Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests - Wikipedia

Wikimedia project page
request for
arbitration
is the
last
step of
dispute resolution
for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The
Arbitration Committee
considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the
arbitration policy
. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see
guide to arbitration
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or
discretionary sanctions
, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to
/Requests/Enforcement
This page transcludes from
/Case
/Clarification and Amendment
/Motions
, and
/Enforcement
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
The following discussion has been closed.
Please do not modify it.
Initiated by
EytanMelech
at
00:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Case or decision affected
PIA Canvassing
arbitration case
) (
ev
) (
) (
pd
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
Statement by EytanMelech
EytanMelech's statement contains
727
words and
exceeds
the 500-word limit.
Hello.
During one of the ARBPIA case reviews on Wikipedia, I was one of the users banned by ArbCom for edits made to Wikipedia pages and votes cast on talk pages that violated Wikipedia rules. I was both topicbaned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, and had an entire block on my account so that I was not able to edit any page, including my own user pages. This went into effect in January 2024. After months of reflection and consideration of my actions, past and future, I did a clemency appeal for my user block, which was lifted in September 2024. I did not, at that time, request a review of my Arab-Israeli topic ban, as I thought it was too soon and that I needed to show good behavior for a period of time before any consideration on that. In the following year and a half since, I have since made more than 2,600 edits on Wikipedia since my unblock and have written many articles. After fully learning what a "broadly-construed" topic ban meant, I believe that I have made improvements to the way I use Wikipedia, and that I have been a good example of someone making consistent & productive edits for the site and have been someone with overall good behavior. I would like to use this opportunity to request a review & potential removal of my topic ban on the Arab-Israel conflict.
Thank you very much.
EytanMelech
talk
00:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
moved to own section, re TarnishedPath -leek
I can respond to this. That was absolutely my bad. I had a mission for a while to add a Wikilink to every mention of Herbert Parmet, an article I created, and must've done this on autopilot without reading the title of the article. You're absolutely right.
EytanMelech
talk
03:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
moved to own section, re leek -leek
I think my main project to highlight are the articles I've added for places of worship. The main part of that would be
List of synagogues in Italy
, which is an overview of the synagogues in Italy articles, which were very few before I started within the past year. I have since added
24 synagogues
for various synagogues that were previously lacking in articles on enwiki. I also created the
Gyor synagogue
and
Synagogue of Utrera
, which are both outside of Italy but are in Europe and were lacking enwiki articles. In terms of churches, I've created articles for the
Church of St. Andrew and St. Monica
and
Metropolitan Baptist Church (Philadelphia)
EytanMelech
talk
03:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
moved to own section, -eggroll
1. I think I came to better understand what I found important at Wikipedia. When I was blocked, I was reeling with the loss of being able to help contribute to this source of knowledge. I knew I needed some time away, not just for the punitive reasons, but also to understand what I enjoyed about Wikipedia, and it was definitely that. When I was unblocked but still topic banned, I was unable to participate in the voting and consensus-based stuff on the Arab-Israeli conflict that I was so heavily involved with prior. I found that when I was unbanned from Wikipedia, but still unable to participate in that specific type of activity, I still found fulfillment and enjoyment just from the ability to help source knowledge, and that voting and defending my opinion on the directions an article could go was not what I really wanted out of a Wikipedia experience. That being said, I would still enjoy being able to edit & write articles relating to the topic, but for the purpose of actually expanding knowledge on the subject and not trying to instill a specific tone in an article or fight over whether or not something was NPOV.
2. I think you are referring to the 'fora' of Wikipediocracy, but am not 100% sure. Please correct me if I misunderstood this question. I have an account there, but have not been active for quite some time, as I was really just using it to follow people's opinions of my ongoing case that resulted in my user block, and also to have discussion with Nableezy and address accusations against me by some users there. The environment felt really toxic and I don't think I'd get anything out of there other than from what I used it for in 2024.
EytanMelech
talk
18:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by TarnishedPath
Please see
Special:Diff/1333673906
in which EytanMelech links a name in a reference parameter at the end of the following text:
As president, Kennedy initiated the creation of security ties with Israel, and he was the founder of the
U.S.–Israeli military alliance
. Kennedy, basing his policy decision on his White House advisors, avoided the State Department with its greater interest in the Arab world. A central issue was the status of Palestinians, split among Israel,
Egypt
and
Jordan
. By 1961 there were 1.2 million Palestinian refugees living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. The Soviet Union, although it initially supported the creation of Israel, was now an opponent, and looking to the Arab world to build support. The United Nations General assembly was generally
anti-Israel
, but all decisions were subject to American veto power in the Security Council. According to international law, UNGA resolutions are not legally binding while UNSC resolutions are. Kennedy tried to be evenhanded, but domestic political pressures pushed him to support Israel.
I wouldn't say that the linking of a name by itself is an issue; however given what is in the paragraph that the reference belongs to, this seems extremely unwise at the very least.
Tar
nis
hed
Path
talk
03:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why the Committee should or should not accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
PIA Canvassing: Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
EytanMelech
I have moved your comment to your own section. Please keep in mind to reply to arbitrator questions in your own section, as arbitration pages use sectioned discussion, rather than the standard threaded reply format.
EggRoll97
talk
22:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
PIA Canvassing: Arbitrator views and discussion
EytanMelech
, are there any edits/projects you'd want to highlight in your time back?
theleekycauldron
talk
• she/her)
02:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I am equally as skeptical of this appeal. There are 2 years out of PIA, instead of one, but the off wiki factors make be think that a longer vacation from our most fraught topic is needed --
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
14:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
EytanMelech
What have you learnt from the experience of being blocked and topic banned? How can we be sure you won't be involved in canvassing/off-wiki coordination again? For example, are you still a member of fora where the content of Wikipedia articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is discussed? That's not a leading question; if you are, I'd be curious to know how you approach Wikipedia-related discussions there.
HJ Mitchell
Penny for your thoughts?
18:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I'm also not too keen on letting editors back in while the topic is so hot. Additionally, our tools against off-wiki coordination is limited and iron-shod enforcement when discovered is one of the few tools we have with teeth to discourage it.
ScottishFinnishRadish
talk
13:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I did not participate in the ban at the time, but I've just refreshed myself on the thread and perused the off-wiki evidence. I must agree with SFR that I am not too keen on letting editors back in while the topic is so hot, especially in this instance given the off-wiki angle.
CaptainEek
Edits Ho Cap'n!
05:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I'm hesitant to lift a topic ban that was implemented because of
the coordination that was occurring
, especially in this topic area. Looking through everything again and reviewing EytanMelech's statements, I can't find myself supporting any lifting of the topic ban at this time. -
Aoidh
talk
03:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions
Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit
WP:ARC
or
WP:ARCA
for potential alternatives.
Make a motion (arbitrators only)
All editors are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension on this page below (using the
{{
@ArbComClerks
}}
template) or by emailing
clerks-l
lists.wikimedia.org
. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended comments or submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or
clerks
may summarily remove or refactor any comment.
Back
in 2012
, ArbCom created standardized enforcement and appeals provisions for arbitration remedies. In 2014, the Committee promoted simplicity by
amending the procedure
to behave like the
discretionary sanctions procedure
(discretionary sanctions are the precursor to
contentious topics
). Since then, DS has received multiple improvements, especially during
the 2021–2022 updates
. However, the standard provisions were not updated anywhere near as frequently, and the two are now have numerous small differences, which everyone (admins, restricted editors, onlookers) must keep track of.
The
primary motion
updates the standard provisions to work like the
contentious topic
system currently does. It then modifies the contentious topic procedures to refer back to the new provisions, harmonizing the two systems and preventing future Committees from accidentally reintroducing differences down the line. A
second motion
would remove restrictions on further appeals after an unsuccessful appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee.
These are posted for editor feedback before voting begins. I am particularly interested to hear feedback on the motion about appeal restrictions, but all comments are welcome.
A diff between the contentious topic procedures and the proposed standard provision
is available
. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
01:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Standard enforcement provision reform: Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Draft motions
The following discussion has been closed.
Please do not modify it.
Draft motion: Standard enforcement provision reform
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Enforcement
is amended to include the following procedures:
Enforcement of arbitration restrictions
Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the
arbitration enforcement log
Appeals and modifications of enforcement actions
All active arbitration enforcement actions may be appealed. Only active restrictions may be appealed, and all labelled enforcement actions (including ones alleged to be against policy) must be successfully appealed under the applicable arbitration enforcement appeals procedure before they can be modified.
Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, the following procedure governs arbitration enforcement appeals. An editor may:
ask the administrator who first issued the enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the
arbitration enforcement noticeboard
("AE") or at the
administrators' noticeboard
("AN"); or
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
. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
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.
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 other period the Committee may specify.
Changing or revoking an enforcement action
An administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
The administrator who originally imposed the restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,
or is no longer an administrator;
or
The restriction was issued more than a year ago.
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:
clear
consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
clear
consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, or
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.
Any administrator who revokes or changes an enforcement action 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 an arbitration enforcement action on appeal if:
the action was inconsistent with 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 an arbitration enforcement action only if:
the action was inconsistent with 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.
Standard provisions
A copy of the
standard enforcement provision
and
appeals procedure
will be included in the enforcement section of cases which include an enforceable remedy but do not include case-specific enforcement or appeal provisions.
Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments
is amended to read:
All contentious topic restrictions (and
logged warnings
) may be appealed according to the
standard appeals and modification procedure for arbitration enforcement actions
, with two exceptions:
Contentious topic restrictions, except site-wide blocks, imposed by consensus at the
arbitration enforcement noticeboard
may
not
be modified without a successful appeal (i.e. they do not become ordinary administrative actions after a year); and
Renewed page restrictions
do not become ordinary admin actions until a year after they were last renewed.
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Standard provision: enforcement of restrictions
and
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Standard provision: appeals and modifications
are hereby removed from the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
For the avoidance of doubt, these changes apply to all Committee-issued restrictions—past, present, and future—without specified enforcement or enforcement action appeal procedures (including cases which used the prior standard provisions).
References
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.
Again, the TL;DR of this motion is that enforcing Committee-imposed restrictions would work like contentious topic actions currently do.
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
01:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Draft motion: Removing restrictions on appeals
The following text is removed from the
Committee's procedures
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 other period the Committee may specify.
All restrictions on appeals issued pursuant to that text are terminated, and the arbitration enforcement log shall be updated to strike all such restrictions.
I don't like the clause—and therefore currently support this motion—for myriad reasons. To highlight two practical ones:
It is unclear how this clause (which exists in the current procedures, at
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Important notes
point 2) interacts with unilateral modification by admins after one year. Rather than answer that tricky question, we can just eliminate the source of confusion.
With the standards of review, ArbCom declining an AE appeal does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sanction. It merely didn't meet the high bar for ArbCom's involvement, and restricting appeals in those cases is downright unfair.
Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
01:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Live motions
Live motion: Standard enforcement provision reform
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Enforcement
is amended to include the following procedures:
Enforcement of arbitration restrictions
Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the
arbitration enforcement log
Appeals and modifications of enforcement actions
All active arbitration enforcement actions may be appealed. Only active restrictions may be appealed, and all labelled enforcement actions (including ones alleged to be against policy) must be successfully appealed under the applicable arbitration enforcement appeals procedure before they can be modified.
Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, the following procedure governs arbitration enforcement appeals. An editor may:
ask the administrator who first issued the enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the
arbitration enforcement noticeboard
("AE") or at the
administrators' noticeboard
("AN"); or
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
. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
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.
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 other period the Committee may specify.
Changing or revoking an enforcement action
An administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
The administrator who originally imposed the restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,
or is no longer an administrator;
or
The restriction was issued more than a year ago.
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:
clear
consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
clear
consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, or
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.
Any administrator who revokes or changes an enforcement action 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 an arbitration enforcement action on appeal if:
the action was inconsistent with 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 an arbitration enforcement action only if:
the action was inconsistent with 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.
Standard provisions
A copy of the
standard enforcement provision
and
appeals procedure
will be included in the enforcement section of cases which include an enforceable remedy but do not include case-specific enforcement or appeal provisions.
Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments
is amended to read:
All contentious topic restrictions (and
logged warnings
) may be appealed according to the
standard appeals and modification procedure for arbitration enforcement actions
, with two exceptions:
Contentious topic restrictions, except site-wide blocks, imposed by consensus at the
arbitration enforcement noticeboard
may
not
be modified without a successful appeal (i.e. they do not become ordinary administrative actions after a year); and
Renewed page restrictions
do not become ordinary admin actions until a year after they were last renewed.
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Standard provision: enforcement of restrictions
and
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Standard provision: appeals and modifications
are hereby removed from the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
For the avoidance of doubt, these changes apply to all Committee-issued restrictions—past, present, and future—without specified enforcement or enforcement action appeal procedures (including cases which used the prior standard provisions).
References
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.
For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Majority
reference
Abstentions
Support votes needed for majority
1–2
3–4
Support
To keep this short and sweet: Having two nearly-identical systems, and requiring everyone keep track of the small differences between the two, is dumb. Thank you to everyone who contributed below :) Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
18:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Izno
talk
20:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Fully on board with unifying enforcement provisions. ~ Jenson (
SilverLocust
02:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
theleekycauldron
talk
• she/her)
05:21, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
ScottishFinnishRadish
talk
11:00, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
asilvering
talk
22:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Katie
talk
13:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Daniel
talk
02:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
HJ Mitchell
Penny for your thoughts?
12:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
--
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
12:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Aoidh
talk
16:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion
Live motion: Removing restrictions on appeals
The following text is removed from the
Committee's procedures
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 other period the Committee may specify.
All restrictions on appeals issued pursuant to the prior
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Important notes
point 2 are terminated, and the arbitration enforcement log shall be updated to strike all such restrictions.
For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Majority
reference
Abstentions
Support votes needed for majority
1–2
3–4
Support
Largely per my comments elsewhere on this page. I have philosophical objections to this clause, but let's focus on the practical side. Procedurally, it is unclear how this works when admins can unilaterally lift the vast majority of restrictions after a year. Substantively, this clause makes no sense in a world where ArbCom has a different standard of review than the community. Permanently restricting an editor's ability to appeal because there are no
compelling circumstances warrant[ing] the full Committee's action
is downright unfair. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
18:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I still think this is the best way forward, but in the interests of keeping things moving and not holding up an update, I'll withdraw this motion. We plan to return to
WP:AP2024
this summer, where we can sit down and come up with a better plan for this clause (and many others!) without two cases going on in the background. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
01:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Absolutely not. Appellants should not be able to "ask the other parent" once arbcom has made a ruling on an issue. Maybe if there was a 12 month gap this starts to be reasonable, but openings the door to go from a "no" from the committee straight to AN about one of our rulings is foolish at best. --
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
19:51, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I think the clause isn't perfect, but I don't think this is the best answer. it should be the case that appellants can't OTHERPARENT, the same way you can't get unblocked normally once the community declines to unblock you. the disparity in standards House points out is a real one, but maybe we fix that just by giving ourselves some flexibility on enforcing this. like, if someone could plausibly get through the normal unblock/unban process and just didn't meet the committee's higher standards, we could allow them to do that by rough consensus.
theleekycauldron
talk
• she/her)
05:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I could see myself supporting with a 12 month gap like Guerillero mentions.
ScottishFinnishRadish
talk
10:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
There has to be some framework to prevent OTHERPARENTing.
Katie
talk
14:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
If an alternate version gets proposed with some timeframe as proposed by my colleagues above, I will likely support.
Daniel
talk
02:48, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Same concerns as everyone above.
HJ Mitchell
Penny for your thoughts?
12:23, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion
I made one change from the draft motion: I added a wikilink to the relevant point in the current procedures. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
18:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I'm undecided on this. I think further appeals elsewhere should probably be treated with a degree of common sense. I think that whatever issues we actually decide should be definitive for that user at any other forum. If we decline an ARCA with the median participating arbitrator recommending that the appeal should be considered first at AE or AN, then appeals there shouldn't be barred. If we decline an appeal with the median participating arbitrator weighing in "on the merits" and saying the action was a good decision or reasonable, then that shouldn't immediately be questioned at another venue, but that could leave open later "no longer reasonably necessary" appeals elsewhere. If we decide to fully endorse the action and adopt it as our own action, then of course that is appealable only to us. ~ Jenson (
SilverLocust
03:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Sure, I can see the appeal of something like that, and if there is appetite for that on the Committee I'll fully support anything which improves the clause. But the clause has been invoked a grand total of one (1) time in the last two years (discounting the two instances where someone has appealed an
appeal only to ArbCom restriction
). I think most things are better than the status quo, but is it worth the
WP:CREEP
? Do we need a special rule to enforce the policy
WP:FORUMSHOP
? My answer to those questions is "no". Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
18:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Arbitrator views and discussions
While we're here, I thought we were also planning to discuss the appeals restrictions we put on ArbCom-imposed sanctions, particularly in cases. I've been thinking those kinda do more harm than good for fairness, bureaucracy, and ROPE reasons. anyone else have thoughts?
theleekycauldron
talk
• she/her)
12:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I think we should get back to a six month appeal window, but otherwise I see them as helpful to inform editors about when they should be thinking about an appeal. It's a lot hard to get shot down for "not waiting long enough" when every decision specifies when they can be appealed. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
13:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Maybe more substantive thoughts later, but for now just a nitpick: Given that a protection cannot be renewed until it is imposed, isn't
whichever is later
unnecessary? Even if a sanction were imposed, renewed, lifted, and then within a year imposed again, that would still be a new imposition, so it's not like the timer would go from the previous iteration's renewal.
--
Tamzin
cetacean needed
they|xe|🤷
02:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Great catch;
Fixed
. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
02:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Page restrictions issued by a single administrator become ordinary administrative actions a year after they were imposed or last renewed
– this is (excepting renewal) true of editor restrictions too, right? Might be easier to just point people to
Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Duration of restrictions
rather than trying to restate it.
Extraordinary Writ
talk
03:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
The point of that bullet is that renewal is an exception to the modify-one-year-after-it-was-issued rule. Maybe
Renewed page restrictions do not become ordinary admin actions until a year after they were last renewed
? I'm not a huge fan of pointing to #Duration of restrictions; "follow the instructions at X with the exceptions at Y" seems more confusing than "follow the instructions at X with these two exceptions listed right here: [1] [2]". Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
18:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Yeah, I think your suggestion would make it a lot clearer.
Extraordinary Writ
talk
19:18, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Awesome;
Done
:)
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
19:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I'm guessing one reason for restricting appeals after an appeal to ArbCom was to make the potential cost of a bad appeal very high, and thus limit the number of poor or repeated appeals to ArbCom. I don't like unappealable sanctions, but I think the Committee should consider whether it has the capacity to take on that potential consequence of this change.
Toadspike
[Talk]
08:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Toadspike
, can you clarify which potential consequence you're referring to? Right now it appears to me to be
limit the number of poor or repeated appeals to ArbCom
, so I don't understand the concern about capacity. --
asilvering
talk
09:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I think there might be some confusion regarding HouseBlaster's point 2 in their explanation for the motion. Specifically, it seems to be saying that there is no difference between the committee declining an appeal and declining to consider an appeal. I believe that if the Committee actively considers an appeal on its merits then no subsequent appeals should be permitted for the next 6 months (or other specified period). However, that should not be the case if the Committee declines an appeal without considering the merits, which is basically just an instruction to appeal elsewhere (first).
Similarly this sort of confusion arises in the "On Arbitration Committee review" section of the first motion, where point 3 reads like a reason to consider or not consider an appeal rather than a reason to overturn or not overturn a sanction after consideration.
Thryduulf
talk
09:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Asilvering
Basically what Thruduulf says. The way I read it, Draft motion: Removing restrictions on appeals would allow unlimited appeals to ArbCom of the same sanction, so ArbCom might get a lot more appeals.
Toadspike
[Talk]
10:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
You've encountered reason 2,647 I dislike this clause: editors can already file unlimited appeals to ArbCom. The restriction only limits appeals to AE and AN. (To address a concern before it is raised: I wouldn't worry about flooding those venues, either. The new procedures let a AE or AN
specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.
To your first point, I think the new standards of review are enough of a deterrent against appealing to ArbCom because community appeal processes have a lower bar to accepting an appeal. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
18:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
We're used to it. --
asilvering
talk
05:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
As a very minor point, in
or whatever longer period the Committee may specify.
(in the "Appeals and modifications of enforcement actions" section of the first motion), I'd suggest changing the word "longer" to "other". While longer periods before a subsequent appeal will be the most common other period specified it seems unnecessary to disallow the specifying of shorter periods should circumstances warrant it.
Thryduulf
talk
09:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Great point; updated. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
18:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
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
– there should be a comma before "who".
Conifer
talk
02:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Done
:)
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
02:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I couldn’t see this noted anywhere, so I'm just confirming that the following substantative change to the enforcement provision is intentional. Currently, if an editor breaches a sanction imposed directly by ArbCom (such as a topic ban in a case), the first block can only be for a maximum of one month. This motion removes that initial block length restriction and allows an indefinite block (with AE protection for a year) on the first breach.
Callanecc
talk
contribs
logs
23:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Yes, that's intentional.
Izno
talk
23:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
One possible solution on appeal restrictions would be to get rid of the six-month rule but keep the rest. An unsuccessful ArbCom appeal means that the action was consistent with applicable policy and a reasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion (points 1 and 2), but it doesn't mean that a different standard for no-longer-necessary appeals is needed. Personally I'd just axe the whole section as needless bureaucracy, but maybe arbs would prefer a compromise.
While we're here, is there a substantive difference between standard 2 for community review (
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed
) and standard 2 for ArbCom review (
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion
)? Put another way, are there really actions that satisfy one but not the other? I'm not sure what the intention was in the 2022 reforms, but if they're meant to be the same, then the language should be the same; if they're meant to be different, then the language should express that clearly.
Extraordinary Writ
talk
05:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I could hold my nose and support something like what you propose as a compromise.
My read is that the ArbCom standard is something like "did the admin have a severe lapse in judgement", but the community standard is closer to "what would I have done in this situation". That probably should be clarified. Or, spitballing, maybe remove point 2 of the ArbCom standard? I think a severe lapse in judgement would constitute a compelling circumstance. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
13:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Important information
Please use this page
only
to:
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
}}
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,
or is no longer an administrator;
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:
clear
consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
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.
The
Arbitration Committee
procedures
relating to modifications and appeals state:
Appeals by sanctioned editors
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the
arbitration enforcement noticeboard
("AE") or at the
administrators’ noticeboard
("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the
amendment requests page
("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through
Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee
(or, if email access is revoked, to
arbcom-en
wikimedia.org
).
Modifications by administrators
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
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
Page protection
Masare012
The following discussion has been closed.
Please do not modify it.
Requested action
: Block for violations of GS/KURD after multiple and final warning.
User was issued
a couple of warnings about GS/KURD
edits. They were then issued a
final warning
on April 7. They then edited
List of Ayyubid rulers
8 times after that final warning. While they did undo several of their edits, they still did make multiple changes to the page. Separately, they're trying to bump their ECR threshold edit count through poorly executed RCP and RFPP requests.
CountryANDWestern
talk
10:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
They are making dozens of reverts of TA accounts, many of which are perfectly good edits. I have removed their ability to edit articlespace until they address this issue, but anyone else can change the block to an indef if they wish.
Black Kite (talk)
10:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I understand the GS/KURD restriction and I did not intend to edit restricted-topic pages after the final warning. I misunderstood that the List of Ayyubid rulers page was included in the topic area. After realizing this, I reverted several of my edits and I will avoid Kurdish-related pages until I meet the extended-confirmed requirement.
Regarding RFPP requests, I understand now that I should be more careful before making protection requests and will follow the guidance given to me.
Thank you.
Masare012
talk
10:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Najibuddaulah1752
ToughTerty85
The following discussion has been closed.
Please do not modify it.
Requested action
: No idea, I'm horribly out of my depth in the CTOP/AE field. I dropped this new user a CTOP/GG notification when they started editing
Women's Declaration International
. Their edits didn't sit well with me, but I have no wish to blunder in to a CTOP article with both feet and start reverting. However, my CTOP notification to them did not work and the edits have gone from 'uncomfortable' to 'just plain bad'. Could someone with more experience in editing in these areas do whatever it is we do when people get worse after being told about trying to edit better on gensex topics? •
a frantic turtle
20:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
They are an SPA engaged in edit warring and trolling. Their edits to the article are POV and defamatory, in one case adding transphobic slurs to the article (
diff
). They have made a personal attack on the Talk page which I had to remove (
diff
). This is even after they got the CTOP notice from a frantic turtle and a final warning from me. They posted a rant that I had to remove completely (
diff
). Their behaviour is almost bad enough for an indef now but they seem to have paused and I'm almost intrigued to see what nonsense they come up with next. --
DanielRigal
talk
22:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
He's doubled down pretty extensively since.
Snokalok
talk
22:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Yeah, I'm involved, so take this as you will, but I think it has to be a block, probably an indef. --
DanielRigal
talk
22:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
After continued disruption, I raised it at ANI and they were blocked. No further action is needed here. --
DanielRigal
talk
23:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
They have a (pretty unpleasant) unblock request open as I type. •
a frantic turtle
00:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Bogdanov accounts
This is more strange than anything else, but I noticed that the accounts listed in
this old Arb case
seem to all be totally blocked for an injunction rather than pblocked:
EE Guy
talk
contribs
),
Laurence67
talk
contribs
),
Luis A.
talk
contribs
),
ProfesseurYIN
talk
contribs
), and
YBM
talk
contribs
). It probably doesn't matter these days given the details of the case but it is odd.
Sesquilinear
talk
04:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
CatherineV
talk
contribs
) and
XAL
talk
contribs
) are also mentioned in the
remedy in question
, and they aren't pblocked either.
JHD0919
talk
18:06, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
XAL is now
XAL~enwiki
and still blocked.
Extraordinary Writ
talk
06:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Huh, that is strange. Pestering
HouseBlaster
since you helped clean up some of the other detritus from this case recently: can these be unblocked? It seems like the temporary injunction expired of its own terms when the case closed.
Extraordinary Writ
talk
06:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
By the terms of the injunction, yes, they can be unblocked. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
17:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
As background, the reason the injunction was enforced by full rather than partial blocks is that partial blocks did not exist when this case arose in 2005; they were not available and enabled until 2020 (see
Wikipedia:Partial blocks
). Perhaps these editors should have been unblocked, subject to what we'd now call a topic-ban, when the arbitration case was resolved; but is there any evidence that any of them have ever requested an unblock to edit other topics, either then or at any point in the ensuing twenty years? As a point of information, the
Bogdanov affair
remained contentious and litigious for many years, although not so much on-wiki, but the dispute is less active now as both of the Bogdanov brothers have died (see
Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff
). I understand the rationale for noting an oddity here, but it is not clear to me that any action should be taken at this late date.
Newyorkbrad
talk
07:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
As I understand it,
WP:CT/GMO
applies the 1RR restriction by default to pages in scope (
). However, I've noticed that many pages to which I believe the restriction applies do not feature the
relevant editnotice
; in the spirit of
awareness
) I'd like to be able to create them. Since enforcement is typically a job for (uninvolved) administrators, and since similar issues related to scope (
) and editnotices (
) have been relevant before at AE, I figured checking in here was a good idea.
1. Do the pages at
Special:Permalink/1350665997
(all currently missing editnotices) fall under the scope of the contentious topic, currently defined as
[a]ll pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them
? If so, I will create editnotices for these pages.
2. Is it
necessary to post here to clarify
whether a specific page falls within scope in future? If not, how should the scope of the CTOP be assessed?
Thanks for your time. Best,
Staraction
talk
contribs
09:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Staraction
, any page directly about GMOs would count. You have a lot of articles in there that start with "Genetically modified" - those are all obviously in scope. Go ahead and add the notice wherever relevant. --
asilvering
talk
22:13, 23 April 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 Gotitbro
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Wisher08
talk
contribs
deleted contribs
logs
filter log
block user
block log
16:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
User against whom enforcement is requested
Gotitbro
talk
contribs
deleted contribs
logs
filter log
block user
block log
Search CT alerts
in user talk history
in system log
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:CT/SA
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation
how
these edits violate it
18:02, 27 March 2026
- Clear failure to
WP:AGF
with the comment "
you deliberately falsified the consensus result, synthesised a false status and labelling of a source at RSP and are still defending that hoaxing
".
01:14, 28 March 2026
- Continued failure of
WP:AGF
and actually violation of
WP:BATTLE
, given User:ActivelyDisinterested had already concluded "
I can't see any deliberate attempt to mislead. Discussion needs to return to the reliability of the source.
" Even the editor (the one with whom Gotitbro was interacted) had acknowledged his misunderstanding.
[1]
Now instead of letting things go, Gotitbro continued to derail the discussion with continued battleground mentality by writing "
You falsified a consensus and status (apparently merely a color according to you), and are still treating it as a no big deal.
01:24, 28 March 2026
- continued
WP:IDHT
with
WP:BATTLE
. Worse is that it is written in response to another editor who told him to avoid this battleground behavior and another editor merely had a "misunderstanding".
[2]
User:ActivelyDisinterested had to finally hat the discussion to avoid further derailing of the thread.
[3]
These diffs came after he was already warned for incivility by an admin just a day ago.
[4]
19:43, 29 March 2026
- Continued uncollaborative behavior. Asking "SNOWCLOSE" of a properly initiated RfC without any valid basis.
Violation of 1RR (
page notice
) on
Dhurandhar: The Revenge
on 26 March 2026:
[5]
[6]
Another violation of 1RR on
Dhurandhar: The Revenge
, this time on 29 - 30 March 2026:
[7]
[8]
05:51, 29 March 2026
More of the same
WP:BATTLE
and failure to
WP:AGF
Made 4 reverts on
Muridke
during 8 March - 10 March:
13:32, 08 March 2026
(+727)
20:35, 10 March 2026
(+727)
20:40, 10 March 2026
(+727)
20:44, 10 March 2026
(+727)
Talk page messages during this period were also similarly hostile and lacked AGF.
[9]
[10]
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
[11]
: "warned to provide full and clear justification for any reverts in their edit summaries, and to follow
WP:BRD
rather than making multiple reverts."
Multiple blocks for edit warring until 2025.
[12]
If
contentious topics restrictions
are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see
WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics
[13]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Rosguill
Could the disruption be ignored if the report was not filed in timely fashion? Muridke is not the only place where Gotitbro has edit warred since his last AE warning. These are some more pages where he has edit warred in last few months:
Asim Munir
, 3 reverts over the same content:
9 February
9 February
9 February
Hindutva
, 3 reverts over the same content:
13 January
13 January
13 January
Sangh Parivar
, 4 reverts over the same content:
14 December
14 December
16 December
7 January
There is no doubt that Gotitbro has regularly edit warred despite last AE warning over edit warring.
Wisher08
talk
14:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Rosguill
Gotitbro already has received one logged warning for edit warring a few months ago.
[14]
Wisher08
talk
04:49, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[15]
Discussion concerning Gotitbro
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words
and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Gotitbro
This is barely worth responding to, considering that it is a baseless retributive filing stemming from content disputes at one particular article (I have never interacted with this user before nor at the article where this stems from either). Dubious or worse malicious is the only way to describe this (trawling through editor histories to find something to nail at AE).
RSN
: An editor when asked to clarify why they faked RfC results and reliability status when editing the RSP list doubled down claiming it was only a change of color and nothing to be bothered about. The comments followed after. At the same RSN thread an RfC was initiated for
another
source (which I too agreed wasn't really reliable) for which there seemed to be general agreement about its unreliability, opined a snowclose as the RfC appeared unnecessary and non-specific.
Dhurandhar: The Revenge
(the article from where this retributive filing stems from) [the 1RR pertaining to the lead]: of the first these (
[16]
[17]
) only the latter is a "revert" for addition of unsourced info (with no editor ever having challenged this basic edit then or since); of the second of these (
[18]
[19]
) the first of these was challenging a contentious label which I followed with a discussion at the Talk page (discussion ongoing), the second of these pertained to an edit marked as a revert (
[20]
) but which wasn't actually so. 1RR was neither intended nor I believe manifested in either case and would/would've retract[ed] any of these if so informed.
Muridke
: The first of these was reverting a vandal blanking of content by a new account. The latter pertain to another editor who restored that blanking without any valid explanation (
[21]
) then continued doing so asking for consensus despite there being one very well against their prior attempts at blanking (discussions can be seen at Talk and at
NPOVN
). The user then took this to
ANI
with no further engagement with that baseless report. Should've been more calmer and somber here with the edits but basic neglection of prior discussions and consensus to double down on vandal blankings by new accounts was debilitating.
Though the previous blocks are hardly relevant, will address. Two of the previous blocks came while dealing with blocked IPs and sock accounts. The last one (
at an article for an extremist publisher
) from my own report for an editor acting against sources and consensus (see
Talk
). This is not a defence against those blocks but the context should be seen.
Gotitbro
talk
20:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
The filer here just looks to pile on "dirt" in an attempt to barely a string a case to boot off an editor, without looking at/engaging with any prior discussion.
But addressing some points below. Past discussions for
Hindutva
referred to
this
and
this
. For
Asim Munir
, at the
RSN discussion
my contentions were unanimously supported (i.e. "majority of editors backing Sheriffisintown's reading" isn't correct), I further took it to
BLPN
again garnering majority support; despite this never bothered with the article again at all for not wanting to partake in the dispute any longer (much like all of the other cases cited here).
Nonetheless, I agree that in these cases the discussion should have been much more prompt not reverts (however valid that I might've initially thunk they were).
Gotitbro
talk
18:45, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Gotitbro
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Across the evidence presented here, the only thing I see that warrants concern would be the edit warring, particularly at
Muridke
. Note that the 1RR restriction at Dhurandhar
only
applies to the lead and short description--it does not appear that the diffs displayed here show any violations of that. The 26 March diffs only include one edit to the lead (the other is to the Critical response section of the article), whereas the March 29-30 edits appear to have occurred over the span of 31 hours, so 1RR does not apply. I think that the SNOWCLOSE !vote was ill-considered in context but I'd be hard-pressed to consider a sanction on that basis. The comments at RSP seem understandable in context, even with some room for disagreement, and the final few diffs of supposed lack of AGF on the 10th and 29th do not in my view rise to the level of disruption. In general, this report also suffers from a lack of timeliness, what with the reporting of supposed edit wars that had already died down weeks ago. At most, I could see issuing a logged warning for the edit warring at Muridke, but even that may be excessive.
signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Wisher08
, the lack of timeliness doesn't excuse it entirely, but it is a mitigating factor, and I will say bluntly: when a few untimely edit warring diffs are included alongside a grab bag of other essentially unrelated allegations, it gives the impression that this is an attempt to get an opponent sanctioned, rather than a sincere attempt to address disruption in a topic area. But edit warring can be a serious issue, so let's look at the further examples you provide:
At
Asim Munir
, it looks like the chronology is: at 21:34 GMT on 9 February, Bravo786 removed content with a somewhat misleading edit summary (
Special:Diff/1337495959
). Gotitbro reverts 9 minutes later on the basis of the edit summary. Sheriffisintown then reverts Gotitbro about 11 minutes later, with an edit summary arguing that the sources used for the content Gotitbro restored are not reliable, as well as some comments about BRD that don't really seem to relate to anything relevant in context. Over the next half hour, Gotitbro and Sheriffisintown each revert two more times, before Gotitbro lets Sheriffisintown have the last word on the article and moves to open a discussion at RSN (with discussion on the article talk page indicating this course of action). The RSN discussion ends somewhat inconclusively, with a majority of editors backing Sheriffisintown's reading but no formal closure. At any rate, the edit warring at
Asim Munir
never restarted, with the status quo favoring Sheriffisintown's preferred copy
At
Hindutva
, it looks like EarthDude made an edit at 19:57 GMT, which was then reverted by Gotitbro, resulting in both editors rapidly reverting up to 3 times. At first Gotitbro pointed to a past Talk page discussion, although I'm not able to find which discussion that referred to. Eventually both editors made their way to the article talk page. I'm not terribly impressed by Gotitbro's engagement in the discussion, where they (and others) essentially handwave at a past consensus without clearly identifying it. Nevertheless, the dispute appears to have been resolved (after extended discussion) by EarthDude modifying their proposed inclusion of references to fascism to more closely follow sources, with no further dispute apparent.
At
Sangh Parivar
, EarthDude makes a unilateral change, Gotitbro quickly reverts, EarthDude reinstates it, Gotitbro partially reverts, this repeats one more time before talk page discussion commences. The Talk page discussion is not very impressive, as most of it is mired in wikilawyering rather than addressing the substantive issue; it's also muddled by the participation of a sockpuppet who gets blocked during the discussion. The edit warring briefly flares up again a month later on Jan 6/7. Ultimately, a 3rd opinion is summoned, and they largely support EarthDude's view, seemingly ending the dispute.
So, overall, I do think there is an issue on display of Gotitbro taking 3RR as an entitlement, and I don't like the amount of wikilawyering-to-substantive-content-argument ratio on display in the latter two discussions. I think this puts me squarely in "logged warning against edit warring" territory, but would appreciate other admins' input.
signed,
Rosguill
talk
15:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Gotitbro
, regarding my characterization of the RSN discussion, my view was colored by the article's status quo being what it was. Reviewing them again now, I would characterize both the RSN and BLPN discussion as "inconclusive", although I think that in the BLPN discussion in particular you come across as being significantly more constructive than most of the editors arguing against your point.
signed,
Rosguill
talk
18:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Ok, this has languished without attention for far too long. I've requested more admin attention to this page generally at
WP:AN
, but given that this discussion has already sat inactive for nearly three weeks, I intend to close with my suggested logged warning if no admins comment otherwise in the next day or so.
signed,
Rosguill
talk
15:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Rosguill has done an admirable job of summarizing and evaluating this request. The one advantage to a thread on this page sitting for awhile is that it allows time to see whether an editor may have improved his or her behavior since being reported. If there have been no further issues in the past three weeks, I am okay with closing with either an informal or a formal warning.
Newyorkbrad
talk
14:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
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 TryKid
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Ratnahastin
talk
contribs
deleted contribs
logs
filter log
block user
block log
14:00, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
User against whom enforcement is requested
TryKid
talk
contribs
deleted contribs
logs
filter log
block user
block log
Search CT alerts
in user talk history
in system log
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation
how
these edits violate it
21 March
- Rude and uncollaborative approach.
22 March
- Another rude edit summary
2 April
- Another rude edit summary while reverting warning
25 March
- casting
WP:ASPERSIONS
27 March
- engaging in the same battleground mentality as above
30 March
- Unnecessarily adding toxicity to a fair discussion. Himself engaging in battleground behavior but falsely accusing others of "brazen ideological battleground complaints" regarding the source in question.
30 March - 31 March - Made 3 reverts to remove reliably sourced content from
Diet in Hinduism
[22]
[23]
[24]
2 April
- Canvassing and exhibiting
page ownership
Diffs since this report
4 April
- Provided a misleading analysis of the cited sources. Almost doubled down when called out.
[25]
4 April
- Falsely claimed that the quote is not supported by the source. Repeated the same false claim on talk page.
[26]
Apologized after being called out.
[27]
4 April
- Fourth revert over the same sourced content.
6 April
- Fifth revert over the same content with the same
status quo stonewalling
2 April
tagbombing
Firstpost
article following discussion on about the subject on
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Firstpost
11 April
- Edit warring to keep the article tagbombed
11 April
- continued edit warring and still no activity on the talk page.
[28]
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
[29]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[30]
Discussion concerning TryKid
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 TryKid
(Diffs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 of the original report are in the context of
Talk:Dhurandhar: The Revenge
Diff 1: Removal of a template that was placed for two edits (
[31]
[32]
) restoring the status quo while discussion was ongoing. An
admin action
was eventually necessitated to restore this status quo against aggressive edit warring.
Diff 2: Removing another template posted for two edits (
[33]
[34]
) restoring an edit request with substantive discussion that was closed without any attempt to resolve the underlying issue. The edit request was
closed
after I started an RfC.
Diffs 4 and 5: I agree the talk page was not the right venue to raise my concerns, and I took the
advice
given at the time and did not post further.
Diff 6: admittedly forceful, but nothing beyond the pale I believe.
(Diffs 3, 7, and 8 are in the context of the content dispute over at
Talk:Diet in Hinduism
, which seems to have triggered this report.)
Diff 8: The pinged editors are
longtime contributers to the article
who have previously collaborated on the article despite mutual disagreements and participated in previous discussions on the talk page. Seeking wider input by pinging previous regular contributors is not canvassing.
Diff 7: My engagement with the article was constructive and collaborative. A timeline: an
edit
adds a long, misattributed quote, I
revert
along with other material (I ideally should have made individual reverts), but it is
added back
(with correct attribution this time). I
revert
again but
offer
rewritten version
based on
WP:FIXCLOSEPARA
(Extensive quotations are forbidden by policy.)
EarthDude
states
that the idea of not extensively quoting copyrighted sources verbatim in article body "is completely made up, out of thin air". The verbatim quote is
added back
Diff 3 is the removal of another template similar to the other two above.
TryKid
dubious
discuss
18:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Rosguill
by
usage of these news reports
, I meant the use of online text articles
on Wikipedia
; as apparently no edit in particular, nor any particular (on-wiki) citation to the source under consideration was contested in the discussion. regards,
TryKid
dubious
discuss
23:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by (username)
Result concerning TryKid
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I find the evidence here to be a mixed bag. I'm not particularly moved by the first few diffs of slightly snippy user talk page edit summaries in response to getting templated. As noted in the response from me that TryKid already highlighted in relation to the asserted "aspersions" at Dhurandhar: The Revenge, I think that the comments highlighted in this report are approaching problematic but don't quite cross the line, and TryKid disengaged when advised. I'm more concerned by the RSN comment highlighted in diff #6--in particular, the assertion
No evidence has been presented to suggest the usage of these news reports are problematic
seems specious--editors clearly indicated that there were verifiable examples of problematic reporting attested at
Zee News#Controversies
, and reviewing that page now, at least some of the examples there clearly affect the publication's print coverage. It's perfectly valid for an editor to disagree the specific examples and argue against them, but claiming that there was "no evidence" is disingenuous crossing into tendentious. Conversely, diffs #7 have extended justifications in the edit summaries, so their propriety is inconclusive in the absence of further evidence demonstrating that these arguments were misleading/tendentious/etc. I don't think that diff #8 adds up to "ownership", and the canvassing accusation is undermined by the fact that both of the other editors identified had previously actively edited that article.
Moving on to the post-filing diffs, diff 1-B does seem concerning; reviewing the sources in question, it's hard to see how TryKid could have arrived at their conclusions in good faith. For 2B, I can readily believe that TryKid's assessment was misled by the mistaken page number and a failed ctrl+f search, so that one is less concerning (although if there is a consistent pattern of failing to do due diligence when it is POV-convenient, that can become an issue). For 3B and 4B, the context of a TA editing a caste topic is an exculpatory factor, and the impropriety of the second revert is not self-evident. Regarding the final diffs concerning Firstpost, I'm of the opinion that TryKid was on one level justified in insisting on keeping a template on the page pending resolution of the dispute, but the number of templates used was excessive and disruptive.
I would appreciate other admins' input here. Overall, I do think there is some concerning battleground behavior on display, even though not every edit here is immediately problematic.
signed,
Rosguill
talk
16:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
TryKid
, the clarification regarding the news reports comment is appreciated, and think your position as expressed in the reply here is much more valid (although I would also hold that it's valid for the editors arguing against your position to assert that the controversies associated with Zee news--if found to be systematic, to affect its print/web coverage, and to include a pattern of a lack of taking accountability in the aftermath--are reason enough to call for a source assessment discussion). I think it behooves us to be careful to be precise and clear when making statements in discussions that could be taken as dismissing multiple editors' comments out of hand.
signed,
Rosguill
talk
15:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I'm not sure this quite rises to "logged warning" territory, but I do think TryKid needs to take Rosguill's feedback to heart. Further battleground behavior could lead to some sort of topic ban as a next step.
Barkeep49
talk
18:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
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 Nyxaros
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
KhndzorUtogh
talk
contribs
deleted contribs
logs
filter log
block user
block log
08:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
User against whom enforcement is requested
Nyxaros
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/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation
how
these edits violate it
1 October 2025
Removed cited genocide information
1 October 2025
Made same edit again after being reverted, personally attacked a user (
"You clearly have not written a good article"
) who actually helped promote many GAs and FAs. Nyxaros received
warning for incivility
15 February 2026
Returned with now outright genocide denial negationism, claiming "neutrality"
22 February 2026
More massacre censoring, replaces 'massacre' with 'suppression of rebellions" and calls it a "fix"
15 February 2026
removing mention of genocide from another article, calls a reliable historian "undue" without ever explaining why
15 February 2026
rephrasing to push a Turkish nationalist POV (ex. "role in justifying the establishment of a single-party autocracy" becomes "functioned to legitimize the political order that emerged under single-party rule")
15 February 2026
After rephrasing text to diminish controversy, removes 'and controversies' from the header because "where is the actual controversy?"
21 February 2026
removes Armenian cuisine
Çiğ köfte
. It was lacking a citation on the Kofta page, but Nyxaros then
edits
the Çiğ köfte page's lead and Armenia sections, which
does
have a source. The following edits show a further habit of removing Armenia from cultural articles.
21 March 2026
removes Armenia from the countries list ("NPOV & UNDUE issues") despite there being an entire cited section on Armenia
6 April 2026
moves Armenia in both the template regions and sections to be after Turkey and adds an origins paragraph about the Armenian tradition being a "related form" to the Turkish one, but the
source
makes no mention of "related form" and is original research.
2 April 2026
3 April 2026
3 April 2026
edit warring and return to personal attacks (
Oxford? You don't even know what you are talking about, "lol".
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
20 May 2019
blocked for 3RR edit warring
10 August 2019
blocked for being incivility toward other editors after being warned
14 February 2026
warned about edit warring by an admin
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
7 April 2026
(see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I had
posted
on Nyxaros's talk page about the Ashure changes, explaining the issue with switching the order of Armenia and Turkey and that "related form" lacked verification, and asked Nyxaros to self-revert. Nyxaros
replied
without addressing the original research problem and then just
removed
the earliest origins header.
I'm requesting
WP:AA3
to be enforced, but I would note that Nyxaros' problems go outside AA3, and his edit warring problem goes beyond Turkey (Marty Supreme article, for example).
KhndzorUtogh
talk
08:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[35]
Discussion concerning Nyxaros
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 Nyxaros
Nyxaros's statement contains
554
words and
exceeds
the 500-word limit.
First of all, I clearly warned this editor on my talk page about making baseless accusations against me. So, to address the matter directly:
The information in parentheses was removed because its placement disrupted the flow of the article, and no source was provided alongside it (I know there is at least one source that can be used for that unnecessary and long parantheses explanation but that was not cited there). What I had actually added to the article, as seen here:
I am not
”denying genocide”
in this edit; my edit summary and the talk-page discussions make that clear. This user is the only editor opposing these changes, which remain in the article because they are, contrary to their assertions, neutral and verifiable.
Again, the material I added/changed remains in the article without any issues, and there is clearly no
”massacre censoring”
. The sentence beginning “His critics denounce…” was an instance of
WP:SYNTH
, whereas my addition is less verbose and more neutral and verifiable than the previous wording. I find it difficult to understand why this user is presenting the POV-pushing version as though I had done something improper by removing it. In my opinion, it should be unacceptable as an editor the defend the non-neutral language. Their response suggests that they see nothing wrong with such biased wording. If I were actually biased in the manner this editor alleges, I would not have added statements such as “the origin of the dish is disputed” or “kataif has Arabic origins” with aeveral refs, along with the many other edits I have mentioned or not mentioned here. Rather, I would have made tendentious changes to Armenian–Azerbaijani articles where issues relating to these countries are more directly relevant, for example by recasting such matters in relation to Turkey.
Exactly the same issues continued on the Nutuk article. I hardly need to explain them, since I simply removed material that presented NPOV and UNDUE problems, yet this editor claims that I did the opposite. They should review the sources and recognize the distinction between biased and neutral wording. I also referred to the text as undue, not the historian; we do not describe historians themselves as undue.
Unsurprisingly, no one else objected to these edits, and they remain in the article months later. No one has even questioned these additions, because they are not POV-pushing, problematic, or whatever this editor may claim. Also, if you are going to title a section “Controversies”, you should ensure that the section explicitly identifies and discusses controversies…
I have grown increasingly weary of this sort of conduct from both IP and registered editors. While I have been accustomed to dealing with such behavior over the years and, when necessary, reporting it, I have been encountering it more frequently than usual. As I explained in my response to this editor on my talk page, I noticed a number of issues in articles of this kind and chose to work on them. However, these topics appear to attract strongly biased editing, and hostile responses with accusations have become increasingly common. For that reason, I am no longer interested in contributing to these articles. The editors may continue adding regionally biased material to the lead or filling articles with synthesis as is shown here, but I no longer wish to spend time dealing with it.
ภץאคгöร
09:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
The following discussion has been closed.
Please do not modify it.
Adding my detailed talk page explanation as well, just in case:
“The additions on the page are not WP:OR; they rely on information and sources already present on the page and cited in those sources. "Ashura (Arabic: عاشورا ˁāşūrā), meaning 'tenth day'": That is literally what is stated in the source, so I corrected it. The justification lies in the old and newly added, source-supported information: ashura is associated with several regional and religious traditions and sources especially document its place in Turkish/Anatolian culture, but Armenian sources usually discuss anoushabour in a Christmas/New Year context. They are not exactly the same forms of ashure.
The previous wording/order suggesting that Armenia is the primary or most prominent region associated with ashure requires an explicit comparative claim that is not directly supported by the cited sources. Per OR and NPOV, we are of course avoiding synthesizing conclusions that are not clearly stated in reliable sources. The sources I have reviewed support a narrower and more verifiable info. Academic literature describes ashura as a multi-regional dish known across Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the Caucasus, and the Balkans, stating its strong place in Anatolian/Turkish culinary culture. At the same time, Armenian sources typically discuss the related form under a different name (anoushabour), often in the specific context of Christmas and New Year traditions. For example, a 2024 Gastronomica article published by University of California Press describes ashure as especially significant in Anatolian/Turkish culinary culture, while Sweet Treats around the World: An Encyclopedia of Food and Culture describes anoushabour as an "Armenian Christmas pudding". That is sufficient to support neutral wording distinguishing the Turkish/Anatolian ashure tradition from the Armenian (holiday) form, without making stronger comparative or synthetic claims. The ordering was adjusted accordingly and an explanatory statement was added. Why was priority given to Armenia and to content that is (still) problematic?“
ภץאคгöร
10:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
As I mentioned, I am aware that the limit was exceeded, but I felt it necessary to respond before the situation escalated. As a side note, I would also point out that the reporting editor appears to focus exclusively on articles related to Armenia, and one of the two articles they have created has been tagged for
independent sources
and
tone issues
. I have not examined their actions or editing history, but even this is consistent with the concerns I described above.
ภץאคгöร
20:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
The following discussion has been closed.
Please do not modify it.
This is plainly incorrect, so I am commenting in response. My apologies.
I did not write "Scholar X asserted that the Armenian genocide happened". Instead, I changed "
According to some accounts,
he expressed disapproval of the events to foreign audiences." with one source cited to "
Taner Akçam
also states
that Mustafa Kemal expressed disapproval of the events...". There is no "some accounts" claim found in that one reference. Where does one get "according to some accounts" as an unverified
fact
? On a side note, the principle that "
an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil
" clearly does not apply in this editor's case.
In edit 4, the previous text,
which means before I changed it
, doesn't even state that the goverment was responsible for the massacre, it states it was one person who gave the order. There is no justification for synthesizing information from a source in an article, only to then provide incorrect examples here that cannot be found in the previous text and my edits. It is therefore evident that I did not "present facts as opinions". Please do not misread the texts. It would be preferable for someone, or several people, who have reviewed the matter and do not bear any prior grudge against me to comment.
ภץאคгöร
20:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Buidhe
Along with other behavioral issues highlighted above, in diff #3, Nyxaros incorrectly watered down statements cited to many reliable, scholarly sources and added attribution. These facts are well established in many scholarly sources and there is no real dispute about them, nor did Nyxaros present any evidence or contrary sources. Therefore in it's equivalent to changing "The Armenian genocide happened" to "Scholar X asserted that the Armenian genocide happened", which violates NPOV by stating a fact as an opinion. In diff #4 the editor does the same thing with Turkish and Kurdish history; there is no reasonable dispute that the
Turkish one-party state
was politically
authoritarian
and that the government was responsible for anti-Kurdish atrocities such as the
Dersim massacre
. Such edits make me question the editor's ability to edit these topics to Wikipedia standards. (
15:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Nyxaros
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I have reverted one reply to Buidhe, as Nyxaros is way over the word limit already. I've also hatted some of the initial excess. --
asilvering
talk
03:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Re-adding your over-long response after having it reverted by a patrolling admin sure isn't going to help beat the edit-warring accusations, I have to say. --
asilvering
talk
06:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Frankly the repeated walls of text and
edit warring
with a worker here at AE with an edit summary of
yes I already stated that I know it's over the word limit, but since the other party's claims are clearly inaccurate and the response was provided to point out this evidently, my response can still be combined in this way (or at least linked together before being withdrawn)
makes me wonder if
Nyxaros
is really suited for work in contentious topics.
Valereee
talk
12:18, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Despite my distaste for the lengthy parenthetical insertion - which is indeed poor writing, regardless of the message conveyed - the POV intent here is clear, and I would endorse a topic ban. Honestly I wonder if we are in indef territory - there's previous concerns at ANI, two previous blocks, and an unnecessarily combative and dismissive attitude on talk pages outside this CTOP. But we should start with the lesser sanction.
Vanamonde93
talk
16:22, 21 April 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 M.Bitton
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Kowal2701
talk
contribs
deleted contribs
logs
filter log
block user
block log
18:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
User against whom enforcement is requested
M.Bitton
talk
contribs
deleted contribs
logs
filter log
block user
block log
Search CT alerts
in user talk history
in system log
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:PIA
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation
how
these edits violate it
16 April 2026: Bobfrombrockley assesses what is clear consensus
[36]
and makes the corresponding edit
[37]
, M.Bitton reverts
[38]
See the discussion at
Talk:Zionism#Drawing to a conclusion?
, more on this below
16 April 2026
M.Bitton starts a
WP:POINTy
RfC
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If
contentious topics restrictions
are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see
WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics
Made a statement at AE on 4 March 2026
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Yes, I rolled my eyes too, but there's ongoing disruption. To summarise the discussion, there is clear consensus for a change; M.Bitton states there is no consensus with no reasoning; they dodge a question re what their reasoning is; M.Bitton starts a subsection workshopping an RfC, while simultaneously the local discussions are listed at
WP:CR
[39]
; M.Bitton ignores a request to wait for the local discussions to be assessed, despite
WP:RFC
being clear RfCs should not be held if issues can be resolved locally; M.Bitton feigns collaboration re the RfC question; M.Bitton starts the RfC while ignoring Bobfrombrockley's input. I can add more about aspersions, specious/fallacious reasoning etc. but I'd recommend people read the short discussion.
Though my behaviour isn't technically under scrutiny here, re my first comment
[40]
, it was uncivil and unnecessary, while I consider it verified by the evidence provided in the
ongoing ARBCOM case about M.Bitton
(specifically see
re PIA
), it's still a violation of
WP:FOC
Kowal2701
talk
contribs
18:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I guess admins can decide whether saying "if it’s ascertained that there’s no consensus, we can have an RfC" is me trying to "win", me "strongly opposed to an RfC", or simply tautological and following basic procedure. I don’t oppose an RfC, I oppose M.Bitton stonewalling and attempting to bypass possible consensus by unilaterally starting an RfC on his terms, wasting community time in the process. I don’t even have a strong opinion on the issue, just trying to limit disruption in the short term. If M.Bitton withdraws the RfC and workshops with the other editors (or at least doesn’t disrupt that process), I don’t see a need for sanctions right now given the arbcom case is a few weeks away from concluding.
Kowal2701
talk
contribs
12:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
What despicable mudslinging at Bob, a model editor who's never even commented at AE before, while several here show up time and time again defending 'ideological allies' and attacking 'ideological enemies', without exception. Warnings or at the very least cautions need to be handed out, it happening a few times can be chalked off as "providing useful context", but after a while it flies past
WP:PACT
and turns AE into a charade. As an example, see Smallangryplanet's statements at AE (this is all of them, sorry but had to pick on someone):
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
Kowal2701
talk
contribs
21:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[49]
Discussion concerning M.Bitton
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 M.Bitton
M.Bitton's statement contains
526
words and is
within 10%
of the 500-word limit.
Given that the issue has been the subject of various discussions without a clear consensus in sight, I proposed a RfC. Kowal2701 opposed it and suggested WP:CR instead (based on a head count of three discussions, including archived ones). I started a RfC workshop (even though I didn't have to since the RFCBEFORE threshold has been met multiple times over). Kowal2701 listed the discussions at WP:CR (proving that the WP:POINTY that they are referring to applies to them). As if that wasn't enough, they
made it clear
that they will support a RfC only if the close of the discussions doesn't go their way (in other words, they see the RfC process as a way to win, rather than solve the long-standing issue).
Their system gaming aside, what makes Kowal2701 think that their
behaviour isn't technically under scrutiny here
? Are they under the impression that admitting to their uncalled for incivility here somehow absolves them of any wrongdoing and gives them carte blanche to weaponise AE?
M.Bitton
talk
00:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Bobfrombrockley's
misleadingly
claim is
factually incorrect
and shows their bad faith assumption: there was nothing misleading about what I said since
the RfC tag was removed
at the time (it was reopened hours later and the editor who closed it without a valid reason has now !voted in the RfC). Contrary to what Bob is claiming, they used head counts (including from archived discussions). They are wrong about
Kowal2701's view of the RfC process
(Kowal2701 listed the discussions at WP:CR
after
I mentioned the RfC). Bobfrombrockley also has a habit of dismissing scholarly sources that don't align with their POV, while refusing to take them to RSN (see
my previous response
), hence my recent answer to their repeated unsubstantiated claim about the same source (months later).
Once I realised that I was about to be taken on another merry-go-round ride, I started a RfC that deals head-on with the issue (proposing the stable version and the one that they claimed there is consensus for). Why would any good faith editor have a problem with that? What's preventing them from !voting for the the option that they claim there is consensus for?
M.Bitton
talk
21:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Wh1pla5h99
(who was canvassed to this case)
response to me
(for stating my opinion):
How Trumpian of you
. Obviously,
their opinion is held to a different standard
M.Bitton
talk
22:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
this sounds rather like an emotional outburst
diff
) is another response of theirs. Basically, personalising the discussions seems to be their modus operandi.
M.Bitton
talk
15:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Hampering the progress of the RfC workshop.
M.Bitton
talk
01:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Pre-emptive grave dancing
. They also
doubled-down
on it.
M.Bitton
talk
22:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
NorthernWinds
(the editor who canvassed Wh1pla5h99): see
this discussion
Note:
their PIA topic ban was
rescinded in late January
M.Bitton
talk
22:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
ScottishFinnishRadish
sure thing
M.Bitton
talk
22:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
EaglesFan37
I will note that your main editing focus is PIA related: your first ever edit was an ECR violation, and you
went straight back to editing PIA
as soon as you became extended confirmed (literally).
M.Bitton
talk
18:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
What isn't obvious is the fact that over the last three weeks or so, I have been provoked non-stop by a bunch of editors who are aware of the case against me.
M.Bitton
talk
18:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by TarnishedPath
This report has been made because someone started an RFC? Seriously?
Tar
nis
hed
Path
talk
22:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Note, that the
WP:CR
request referred to by Kowal2701 above has been declined. See
Special:Diff/1349383055
Tar
nis
hed
Path
talk
02:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Noting that contributions to date to
the RFC
indicate that any consensus claimed by Kowal2701 or Bobfrombrockley is illusory. This undermines much of Kowal2701's arguments. Kowal2701 claims that their conduct is not under scrutiny, which is far from the case. This and other behavioural noticeboards can and have handed out sanctions to those filing disruptive complaints. I feel that is entirely appropriate in the current circumstance.
Tar
nis
hed
Path
talk
07:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Please see the following for some of Kowal2701's recent activity at
Talk:Zionism
Some of these discussions may have been appropriate for M.Bitton's talk, presuming that Kowal2701 dropped the incivility and the aspersion; however the posting of these comments on the article talk page of one of the most highly charged articles on all of Wikipedia does nothing more than raise the temperature in one of our most heated topic area. Frankly we can do without it.
Tar
nis
hed
Path
talk
08:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by EaglesFan37
The whole entire
Talk:Zionism
page at this point is impossible for any changes to be made to the article. If 14 in favor of a change to 6 for the status quo isn't enough for a change to be made without being reverted, then I'm not entirely sure what the point was for lifting the moratorium. As @
M.Bittonsaid
in this comment,
[50]
, if consensus is what matters, then the change shouldn't have been reverted.
Since the ongoing
Maghreb
case involving @
M.Bitton
, the vast majority of their wikipedia edits (asides from discussion of said case) has been to either the Zionism article or talk page. The revert and creating an RfC when the discussion on the topic wasn't even closed as an attempt to maintain the current version of the article regardless of consensus does appear to be an attempt to delay making changes to the status quo despite existing consensus for changing it does seem to be disruptive and an attempt to prevent the change from being made. Given the ongoing
Maghreb
case, it does appear like the allegations made in that case could be carrying over into PIA as well. There are also
WP:UNCIVIL
comments in the thread from the user in question
[51]
[52]
EaglesFan37
talk
03:56, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Darouet
Most of the users involved in the new rFc was either in the previous workshop or were actively involved in another rFc on the talk page. There are only two users not previous involved in either that conversation that were participating in that RfC: @
Polygnotus
and yourself (a few hours after you commented on this RfC. Most of the discussion was originally suggesting that it be closed, and when that didn't happen, then the same users answered the RfC.
EaglesFan37
talk
16:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
The whole situation appears to be spiraling at this point. I'm not sure why @
NorthernWinds
removed comments from the
friend
(meant talk page, not sure where friend came from), and I'm not sure why @
IOHANNVSVERVS
is being pinged by @
M.Bitton
on Northernwinds talk page.
[53]
The whole dispute is at a point where it's a
WP:BATTLEGROUND
between several users on multiple pages, and, for the sake of the project, cooler heads need to start prevailing.
EaglesFan37
talk
22:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
SuperPianoMan9167
It goes beyond those two users at this point (there are at 4 others involved at this point). Honestly, there are two users involved in the whole dispute who should probably be topic banned, a third that's borderline, and four more that should be warned, which would hopefully allow the situation to cool down/able to be resolved by other users.
EaglesFan37
talk
02:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Vanamonde93
Respectfully, I disagree about not issuing a temporary injunction.
I am convinced they are not able to edit collaboratively in that area. Their talk page contributions fall below the required standard both with respect to substance (identification and interpretation of sources) and tone (toward other editors). A PIA TBAN seems necessary.
Over the past two weeks, @
M.Bitton
has made around 65 edits on the
Talk:Zionism
page, and many of their comments would have been
WP:UNCIVIL
. The article topic is already very contentious, and the user in question has been
WP:STONEWALLING
progress and is treating it like a
WP:BATTLEGROUND
. I can only speak for myself, but I stopped commenting on the page because it was apparent that no resolution was going to appear because no changes that weren't explicitly approved by M.Bitton would end up emerging.
EaglesFan37
talk
18:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
M.Bitton
Looking at @
Sean.hoyland
's SPA-gaming tool, under 20% of my edits since being granted ECR have fallen under PIA. Almost all of my editing in PIA has been about the Gaza War hostages.
When I was getting started on Wikipedia, I was not familiar with ECR and its full boundaries (aka included talk pages on pages where there wasn't an ECR notice). Once I was made aware that editing unprotected pages or participating on talk pages could be considered violations, I ceased any possible violations until after reaching ECR.
The vast majority of my contributions after meeting ECR were things like adding photos, citizenship, or birthdates for the
List of Gaza war hostages
article, expanding articles on individual hostages, adding hyperlinks, and requesting page protection on unprotected PIA articles (so other users couldn't make the same mistakes I had made).
EaglesFan37
talk
18:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Simonm223
This is now the second time I've had to refer to somebody involved in this discussion as far too hasty. Kowal2701 says that there was a
clear consensus
that was being acted upon but this was only really their assertion. And, frankly, it really seems like them attempting to use AE to prevent any RfC from happening as they have been very clear they do not want one and threatened to take M.Bitton to AE if one was created.
[54]
[55]
I strongly support the RfC as it is abundantly clear that there is not a consensus in the discussion. While one opinion holds a numerical superiority in the discussion, the whole thing is, frankly, mostly regulars who have entrenched views and who have been disputing the topic of how to describe the relationship between Zionism and settler colonialism for a very long time now. In such a circumstance, a formal discussion that is designed to solicit a broader set of views among eligible editors would absolutely be best practice. I described M.Bitton's RfC as too hasty here:
[56]
and entreated all parties to work toward a more thoroughly framed RfC here:
[57]
. Despite Kowal2701 pointing to Bobfrombrockley as identifying a
clear consensus
Bob has, themself, advocated for an RfC since then
[58]
. M.Bitton's RfC was posted in haste and with insufficient workshopping and I suspect the reason why is because they saw Kowal2701 trying to move to head off any RfC at all. It's more difficult to say "an RfC is not needed" when one is in progress after all. However, while I think M.Bitton should withdraw the current RfC and return to the drawing board to construct a more thorough one, I think any sanctions to them for this incident would be excessive. I would suggest Kowal2701 should be cautioned about using AE as a cudgel in content disputes and that this be closed with no more sanctions for any party than that.
Simonm223
talk
11:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Samuelshraga
I think AE admins should ask arbs to reopen evidence for a couple of days so that editors can add anything narrowly connected to this to the ongoing Maghreb case, which is also looking at M.Bitton's behaviour more broadly. There has already been a temporary injunction passed on M.Bitton based on behaviour during the case. It seems silly to have AE admins look at this at exactly the same time as arbs are looking at M.Bitton with much more context. I
already asked at the case
myself.
Samuelshraga
talk
12:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Smallangryplanet
it's not forum-shopping in that the evidence phase of the Arbcom case has been closed, so Kowal didn't have an alternative forum to report disruption in the last few days. The CTOP question isn't relevant - M.Bitton's behaviour across the project is within the scope of the case, hence my suggestion to adjudicate this there.
I'd just tell AE admins this - the Arbcom case has included lots of evidence about stonewalling and frustrating dispute resolution so arbs looking at the evidence there have a
lot
more context for examining this complaint.
Samuelshraga
talk
15:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Smallangryplanet
Hastily opening an RfC is not a crime and it was handled or is being handled on the talk page by the editors in the discussion, which is
what is supposed to happen
. As admins of course know very well, AE is for when we are
unable to resolve a dispute with community discussion
. I will note that this is not the first time Kowal2701 has attempted to use AE to resolve a content dispute that was being discussed in the community - a couple of months ago they
argued that I should be indeff'd because they disagreed with my interpretation of sources
, claiming without evidence that I am a SP or somehow doing offsite coordination. It's also worth mentioning - as Samuelshraga points out - Kowal2701 (and Samuelshraga!) are apparently involved in Maghreb-related proceedings concerning M.Bitton, which makes bringing that case into this AE filing feel like
forum shopping
, even though different CTOPs are at play.
Smallangryplanet
talk
13:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Darouet
98% of the
edit
(assessed by byte size) that M.Bitton
reverted
removed text that wasn't even discussed on the talk page. M.Bitton's revert was therefore correct and the decision to open an RfC
[59]
is the right one. For a sensitive topic like this it's important to produce a consensus through input from the larger community. -
Darouet
talk
14:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
The immediate contribution of many editors to the RfC
[60]
demonstrates how important it is to get larger community involvement, and also shows that M.Bitton's insistence on consulting the community was - once again - the correct decision. -
Darouet
talk
16:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by SuperPianoMan9167
SuperPianoMan9167's statement contains
140
words and complies with the 500-word limit.
I'm seeing a lot of
WP:BATTLEGROUND
behavior in this report so far, from both M.Bitton and Kowal2701. In their statements, they take turns sniping at each other:
(Kowal2701)
I can add more about aspersions, specious/fallacious reasoning etc. but I'd recommend people read the short discussion.
(Kowal2701)
Though my behaviour isn't technically under scrutiny here, re my first comment
[61]
, it was uncivil and unnecessary, while I consider it verified by the evidence provided in the
ongoing ARBCOM case about M.Bitton
(specifically see
re PIA
), it's still a violation of
WP:FOC
Additionally, the initial assertion is wrong, as
reporters' behavior can come under scrutiny
(Additional comment inserted at 15:34 UTC)
(M.Bitton)
Kowal2701 listed the discussions at WP:CR (proving that the WP:POINTY that they are referring to applies to them). As if that wasn't enough, they
made it clear
that they will support a RfC only if the close of the discussions doesn't go their way (in other words, they see the RfC process as a way to win, rather than solve the long-standing issue).
(M.Bitton)
Are they under the impression that admitting to their uncalled for incivility here somehow absolves them of any wrongdoing and gives them carte blanche to weaponise AE?
(Kowal2701)
I oppose M.Bitton stonewalling and attempting to bypass possible consensus by unilaterally starting an RfC on his terms, wasting community time in the process.
SuperPianoMan9167
talk
14:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Darouet
: It is still not helpful to
revert a change with little explanation beyond "no consensus"
, even if the edit was correct.
SuperPianoMan9167
talk
14:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Smallangryplanet
: I concur with @
Samuelshraga
. In fact, I was considering mentioning this AE filing at the Maghreb case as well.
SuperPianoMan9167
talk
15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
EaglesFan37
: Agreed. The battleground behavior is incredibly obvious even in this report alone. Since my initial statement, Kowal2701 and M.Bitton
continue
to snipe at each other and at other editors:
(M.Bitton)
What Bobfrombrockley said is
factually incorrect
and shows their bad faith assumption...
(Kowal2701, in response)
What despicable mudslinging at Bob, a model editor who's never even commented at AE before, while several here show up time and time again defending 'ideological allies' and attacking 'ideological enemies', without exception.
(M.Bitton)
@Wh1pla5h99 (who was canvassed to this case): some editors have to learn how to respect other people's opinion and refrain fro imposing theirs.
SuperPianoMan9167
talk
22:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Bobfrombrockley
Bobfrombrockley's statement contains
500
words and complies with the 500-word limit.
I don't think I've contributed to this process before and I hesitate to do so now but feel I need to as I've been directly involved in this dispute. This is a long-running content discussion in the PIA area (an area where temperatures often run high and where both parties edit a lot). The disputed sentence was i) inserted in 2024, discussed with consensus to remove, ii) inserted again in 2025, discussed again with consensus to remove but left in, iii) discussed again earlier this year, at which point onus had shifted and no consensus was reached, and then discussed again on the current talk page. 24 hours ago, I spent a long time reading through three of those discussions (I wasn't aware of the 2024 one). Contrary to M.Bitton’s assertion, this wasn't just a head count, although the numerical majority was clear. I felt that, although I was involved, it was clear there was consensus for change across the discussions, so I edited and notified the talk page. Ten minutes later, M.Bitton reverted me, and said we need an RfC. Kowal2701 made a close request and M.Bitton started a workshop on RfC options. All that seems legitimate behaviour to me.
What wasn't legitimate was only allowing the workshop to run just 40 minutes before starting an RfC with options that didn't reflect what the content of the workshop (while the close request was still active). (
Bizarrely
, despite having started the RfC, M.Bitton several hours later
misleadingly
informed the close request page
that "A RfC regarding the issue is being workshopped".) A range of editors (e.g. Simonm223) called for the RfC to pause, but M.Bitton ignored these calls, reflecting behaviour noted in the Maghreb case: simply disengaging from attempts at compromise. We now unhelpfully have a live RfC with options that aren’t going to generate a real consensus.
M.Bitton is wrong to say Kowal2701 supported a RfC "only if the close of the discussions doesn't go their way"; rather Kowal2701 said an RfC was only needed if the close request found no consensus.
M.Bitton’s manner in the discussion is consistently dismissive and uncollaborative (e.g. in response to “Do you mind quoting?”: “Yes, I do mind.” In response to a criticism of a source: “That's your irrelevant opinion”). If this was a standalone case, it would not a disciplinary matter, imho, although frustrating, and it would be wrong to bring it here, but if this is part of the same pattern as the Maghreb case it should be considered there.
Darouet
– it’s not right that my edit removed text that wasn't even discussed on the talk page. As I reported to the talk page, I removed the three words where I thought there was clear consensus to remove, plus two references that had been disputed in the previous discussion and not supported there. My edit was based on a careful reading of all three discussions.
BobFromBrockley
talk
16:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
M.Bitton
the
RfC was open
when you
said it was being “workshopped”
BobFromBrockley
talk
04:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by NorthernWinds
NorthernWinds's statement contains
499
words and complies with the 500-word limit.
Darouet
If
many editors
made
immediate contribution
s it further proves that it was wrong to launch this RfC before the options could be discussed. It was a waste of time to make them contribute when the matter could have been solved by a discussion closer ruling that there is no consensus.
Incidentally, the options that M.Bitton chose to impose on the community did not include replacing 'colonial' with 'colonization,' an option favoured by multiple contributors who've previously expressed their opinion. This, I believe, could indicate that M.Bitton tried to truncate the discussion specifically to prevent such an addition, which he presumably (as understood from his support of the status quo) does not like. This may be taken as an attempt to preserve a POV as much as possible; in other words, this aggressive, hasty, and unilateral creation of an unrepresentative RfC could be seen as a POV push. The outcome of this request cannot be divorced from M.Bitton's history of POV pushing; this RfC is a continuation of the disruptive tactics previously detailed in his ArbCom case's
evidence page
NorthernWinds
❄️ (
talk
17:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
M.Bitton
and suggested WP:CR instead (based on a head count of three discussions, including archived ones)
If only the most recent discussion was counted, it would still be about 4 to 2, which is about the same ratio we got from counting the previous discussions as well. Also the closing request would have directly solved the head counting issue. The "they" who
made it clear that they will support a RfC only if the close of the discussions doesn't go their way
refers to Kowal, the only one who said this. The first response was my response, which
said
I think it would be better to first have an uninvolved editor assess consensus then start an RfC
if the result doesn't satisfy you
. Others, like Bob, also
cooperated
NorthernWinds
❄️ (
talk
21:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Vice regent
While Kowal and I "stalled," Bob
suggested
options to be narrowed down. Bitton neither included any of Bob's suggestions nor waited for the refined options workshops are intended to produce. I wouldn't have these suspicions if he hadn't opened an RfC workshop only to
preempt further discussions with an RfC
which
ignored
the feedback he had already received.
NorthernWinds
❄️ (
talk
07:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
TarnishedPath
Noting that contributions to date to the RFC indicate that any consensus claimed by Kowal2701 or Bobfrombrockley is illusory
: At the moment, 10/17 contributors voted for closure and further workshopping. Unsurprisingly, the only !votes who weren't unhappy with the RfC were the ones siding with Bitton's opinion on preserving the term "settler colonialism". At least to me, this reinforces the feeling that this RfC was designed in bad faith.
NorthernWinds
❄️ (
talk
17:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
ScottishFinnishRadish
: Bitton's behavior was disruptive and requires administrative evaluation. Regardless of the filer, the need for review remains; as AE is not a vote, the outcome depends on the behavior, not the messenger. Either way it would've found its way here, either in my statement or someone else's.
Following IOHA's comment, I
struck mine
, recognizing its incivility. I regret the delivery, but suggesting to report in a discussion where a user (as I see it) engaged in disruptive behaviour is not canvassing, and it is appropriate that administrators evaluate the dispute here.
Bitton appears to be retaliating. This
short conversation
speaks for itself.. I am having a hard time interpreting
this comment
as anything other than an an attempt to lure more harmful words out of another editor.
NorthernWinds
❄️ (
talk
07:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Vice regent
Bob tried to assess consensus by pinging all previous participants
[62]
, and while it did attract some new users, ultimately I see no consensus among users
in this discussion
– which is an indication we needed an RfC.
I find the comments by Kowal2701 and NorthernWinds to be less than reasonable. M.Bitton
did
ask what options they wanted in the RfC
[63]
, twice
[64]
, and both Kowal2701
[65]
and NorthernWinds
[66]
both initially stalled. That said, M.Bitton also needs to slow down a bit.
VR
(Please
ping
on reply)
05:42, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by إيان
As yet another editor with whom Kowal2701 has
disagreed on content
and then
brought here
after
pinging me and another admin in a
complaint on an admin's talk page
without having ever discussed anything with me or even interacted with me and
after
I had already
acknowledged my mistakes and apologized
on my behalf for stooping to the same level of incivility as that other editor,
with whom Kowal2701 happened to agree on content
(conspicuously, Kowal2701 did not bother to file a report for incivility against that other editor, or complain to an admin about them, or even discuss their conduct with them, apparently)—I share some of Smallangryplanet's concerns regarding the abuse of A/R/E. That I was singled out and subjected to process ending with a logged civility warning, singled out apparently because I had the misfortune of disagreeing on content with an editor with a demonstrated proclivity for bringing their colleagues to A/R/E at the drop of a hat or an RfC they appear to disagree with, is an absurd injustice.
M.Bitton and I have had
many
protracted disagreements over the years, but I can only say that they are an
excellent
editor who rigorously engages with the sourcing and meticulously applies policies. I also have to say I have seen them be exceedingly charitable and patient with—quite infuriating, honestly—editors who refuse to get the point even when presented with abundant contradictory evidence/policy. Though we often disagree, they are an editor from whom I have benefitted immensely and through my interactions with them I have grown and improved as an editor.
This complaint against them is of no merit and appears to fall into an observable trend in need of curtailment. A/R/E is not for trying to punish or silence editors with whom we disagree on content.
إيان
talk
07:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Second
Cinaroot
. PIA TBAN is a shocking proposal for M.Bitton given the preponderance of disruptive PIA editors that are far worse, many of whom don't even concern themselves with sourcing.
إيان
talk
07:07, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Iseult
With the understanding that my previous actions coupled with this statement conservatively conflict me from closing the mentioned RfC or any others stemming directly from the discussions originally listed at CR:
declined
to close the two discussions Kowal2701 originally listed as one was well stale and closing the other would, so I understood, short-circuit an RfC in the making, as noted by M.Bitton. I saw no harm and in fact a benefit for the community in this.
The first discussion was, at the time of my decline, 470 days old. As this is
not
Kowal's first rodeo at CR, the inclusion thereof is bemusing. Closing this would be patently inappropriate.
As for the second, far be it from me to stand in the way of an RfC. It would/will be more representative of the broader community, come with 1000-word limits (making both the close and discussion easier), and yield a consensus more durable. The notion that
WP:RFCBEFORE
preempts RfCs if a consensus can be found in informal discussion is to me remarkably strict; there, it is said that it's not required. If an RfC is premature, the community will make it known. As of writing, I see no consensus for a procedural close with regards to the RfC in question.
Also, if M.B felt that Kowal was trying to head off the RfC, speaking from the point of view of a CR regular, we are backlogged. This discussion is long, tense, and in a difficult topic area. It's not hard to imagine it sitting for a few weeks without formal closure.
Perhaps M.B jumped the gun. The RfC train has long since left the station. But premature RfCs have, to my knowledge, always been for the community to resolve.
seult
Δx
talk to me
08:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Wh1pla5h99
My only interaction with this editor has been in
this ORN discussion
, about whether the following quote in the
Zionism
article constitutes original research, or whether sources for it can be found:
The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs
. M.Bitton responded with two sources that he claimed support the statement. In my reponse to him I carefully analysed them and argued why I thought that they fail to do so. His responses to those arguments are why I am making this statement. To quote some of these, he said:
I think these speak for themselves. I don't think it is productive for these already contentious discussions to involve an editor who is so clearly unwilling to engage in dialogue and respond to arguments. Claiming that something "is a fact", without making any attempt to demonstrate how; dismissing other people's carefully formed responses as "pseudo-analysis"; and claiming that there is no need to seek the approval of other editors, are, in my opinion, antithetical to what this website is about. If someone is not willing to participate collaboratively in these discussions, then I don't see why they should participate in them at all.
Wh1pla5h99
talk
21:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
@M.Bitton: For what it's worth, I was well aware of this arbitration request prior to being "canvassed", but at the time I had had no interaction with M.B. and therefore no reason to participate.
Wh1pla5h99
talk
22:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
In attempting to actually fairly workshop an RfC, I was met with this from M.B.:
Of course I want a RfC, but since you insist on workshopping one, we will do it properly. This isn't a game of "let's add all the silly options we can think of"
. This snide, belittling tone, as well as being strange and uncomfortable, is nothing but a hindrance to discussions and merits serious consideration in the case. Cheers.
Wh1pla5h99
talk
14:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
More of this belittling tone:
"I'll keep it simple for you"
Wh1pla5h99
talk
15:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
[67]
Attempting to derail the RfC workshop, rather than engage with it.
Wh1pla5h99
talk
16:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
@M.Bitton: On "grave dancing", as I said in the thread, I was stating that I did not see it necessary to respond to yet another flippant response. That is my opinion; it is certainly not "dancing".
Wh1pla5h99
talk
22:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Super Goku V
TarnishedPath
and
Vanamonde93
As silly as this report is for being about opening an RfC, there was a recent AE case brought against a user for closing a good article review as a
quick fail
because the article was under full protection due to an editing dispute. (Still, this case is best left unresolved until
WP:ARBMAG
is closed.) --
Super Goku V
talk
02:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Cinaroot
Vanamonde93
Please provide some diffs of contributions that fall short of community expectations and more clearly articulate the rationale for a topic ban. This helps the community understand your reasoning and is warranted given the editors involved and the level of community interest. Regarding tone, conversations in this topic area can become heated. The tone of other editors should also be considered when evaluating M. Bitton’s tone.
🐈Cinaroot
06:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Working in this topic area is not easy. It is stressful and takes a toll on you. You may have been attacked elsewhere, and that can have an effect— it may show in your tone or contributions in other places. I wonder if administrators fully understand this. People want to see you blocked— they will dig up something, and without full context, it’s easy to misunderstand what happened.
I would like all admins to clearly articulate their reasoning supported by evidence. I have deep respect for @
Newslinger
, who handled AE case against me— they conducted an in-depth investigation, identified exactly what I did wrong, and supported their conclusions with evidence from my contributions. Without them, I would probably have been topic banned.
🐈Cinaroot
08:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Sean.hoyland
Good to see the
Gaming Check
tool getting a shout out (and note that the 'Verbose' option of the Recent Grants part was upgraded yesterday to include some more topic area related stats). Since 'main editing focus' was mentioned along with an 'under 20%' rebuttal, and having spent too much time staring at EC related data, I have a few comments about this kind of stats based argument.
The extent to which an account focuses on PIA pages doesn't really tell you much about them. For example, M.Bitton has only made
less than 4%
of their edits strictly in topic area, so the fact that they are relentlessly targeted and will continue to be targeted until they are either topic banned or blocked, and people are willing to write a lot about them here and elsewhere, is not obvious from that number alone.
Also, is a number like 20% a lot or a little? How does it fit into the big picture? We can look back one year from today and see where EaglesFan37's 18.9% fits in as an example.
4,679 accounts have been granted extendedconfirmed.
867 of these accounts have made at least 1 revision strictly in the PIA topic area (totaling 22332 post-grant revisions).
Out of these 4,679 accounts EaglesFan37 comes in at #63 based on post-grant PIA percentages and #10 based on post-grant PIA revision counts. Just made it into the top ten. Congrats.
So, while these lengthy discussion about long-term experienced editors happen here and in ArbCom decisions/amendment requests etc, with all the concerns about state variables of the topic area that are often mentioned, like temperature, charge, etc. despite us not measuring them, it's worth remembering that hundreds of accounts with newly acquired EC grants are flowing into the topic area as the experienced editors flow out.
Sean.hoyland
talk
07:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by (username)
Result concerning M.Bitton
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
slightly off-topic, but isn't there a topic-wide 1k-word limit per person per discussion in arbpia? It seems on a cursory scroll like several people have breached it in the discussion linked.
theleekycauldron
talk
• she/her)
20:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Note that
that remedy
is limited to
formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc)
, not all discussions. ~ Jenson (
SilverLocust
01:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
ah, gotcha, thanks.
theleekycauldron
talk
• she/her)
04:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
M.Bitton
, can you please provide a diff of the canvassing?
ScottishFinnishRadish
talk
22:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
The opening of an RfC I do not find sufficiently improper to be actionable. But I have now spent quite a while reading through all of M. Bitton's extant contributions to that talk page, and I am convinced they are not able to edit collaboratively in that area. Their talk page contributions fall below the required standard both with respect to substance (identification and interpretation of sources) and tone (toward other editors). A PIA TBAN seems necessary. That said, ArbCom is currently considering evidence of M. Bitton's conduct outside the Maghreb topic area. I don't want to create an overlapping sanctions regime. I think we should hold this open until a Maghreb decision is posted, and handle whatever remains as necessary. The disruption does not strike me as so urgent as to need a temporary injunction.
Vanamonde93
talk
17:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Given the proposed decision in the current ArbCom case, I don't think any action will be needed here.
Newyorkbrad
talk
14:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
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 JJNito197
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Samuelshraga
talk
contribs
deleted contribs
logs
filter log
block user
block log
13:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
User against whom enforcement is requested
JJNito197
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:PIA
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation
how
these edits violate it
23.03.26
You are speaking passionately because it is what you BELIEVE, due to your BELIEF SYSTEM... You are clutching at pearls, and it is obvious to see.
And
Don't piggy back on the Canaanite reality in attempt to separate and exalt yourself from others.
24.3.26
Suggested I was a Biblical literalist and couldn't edit neutrally, andsaid their opponents were
reinforcing antiquated pseudo race science, using mythology, for some politicised goal.
27.3.26
: Accused me of
passionate NPOV beliefs
(I think they meant POV) because I don’t hold their view and accused me of denigrating
the religon [Judaism] for the sake of ideology and racial pseudo science.
31.01.26
It's only problematic if you view the position from the lens of Israel/USA.
08.03.26
If you believe that Golan belongs to Israel, feel free to read the Hebrew Wikipedia page.
20.03.26
Of course Israel would call it part of the Southern Levant
1.4.26
I will continue adding content with AD/BC on this article regardless, and editors that feel it incumbent to change to CE/BCE can clean up after me if they feel the need.
This was after failing to get support at
AN
and being told to go seek consensus on article talk
[68]
1.4.26
Makes clear that the context for 4 is that they think the AD/BC system is being opposed from an Israeli viewpoint.
9.4.26
adding a template asserting the whole section was written in Hebrew over 3 Hebrew bible quotes out of several paragraphs in English.
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
21 June 2020
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Given the ANI thread JJNito launched was auto-archived without action despite recognition of their behaviour and support for a boomerang
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
, and that the disruption has continued since, I would appreciate it if AE admins would take this in hand. If JJNito can be made to see where they've gone wrong, I don't ask for more than a warning - otherwise I'd ask AE admins to consider a topic ban from Jewish history, and probably a p-block from
Golan Heights
Samuelshraga
talk
13:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
My response to JJNito197 is mostly that the diffs stand for themselves. I'll just clarify, in case admins aren't familiar, that the issue in diffs 1-3 is not adherence to or dissent from religious doctrine. The theory that Israelites never existed is a
WP:FRINGE
one - so much so that I don't believe it has
any
academic proponents. JJNito goes well beyond
Biblical minimalism
. JJNito was pointed to academic sources affirming the historical existence of the Israelites including from historians and archaeologists multiple times
[74]
[75]
[76]
, but rejected these as insufficient to their personal standards of evidence.
[77]
[78]
JJNito, like myself and any other editor, is entitled to their beliefs, but not to impose them without regard to our PaGs.
Samuelshraga
talk
17:23, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[79]
Discussion concerning JJNito197
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 JJNito197
JJNito197's statement contains
490
words and complies with the 500-word limit.
The most recent ANI by me
[80]
(with these above points being raised and dealt again, as if I should be ashamed or disavowed for having a position that deviates from religious inclination), was opened regarding concerns I had pursuant to my editing abilities which were being inhibited and hindered by a troupe of editors (one being exposed as a prolific sock puppet Iljhgtn
[81]
with 95k edits and banned at last, and the other Mikewem banned from editing within the Arab-Israeli topic), who became in tandem slighted by positions articulated in unrelated places (
WP:NPOV
; connotations of
WP:Wikistalking
), and stopped me from editing in good faith. Issues editors raised as concern in the ANI I understood as being inappropriate but not sanctionable, and admins helped me understand through procedures I wasn't aware of prior. That was then.
JJNito197
talk
16:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
How dare you think I should be exempt from editing topics relating to Judaism. Are you presuming I am not following Wikipedia tenets and my own principles when editing articles?
JJNito197
talk
16:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
The response to editors: If anyone wants to see
WP:SYNTH
in action, my personal opinions aside and the only reason for my objection to anything, anywhere, here
[82]
[83]
[84]
in the RFC I list CATEGORICALLY evidence for WP:SYNTH being used to claim that modern-day groups descend from the
12 tribes of Israel
through genetics. Does anybody actually think I had no ground to stand on from the point of Wikipedia principles and it's readership. It's patently WP SYNTH until I've been told otherwise. And bear in mind, this is all because of a subheader and editors refusing to see objectively. I don't see the big deal with a word switch on the penultimate sub-header of the article either. I respect people's beliefs, but don't force positions on me as truth, especially as WP SYNTH is being used and OR.
JJNito197
talk
22:13, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
To Cdjp1, every citation that was presented had nothing to do with my openings regarding
WP:SYNTH
being used to link modern day groups genetically with the
Israelites
. I was engaging with multiple people that could not see my position fundamentally. I stated multiple times that my issue wasn't whether Israelites existed to no avail. I do now understand I was wrong by saying Israelites didn't exist for the sake of good manners but I was being bombarded by sockpuppets and others who would not seek compromise nor recognise patent SYNTH.
JJNito197
talk
14:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
To the editors that commented, I understand how I was editing initially was the wrong way to conduct myself and debate in good faith. I have since corrected how I dialogue since the ANI that was opened, and took the advice of the admins and others present. My recent RFC was meant to draw uninvolved editors into the salient point I was making. Also the "clutching at pearls" comment was meant to be "clutching at straws" apologies for this typo.
JJNito197
talk
16:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Alansohn
Alansohn's statement contains
204
words and complies with the 500-word limit.
The comment
here
that "You are speaking passionately because it is what you BELIEVE, due to your BELIEF SYSTEM. But it's is not what ACADEMIA AND DNA STUDIES suggest. You are clutching at pearls, and it is obvious to see." is but one example of the BATTLEGROUND mentality here by
User:JJNito197
I tried to encourage JJNito197 three times (
here
here
"accusing other editors of engaging in "conspiracy theories" and of having a "fundemental misunderstanding of the region" are distinctly
WP:UNCIVIL
and constitute clear
personal attacks
" and
here
), with no success. Things only got worse.
All one has to see the problem is to look at JJNito197's comment
above
"None of my edits on articles are mentioned here, and it seems the only concern is the immalleable way I
talk
. I edit and create other religious topics with no problem, how dare you think I should bizarrely be exempt from Judaism."
The editor has no recognition that there is a problem here. It's not just that there are concerns with edits, it's that edit summaries and talk page comments are an endless flow of uncivil personal attacks. Nothing changes, even after warnings.
At a minimum, JJNito197 should not be editing these articles.
Alansohn
talk
19:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Darouet
Darouet's statement contains
108
words and complies with the 500-word limit.
I read through large sections of
the RfC
where
JJNito197
has made these offensive comments. If there were any merit to what JJNito197 has argued, it would be impossible to know: after countless retorts often in ALL CAPS, I have not seen JJNito197 link, quote, or analyze a single scholarly source. Their overall attitude is offensive and demeaning towards other editors. I understand that
Samuelshraga
has kindly suggested just a warning. But I am skeptical that from the meagre basis of their contributions so far, JJNito197 will somehow learn to become a productive scholar and editor on anything related to genetics, Jewish history, or archaeology. -
Darouet
talk
20:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Cdjp1
Cdjp1's statement contains
287
words and complies with the 500-word limit.
I am involved in the RfC that this has stemmed from, but have not interacted with JJNito197 in that RfC or elsewhere. Their arguments about the purported motive and reasons why other editors have argued as they have in that RfC leave a lot to be desired. JJNito197 declares that their position is correct while presenting no evidence that such a position is that held in any sources, let alone the majority. Then when others have provided sourcing showing scholarship in this area that goes against JJNito197's position, they disregard it as simply incorrect research.
Now, they repeatedly insinuate (though at points this seems more like an overt declaration) that ancient Israelites did not exist, claiming them to be purely based in
myth
, which is at odds with the scholarship across multiple disciplines. We even see an example of this in their comments here, where instead of choosing to link to the Wikipedia article on Ancient Israelites where the historical record and the evidence of their existence is discussed, they choose instead to link to the Twelve Tribes of Israel article that focuses much more on the biblical record of the Twelve Tribes as mentioned in the Abrahamic holy books and the potential existence
specifically
of the Twelve Tribes, as opposed to the Ancient Israelites as existed.
The behaviour and the position that JJNito197 takes does not seem to be just limited to this RfC either, as at
Talk:Israelites#Modern Levantine groups with Israelite ancestry
they try to initiate a RfC to pre-phrase the groups with evidence of such ancestry as "claimed" ancestry, and in responding to others who oppose such an action engages in the same rhetoric that has concerned editors in this enforcement request. --
Cdjp1
talk
12:42, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by GordonGlottal
GordonGlottal's statement contains
128
words and complies with the 500-word limit.
I've been involved in recent discussions at
Talk:Golan Heights
. I've actually been pleasantly surprised by this editor in my own interactions with him. They came in very hot and were certainly uncivil, but they also apologized later after realizing they were wrong on the merits (
diff
). I think this is someone who is interested in truth and can contribute to our encyclopedia productively with the right guidance. I leave it to admins to provide that guidance in whatever form they decide is appropriate.
With regard to ARBPIA violations, I think I have to note that I did just warn this editor (
diff
) for contributing well over 1,000 words about Israelites to an RFC at
Talk:Ashkenazi Jews
. But I assume they didn't know about the sanction.
GordonGlottal
talk
01:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Result concerning JJNito197
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
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 FarFromTheMiddleEast
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Dr vulpes
talk
contribs
deleted contribs
logs
filter log
block user
block log
07:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
User against whom enforcement is requested
FarFromTheMiddleEast
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
April 10
Added contentious material to
Israeli–Palestinian conflict
April 10
That text was reverted
April 10
Then challenged by another user on the article talk page. This is the start of the active dispute.
April 12
Announced intent to do some edits
April 12
Went was contested by Yr Enw
April 13
and then again by Butterscotch Beluga
April 13
Continued editing instead of standing down.
April 14
Then went back and added similar content that had been reverted
April 14
After some warnings on their talk page they stop editing the article
Warning concerning conduct in the dispute.
Warning concerning bludgeoning.
April 17
BrechtBro brings a complaint to
WP:ANI
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
none
If
contentious topics restrictions
are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see
WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I request a topic ban from the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area, broadly construed, for no less than three months.
As an uninvolved administrator I could have imposed a topic ban for this behavior. I came here instead because this issue was brought up at
WP:ANI
and the discussion there did not produce a clear consensus. A few people called for this to be sent to AE so that’s what I’m doing.
The concerns that were raised are a repeated pattern of battleground conduct in a contentious topic. This includes reinserting disputed material during active dispute, continuing after warnings, arguing repetitively across related discussions, and bulging other editors instead of trying to reach consensus.
As an aside Zero0000 has called for an indef ban of FarFromTheMiddleEast for attempting to out him. This is outside of the scope of this complaint and if he wishes to have action taken against FarFromTheMiddleEast then I believe there are other ways for him to address that issue. As someone who has also been in the news for actions done on wiki I understand their concerns and I want to make sure we all know that I am not trying to minimize the issue. This whole thing is messy and I just want to address this part of it the best I can.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Notice April 23, 2026
Discussion concerning FarFromTheMiddleEast
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 FarFromTheMiddleEast
FarFromTheMiddleEast's statement contains
496
words and complies with the 500-word limit.
Some mistakes and clarifications to the above:
2,3 & 6 are the same user Butterscotch Beluga
4 is not a diff to my change
7 was only adding citations to aid the discussion in talk
8 was me trying to address what I though the objections were in talk before realizing what the other editors misunderstood
10 and 11 addressed below
My view:
To me the issue that needed correction was that other editors confused a letter from the Lancet correspondence section, which was a essentially a political editorial, with an article from the peer reviewed research section. I didn't understand their confusion and it was only only after several days of discussion that I realized that this misunderstanding had occurred and I had misunderstood their objections. I was suggesting citations and suggesting language to balance out a political article, trying to explain it was a political article, and the other editors thought it had some type of academic exemption to political NPOV because they did not realize it wasn't an academic Lancet article.
Consensus Reached:
I'm not sure it was bludgeoning, but there was time wasted because I should have gone back and looked at the pre-April 8th text. I should have done better
User Cjp1 removed the text I was trying to balance out here, which was one of the remedies I proposed, but was wasted time because it was a description of a citation I had broken out previously: [
here
User Yr Enw stated that "For what it’s worth, I’m fine with the removal too" [
here
User Zero0000
I was not attempting to "out" user Zero0000. I have no knowledge of user Zero0000 other than what has been publicly stated by others. I referenced what I thought were already public statements because I thought he had been very widley accused of what he was accusing me.
Edit Warring
I misunderstood the one revert rule on contentious topics as being allowed to make one revert of a user within 24 hours. I switched to using the dubious and citation needed tags.
Wadi Hilweh
I'm not the only user on the talk page raising an issue about location. The (excluded) map key had certain lines as undefined. The source map should be cited.
Update - Response to User Zero0000
Claim of Threatening to Out
The diff user Zero0000 provided contains a typo that was fixed a minute later. It was not a pejorative, it was a typo.
12:06 instead of 12:05
The statement was referring to increasing the precision of the citation of Lewis to which they objected. It was not meant to imply citing material about them or knowledge of them. I only know what others have said publicly, and I don't know if its true or not.
(Edit: I also blacked out all discussion of what other people have publicly said about Zero0000 since they objected to the references. I had though it was already public given the prominence of the information.)
FarFromTheMiddleEast
talk
12:17, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Zero0000
To be clear, FarFromTheMiddleEast (FFTME) did not
try
to out me, but they
threatened
to out me.
This diff
is very explicit on that point. The context is that they didn't like it pointed out that they had misquoted a source and then denied it. Whether or not this is specifically a matter for AE, I don't think that anyone should be able to make such threats without consequences.
Zero
talk
12:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Admins should check the discussion at
WP:ANI#Disruptive_editing_by_User:FarFromTheMiddleEast
, and
Talk:Battle of Haifa (1948)
, to get a sense of what it is like to work with this user. They combine poor understanding of the topic with a bad case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a willingness to argue forever with a newly minted response to every point.
An example is FFTME's obsession with a map uploaded by me. It is an extract of 1943 official maps, with one line that is on the map highlighted by me in green to make it easier to see, and a small line in blue traced from an official Israeli map. First, FFTME
claimed
without evidence that it is a "modern recreation", then
later
that
the green border was "proposed". The 1936
"authoritative Survey of Palestine"
didn't exist and the first citation given there, copied from
Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem
is entirely irrelevant in addition to not supporting it.
This
seems pure invention. When I restored the correct image caption, FFTME took it up at ANI (start at "You also just reverted..."). Almost everything they wrote there is nonsense. It is fine to not know things, but endlessly stating falsehoods is not fine. Accusing me of copying from Palestine Remembered, i.e. of lying, is a personal attack. Then they started up again on the same thing at
Talk:Wadi Hilweh
. Unable to get their way on this, FFTME
added two tags
This change
to the lead of the key article
Arab-Israeli conflict
is a very severe NPOV violation, and FarFromTheMiddleEast's effort on the talk page to justify it included such gems as quoting the sentence "
In sharp contrast
Ibn Saud's anti-Semitism approached the pathological" without the words I have put in bold, thereby turning an exception into the rule.
This defense
of the lead includes shocking statements such as that the expulsion and flight of Palestinians in 1948 (the
Nakba
) is not a key aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict, contrary to almost every, perhaps every, source on the topic. Frankly I don't care if this is due to POV or just ignorance; what I care about is the quality of articles and this editor is an active hindrance.
Zero
talk
14:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Sean.hoyland
For interest, out of the 2,376 accounts that have become extendedconfirmed in the last 6 months, 380 of which have made at least 1 revision strictly within the PIA topic area (based on templating), FarFromTheMiddleEast has made the most edits, 720 revisions since the grant on 2026-03-12. If you look back a year, they come in at #2.
Sean.hoyland
talk
17:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by BrechtBro
On March 25, I noticed low quality edits to
Wadi Hilweh
made by FarFromTheMiddleEast (FFTME), at which point I
informed them
about original research. When an
edit war notice
left by إيان came across my watchlist, I looked into it, and seeing how they responded and the on-going dispute, I also left a warning about disruptive editing. At this point I had not engaged in the content of the dispute. As FFTME not only discussed content in their response, but asked me my opinion on it, and as I was concerned about article quality, I looked at it and said my piece. As further discussion at
Israeli–Palestinian conflict
with FFTME continued to be unproductive and increasingly repetitive, and seeing a pattern on other pages in both content and discussion, I brought this to ANI.
After my initial post at ANI, I looked more into similar behavior at
Arab–Israeli conflict
which included a
denial on April 17
that they
had added disputed content
to the article on March 31. This content had initially been disputed,
reverted
with a note saying to seek consensus and FFTME quickly
re-implemented parts of the changes
without discussion. Seeing this POV insertion and that a discussion about the problems had begun that showed there was no support for it, I reverted to more neutral language, to which FFTME responded with repeated comments both at the ANI
[85]
[86]
and at the article talk page
[87]
[88]
. In addition to not engaging with others' points, there is a pattern, including here at AE, where FFTME asserts that a discussion has resulted in a consensus (Note the heading
here
, "Current After Talk") that doesn't exist.
Above, FFTME states,
User Cjp1 removed the text I was trying to balance out here, which was one of the remedies I proposed
, when the text removed was FFTME's
own insertion
to the article.
FFTME was first
warned about editing warring
on February 16.
BrechtBro
(talk)
20:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
BrechtBro
(talk)
19:22, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by (username)
Result concerning FarFromTheMiddleEast
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
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
11:32, 23 April 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
Repeated incivility on talk page, some of which is towards an editor who previously vandalised the article and was blocked for it, but much towards other editors as well:
[89]
[90]
[91]
[92]
[93]
[94]
[95]
Subsequently, on their user talk, doubling-down on incivility against editors they perceive as allowing vandalism to happen:
[96]
[97]
In summary, a complete
WP:BATTLEGROUND
and
WP:OWNERSHIP
mentality, with repeated incivil comments.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
8 November
24h block for edit-warring with
false accusations of vandalism
by
ToBeFree
1 March
1 week block for personal attacks and bludgeoning at
Talk:Moroccanoil
by
Toadspike
12 March
1 year page block from
Moroccanoil
for continued edit-warring, ownership behavior and incivility by
The Bushranger
20 March
48h block for attempting to proxy edit by The Bushranger
If
contentious topics restrictions
are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see
WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on
28 December 2023
and
8 August 2025
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on
28 February 2026
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Follow up from
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive366#IvanScrooge98
, whereupon IvanScrooge98 was blocked for a week for personal attacks and bludgeoning; IvanScrooge98 was subsequently page-blocked from
Moroccanoil
and given a short block for attempting to proxy-edit the article. I have !voted in favour of IvanScrooge98's viewpoint at the ongoing RfC, but the battleground tactics are extremely egregious and an obstruction to productive collaboration.
~~ AirshipJungleman29
talk
11:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
As
you can see
, IvanScrooge98 is incapable of moving on from previous vandalism of the article—any editing he disagrees with concerning that article must be disruptive, any editor he disagrees with must be helping the vandal. Textbook battleground behaviour. I think IvanScrooge98 has said all that needs to be said, so I will not be commenting further.
~~ AirshipJungleman29
talk
11:51, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[98]
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
IvanScrooge98's statement contains
658
words and
exceeds
the 500-word limit.
Moved from filer's section
(In response to AirshipJungleman29's claims)
And the only user who actually vandalized the page (
[99]
and
[100]
) is still around there trying to disrupt it and you aren’t doing anything about it. Not a personal attack when you describe what is going on. Regards. ~
Ivan
Scrooge
98
talk
11:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
See above. I’m being persecuted for being the only one who is confronting the user who vandalized the article in question. I never vandalized it and yet I’m blocked from it in protection of the vandal. ~
Ivan
Scrooge
98
talk
11:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I will comment further. Helping out Julian to still be around an article they vandalized is not simply a matter of “disagreement”. We should first ban the vandal from the page they vandalized, and yet we’re allowing them to open discussions to distort or remove content they dislike, even though we know they are not there to improve the page, based on the blatant vandalism they never apologized for. ~
Ivan
Scrooge
98
talk
) 11:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
(Moved from Request section by
Toadspike
[Talk]
12:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Also, anyone can check and see this is the only article in the topic area where I’ve been having all this trouble, because the problem is not me in the topic area. It would be yet another injustice to ban me from the entire topic area after already punishing me unjustly over an article I greatly improved. ~
Ivan
Scrooge
98
talk
) 12:02, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
(Moved from Request section by
Toadspike
[Talk]
12:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Supporting a vandal is vandalism. I never vandalized anything and yet I’m being treated far worse simply for the language I use. Treat the vandals they way they should be treated and none of this would be happening. ~
Ivan
Scrooge
98
talk
) 11:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
(Moved from Rambling Rambler's section by
Toadspike
[Talk]
12:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Toadspike
the point is Julian still there attempting to further disrupt the article. This is what I’m engaging with. You wouldn’t need to ban me if I weren’t the only one confronting them. ~
Ivan
Scrooge
98
talk
12:24, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
moved from administrator's section, response to Toadspike
Because I haven’t been listened to. I’m still not being listened to. The only thing I regret is that someone took offense for feeling dragged in something they weren’t involved in. I don’t have much else to say. I tried being civilized long ago, and the result was a slap in the face of my contributions. Go on and block me, I’m sure you will get a great article from this. ~
Ivan
Scrooge
98
talk
12:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
moved from administrator's section, in response to Ealdgyth
I’ve almost never behaved like this on Wikipedia in 11 years of contributions, except on rare occasions with users who disrupted the project. Draw your conclusions, I’ve drawn mine. ~
Ivan
Scrooge
98
talk
12:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
moved from administrator's section, response to StarMississippi
Yeah, surely the edits of a user who greatly improved the article and never once vandalized it are far more problematic than those of the vandal who has gotten away with having an entire section they disliked removed, and whom the improving user has tried to stop. Totally. Go ahead and block me, come on. ~
Ivan
Scrooge
98
talk
15:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
moved from another editor's section, response to SovalValtos
Fair enough, I misused the word vandalism in that case – though I was involved in heavy editing at the moment of that edit summary and I might have placed it too absentmindedly. I apologize for that one. ~
Ivan
Scrooge
98
talk
16:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Ealdgyth
yeah, but moving replies around makes the whole thing messy and readers of the sections will have a hard time getting what messages I’m replying to. But at this point, will all these accusations I’ve tried to defend myself from, you forced me to exceed the character limit. Go ahead, block me and make it quick. You really tried every way to make me end up in the wrong. ~
Ivan
Scrooge
98
talk
18:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
ToBeFree
I have little to be concerned because whether it had been you or another administrator, everyone else has chosen to ban me anyway. Please go ahead. ~
Ivan
Scrooge
98
talk
18:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Rambling Rambler
Rambling Rambler's statement contains
298
words and complies with the 500-word limit.
Leaving a contribution here as I had taken part in attempting to get IvanScrooge98 to understand their actions during the attempt to block evade by proxy
[101]
[102]
. Even at the time on their talk page it was pretty clear they didn't accept they were in the wrong (repeatedly demanding Bushranger unblock them) and insisted everyone else was at fault. Having seen the messages they are leaving both on Talk:Moroccanoil and their talkpage in relation to the current RfC, it's unfortunately clear they are incapable of editing in a collegial way, most egregiously the repeated accusations that everyone else is a vandal, and therefore a block from CT/AI is warranted as this seems to be the one area of Wikipedia this issue is occurring in.
Rambling Rambler
talk
11:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Addition, given what Soval has shown below and this edit summary here
[103]
, I wonder if there's a further civility problem more in general than just at CT/AI in particular.
Rambling Rambler
talk
16:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
ToBeFree
& @
Black Kite
if I may add seeing your most recent comments, reading through Ivan's comments here, at Moroccanoil and their talk page while yes
a singular user
at one point
did undertake edits that could be regarded as vandalism (though said examples appear to be more non-malicious
WP:POINTY
attempts to highlight their view regarding the labelling of nationality
[104]
) they are persistently using that to call
everyone else
who doesn't agree with them vandals.
Also I feel the fact the person who made the vandalism/POINTY comments was blocked over them at the time
[105]
and hasn't repeated them is still being used by Ivan
months later
as an excuse for their own
repeated and ongoing
misbehaviour feels exceptionally close to bad faith at this point and renders whatever "point" they may have once had moot.
Rambling Rambler
talk
19:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Avgeekamfot
Avgeekamfot's statement contains
95
words and complies with the 500-word limit.
I briefly participated in discussion on this page after I was alerted to an RfC by the Feedback Request Service. IvanScrooge98 was hostile at every turn (I am one of those he called a "vandal" when I implemented talk page consensus) and he repeatedly bludgeoned discussion. I looked at his edit history at that time and this seems to be a pattern for him on anything Israel related, even when contributing positive elsewhere (particularly on Italian history-related topics). I agree with Rambling Rambler and would suggest a topic block from Israel-related topics.
Avgeekamfot
talk
15:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by SovalValtos
SovalValtos's statement contains
30
words and complies with the 500-word limit.
Is this edit summary
relevant? I am not sure that I have ever been accused of being a vandal by anyone, let alone by an established editor.
SovalValtos
talk
16:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Statement by The Bushranger
A bit late to the party, but I think IvanScrooge98's reactions in(/moved to) the section above to the proceedings here make it abundantly clear they are
not compatible with a collaborative encyclopedia
. When I handed out the AE pblock I hoped that would allow them to focus on other areas; in hindsight, not also pblocking them from the article's talk page (which I chose not to do in hopes of allowing them to participate in a 'throttled' way that would allow them to return to productive editing the article itself at some point) was a mistake. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
21:49, 23 April 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.
Many similarities to
the last thread
about Ivan. Deflecting from his own behavior to that of a third party, which is out of scope for AE requests. Posting all over the thread, including outside of his section. Continued bludgeoning and personal attacks. I warned him against all of these in the last thread. Just because Julian in LA made inappropriate edits back in January (which they got blocked for
[106]
) does not give Ivan free license to label them a vandal for the rest of time. In the last thread I invited Ivan to file a report against Julian to discuss his concerns; it appears this was never done. I propose an
indefinite topic ban from
Moroccanoil
Toadspike
[Talk]
12:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I also ask that if Ivan's behavior gets him blocked as an individual admin action while this request remains open, we leave the thread open to complete discussion of this topic ban or any other sanction proposed, as it is clear a lasting solution is needed.
Toadspike
[Talk]
12:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
No, we wouldn't need to ban you if you behaved yourself. If you only made accusations that you supported with evidence. If you used de-escalatory language when dealing with others, rather than attacking them. If you restrained the volume of your posting in RfCs and other discussions. All of that is entirely within your control. You have instead repeatedly chosen to flout the rules, which puts us where we are now.
Toadspike
[Talk]
12:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I think a topic ban from Moroccanoil is the least that should happen. For information - "supporting a vandal is vandalism" is incorrect and not a wikipedia policy or guideline. I'd like to warn IvanScrrooge98 that if they continue this behavior or similar behavior, they could find themselves banned from wikipedia.
Ealdgyth
talk
12:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
IvanScrooge98 - please stop replying in this section or in other user's sections. See the instructions "Statements must be made in separate sections" and (the instructions for this section) "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above."
Ealdgyth
talk
17:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
The one thing that needs to happen is removing IvanScrooge98 from Moroccanoil completely. They were blocked last month for bludgeoning and personal attacks, and they're doing exactly the same thing right now on that RfC. They've already commented 21 times on the RfC, 13 times in the last 24 hours and it's mostly stuff like
this
and
this
. An IA topic ban would also work, but I'm not sure it's necessary as this seems to be the problematic article. I really wouldn't want to block an editor with so many useful contributions completely but they're not making it easy.
Black Kite (talk)
12:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Support topic ban from Moroccanoil
at a minimum
with clarity that this prohibits it anywhere or he's going to be blocked more broadly. Disclosure, semi involved as I was the admin who blocked Julian for the disruptive edits earlier this year. Ivan's edits have been a larger problem than Julian's were.
Star
Mississippi
13:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Hello
IvanScrooge98
, we've had a discussion
on my talk page
together with another editor about IPA. May I act as an uninvolved administrator or would you be concerned about this?
~ ToBeFree
talk
18:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
IvanScrooge98
is blocked site-wide, and from editing their talk page for other purposes than requesting an unblock, for a month as an individual
WP:AE
WP:CTOP
action for using Wikipedia as a battleground and persistently describing disagreement as "vandalism".
~ ToBeFree
talk
18:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Regarding the topic ban, I'm fine with any sanction but I'd like to note my personal skepticism towards any idea that this behavior may be limited to a specific topic, as my initial 24-hour block for the same behavior was outside of any topic area I have seen proposed so far.
~ ToBeFree
talk
18:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I'm going to say that's a little harsh IMO. I would have removed them from the Moroccanoil area and
then
gone for more stringent sanctions if their behaviour continued. This is, after all, a user with 150,000 mostly productive edits, even if their current behaviour is sub-par.
Black Kite (talk)
18:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Perhaps it's less sub-par next month or there is a very convincing unblock request. Lack of action in such cases just ends up at
WP:ARC
. The user had been blocked site-wide for exactly "false accusations of vandalism" in November, then for personal attacks in March, now they're here and double down on describing non-vandalism as vandalism. To me, a point has been reached where editing needs to stop entirely until that problem is resolved.
~ ToBeFree
talk
18:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
To be slightly fair, they're describing an
editor
as a vandal, which they've taken too far but that editor did indeed vandalise the Moroccanoil article on more than one occasion
[107]
[108]
Black Kite (talk)
18:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Yeah, that is vandalism. The conclusions drawn from that are a battleground mentality. We've had a 24-hour block, we've had a week-long block, which increments are we going to use, two weeks instead of a month? A topic ban for behavior evidently not limited to the topic? That there has actually been vandalism so that
IvanScrooge98
has a bit of a point makes things awfully complicated.
~ ToBeFree
talk
18:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Black Kite
ToBeFree
I covered that in my first post. Yes, there was vandalism, and that user got blocked for it. This does not justify calling them a vandal today, four months after the fact, nor does it justify calling them "disruptive" without presenting any evidence of that.
Regarding the block, I think a one-month sitewide block is harsh, but not unjustified. The real question is what sanctions can prevent this behavior reoccurring. Since I see older block log entries about edit warring
[109]
, maybe a 1RR and word count cap in all talk page discussions? Despite all the trouble Ivan has been as of late, I do think sitewide blocks/bans should be the absolute last resort. In some areas, like Italian music, Ivan seems generally able to edit productively.
Toadspike
[Talk]
21:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Thanks. Yeah. I have prepared a detailed explanation of the sitewide block decision for the apparently-upcoming AN appeal. 1RR and word count cap sound like useful measures to be in place when the block expires (or is removed). As they are not limited to a topic, I have much larger hope in these than in a topic ban (which I do not oppose, though).
~ ToBeFree
talk
21:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
After a quick discussion with
asilvering
, I have removed the AE/CTOP part from the block; it's a regular admin action now and can be addressed through normal unblock requests.
~ ToBeFree
talk
22:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
With the change of the block into a normal admin action, it feels like this can close with a topic ban?
Barkeep49
talk
22:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
reply