Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Maghreb (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 07 Apr 2026 21 Apr 2026
SchroCat (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 15 Apr 2026 29 Apr 2026
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 none (orig. case) 8 April 2026
Amendment request: PIA Canvassing none (orig. case) 12 April 2026
Motion name Date posted
Standard enforcement provision reform 8 April 2026

Requests for arbitration


Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132133134135

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
  • Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132133134135

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

Amendment request: PIA Canvassing

Initiated by EytanMelech at 00:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
PIA Canvassing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=1203810971#EytanMelech_topic_ban
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. TarnishedPathtalk 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

Motions

Standard enforcement provision reform

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, HouseBlaster (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

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:

  1. ask the administrator who first issued the enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); or
  3. 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,[1] or is no longer an administrator;[2] 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:

  • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
  • a 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:

  1. the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
  2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
  3. 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:

  1. the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
  2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
  3. 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

  1. ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
  2. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

  1. 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, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fully on board with unifying enforcement provisions. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:21, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. asilvering (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 13:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Daniel (talk) 02:47, 17 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.

Support

  1. 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, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. I could see myself supporting with a 12 month gap like Guerillero mentions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There has to be some framework to prevent OTHERPARENTing. Katietalk 14:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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]

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

I made one change from the draft motion: I added a wikilink to the relevant point in the current procedures. Best, HouseBlaster (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, HouseBlaster (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, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 13:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion

  • 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, HouseBlaster (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, HouseBlaster (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 :) HouseBlaster (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, HouseBlaster (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, HouseBlaster (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 :) HouseBlaster (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, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 13:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for enforcement

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

Arbitration enforcement archives (index)


Quick enforcement requests

Page protection

Requested action: Related to Pakistani military intervention, should be extended-confirmed protected per WP:CT/SA Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 15:35, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the person who made this request has since been indeffed for violating their PIA topic ban. JHD0919 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Masare012

Najibuddaulah1752

ToughTerty85

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, HouseBlaster (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]

Rejoy2003

Gotitbro

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

Request concerning Gotitbro

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
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
  1. 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".
  2. 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.[12] 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."
  3. 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".[13] User:ActivelyDisinterested had to finally hat the discussion to avoid further derailing of the thread.[14]
These diffs came after he was already warned for incivility by an admin just a day ago.[15]
  1. 19:43, 29 March 2026 - Continued uncollaborative behavior. Asking "SNOWCLOSE" of a properly initiated RfC without any valid basis.
  2. Violation of 1RR (page notice) on Dhurandhar: The Revenge on 26 March 2026:[16][17]
  3. Another violation of 1RR on Dhurandhar: The Revenge, this time on 29 - 30 March 2026: [18][19]
  4. 05:51, 29 March 2026 More of the same WP:BATTLE and failure to WP:AGF.
  5. 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.[20][21]
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. [22]: "warned to provide full and clear justification for any reverts in their edit summaries, and to follow WP:BRD rather than making multiple reverts."
  2. Multiple blocks for edit warring until 2025.[23]
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
[24]
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:

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. [25] Wisher08 (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[26]


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 ([27], [28]) 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 ([29], [30]) 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 ([31]) 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 ([32]) 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:
    1. 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
    2. 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.
    3. 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]

TryKid

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
  1. 21 March - Rude and uncollaborative approach.
  2. 22 March - Another rude edit summary
  3. 2 April - Another rude edit summary while reverting warning
  4. 25 March - casting WP:ASPERSIONS
  5. 27 March - engaging in the same battleground mentality as above
  6. 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.
  7. 30 March - 31 March - Made 3 reverts to remove reliably sourced content from Diet in Hinduism.[33][34][35]
  8. 2 April - Canvassing and exhibiting page ownership.
Diffs since this report
  1. 4 April - Provided a misleading analysis of the cited sources. Almost doubled down when called out.[36]
  2. 4 April - Falsely claimed that the quote is not supported by the source. Repeated the same false claim on talk page.[37] Apologized after being called out.[38]
  3. 4 April - Fourth revert over the same sourced content.
  4. 6 April - Fifth revert over the same content with the same status quo stonewalling.
  5. 2 April tagbombing Firstpost article following discussion on about the subject on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Firstpost
  6. 11 April - Edit warring to keep the article tagbombed
  7. 11 April - continued edit warring and still no activity on the talk page.[39]
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
[40]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[41]


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 ([42] [43]) 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 ([44] [45]) 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 a 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]

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.

Dy2834

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 Dy2834

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Dy2834 (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
Caste 500/30
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. Apr. 07, 2026 - Edit on talk page telling users not to trust edits made about Yadavs
  2. Apr. 07, 2026 - Ditto but with the Ahir, a group that has been referred to as a caste
  3. Apr. 07, 2026 - Edit that also changes caste-related information
  4. Apr. 07, 2026 - Revert to restore said edit with sketchy sourcing
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Mar. 26, 2026
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This came to my attention because Dy2834 posted on WP:AN requesting that Zamindars of Bihar be protected on edits they'd made. The AN thread has since closed (it closed as I was writing this), but given the attempts to frame the edits against certain castes as "lies" I'm seeking at minimum a grant-and-revoke of XC status (essentially preventing them from gaining it automatically at 500 edits/30 days as usual). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After their block, they returned and made more - many more - caste-related edits. While most of them are just wikilinking, the following diffs are more extensive than that:
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 14:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Apr. 08, 2026


Discussion concerning Dy2834

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 Dy2834

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dy2834

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I've temp-blocked. I don't think pre-emptive XC revoke is necessary, but I wouldn't stand in anyone else's way on that either. -- asilvering (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that unfortunately did not stick as far as their willingness to learn and follow guidance. I have indefinitely blocked from article space until they engage and communicate on the issue. Unfortunately suspect we're in CIR territory here, potentially language wise. Star Mississippi 18:45, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nyxaros

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. 1 October 2025 Removed cited genocide information
  2. 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
  3. 15 February 2026 Returned with now outright genocide denial negationism, claiming "neutrality"
  4. 22 February 2026 More massacre censoring, replaces 'massacre' with 'suppression of rebellions" and calls it a "fix"
  5. 15 February 2026 removing mention of genocide from another article, calls a reliable historian "undue" without ever explaining why
  6. 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")
  7. 15 February 2026 After rephrasing text to diminish controversy, removes 'and controversies' from the header because "where is the actual controversy?"
  8. 21 February 2026 removes Armenian cuisine in a sentence about Çiğ köfte. The benefit of the doubt that they haven't read the linked article diminishes when minutes later they edit Çiğ köfte's both lead and Armenia sections, where it's stated being part of Armenian cuisine/culture
  9. 21 March 2026 removes Armenia from the countries list ("NPOV & UNDUE issues") despite there being an entire cited section on Armenia
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  1. 20 May 2019 blocked for 3RR edit warring
  2. 10 August 2019 blocked for being incivility toward other editors after being warned
  3. 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

[46]

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk&diff=1338545969&oldid=1336053915
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]

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. (t · c) buIdhe 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.

Koshuri Sultan

M.Bitton

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
  1. 16 April 2026: Bobfrombrockley assesses what is clear consensus [63] and makes the corresponding edit [64], M.Bitton reverts [65]
  2. See the discussion at Talk:Zionism#Drawing to a conclusion?, more on this below
  3. 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 [66]; 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 [67], 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]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[68]


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

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]

Statement by TarnishedPath

This report has been made because someone started an RFC? Seriously? TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 02:55, 17 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, [69], 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 [70][71]. 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]

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. [72] [73] 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: [74] and entreated all parties to work toward a more thoroughly framed RfC here: [75]. Despite Kowal2701 pointing to Bobfrombrockley as identifying a clear consensus Bob has, themself, advocated for an RfC since then [76]. 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 [77] 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 [78] 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

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 [79], 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]

Statement by Bobfrombrockley

I don't think I have ever 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. About 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 was not just a head count, although the numerical majority was clear. felt that, although I was involved, it was clear that there was a 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]

Statement by NorthernWinds

@Darouet If many editors made immediate contributions 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 you got for the workshop 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 with you. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:29, 17 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.

Rambling Rambler

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=1136596190"