiding any explicit admission of his violations. In light of this and Davefelmer's lashing out at an editor who pointed out one of these violations to him (Special:Diff/1339931231), I support a logged warning of Davefelmer. — Newslinger talk 10:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha811

Closing without formal action per my comments below. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2026 (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 Ganesha811

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: High Professor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics

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

13:39, 12 January 2026 Ganesha811 reverts to restore a large amount of content contested on WP:BLP grounds for poor quality sources. This includes
- Fringe/conspiracy theories about politicians such as Feeding our Future leveraged political ties with influential Democratic politicians in Minnesota
- Undue weight/POV push about Somalian people such as the repeat insertion of 85 of the 98 defendants are Somali Americans into the lead
- Concerning the far-right Youtuber Nick Shirley, replacing The video, which includes limited evidence for the creator’s allegations with a The video went viral, receiving over 135 million views on Twitter and 3 million on YouTube
- A collection of barely relevant section spam mainly from unreliable sources, often naming private individuals.
01:53, 14 January 2026 Ganesha811 reverts to restore the same content.
11:03, 14 January 2026 Ganesha811 reverts to restore the same content again.
13:21, 15 January 2026 Ganesha811 reverts to restore the same content again after the page is full protected, simultaneously violating WP:EW, WP:FULL, and WP:INVOLVED. Another admin reverts Ganesha811.[8]
11:46, 04 February 2026 Ganesha811 later, on a related article in politics, reverts to restore content he authored with the same issues. This includes the repeat insertion of As most perpetrators, excluding Bock, were Somali Americans into the lead despite objections, and the accusation some fraudsters have used accusations of racism against investigators to avoid accountability which is sourced from an opinion piece in a disputed source from someone with a conflict of interest.
13:49, 04 February 2026 Ganesha811 reverts to restore the same content.
10:30, 11 February 2026 Ganesha811 reverts to restore the same content again
03:01, 19 February 2026 Ganesha811, after failing to find consensus for the inclusion of his preferred content, removes content that no editors objected to, based on author of it sharing the same race, with the sarcastic edit summary Evidently some editors find it controversial to cite op-eds from Somali-Americans with no evident direct connection to the case, so removing. This appears to be disruptive behavior to prove a point.
06:41, 19 February 2026 Ganesha811, when called out on the above, he says that he has no issues with the content but we should include both, or neither and that both are fine to remove because they're both Somali Americans, as if Somali Americans aren't human beings who can hold different opinions. This feels very abusive. In fact it's literally the example they use in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

[9][10][11][12]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Ganesha811 has a pretty evident disruptive bias against Somali people in political articles. The idea that unrelated content can be linked (and removed) just because the authors share the same ethnicity also seems problematic, as is the hostage taking of content.

(Reply) Thank you. It's that Ganesha811 has a bias/POV against Somali people in political articles, and that his editing violates Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. It's not about disagreement. Above I highlighted this diff, in which Ganesha811 wrote a flippant edit summary and removed content no editor objected to, after I replied on the talk page expressing opposition to the content he wants in the article. This highlights that

Ganesha811, after not getting what he wanted, removed unrelated content as a "protest". This is explicitly listed on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing with various examples as a no-no.
On the talk page, when justifying himself, Ganesha811 said include both, or neither and said that it would be removed while the content he wants in the article is under discussion. This is an improper attempt to strong-arm consensus by holding other content hostage. He also justified it with Just trying to keep us consistent.[13] which is word for word what not to do on Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Point-illustrating and in the examples.
Notably, what Ganesha811 removed is anti-racist: "the case should not be used to scapegoat the entire community".
Ganesha811 has a problematic view of source evaluation in which he considers the race of the author, and equivocates two pieces of content based on race despite different author qualifications. This aligns with his broader obsession with the race of Somali defendants.

EvergreenFir Thank you but there is no relation. If you mean my name is similar then my name does not mean "professor" in the academic sense; it is a Ragnarok Online class.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14]

Discussion concerning Ganesha811

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 Ganesha811

I am unfamiliar with AE, so please say if there are any procedural steps I should take or there's a particular structure needed. In my view, this is a regular content dispute (featuring an edit war). In mid January, there was a dispute about content on 2020s Minnesota fraud scandals - quite a few editors, including me, went back and forth over a few bits of material. Many other editors also restored the content listed above, and it was all sourced to highly reliable sources. However, I did err in restoring the pre-dispute version (which I preferred), after ToBeFree full-protected the page. I noted and acknowledged my mistake here in discussion with ToBeFree.

More recently, there have been content disputes at Feeding Our Future. At one point, there was a quickly moving edit war. While I never violated the 3RR, I did participate in the edit war and certainly violated the spirit of the policy. I was blocked 24-hours for edit warring by ToBeFree, which I accepted, acknowledging that it was reasonable and discussing it with them. The block was lifted early.

Throughout discussion on Feeding Our Future, I have repeatedly engaged on the talk page, tried to propose compromises, and sought to acknowledge good faith disagreement. Their examples 1-7, with regards to content, do not show anything that has not been repeatedly also supported or restored by other long-term and good-faith contributors, or that was not supported by reliable sources. Even with High Professor's negative framing, I do not see anything there content-wise to be ashamed of (though I am displeased that I succumbed to edit warring).

As to #8 and #9, I will say that I do not view these summaries as accurate. Discussion on consensus is ongoing on the talk page (RfC in progress). As the content in question re: #8 had been discussed on talk, I removed it to acknowledge the views of other editors, so we could establish consensus on both Magan and Warfa together. That edit summary was not sarcastic - it was entirely sincere. I described my thinking further in the diff linked in #9. As anyone who has read the full discussion will know, the summary "both are fine to remove because they're both Somali Americans, as if Somali Americans aren't human beings who can hold different opinions" is egregiously misleading. That is not what I said, meant, or implied! I originally added both pieces of content to the article because secondary sources covered both, and I wanted to summarize the differing viewpoints given in reliable secondary sources of the Somali American community (another relevant diff on my thinking).

I'm happy to answer any questions or clarify any point further. ToBeFree and EvergreenFir may be able to provide further context or perspective, as both have been active in managing the content dispute / edit warring as uninvolved administrators. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting 250 words to respond to the concerns raised by @Vanamonde93. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93. I agree that the revert through full protection was my biggest mistake; I was insufficiently aware of the procedures around full protection and was too quick to revert without considering the implications of ToBeFree's protection. I can assure you (and the community) that the error will not be repeated. The only other thing I'd note is that while WP:NEWSOPED does permit the use of op-eds from reliable sources, I agree that for politically charged articles, their use may be less than ideal. One of the compromises I recently proposed on the talk page (and now support over my original citation) was to use only what reliable secondary sources (NYTimes, The Times, etc) have described of Magan's views, and skip citing his op-ed directly. I'd also note that all versions of the disputed content have clearly attributed Magan and Warfa's views to Magan and Warfa, and avoided any use of wikivoice for sentences cited to their op-eds. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 responding further within the 250 words. I agree; I view it as the role of reliable sources to decide whose op-eds to publish and thus help us determine due weight. There's a big difference between an op-ed in an established publication and some random Substack/blog post. In this case, beyond op-eds, both Magan and Warfa's views could also be found in reliable secondary sources (i.e. straight news stories). —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ToBeFree

I'm not sure if AE is the right venue for dealing with "I disagree with someone's edits on a page I can't edit yet due to extended-confirmed protection" situations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was an INVOLVED issue and there was edit warring and neither was good, but that was dealt with (including by a block). Looking at the revision history of the article about Feeding Our Future and at its talk page, I currently see no need for further administrative action based on edit warring issues alone. Whether there's a bias against a group of people shown by the edits – and if I understand correctly, that's the core of the complaint – I won't judge. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Ganesha811

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

I share TBF's concerns about the use of AE given the extended confirmed restrictions at play in these pages. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone objects, I think this should be procedurally closed (with no prejudice against a re-filed request by a community member in good standing). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The filing editor seems very similar to AcademicallyPerfect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was c-banned two days prior to the filing editor's creation and the filing editor's first edit was on the same page AcademicallyPerfect last edited on ... EvergreenFir (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The magic 8 ball says: Unrelated -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with Guerillero that they are unrelated, I did find some socks of AcademicallyPerfect and have blocked High Professor for open proxy violations. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 @Guerillero - I'm admittedly surprised! But thank you for looking and taking care of those. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the block of the OP puts us in a gray area with respect to the validity of the AE thread, because it isn't clear if the OP was evading sanctions, and if so, which sanctions. I'm going to comment on the merits, not to endorse the OPs behavior, but to prevent us from being dragged back here, and because administrator conduct ought to be taken seriously. I don't think I would have blocked for the edit-warring alone. It is an unfortunate reality of maintaining articles on high-profile topics that one has to revert more often than is ideal, because the average drive-by edit is the removal of content that an editor with no engagement with the topic does not like. 3RR is a bright line, and not an entitlement, but Ganesha811 did not reach 3RR, let alone breach it. The claims of bias I see no basis for. I am slightly concerned by the willingness to use Op-Eds - I encourage Ganesha811 to think further on this. I am most concerned by the revert through full protection, which is an explicit policy violation. However, it was more than a month ago, it has not been repeated, and it predates the block by a month. As such I'm willing to consider the block a rap on the knuckles for that breach too (and perhaps ToBeFree intended it as such). Even if this is considered insufficient, it is an ADMINCOND issue of the sort that is beyond AE's remit: there is little in the history that suggests this is tied to the subject. I would close this with an explicit reminder about not reverting through full protection. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811: You may have an additional 250 words. I would ordinarily give the OP the same but that is moot here, obviously. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811: Thanks for that. I don't personally see the need to discuss the reverting further. With respect to OpEds - just as commentary and food for thought, and not further criticism - the matter of reliability vs due weight is sometimes lost in the weeds. OpEds from a reliable newspaper are reliable for their authors' views. But whether they constitute due weight depends on the identity of the author, and there we're discussing identity as authorities on the subject, not in terms of demographics. See my comments in a recent threat with respect to OpEds from pro-Palestinian Jewish activists, for instance. Note that I am not taking a position on whether a specific OpEd belongs, or not; just that the mere fact of being Somali does not give an OpEd writer the expertise to be considered a weight source on this topic. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for a week without any further admin comments. To me this indicates either a lack of appetite for action, or a lack of appetite to engage with a complaint about an admin. In the meantime the OP has been indeffed. I am going to close this without formal action given the conversation with Ganesha811 above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IvanScrooge98

User:IvanScrooge98 blocked 1 week for personal attacks and bludgeoning.

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 IvanScrooge98

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: IvanScrooge98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict

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

Talk:Moroccanoil#RfC about the national allegiance of a multinational business 1,600+ words and counting, in contravention of CTOP restriction
Consistent incivility, including but not limited to
- false accusations of vandalism [15], [16]
- Unsupported aspersions of disruptive coordination [17], [18], [19]
- Repeated WP:OWN-reminiscent accusations of "destroying" the article [20], [21], [22],
- Incivil personalising of disputes including aspersions of various sorts "Your ignorance on the matter is not the greatest argument...This whole conversation is grotesque.", "Julian, you and other users loved to mix totally unrelated stuff in to create confusion", "Did you guys even read this article or are you just trying to make me mad?", (in response to a neutral editor brought by an RFC notification) "So you intervened about something you couldn’t care less about and you knew nothing about instead of declining", "I'm tired to have to repeat the points you guys have been ignoring the entire time", (in response to a new editor on the talk page) "Maybe try to read the entirety of the article...But it’s now obvious you guys have teamed up to destroy the article with misinformation", "You keep trolling and then call me “emotionally invested” when I don’t want half of an article I spent a lot of time crafting—when you didn’t even know it existed—to change overnight just to reflect your distorted reality. Stop it. Stop trolling."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

8/11/25 24h block for edit-warring with false accusations of vandalism

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 28 December 2023 and 8 August 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I came across this dispute at WP:CR, which the dispute has escalated to. I have previously been told at WP:AN that closing statements should not include behavioural judgement, so closing such a RfC is impossible without administrative evaluation of editor behaviour.

Rosguill, thanks; I wanted to be clear I wasn't ignoring disruptive editing. Should I open a separate case against them? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, I see action was previously taken by Star Mississippi, so I won't be opening that case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IvanScrooge98, please see the above and Star Mississippi's comment below; if you want to open a new case, please do so using the link at the top of WP:AE. Please be aware that WP:WIKILAWYERing, especially at length, is unlikely to help you here. I have reported you because of your own behaviour against good-faith editors, not your response to WP:POINTy editing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Toadspike, see my comment here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning IvanScrooge98

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 IvanScrooge98

I have repeatedly tried to involve administrators into the matter, but I was left alone dealing with users who were openly trying to distort the documented contents of an article and now I’m getting accusations of incivility. Why was I left on my own? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What are you guys gonna do about the user who repeatedly vandalized the article by claiming a company is from Andromeda or Jupiter and the proceded to troll me about it in a discussion where I was left alone? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC) (Moved from Result section by Toadspike [Talk] 10:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC))[reply]

I have been reported because of that user’s trolling behavior and you are still ignoring him. So of course I’m asking before I file a separate request. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not an accusation, it’s a fact. I repeatedly pointed to his edits but was ignored in the discussion that brought me here, hence why it’s relevant. And if I’m replying to you I don’t see why I should put my comment above honestly. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC) (Also moved by Toadspike [Talk] 10:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Star Mississippi

Thanks, Airship for the ping. That was a regular admin action for essentially trolling independent of any I/P ArbComm issues. I have not followed any subsequent editing due to limited on wiki time. Please let me know if action is needed. Star Mississippi 01:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Absolutiva

This user known for vandalizing or edit-warring over infoboxes, such as adding or restoring excessive detailed information (as a related contentious topic to Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes) for each article. Absolutiva 12:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: I get it, I'll struck it down. Absolutiva 13:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ToBeFree

By all means from my administratively-involved side please go ahead and place the overdue block. The only possible problem I see with the proposal is the implied assumption that things will get better after a week, but we'll see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only overdue block in this story should be applied to the vandalizing troll Julian in LA you have said nothing about. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this comment here for the record, both on the page and in this place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning IvanScrooge98

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

AirshipJungleman29, per the instructions at the top of the page, cases filed here may only concern the behavior of one editor at a time (as well as that of the filing editor). I've removed the comments regarding other editors' behavior without prejudice to a separate case being filed regarding their conduct. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, yes, if you have a relevant case with evidence that you want to bring to admins' attention (I only very superficially reviewed the prior text), please file a separate case. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"I have previously been told at WP:AN that closing statements should not include behavioural judgement" – really? That's unfortunate. I'm not sure I agree with that. I sprinkle in reminders like this one regularly. Whether it helps is another question, but I think closers should be permitted to take into account disruptive behavior in the discussion when weighing comments. Toadspike [Talk] 08:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the diffs, it is clear there is more than enough here to block IvanScrooge98 for personal attacks. Their response here is not encouraging: you cannot blame other people for your own personal attacks. The behavior of other users in this RfC may need reviewing as well, but that is out of scope of this thread for a reason. Toadspike [Talk] 08:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also unimpressed by the huge word-count overrun, especially as IvanScrooge98 repeatedly implied he would be disengaging from the discussion. He ended a comment with "Bye." no less than seven times, "Adieu." once, and "Farewell." once. He said "you won’t get further replies from me" and then replied three more times in that thread alone. This is an incredible lack of self-restraint. Toadspike [Talk] 09:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to propose a one week block for repeated personal attacks and bludgeoning for IvanScrooge98, possibly coupled with a warning that a reoccurrence of either behavior will lead to an indef. I believe I'm allowed to do this myself, but I would prefer to have other admins weigh in. Toadspike [Talk] 09:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@IvanScrooge98 AE requests are only allowed to cover two parties: the filer and the party being reported (ArbCom remedy). You are welcome to file a separate request against that editor. Also, please reply in your section, not here. Toadspike [Talk] 10:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@IvanScrooge98 Please move your comment to the appropriate section. That editor's actions will not be discussed here, and your repeated accusation of "trolling" is only reinforcing my opinion that a block for PAs and bludgeoning is necessary. Toadspike [Talk] 10:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Top of the section: "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators." This is designed to prevent long back-and-forths and bludgeoning. Toadspike [Talk] 10:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Absolutiva, you can't just come here and make accusations without evidence. That is a personal attack. Either provide diffs or strike your comment. Toadspike [Talk] 13:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan has now made yet another personal attack in response to ToBeFree, so I have placed the one-week block I proposed above. Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CistronSSF

CistronSSF has been blocked indefinitely by asilvering as a regular admin action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2026 (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 CistronSSF

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: CistronSSF (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/Genetically modified organisms#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022). (Also, to some extent, WP:GMORFC.)

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

This starts at Talk:Glyphosate#Section "Misinformation campaigns". Overall, multiple editors work together and reach a consensus on improving that section of the page. There is a lot of discussion about statements made by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., that foods derived from GM crops are nutritionally deficient in a way that seriously endangers human health, something that potentially comes up against the community consensus, enacted as a CTOP, at WP:GMORFC. CistronSSF, a new editor who has only edited at that talk page, begins by attributing political motivations to editors who want to treat the content differently than he does, and progressively escalates to serious personal attacks, even after being told of CTOPs.

Feb. 25 First occurrence of claim that two editors (meaning me and KoA) changed their opinions of citing a source when they found out what the source says.
Feb 26 Doubles down on claiming that other editors are politically motivated.
Feb. 27 "You are 100% not qualified to edit any scientific articles."
Feb. 27 Further assertion that other editors are not qualified to edit the topic.
Feb. 27 Comes to my talk page, and, well, you can look at all of it, top to bottom.
Feb. 27 When another editor who watches my talk warns him about WP:NPA, he calls that editor an "insignificant child".

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): Feb. 23

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I do recognize that this is an inexperienced editor, and after the conduct continued following the CTOP notification, I made an effort to cut him some slack: [23], but things only escalated. At its most basic, this is an NPA matter, and an editor who shows no interest in backing down. I also realize that the content issues behind the behavioral conflict are complex. CistronSSF misrepresents sources, by claiming that a Washington Examiner article supports RFK's position, when it actually points out both the things where he's correct and those where he's wrong, by claiming that a review article in a scientific journal is only about a single small primary study, and by claiming that a source from a scientific journal demonstrates that GM corn is unhealthy when the source actually says the opposite – all of that also happens in the diffs above. He also claims that KoA and I opposed sources when we didn't, and when we never removed those sources from the page. We attempted repeatedly to explain things to him: [24], [25], [26], [27]. I think it is appropriate to apply a GMO TBAN, and let this editor demonstrate improvement in less controversial topic areas. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [28]

I can thank Asilvering for saving the rest of us a lot of time, and I might as well note that the lengthy dry spell of zero AE reports about the GMO topic area has come to a close. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning CistronSSF

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 CistronSSF

Statement by MjolnirPants

To be clear, I am a very significant child.

Okay, okay, I know, I'll be serious now...

Just in case it's relevant, I asked Bishonen to have a word with him shortly before this was filed. In addition, I have reviewed (but not participated in) the conversation at Talk:Glyphosate and I have to concur with multiple points raised by Tryp above. The claim that two editors (Tryp and KOA) changed their minds about a source is entirely unfounded, and reads almost like a delusion. There's nothing there I saw that could even remotely be interpreted that way. Between the belligerent and condescending attitude and the apparent inability to collaborate, I don't see any benefit to allowing even an account this new to edit in this topic area. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning CistronSSF

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

This editor already declared their intent to leave in Special:Diff/1340819886. I've helped them out the door. -- asilvering (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Riposte97

Comments in this thread are restricted because an administrator has placed this enforcement request under an Arbitration Enforcement participation restriction (AEPR). Comments violating the restriction may be moderated or removed and may result in sanction of the commenting user. Further information on the scope of the restriction is available at WP:AEPR.

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 Riposte97

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Riposte97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: GENSEX

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

There's a discussion on the Donald Trump talk page regarding whether the Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration can *really* be called persecution in wikivoice. I am on that page arguing yes. Riposte has taken the opposite stance, saying that it is extremely bad taste to compare the same measures against other minority groups throughout history (wrt to the appropriate use of the word "persecution") to the actions being discussed here.[29] Not because of the stance he has taken, but in the course of his discussion of that stance and more widely in the GENSEX topic area, Riposte's conduct since his last GENSEX AE thread two weeks ago has been subpar.

I would have waited for more severe conduct before filing this, however @Tamzin previously said to please bring GENSEX AE cases much more often.[30] Kindly give him the trout or something?

Mar 1, 2026 Personal attack
Feb 18, 2026 Aspersions on a talk page discussion about Imane Khelif
Feb 18, 2026 Personal attack on the Imane Khelif page

Previous edits raised in the last thread by various users:

Feb 6, 2026 Editing the Imane Khelif page without sourcing for the purpose of, per theleekycauldron, casting doubt on Khelif being cisgender[31]
Dec 28, 2025 OR to a similar effect

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Feb 14, 2026 Just two weeks ago, he was warned for GENSEX conduct.
June 22, 2024 BRD warning on Hunter Biden. Not relevant to GENSEX, but the jump from the Hunter Biden page to the Donald Trump page is not a far one.
[32] TBan from indigenous peoples of North America for conduct raised at ANI

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

Feb 14, 2026 Being warned for GENSEX conduct two weeks ago.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

[33] Has a userbar calling himself a member of the God Emperor's Inquisition. I trust we're all nerds enough here to recognize the connotation.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [34]

Discussion concerning Riposte97

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 Riposte97

Riposte97's statement contains 677 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

Bruh. Riposte97 (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath are you saying Americans are a race? Be serious. In any case, we’re both Australian, and you know as well as I do that yank is not used as an insult. Riposte97 (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron re the two edits of 18 Feb, I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek. My detractors have failed to mention that I apologised once it was made clear to me that it was coming across wrong.

The comment today was the gentlest possible rebuke to somebody appearing to indirectly suggest that I would support the holocaust. Riposte97 (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see we’re getting the band back together. Well, I’ve no interest in responding to everyone point-by-point. Uninvolved admins can assess the strength of those arguments. I still find bizarre the hand-wave that Imane Khelif, an Algerian Arab, is ‘basically black’ because…why? She’s from Africa? That is actual racism, not just an accusation that can be weaponised in a petty online crusade. Riposte97 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, she is not an ‘indigenous Algerian’ either, as far as I can tell. That term in a domestic context does not mean what it means in the West, and would seem to imply she is a Berber. Riposte97 (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 read the sentence after the one you selectively quoted. Riposte97 (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger, I stand by that comment, and if that means I fall on my sword, so be it. Simonm223 said Riposte97 has asked the lead to introduce doubt as to whether Khelif is a woman (emphasis mine), quoting me as saying "stating unequivocally that she is female is, in my view, no longer responsible". In the very next sentence, I say, "It would be more responsible to say that Khelif was born a woman." I don't believe it is battleground behaviour to call our that kind of selective quotation. Riposte97 (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcticocean Could you please tell me exactly what I've said that violated content rules severely enough to merit a ban? Or is the rule that if enough mud is thrown at someone, some has to stick? Riposte97 (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants I doubt you'll need to retire to your fainting couch, particularly considering that just since the start of February, and just on that page, you have attacked fellow editors again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Riposte97 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...and again and again and gearing up for some gravedancing re this very thread here. Riposte97 (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably close to the word limit, so I will content myself with one final observation: something that is hugley disruptive to this project is when a brigade comes together to systematically pursue someone with a different opinion on noticeboards. It wastes an unbeliveable amount of editor time, and when successful, is a large contributor to the systemic bias of this website, weakening the experience for readers. Riposte97 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As the Alans, Goths, and Vandals continue to circle the borders, I'd like to request a modest word extension to defend any other points that emerge. Riposte97 (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron I'm not alleging a coordinated conspiracy, just making what I think is a pretty obvious observations about how noticeboard discussions operate. They are far more likely to be an extension of a content disagreement than some kind of neutral community assessment of behaviour. The person filing this complaint freely owned (with commendable honesty) that we had a content disagreement. Some of my other accusers in this thread have said far more objectionable things in GENSEX from an objective standpoint, but decided to lay the boot into me, I assume because our disagreements trump consistency. Riposte97 (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote, are delusions of grandeur not permitted? Apologies, I was unaware. I will restrict self-comparisons to the Mughal Empire and smaller. Riposte97 (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

Noting that the two comments towards Simonm223 at Talk:Imane Khelif (Special:Diff/1339082921 and Special:Diff/1339091605) aren't just personal attacks, they're also explicit acts of racism. TarnishedPath^talk 03:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Riposte97, you and I both know that tone and usage are large parts of whether terms like that are meant as insults. Telling someone to stop acting like a yank, after they've told you that they aren't a yank is unambiguously using the term in an insulting and racist manner. TarnishedPath^talk 03:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause, writes the following:

Editing on Political pages can often be a heightened and contested area to start with, and it seems that some added latitude should be allowed in the cases where Politically centered questions are disputed (my emphasis). This is entirely incorrect. The exact opposite is expected in CTOP areas. Refer to Wikipedia:Contentious topics#General provisions. TarnishedPath^talk 22:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

I'm commenting here because I was mentioned. I wasn't personally very offended by Riposte97 erroneously calling me a "Yank". People forgetting Canada is a sovereign country with people who are influenced by but distinct from the United States is, frankly, kind of normal online. I was even willing to extend the AGF that they didn't intend the expression as an insult. But I do have some racism related concerns with Riposte97's comment that I think are more serious. And that's to do with the real thrust of their comment here: she isn't black. Khelif is an indigenous Algerian and Algeria is a north-African country with a recent history of severe colonialism. My comment was to situate the culture war furor which has made managing that page difficult for two years in the context of intersectional marginalization. "Black" was effectively used as short hand for North-African woman of colour. Attempting to suggest there is some specifically American thing about recognizing how her ethnicity was impactful upon the media circus seems almost willfully obtuse. I've had concerns with Riposte97 and race issues long before I encountered them on gender issues. This was present in their disruptive editing of Canadian Indian residential school gravesites of which this diff is a good example [35] and their contributions to the Grooming gangs scandal talk page such as this [36]. I was unaware of the dispute about Donald Trump and his patently obvious oppression of trans people because I don't watch the Donald Trump page very closely but I would say there is a consistent pattern to Riposte97's editing across political topics. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These diffs from this morning are also pertinent to this discussion as Riposte97 has asked the lead to introduce doubt as to whether Khelif is a woman, saying stating unequivocally that she is female is, in my view, no longer responsible: [37] [38]. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

MjolnirPants's statement contains 395 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I don't have a whole lot of experience interacting with Riposte. In fact, most of my interactions with them consisted of them apparently fishing for a reaction that they could use to get me removed from this topic.

The result of those efforts was a narrow escape from a boomarang. Which, of course did not seem to register, as no sooner was that thread shut down, they decided to cast more aspersions on editors who disagree with them.

See specifically this comment of mine in the above-linked ANI discussion, where I lay out some problematic diffs I'd found with a look at just part of the first page of their edit history. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that Riposte is deliberately provoking other editors in an effort to get them sanctioned may also warrant investigation.

@Toadspike:, see the statement by M. Bitton, who observed the same behavior. I would note that I can be a sort of lightning rod for this sort of nonsense, as I'm generally unafraid of using sarcasm, foul language and colorful euphemisms in my communications, and that creates the impression of a hotter head than I actually have. Also, being the author of WP:NONAZIS doesn't help. So it's not surprising that efforts to the same end directed elsewhere weren't followed through as far as they were with me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I woke up today to find that Riposte is still engaged in the exact same type of behavior that almost caused their WP:BOOMARANG back at AN. They decided to cast some aspersions again. For context, the comment they are replying to was one in which I said that the transvestigation of a successful female athlete was motivated by "hate", and in which I implied a distinction between the editors here and those engaged in pushing this narrative. It's quite telling that they would take an attack on a minority belief as a personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the diffs of mine Riposte just posted were previously posted in the ANI thread they started about me. I've documented how that went, above. This one in particular illustrates how bad-faith Riposte's attack is: I'm literally directly answering a question without providing any commentary or interpretation. Just a factual answer to a direct question.

(Apologies if I have exceeded my word count. I will not post here again unless asked a question.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I note that Riposte97 is still trying to bend the edges of WP:BLP at Talk:Imane_Khelif#Lead:_Transvestigation_and_Genetic_Sex. Just read that opening comment and ask yourself what the motivations are of someone who thinks this is important. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ErnestKrause

I'm not a participant in the topic discussion under question here and am responding mainly to the conduct issues being raised against Riposte97. The comment from Toadspike below needs to be taken seriously as to whether the high bar of conduct issues has in some way been breeched, which Toadspike states does not appear to be the case here. Editing on Political pages can often be a heightened and contested area to start with, and it seems that some added latitude should be allowed in the cases where Politically centered questions are disputed. Siding with Toadspike seems to be a good path to take here, with emphasis that care should be taken when Political issues are being disputed. Going with Toadspike on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M.Bitton

I second what Black Kite said. Claims such as The second issue with the above phrase is that is asserts that claims Khelif is biologically male (again, nothing to do with her gender identity) are false. I simply do not believe we can make that assertion anymore, given the weight of sourcing that go so far as to say she is male. can only mean one thing and one thing only.

As for them deliberately provoking other editors, I will quote what Tamzin said in a previous report: "Riposte decided who their allies are, and who their enemies are, and are treating users accordingly":

they tried what they did to MjolnirPants with me too, except that in my case, the report was filed by a TA.
they suggested that this blatant BLP violation deserves a "good interpretation".
they then made it clear that they disagree with the block of someone who has violated their TBAN, even suggesting that the editor has been vindicated.
not only did they agree with an editor who was clearly casting aspersions, they doubled down on the aspersion. The views of the editor they agreed with are known.
to defend someone who clearly violated the BLP, they falsely insinuated that I did the same, and even misrepresented what I said. Luckily, Valereee's intervention stopped the nonsense.
they claimed that "People feel their personal credibility is at stake" (another provocation), while agreeing with an editor who claimed that "Virtually nobody who follows this story is the slightest bit surprise".

Statement by Valereee

Commenting here because I am involved w/re:GENSEX at Imane Khelif. IMO that talk page needs to be ECR'd. It's bad enough when multiple experienced editors are being disruptive in ways that are just not quite disruptive enough to get them pblocked from it, but the talk also gets heavy attention from newer-but-AC editors drawn there by every bit of breaking news sparking outrage in social media. This is a BLP, and things being posted at that talk are overwhelming for well-intentioned editors there. Valereee (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby, discussion among/between non-party commenters here is almost never helpful and causes more work for workers here. If you disagree with something another commenter has said, it's generally more helpful to express that to the workers here rather than starting a discussion with that commenter. Happy to discuss at my talk, though. Valereee (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by fiveby

Valereee, if as you say "multiple experienced editors are being disruptive" then why is the solution ECR? Can you demonstrate that these newer editors are not "well-intentioned"? fiveby(zero) 14:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I will begin with a disclosure: I voted in the recent RfC on the Imane Khelif article, and I have written about this matter on Wikipediocracy. I have not edited the article itself. I note that none of the other participants in this discussion appear to have made the equivalent disclosure, despite the requirement that Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement with parties (if any). That omission is worth noting, given that most of the commenters here are in active content disputes with Riposte97, including on the RfC above, which did not go their way.

The original filing contained three diffs showing talk page comments, for which Riposte97 has already apologized and which Toadspike has found not sanctionable -- noting that the first diff came in response to another editor comparing a viewpoint to failure to condemn the Holocaust. In my view, the original filing was thin. What followed was a series of additional allegations made by several parties. The current approach -- assessing each charge in turn and moving on when it proves unactionable -- is procedurally inadequate, because it provides no disincentive whatsoever to bad-faith filing. It structurally rewards a "throw mud and see what sticks" strategy, whether or not that is anyone's intention here. From the perspective of someone casting a wide net, the downside is zero.

The racism allegation illustrates this problem directly. Toadspike has found it unactionable, stating that the evidence is not clear enough to be sanctionable. But that finding raises a follow-up question this discussion has so far avoided: does making an unsubstantiated allegation of racism against a fellow editor constitute casting aspersions? That is explicitly prohibited in enforcement discussions: Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. "Not actionable against the subject" and "appropriate to have said" are not the same standard, and treating them as equivalent lets the conduct pass without examination.

These are experienced editors familiar with AE procedures. They should be aware that The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If they believe there is a genuine case, they should file their own focused request with specific evidence, with the understanding that their own conduct would then be in scope. The current proceeding, as conducted, rewards exactly the behavior the policy is designed to deter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Emeraldflames

I don't know the particulars of every one of Riposte97's comments, but I looked through a sampling and the ones I have seen did not seem to cross a line. Some of the interpretations of certain things he has said do not appear to be at all reasonable to me.

I would also like to 100% support his point that a number of the individuals commenting here have, themselves, come across quite aggressively and WP:Incivil. Far, far more aggressive and incivil than anything I have ever seen him comment on the Imane Khelif page. The most egregious example is MjolnirPants.

Very recent examples: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3

For him to be here commenting on civility is actually quite remarkable. And this is rather typical of the attitudes of a certain bloc of editors on Wikipedia.

I would also *completely* agree that there is the appearance of a brigade here with a very similar WP:POV, very similar interests, etc. It absolutely is a large contributor to the systemic bias, which, unfortunately, as per the previous examples is actually both blatant and rampant on Wikipedia.

This is a very serious issue and existential threat to the goals of Wikipedia and I hope there are admins that understand and will act to remedy this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeraldflames (talk • contribs) 18:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

I looked over Riposte97's userpage. I don't see any "God Emperor's Inquistion" membership bar. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Riposte97

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

Riposte, regardless of what -isms those comments might be described as, can you explain what your thought process was in deciding that those comments were constructive before posting them? (From Feb. 18 onward, to be clear. The other edits have already been considered.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Riposte97: It's certainly one of the bolder strategies i've seen to – at an AE where you're accused of being incivil to people you disagree with – accuse every editor who disagrees with you of being in a conspiracy against you in which you compare yourself to the Roman Empire and do not provide evidence. and, re the word extension: no, you are not getting one preemptively, and even if you did have actual text to respond to, I'm not exactly inclined to have you contribute more to the discourse in considering what your contributions have been so far. I still think that the edits from previous AEs aren't live controversies, but I agree with Arcticocean that they should be examined here as part of the pattern of conduct. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While Riposte97's edits before 18 February were reviewed in the previous AE report, the edits are still relevant now. Enforcing admins previously (including me) then regarded the breaches of decorum as trivial, but the breaches are continuing to mount up. With the benefit of a longer period of analysis, I think it is also becoming apparent that the breaches are invariably directed at users with opposing editorial views and taking place within live discussions of BLP controversy. I think this is rising to the level of topic ban to prevent further disruption. I'd like to hear the view of other enforcing admins. Arcticocean ■ 09:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first diff was not really an appropriate response to what came before it, but considering what came before it was a comment comparing another editor's views to failure to condemn the Holocaust followed by a frustrated rant, I don't think Riposte is responsible for derailing that conversation. The comments on nationality (diffs 2 and 3) were in poor taste, especially the second one (diff 3). However, since Riposte apologized for these and struck the offending term, and since Simon says he "wasn't personally very offended", I don't think any action is warranted.

In my view, the evidence supporting the accusations of racism is not clear enough to be sanctionable, and similarly the two diffs linked in Simon's first reply do not seem sanctionable. To sanction an editor for expressing a point of view, that point of view must be so extreme that it is disruptive. The points of view expressed here have not, in my view, reached that high bar.

MjolnirPants's first diff shows Riposte speculating on other editors' motivations, which is basically never appropriate and might warrant a warning about personal attacks. I have not reviewed all the diffs linked in MjolnirPants's ANI comment [39], which argues that there is a broader pattern of disruptive talk page conduct. That ANI thread was closed with a recommendation to take complaints against Riposte to AE, but it doesn't look like that was done or that these diffs have been reviewed here, so we may want to review them. The argument that Riposte is deliberately provoking other editors in an effort to get them sanctioned may also warrant investigation. Toadspike [Talk] 14:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~~I support a logged warning of Riposte97~~ for persistent battleground conduct (including violations of the policy against personal attacks), which would be Riposte97's second logged warning in the WP:CT/GG (gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them) contentious topic. It is already rare for an editor to receive two logged warnings for the same topic area instead of a topic ban, so if Riposte97 does not improve their conduct in this contentious topic, their next reported policy violation in WP:CT/GG is likely to result in a topic ban (instead of a third logged warning) even if it is of similar severity to the ones reported here. — Newslinger talk 12:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC); edited to strike superseded position 11:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you are thinking about a second warning, you should probably bite the bullet and issue a topic ban instead -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly one of the rules of thumb that have been used on this noticeboard. With Riposte97 continuing to engage in battleground editing in this enforcement request itself (e.g. Special:Diff/1341588355), I would not support closing this enforcement request without some kind of action for Riposte97, and I am looking for a remedy that would curb this conduct issue in a proportionate manner. Riposte97 appears to apply different behavioral standards for other editors than they do for themself, as seen in the list of diffs they allege to be personal attacks in Special:Diff/1342638113, which suggests that Riposte97 is behaving in the WP:CT/GG contentious topic in a manner that they already understand to be below Wikipedia's conduct standards. — Newslinger talk 13:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Riposte97: Speculating about another editor's motivations based on what you assumed their nationality is (Special:Diff/1339082921) and then telling the editor that they should stop acting like a person of that nationality after they stated their nationality is different than what you had assumed (Special:Diff/1339091605) are both instances of battleground conduct. Unless an editor cites their own nationality in the discussion, there is no valid justification for bringing it into the conversation as part of your argument. While Simonm223 did not take serious offense, that does not make your comments about their nationality acceptable.
Please note that you have exceeded your word limit here to post additional accusations against editors who are not even within the scope of this enforcement request ("the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported"), despite having been denied a word extension due to the quality of your participation here, which is yet another example of battleground conduct.
Based on Riposte97's behavior in this enforcement request and the fact that Riposte97 had already received a logged warning in WP:CT/GG, I agree with Guerillero that a logged warning for Riposte97 would be insufficient, and I would support an indefinite topic ban of Riposte97 from WP:CT/GG for persistent battleground conduct, although I would also support a lesser remedy if there is one that can adequately moderate Riposte97's talk page behavior. — Newslinger talk 10:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC); edited to add missing word 14:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have applied the AE participation restriction to this enforcement request, as editors are continuing to make arguments that are outside the scope of this request ("the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported"). Anyone who wants to post a complaint about any other editor's conduct may file a new report. — Newslinger talk 11:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edittttor

XC removal is endorsed. Closing without further action. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2026 (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 Edittttor

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EaglesFan37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Edittttor (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/Enforcement/Archive365#aesurias

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

February 22, 2026 Added information about AIPAC content to Laura Fine Article
March 1, 2026 Added information about donating to Pro-Israel groups, such as AIPAC
March 1, 2026 Added information about opponent getting donations from AIPAC/DMFI
March 3, 2026 Added information about candidate's position paper on Israel
March 3, 2026 Updated information about AIPAC and candidate
March 3, 2026 Re-inserting information about AIPAC donors into the Laura Fine
March 3, 2026 Added/altered information about the encampments (filter log flagged ARBPIA for changing description of encampments from Anti-Israel to Pro-Palestine [40]
March 3, 2026 Added Entire Israel political position section for Biss
March 3, 2026 Added information for Biss's campaigns stances towards Israel over time
March 3, 2026 Re-inserting Laura Fine AIPAC information
March 3, 2026 Re-inserting Laura Fine Israel stance

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[41] User was issued a warning for filing an ECR-related Arbcom enforcement request despite being a non-ECR user

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

[42] was warned in this ARBCOM request

[43] Expressed awareness in this content that editing Israel-related content in articles, including AIPAC, could violate ECR restrictions. Since that edit, user has made 10 different edits involving Israel/AIPAC.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Edittttor The reason I reported you and not Slava was because you were already officially warned in a previous ARBCOM thread about staying away from ECR.

I've already address the hounding allegations here [44], and here [45], and here [46]. To summarize, I nominated three articles of congressional candidates for failing WP:NPOL . I also saw an non-ECR edit (changed in a way that didn't support the source) that I reverted. After I reminded you about WP:CIVIL in that thread, you accused me of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Over a week later, I saw edit warring on the Laura Fine page and wanted to steer the conversation in a more productive direction. [47]

All three articles I nominated for deletion were all overwhelmingly voted 'delete' [48] [49], [50]

How was this diff disruptive?[51]? Amending a proposal you made that was not supported by other users in order to propose a more narrow change to WP:NPOL that could possibly be used as a compromise?

The comment before, I defended you against allegations of being a sock: [52]

You accused another user of a violation first during an edit war (that is still ongoing as I write this message. [53].

I filed this ARBCOM before you were extended-confirmed. You also made around 200 edits today in order to reach extended-confirmed.

I praised your work on the Laura Fine article yesterday: [54]. EaglesFan37 (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland My pre-EC editing was over a course of a month (which I expanded categories such as Jewish America women in politics, which I still did after ECR), adding hyperlinks to college football articles (which I ran out of articles that I could easily do that for). Per your editing tool, my ECR percentage post ECR is only 20.9%. EaglesFan37 (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcticocean Which of my diffs are unreliable? I can strike any that are. EaglesFan37 (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Edittttor Your portrayal of diff 43 is inaccurate. The diff was used to show that you were aware that Israel/AIPAC related sections of articles likely should not be edited on by non-ECR users, then proceeded to violate that around ten times afterwards. You have been warned in a previous Arbitration Enforcement thread about staying away from this topic area. You were told by admins to edit in another area [55].

I've nominated around a dozen articles for deletion for failing WP:NPOL: User:EaglesFan37/XfD log.

I put my past comments addressing the hounding allegations as diffs because there are word counts limits in ARBCOM. I will say that, from what I've seen in your interactions, you make allegations against other users and then lash out if any user challenges you.

Example 1: [56], [57], [58]

Example 2: [59], [60], [61],

Example 3: [62], [63]

Every conversation I've replied to you in were posts related to the Melat Kiros AFD discussions or discussions branched off of that, a discussion in Teahouse about candidate notability (which is relevant for me as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, and a talk page that was on my watchlist.

Multiple other users have left discussion sections/requested that you no longer interact with them on wikipedia due to your conduct towards them: [64], [65]. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[66]

Discussion concerning Edittttor

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 Edittttor

Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

This ARB posting is just an escalation of them disrupting me.

I have warned the poster about WP:WIKIHOUNDING multiple times[67][68] after they seemed to be following me across multiple articles to come in and be disruptive[69][70][71], including mark 75% of my created articles for deletion[72][73][74], or take an opposing side in the talk conversation[75] - even jumping in to make accusations against me[76].

This user is singling me out, because the conversation they're reporting me for was a conversation with a user who was not extended-confirmed, and they reported only me here, even though I am now extended-confirmed. Why did they do this?

I have even tried to go out of my way to be nice and to thank them for their contributions and compliment them[77][78], but here we are.

As for the the edits that have been reported here, it's really not clear in the PIA guidelines what is not allowed for non extended-confirmed editors. Is mentioning campaign contributions from AIPAC not allowed? Or mentioning their stance on the Iran war? Even before I was extended-confirmed I never edited a page or section that was tagged only for extended-confirmed. I even tried to ask administrators for clarification on talk pages for articles that are deleted so I can't link them. It would be helpful to have clarification somewhere how broad the net is.

@Rainsage, that's not a fair statement. I was cleaning up the "no lead" tagged stuff before this ARB was even posted. I took the list from near 200 articles down to 20 all by myself recently. Quite a few of them were easy fixes, like "June 2017 in sports," "April 2017 in sports", etc. Obviously the lead is going to be nearly identical in those...

@EaglesFan37 says The reason I reported you and not Slava was because you were already officially warned in a previous ARBCOM thread about staying away from ECR. Does anyone believe this? They posted a warning I said to another user that this might violate PIA as an example of me intentionally violating the policy(diff 43), but that user's continued behavior after that warning is somehow not enough of a reason to report them too — despite WP:OWN and WP:STONEWALLING so much that they're almost half the total edits on the page. That's a double standard I do not think would exist if EaglesFan37 did not agree with their edits.

And it doesn't matter if you "addressed the hounding allegations" when the behavior keeps happening. It also doesn't matter if other people agreed with your deletion requests that I felt were targeted. Per WP:WIKIHOUND Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

You have continued to reply to me directly in obscure wiki threads and to find me on random talk pages to disagree with me when I have told you it feels like you are singling me out and harassing me. Why? I just don't understand the justification for this continued behavior when I have repeatedly told you that your presence behind me wherever I go is unwelcome. I just don't know another justification for this behavior other than harassment. I warned you to stop and you escalated to a ARB enforcement report!

---------------------------------------------

Let's not forget though that my PIA warning was for reporting another user for violating a PIA TBAN they had received for disruptive editing on this topic. Even reporting someone for violating their TBAN (that they originally received for what one uninvolved admin called defending slurs and conspiracy theories and another said "makes me believe they will not be able to edit this area in a policy-compliant manner.") Just shows how broken and unclear these rules are. I didn't know that reporting itself would be a violation (and IMO reporting to arbitration should never be a violation unless it is used to harass). I've had this account for over 6 years, and in that time no one has accused my edits of being inappropriate, just that they felt I made some when I didn't have sufficient permissions for that article yet.

As for GAMING accusations: I came across a list of articles that needed fixing and I fixed them. I nearly fixed the entire list all by myself and then this behavior is called disruptive? That is constructive editing and should be encouraged (in fact someone did thank me for this)! I'm not dummy editing or just editing my talk page, I'm clearing a to-do list of necessary fixes that someone else created to improve the encyclopedia. Unreal.

Statement by Rainsage

This editor may be trying to WP:GAME ECR. On March 3, 2026, they added similar text (e.g. This list shows notable sports-related deaths, events, and outcomes that occurred in October of 2024) to the lead of 100+ month in sports pages. e.g. [79][80][81][82][83] Rainsage (talk)

Statement by Star Mississippi

This editor first came across my watchlist when they were notifying CBanned editors of discussions. I, and another editor, warned them at User_talk:Edittttor#Blocked_editors when I also cautioned them about getting so far ahead of themslves as a new account. I was surprised they were eligible to participate in some of the discussions they were choosing to. Given that and the clear gaming today referenced here, I have removed Extended Confirmed. Any admin is welcome to regrant it when they feel the edits are at an acceptable volume and quantity. Star Mississippi 01:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

To be fair, the pattern present for Edittttor that resembles gaming (but could also be claimed as gnoming edits) is not very unusual for editors who go on to edit in or adjacent to the PIA topic area. EaglesFan37's pre-EC revisions also show the same features after they were informed about ECR by Rainsage - many small gnoming edits. Given EaglesFan37's focus on the PIA topic area post-EC, had Rainsage or someone else reported the account close to time the grant was issued, it's possible that EaglesFan37's EC grant would also have been revoked. What is my point? Two points really. 1. like all enforcement in the topic area, it seems to depend a lot on who is paying attention to whom, and when, which is probably not the best way to spot gaming, but more importantly 2. this is mostly an excuse to promote my Gaming Check tool. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is another possible gaming report for ZNático below, so I wanted to quickly address User:EaglesFan37's comment My pre-EC editing was over a course of a month.... I'm not sure where the idea that a month or so to become extendedconfirmed is pretty normal comes from, but reality is different. Rapid acquisition of EC is not the norm. It is relatively unusual. It is often a red flag. This is the reality of EC grant acquisition. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Edittttor

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

Edits like these [84] [85], which explicitly reference the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, are a clear-cut ECR violation. I would have been inclined to block for them in a vacuum, but given the revocation of EC, a block feels punitive. I endorse the removal of EC, and would not support its reinstatement until Edittttor has made enough manual non-repetitive edits to earn the right. I would also remind involved parties that WP:ECR permits ECR violations to be reverted en masse without consideration of 1RR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A look at recent Edittttor's contributions shows that revoking EC was correct. As they previously received a logged warning about ECR violations, I am especially unimpressed. A block probably isn't necessary at this moment, but if the ECR violations and permission gaming continue, that will have to be the next step. Toadspike [Talk] 07:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the decision to remove the perm. There isn't any allegation of further disruptive editing (and I would be unwilling to look further without some significant improvements to the report, which appears to contain unreliable description of some of the diffs). We can probably close this report now. Arcticocean ■ 08:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ZNático

There is a rough consensus of admins that ZNático has not engaged in conduct which is disruptive. There is also agreement that extended confirmed restrictions are intended to prevent disruption by making sockpuppetry harder and by giving editors necessary experience before they edit a contentious topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2026 (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 ZNático

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Cinaroot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ZNático (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli_conflict

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

User contributions show user made several trivial to game the 500 edit restrictions - and they began editing WP:CT/A-I articles. I warned them on Feb 26

They have continued to edit A-I aricles on March 2. Eg [86]

If you review this user’s edit contributions, it becomes clear that they have made trivial changes in an attempt to game the system.

A CheckUser help is needed

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

[87]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@asilvering No point in debating their motive. Constructive 500 edits should be made before editing CT. At a minimum, EC should be revoked. 🐈Cinaroot 15:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how difficult it is to make meaningful content edits when you’re new? Although this is a new account, I started editing Wikipedia 16-17 years ago, and I still haven’t reached 500 edits on that account. I wanted to edit the Arab–Israeli article's when the Gaza war happened, but I couldn’t. It’s fairly easy to make minor edits, like those on ZNático—almost anyone could reach 500 edits with minimal effort.

We need editors who make constructive edits to Wikipedia before editing CT. If not - what's the point of having 500 edit restrictions ? 🐈Cinaroot 15:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve made this report due to suspicious activity, including the deletion of talk pages. They violated EC on Gaza massacre on Feb 25; I reverted their edit and informed them of the restriction on their talk page. On March 2, they restored their edit.

If disruption is the criterion for a sanction, then I would say they have not been disruptive.

This is simply a preventative report, similar to my last two reports—both of which were successful. However, I will look for clear disruption next time. 🐈Cinaroot 16:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero I reported Tzedekha, who made this edit - which I reverted among others

I have been accused of being pro-Palestinian and targeted by sock twice at AE because of it.

After this - I tend to look for socking behavior. That's all. I'm not targeting someone based on their ideology. Quite the opposite. If I were - I would not have reported Tzedekha 🐈Cinaroot 20:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I will not respond to other matter's here. Please report it to ANI if necessary. This is not the appropriate forum for debating that issue as it's not related to PIA.

The reason for this AE filing is that making trivial edits and then jumping to PIA is classic socking behavior. That’s all. As already mentioned, I will be look for disruption next time. 🐈Cinaroot 22:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[88]

Discussion concerning ZNático

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 ZNático

Statement by Sean.hoyland

One somewhat unreliable way to address the gaming vs gnoming question might be to look at their behavior where ECR is not a factor. Their revisions in the Portuguese wiki are consistent with their revisions here, which maybe supports the gnoming argument. Of course, this can also be gamed, but gnoming is a simpler explanation, I guess. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this report has turned out to be pretty funny with valuable lessons for editors about the topic area's interesting autoimmune disorder.

"I am left wondering if Cinaroot should be in this topic area"...that is an easy question User:Guerillero. The answer is yes, Cinaroot should be in this topic area. They identified an account that has some features consistent with gaming and they reported it. This should be commendable, an editor who cares about the rules and protecting the topic area from ban evading actors, is paying attention to new accounts and asks for help. Cinaroot saw something, said something, and there was disagreement about their assessment. Identifying gaming is hard. Getting it wrong is easy. Is anyone wondering whether Black Kite should be in the topic area for coming to the same conclusion based on the same evidence? Probably not. I wonder why?
Lesson #1 for other editors observing this report. It is better to report suspected gaming in the 'Quick enforcement requests' section to minimize the opportunity for comments that demonstrate a battleground attitude towards editors who file AE reports in good faith intended to ensure that the topic area is rules-based and does not contain unsanctionable actors employing deception via sockpuppetry.
Lesson #2. Do not assume admins assume good faith. Assume they expect you to assume good faith. They are free to imagine whatever pattern they want.
Lesson #3. Gaming related enforcement is only inconsistently pre-crime-based, there needs to be overt disruption...sometimes...or not, it really depends on which admins are looking at the evidence and making the determination.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ZNático

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

I don't understand what is supposed to be wrong with their PIA edits. -- asilvering (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asilvering I assume that the filer is saying that they gamed ECR status with multiple automated or trivial edits, which I have to agree that they probably did. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They're making exactly the same kinds of edits now. That's not gaming, that's just gnoming. -- asilvering (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinaroot, ECR isn't some kind of "pay to play" scheme. It's specifically to cut down on sockpuppetry and ensure that editors joining the topic area have had a chance to get some needed experience first. What experience is this editor missing that is impairing their ability to make gnoming edits in a CTOP? Nothing. It's fine. -- asilvering (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinaroot, I've already explained the point of the restrictions to you, and I'm well aware of what the experience of being a new content editor is like. This editor is not engaged in contentious editing as far as I can tell, or Arcticocean either. They're simply gnoming. They do not appear to be disrupting the PIA topic area in any way. -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. The edits before 26 February (auto-promotion to EC) appear to be legitimate. Arcticocean ■ 15:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After reading this thread, I am left wondering if Cinaroot should be in this topic area --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding my thoughts, I find the assumption of bad faith that leads to all gnoming to become gaming and the addition of "substantial" to the requirements for ECP to be strong signs of battleground editing. Especially when there isn't even a hint of disruption within the topic area from the account dragged to this noticeboard. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinions about your interactions with Tzedekha, only those with ZNático on this thread -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly eyebrow-raising, and I've been very unimpressed with this interaction as well. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am at a loss at the defense of BITEing a new user off the project who seems to only want to gnome about categories, disambigs, and redirects. The lesson to be learned is that there needs to be a "hook" of some kind (disruption, making contentious edits right after the 500th edit, etc.) to ask for a user to be de facto topic banned from PIA, not that less visible forums should be used to do so. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cinaroot, the EC restriction is to

Give new users a chance to realize there might be things they need to familiarize themselves with before they get themselves in trouble in a highly contentious topic
Reduce disruption because new users haven't realized the above
Reduce socking

It's not an arbitrary hoop to jump through. If people do clearly game it with an apparent goal to become disruptive, we remove EC perm. If people meet the requirement in an organic way but still end up being disruptive, we can pblock or tban or whatever seems most likely to work. But in this case it's pretty iffy whether they gamed it and they never become disruptive, so we probably don't need to deal with it. Valereee (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Martimix

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 Martimix

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TylerBurden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Martimix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe

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

7 December 2025 Adds claim of Russian capture of Ukrainian village citing X.
8 December 2025 Adds claim of Russian capture of Ukrainian village, this time completely unsourced.
11 December 2025 Adds claim of ″Ukrainian defence of Siversk had completely collapsed and the city was captured by Russian forces″ citing X.
12 December 2025 Again adds claim of ″Ukrainian defence of Siversk had completely collapsed and the city was captured by Russian forces″, this time unsourced, did not add source as promised in edit summary.
7 December 2025 Adds claim of Russian capture of Ukrainian village citing X.
12 December 2025 Inserts WP:SYNTH ″the town was fully encircled by Russian forces after the end of Pokrovsk siege″, not in source and also does not provide a new source to support the content.
14 December 2025 Adds claim of Russian capture of Ukrainian village citing X.
25 December 2025 Adds the same as above after it was removed, again citing X.
6 March 2026 Adds WP:SYNTH, claiming in Wikivoice that Ukrainian settlement had been captured by Russia when the source makes it clear that it's a claim by Russia's Defence Ministry that's not been independently verified.
6 March 2026 Adds WP:SYNTH, claiming Ukrainian settlement taken by Russia, this time the source makes no mention of the place at all.
6 March 2026 Adds WP:SYNTH, claiming Ukrainian settlement taken by Russia, this time the source makes no mention of the place at all.

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

Notice posted on talk page 25 November.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As can be seen in the examples above, the user has made numerous edits concerning Russian military advances in Ukraine, often citing poor sources like social media posts, misrepresenting sources, or just flat out providing no source at all. I believe the edits showcase a pretty clear WP:TENDENTIOUS pattern to use Wikipedia to promote Russian military success rather than make encyclopedic updates concerning the situation on the front. Martimix has been warned on their talk page multiple times, but continues to do the same thing, and so it seems the only way to stop it is some form of enforcement be that a topic ban or something else.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification diff

Discussion concerning Martimix

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 Martimix

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Martimix

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

As they have not used a talk page of any kind in more than four years, I will simply pblock them from main. -- asilvering (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's not quite right - they have used talk pages, but so rarely that it becomes a rounding error. Well. Nevertheless. -- asilvering (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Faronnorth

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 Faronnorth

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Butterscotch Beluga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Faronnorth (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/Gender_and_sexuality#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

Faronnorth's behavior in GENSEX has repeatedly been unconstructive & uncollaborative in nature

28 April 2025, 8 November 2025, & 22 December 2025 Repeatedly changing "LGBT+ rights" to "Trans rights" at Tonia Antoniazzi.
22 December 2025 Changing "LGBTQ activist" to "Trans activist" at Jamie Raines with the edit summary of "false teaming".
15 December 2025 & 22 December 2025 Repeatedly removing the term "cisgender" from "cisgender women" at Sharron Davies.
18 January 2026 Inserting a non-neutral description to Fairness in Women's Sports Act that removes mention of transgender athletes being banned.
18 January 2026 Adding a "citation needed" tag to the lead of LGB Alliance regarding its description as "anti-transgender", despite the majority of the article's content addressing said description.
2 March 2026 Inserting a non-neutral description of "Rape law" at Anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom that reads as soft peddaling.
4 March 2026 Left the comment "The real issue arises when, for example, lesbians are labelled ‘transphobic’ for not wanting to date trans-identified men".
5 March 2026 Left the comment "I said a transman and a woman in the sense that they're both female".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

22 December 2025 31 hour block for disruptive editing

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 5 January 2023.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I became aware of Faronnorth due to this reply of theirs to a topic I started on the Anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom talk page. After thinking it over & reading this discussion on their talk page with DanielRigal, I brought my concerns to Black Kite, who subsequently suggested I bring the matter here. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Faronnorth

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 Faronnorth

A lot of this discussion is misrepresenting what I actually think. I already explained to Daniel why I write transman as one word. It also seems that having an opinion about sex-based fairness in sports is being portrayed as “anti-trans,” even though someone having a trans identity is not the issue in that context; their sex is. it needs to be framed like that as a motte and bailey to shift focus away from technical fairness and onto moral failure. The argument often has to be framed as anti-trans in order to portray it as bigotry against people based on how they identify. That’s why I tried to change the wording in the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act article to make the framing more neutral.

Are there people who might use this issue as an excuse to get at people they dislike for being gender non-conforming? Probably yes. That's just a case of concurring opinion. Faronnorth (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanielRigal

Since I told Faronnorth "I won't take any action unless you disrupt Wikipedia again" I get the sense that they have dialled it back a bit, shifting from trans related articles to other "anti-woke" targets, but are continuing to probe the limits of what is tolerated here. This report concerns GENSEX specifically but I think this is broader than that. Anti-trans editing is often comorbid with general "anti-woke" editing and we see that here. I think the GENSEX problems easily justify a topic ban but the question is whether we need to go further than a topic ban from GENSEX. For that reason, I'm going to cover some broader problems here.

Faronnorth isn't always straightforward. They are willing to play linguistic games. The deliberate misspelling of "trans man" as "transman" was WP:POINTY and, in my view, tips over into trolling. Yes, I know that some people do make this mistake in genuine good faith but it is clear Faronnorth they did it intentionally as shown by the replies on their User Talk page. This brings their other "mistakes" into question. Normally, when I see an edit like this recent one, I assume that that's just sloppiness. After the language games, I'm not so sure. The bad edit to Woke seems like moving on from disruptive editing on trans issues to subtle disruption on other contentious topics. In the past, they tried to make an article called "Anti-Woke Left". I don't know what it was like but it seems possible that this was more "anti-woke" disruption.

Faronnorth joined in 2021 and tried to make constructive edits. There are no obvious problems until November 2022 when they make this bad joke edit. In December 2022 the logs say "created page 19348 FIFA World Cup (←Created page with 'The 19348 FIFA World Cup will be held in the year 19348 on the moon.'". This is where a period of outright vandalism started. They continued to make semi-constructive edits, many of them reverted as unsourced, on some topics while, on other topics, they committed straight-up vandalism. Examples: 1 and 2. This faded away as the anti-trans stuff started to come into focus.

In January 2023 the anti-trans stuff starts tentatively, with edits to Graham Linehan and Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull which are intended to soften coverage of their views but which could be interpreted as being in good faith, but it's all downhill from there: misgendering, vandalism, trolling, obfuscation, ranting, more ranting, censorship/obfuscation, obfuscation again, whitewashing and linguistic games.

Faronnorth is an editor who can edit constructively, when they want to, but who often chooses not to. It looks like a topic ban could go in three ways: It might redirect them back towards constructive editing. It might send them off to troll on "woke" topics outside of GENSEX or it might send them back to the outright vandalism. I don't know which is most likely but I think a topic ban is worth a try. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Faronnorth

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

For their persistent battleground conduct, I support an indefinite topic ban of Faronnorth from the WP:CT/GG (gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them) contentious topic. As approximately half of Faronnorth's edits in article space to date (43 of 87) have been reverted, any further disruptive editing is likely to be met with an indefinite sitewide block. — Newslinger talk 09:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't in the business of removing editors for wrongthink. But we're an encyclopedia, not a reddit forum. Faronnorth's history does not inspire confidence that they are here to build an encyclopedia: I'm seeing a lot of edits, even in mainspace, that have only a tenuous relationship to what reliable sources say about their subject. I would like to hear from them, but I think a sanction is necessary, and based on edits like this (yes, that's a year ago, but only about 30 edits ago) an indef feels more appropriate than a TBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Either an indef or a tban are probably needed to control the disruption --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

^ December 2025 RfC

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

[3] 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.

[1] December 2025 RfC

[1]

[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 Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	AI Cleanup Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories 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 Deletion review
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