Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against a previously alerted editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. Hatted requests will later be archived by an admin (often after a few days to a week).
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives:

Gotitbro

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

Request concerning Gotitbro

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ratnahastin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA

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

11 August - Removes statement from Pakistani defence minister Khawaja Asif while himself detailing the statements from Indian Chief of the Air Staff Amar Preet Singh, thereby engaging in pro India POV pushing.
18 August - Removes sourced content with a misleading edit summary.
11 August - Edit warring to restore above edit.
20 August - Overhauling the lead to show Chanakya explicitly as a historical figure, contrary to the fact that no historical evidence exists for Chanakya as per body of the article, thereby pushing pro Hindutva POV.
27 August - Removes longstanding sentence from lead claiming it is "Undue" when the subject in question is an unreliable outlet, notorious for spreading misinformation.
27 August - Engages in edit warring by restoring his revert and citing BRD when he is himself bringing a new edit to the article.
27 August - Continues edit war by falsely claiming "added about a month ago".
27 August - Derailing the thread and attacking another editor by bringing up how he "is t-banned from a closely related topic area".
28 August - Even after being told to focus on content, he is still talking about "editorial behaviour". See WP:IDHT.
28 August - This is the height of WP:BATTLE and WP:IDHT: "Yes, focus on content would have been done were you not restoring sock content willy nilly everywhere despite already being under sanctions. I would strongly suggest you take your time away from contentious topics."
28 August - Poisoning the well by falsely accusing another editor of using "slurs in an offhand manner" and breaching "Wikipedia:Civility".
29 August - WP:IDHT; Still repeating his above false accusations.
29 August - Unnecessarily targeting another editor on the AfD by pointing out their edit count.
29 August - Now falsely accusing this editor of "very COI".
29 August - Now that above personal remarks failed to bait the editor, Gotitbro starts misusing ANI to get rid of this user anyhow by repeating his false accusations of "COI" and "SPA".
30 August - Falsely accusing another editor of "hounding me around" despite this user edited ANI weeks ago after Gotitbro reported him there.[1]
Has made 4 reverts in 3 days to remove same content.[2][3][4][5] A look at the talk page (see (Talk:Pajeet#Edit_to_history) shows he is being WP:1AM here.
1 September - Falsely labelling this source as "op-ed". He is not only showing his lack of understanding of WP:FRINGE but is also making chilling accusations that other editors "legitimize racist rhetoric (though this is also generally the case)".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

3 Blocks for edit warring, 2 of which are relevant to this area.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [6]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

@Asilvering and Rosguill: Yes, issue persists even during this report, see slow burning edit war at Nazi punk (concerning inclusion of Hindutva pop)[7][8][9] and removal of warning with a combative edit summary for the same [10]. Another instance at Rock Against Communism.[11][12] There is also continued misuse of ANI to get rid of authentic opponents.[13] I believe the proposed restriction would be more than enough to control the edit warring. Ratnahastin (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [14]

Discussion concerning Gotitbro

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Gotitbro

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Azuredivay

@Firefangledfeathers: You should take another look at this report. You surely cannot say edit warring (see Ratnahastin's latest comment), false accusations of COI (see #14, #15), falsification of sources (see #2) mislabelling reliable sources as opinion pieces (see #18), falsely accusing editors of legitimizing racism (see #18), battleground mentality (see #10), Hindutva POV pushing (see #4, #5) and more violations do not warrant a sanction especially when the editor has 3 blocks for edit warring, 1 of them being in the last 6 months. Similarly, Gotitbro has made 4 reverts to remove reliably sourced content on Pajeet (see #17).

During last month on 1984 anti-Sikh riots, he was misrepresenting "stable" version and edit warring to remove sourced content which was critical of Hindutva party Bharatiya Janta Party and Hindutva organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.[15][16] He also engaged in mass canvassing.[17] This is all when he had more than a month to address how his false claim of "misrepresentation of sources"[18] was any correct.

The concerns over pro-Hindutva POV pushing are correct. You can see he is alone at Talk:Kashmir Files where he is opposing the label "propaganda" for this Hindutva movie, without offering any rebuttal.[19]

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gotitbro

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

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

Ok, I won't close this soon. I'm having trouble with both the volume of evidence and the low quality I've seen so far. I asked for the 4 or 5 worst diffs from Ratnahastin. In the first 5 mentioned, I saw one revert from G at 2025 India–Pakistan conflict and the absolute mess of a content dispute at Firstpost. Ratnahastin calls G's edit there a "new edit", and Azuredivay calls it "Hindutva POV pushing". I have not seen evidence to prove that G's edit was either. Azuredivay says that G is 'opposing the "label" propaganda for this Hindutva movie, without offering any rebuttal', but G offers a substantial argument for their position at Talk:The Kashmir Files, which is not opposition to the label but concern about its placement and attribution. If this gets closed, or archived without action, no one should take that as an approval of G's actions, just that no admin felt compelled to act based on the quality of evidence provided. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, I'm having trouble understanding your conclusion here: my first impression reading all but the last sentence of this comment is that you find the filing tendentious. The final sentence, however, does not seem to really follow from the rest. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find the filing to be tendentious, just poor. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing all the evidence again, I also find it underwhelming. While it is asserted that there is Hindutva POV pushing at play, it has not been demonstrated that Gotitbro is selectively interpreting policy to this end. The one pattern of misconduct that is evident here is edit warring: while there are somewhat mitigating circumstances of general chaos at Pajeet and Firstpost, given their past history of edit warring sanctions I'm thinking that a 1RR restriction for Gotitbro may be appropriate at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ratnahastin, has the behaviour continued over the past month? Apologies for the AE limbo. -- asilvering (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the edits at Nazi punk and Rock Against Communism, Gotitbro does appear to be edit warring overmuch, although I'm frankly more alarmed by EarthDude also edit warring in order to shoehorn mentions of Hindutva pop into infoboxes without there being any relevant text or sources in the articles themselves. This is a backwards method of writing an article; on that basis I'm disinclined to consider Gotitbro's ANI thread against EarthDude as a mark against Gotitbro, and I find EarthDude's replies to PARAKANYAA and Gotitbro in that thread to generally be missing the point at best and IDHT at worst. All that having been said, the 1RR limitation for Gotitbro still may help reduce disruption, but I think if we go forward with that we need to open a more thorough examination of EarthDude's conduct here, as per the two party rule and EarthDude's absence from this discussion it would not be appropriate to run straight to sanctions at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well, @Rosguill, it looks like a 1RR wouldn't really have stopped much disruption in the more recent cases, given that these recent ones are all pretty rightful reverts following obvious P&G justifications like "lead follows body" and "citations needed". I think I'd prefer a really strong warning, along the lines of "do your absolute best to provide a full justification in the initial revert" and "remember to go to the talk page ASAP if reverted", rather than a formal 1RR, which will have other editors trying to play "gotcha". -- asilvering (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with a logged edit warring warning. As I mull this over, I'm also not sure what to make of the fact that Ratnahastin considers the evidence that we just addressed meaningful examples of continuing misbehavior by Gotitbro; it seems like it's stretching towards willful ignorance to present them as misuse of ANI to get rid of authentic opponents when EarthDude's edits were clearly problematic. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theonewithreason

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

Request concerning Theonewithreason

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Talk:Serbia men's national basketball team/Archive 1#Final disscussion: Results/medals history (a WP:CONS was reached in 2014, later user AirWolf, who participated in reaching a WP:CONS, reaffirmed this WP:CONS in 2018, but user Theonewithreason oppose it)

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

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

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

User Theonewithreason wrote in one of his statements in article's talk page that "this is very sensitive topic (the Balkans) there are very strict rules biding every single editor on Wikipedia" (his edit), so I think he is well aware about the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The FIBA's official website do not attribute the results and won medals by the Serbia and Montenegro men's national basketball team (it represented Serbia and Montenegro / in 1992–2003 called Yugoslavia) exclusively to the Serbia men's national basketball team (see: HERE) and a WP:CONS was also reached in this article's talk page (see: HERE) that in Wikipedia we should comply with the position of the FIBA, so we should count Serbia's team results only since 2007 (for quicker reading of WP:CONS discussion see my quotes of its participants statements in this edit). The former state Serbia and Montenegro (1992–2006) is now represented by three separate national teams: Serbia team, Montenegro team, Kosovo team.

Another article Serbia at the Olympics only count Serbia's medals since the 2008 Summer Olympics, not earlier (same point of view as FIBA), so the same should be in article Serbia men's national basketball team. Now we have one article (Serbia men's national basketball team) claiming that Serbia won 1996 Olympic silver medal and another claiming that it did not (Serbia at the Olympics), so such contradictions cannot exist in different articles.

Moreover, a relevant example is the Russia men's national basketball team who is not attributed the results of the Soviet Union men's national basketball team even through the Russian Federation is a sucessor state of the Soviet Union.

I request assistance to implement WP:CONS in the article as I cannot do that when user Theonewithreason revert it. Furthermore, I think Template:Contentious topics/talk notice (topic=b - the Balkans or Eastern Europe) should be added to this article's talk page to ensure a reached WP:CONS and WP:LISTEN.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Theonewithreason

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Theonewithreason

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

This is getting ridiculous, Pofka is obviously unable to reach their POV on the Serbia Basketball team talk page which has been wp:stable in this form for several years now, in fact one other editor also opposed their statement [[20]], they were openly canvassing pinging several editors for whom they think that they are going to side with them based on that conversation from 2014 [[21]], then they did that again today [[22]] and now they are trying to remove me from that page because they WP:IDONTLIKE. I mean this editor has over 20 000 edits on Wikipedia they should know better to use other tools to resolve the discussion, instead they reported me directly here. Sorry but WP:boomerang should be imposed here. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also since you closed the ANI report we obviously need to deal with Pofka behaviour here which exceeds the discussion about this article and goes directly against the rules implemented in sensitive topics. First Pofka claims that Serbia "stole" those medals [[23]] and what is even more concerning is that Pofka is labelling other editors by their ethnicity or what they believe is their ethnicity and thus trying to discriminate their comments as non valid, [[24]], [[25]] - that kind of behaviour is actually problematic and concerning. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joy all of my reverts on Nikola Tesla page were according to 20 years of discussions and implemented rules by admins and other editors, and since you are regularly invested in that article you should also know that, there is nothing trigger happy in this especially if I am reverting someone who is openly posting death threats on my user page [[26]], so if you trying to expand this report even further, first we need to address why this report by Pofka was directly posted here, which is inappropriate, and second why are you trying what I now understand to broadly disqualify me from Balkan related topics, which is not your first time, example writing this post to admin Ivanvector page [[27]] 2 years after my SPI block (for which I was properly punished in 2020) asking them to revaluate my status, in which ivanvector clearly explained that my case was borderline and that my concerns were reasonable [[28]] after which you admitted that you are often WP:involved in Balkan related topics [[29]] - in the last five years I was never blocked nor did I used other accounts, the comment you are referring to in May I did apologise for, and never used in this form again. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joy thank you for only confirming what was obviously clear for the last few years, that you are probably to often WP:involved in Balkan related topics and that you should take more neutral stances regarding reports to others, [[30]] let us not forget that you were also blocked from Wikipedia for abusing admins powers, so maybe you too might not be well-suited for this contentious topic area. Theonewithreason (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ [[31]] this last edit from Pofka is now clear WP:ASPERSION against me and the other editors, also those accusations against me and assumptions about my location or to which nation I belong to is a direct attack against my privacy which has nothing to do with this article or my edits on Wikipedia. I am now asking indefinite block against Pofka. We are not going to have of discussions about my personal information online. Especially because Pofka is repeated offender with topic ban on other articles in 2024 [[32]], [[33]] and previously in 2022 [[34]]. Theonewithreason (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sadko

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second statement by Pofka

@Extraordinary Writ: @Joy: I agree that the 2014 WP:CONS seems to be quite weak, however I believe it is worth respecting because in it five experienced users: AirWolf, HTD, Dirtlawyer1, Jetstreamer, Zagalejo (check their user pages) expressed support that we should follow how the FIBA tractate this question and this 2014 WP:CONS comply with information provided in the FIBA's official website. I think that instead of immediately reverting my edit and soon declaring that "the discussion is over" (his edit) user Theonewithreason should have started a RfC procedure to reach a new WP:CONS. I think that WP:STABLE when there seems to be obviously wrong information presented in the article (per FIBA position) is not a valid argument. Nevertheless, I have doubts that Wikipedia's article should include contradictory information to the FIBA's official website, so do we really need a RfC about possibly denying FIBA's official website position? I think we need WP:AE clarification about it. I will of course not oppose a RfC if it is really necessary about this question. This question should be solidly solved to avoid disruption in the future.

Regarding user Sadko: I noticed that in user Theonewithreason's talk page there are positive messages from user Sadko (e.g. check these edits: first in 2020, second in 2025, maybe more are deleted), so it seems like they know each other well for a long time. Moreover, user Theonewithreason pinged in this edit many unrelated users (possibly all Serbians because some of their user names are: Soundwaweserb, Vikipedijasrbija0, other pinged users IPs locations and maybe interactions with user Theonewithreason should be checked to determine whenever in the talk page user Theonewithreason attempted to gather support of exclusively Serbian users, who previously never participated in this article's talk page discussion). As I already mentioned, most of user Sadko edits are in Serbian Wikipedia, so I presume he is Serbian as well (IP location check could be helpful, but with over 300,000 edits in the Serbian Wikipedia he certainly has an excellent command of Serbian language). Of course, I cannot confirm whenever user Theonewithreason communicate with user Sadko using external sources, however the fact that user Theonewithreason attempted to gather support of unrelated Serbian users raises suspicion how user Sadko in just ~2 hours came to "absolutely" support user Theonewithreason position (if administrators can check whenever user Sadko had Talk:Serbia men's national basketball team in his watch list before joining the talk page discussion, then it could be helpful to at least partly check the possibility of communications via external sources between users Sadko and Theonewithreason). User Theonewithreason in the talk page inserted links "www.google.hr" (in this edit), so I presume he is residing in Croatia where are many Serbs of Croatia. So if you ask me, there seems to be many Serbian connections. -- Pofka 14:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TylerBurden

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

Statement by Uniacademic

Hi @Extraordinary Writ, Joy, Isabelle Belato, and Firefangledfeathers: As an editor of the Kosovo and Serbia topic area, I have noticed that Theonewithreason consistently displays obstructive editing behavior in Balkan-related articles, with a tendency to perform blind reverts and push particular POVs, often without regard for sourcing or established consensus. This may be of relevance here, so I'll provide evidence from things I have noticed in the past year or so. Below are a series of diffs illustrating this pattern:

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

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

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

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

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

These diffs are obviously not isolated mistakes. They show a clear pattern of blind reverts without verification, adding irrelevant or misleading sources, removing reliably sourced material for POV reasons, and engaging in unproductive arguments while failing to provide evidence. This behavior disrupts Balkan-related content, violates WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and wastes community time. I am therefore not surprised at all that he is showing such behavior in the topic discussed above. I see a clear pattern here. Thank you. Uniacademic (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Theonewithreason

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

Theonewithreason subsequently started an ANI thread against Pofka, WP:ANI#User:Pofka trying to impose their POV by using WP:battlefield, which I've now closed so we can sort things out here. In no particular order:
- An RfC is going to be the best way to handle this. It's been over a decade since the (apparently never-implemented) 2014 discussion, so I don't think it's unreasonable to want to revisit the issue, and I'm certainly not going to sanction for "oppos[ing] a reached WP:CONS".
- Both of you need to be careful about selective pinging; see WP:VOTESTACK. It's fine to notify everyone who participated in a previous discussion or everyone who's contributed to the article recently, but choosing particular people to ping is often going to be a problem.
- Pofka, I don't understand why you think it's concerning that Sadko participated in the discussion. If you're trying to imply canvassing, you're going to need much better evidence, especially since he had edited the page before and could easily have watchlisted it.
- Theonewithreason, I'm really troubled that you think [40][41][42] are reliable sources—they're obviously self-published and shouldn't be cited at all, much less to say that The sources are clear, the discussion is over. Frankly I'm not sure you should be editing in this area at all if you don't have a good grasp of what a reliable source looks like. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ in context of AE, Sadko is actually generally concerning because they had been banned from this topic area once before. They got unbanned in the meantime, which I remember because I've had to complain about that at Guerillero's talk page last year. ~~Thankfully this didn't escalate since.~~ I don't know if Pofka just has some random bias against Serbian editors, but this particular one is still a matter of legitimate concern. --Joy (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: The new motion announced at WP:AC/N might interest you -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of that. As it happens, I just noticed a new incident of weird wikilawyering by Sadko at Talk:Nikola Tesla#Infobox (now in...). I don't think this level of shit-stirring is in any way appropriate - they appear to be testing the boundaries of what level of advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle is acceptable. We need to enforce the principles of WP:ARBMAC and WP:NOT#BATTLE again. --Joy (talk) Joy (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uninvolved in this specific matter because this is the first I hear about it, but I've participated in other discussions like it, for example in the previous talk discussion there or at a football list. Suffice it to say that we have had a lot of issues in the past trying to figure out the most appropriate formatting for the description of these succession matters. Often times, these discussions are rather intricate and are just not very interesting to the general public and are not frequented by a lot of uninvolved editors, so it's genuinely hard to gauge actual consensus. For example, Pofka cites a discussion from '14, but then there's also this discussion from '18. It's hard to say that any of these discussions are really determinative.

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

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

Sadko, please add new replies to other editors on your own section. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pofka and Theonewithreason are over their word limits. No more comments unless an extension is granted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, having read through this case, it seems like the dispute is a case of editors disagreeing over whether a recent discussion trumps a prior consensus. Given that the prior consensus was over a decade old it's valid to reopen the question; given that evidently multiple editors do stand by their prior comments in favor of the old consensus, an RfC would be the best way to resolve the matter, with the old consensus treated as the status quo ante. Frankly, the most concerning interactions exhibited here are the raising of canvassing allegations, and the response to them. Pofka's framing of Theonewithreason's activity on Serbian Wikipedia isn't great, but I'm also concerned by Theonewithreason's response of demanding a block for aspersions, without addressing the substantive evidence of canvassing that they had preferentially pinged editors with references to Serb identity in their usernames; the correct response would have been to either demonstrate that the pattern of pings was not partisan, or to apologize and commit to observing WP:CANVASS. Separately, the first, second and fifth of the diffs presented by Uniacademic do cause concern (for the third and fourth, I think that Uniacademic is giving undue weight to the WP:PRIMARY source). I'm uncertain exactly which remedies to propose at the moment, although my first instinct is to recommend a logged warning to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for Theonewithreason and a logged warning to refrain from making unnecessary comments about editors' backgrounds for Pofka. I am nevertheless open to proposals from other admins for greater or lesser sanctions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary Writ, Joy, Rosguill, just trying to give this discussion a kick. Having not read the case itself and just tried to judge what the admin consensus is here, it looks to me like there's a general agreement that the prior consensus is stale enough that a new RfC is recommended. There are some concerns about Pofka but I'm not seeing anything I'd be comfortable calling (Rosguill is the only one with a proposal, unless I missed something), and to a lesser extent the same goes for Sadko. So I think this is a "speak now or hold your peace" re: both of them. Regarding Theonewithreason, though, it looks like everyone agrees things are going wrong here and we shouldn't let that one drop. Ros proposed a logged warning. EW, Joy, is that sufficient? Guerillero, any opinion? -- asilvering (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
noting that Theonewithreason has posted on my talk page regarding this case: Special:Diff/1317565579. -- asilvering (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Boutboul

Boutboul's topic ban is lifted per WP:LASTCHANCE. Given that this TBAN followed a previous XCON revocation, Boutboul is advised that, should he find himself sanctioned in the topic area again, he is likely to find it very difficult to appeal that sanction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Notification of that administrator: [diff]

Statement by Boutboul

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

Timing

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

500 productive, non-gaming edits

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

History of Togo (diff)

History of Benin (diff)

Salt evaporation pond (diff)

Germanium (diff)

Neodymium magnet (diff)

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

Competence improvement (WP:CIR)

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

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

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Boutboul

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Boutboul

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

@Tamzin: Just checking you've seen this and if you had any thoughts? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong feelings about this, but given the way Valereee and I framed the unblock, and that Boutboul has followed that advice, I think the default outcome here should be a WP:LASTCHANCE unban. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I don't have any issues with Boutboul's editing since the TBAN that would make the think it can't be removed but given there haven't been other admin comments I don't have the required consensus to remove the TBAN. Are you willing to do it yourself as the enforcing admin or give your okay for me to do it? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. If there is no further objection in about 72 hours (at which point this will have been open for a week), I will close this with something to the effect of "Boutboul's topic ban is lifted per WP:LASTCHANCE. Given that this TBAN followed a previous XCON revocation, Boutboul is advised that, should he find himself sanctioned in the topic area again, he is likely to find it very difficult to appeal that sanction". But that's without prejudice against any other resolution if anyone has anything further to say. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Polite bump @Tamzin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with lifting this. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FellowMellow

FellowMellow blocked for 48 hours for 1RR vios. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning FellowMellow

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: FellowMellow (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

1RR and consensus violations (Gaza genocide)

9 October 2025 this is their bold edit.
9 October 2025 first revert to restore their edit
10 October 2025 this second bold edit (which is against the RfC consensus) was made despite the fact that they have been made aware of the RfC's result.
10 October 2025 second revert (less than 24 hours from the first).
10 October 2025 they also refused to acknowledge the fact that they have been edit warring against the consensus.

1RR violation (Allegations of genocide in the October 7 attacks)

9 October 2025 this is their bold edit.
9 October 2025 first revert (once their bold edit was partially reverted).
10 October 2025 second revert (less than 24 hours later).

Assumption of bad faith (Gaza genocide)

9 October 2025 their response to having a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template placed on their talk page is not what you'd expect from an experienced editor.
10 October 2025 their response to raised concerns about their editing.
10 October 2025 same as above.
10 October 2025 even clearer than the above two.

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)

9 October 2025 - I placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@CommunityNotesContributor: that discussion didn't take place at their talk page because of their bad faith assumption. Since it wasn't their first time either (see diff), I deliberately avoided their talk page after that, and took the opportunity to raise the issue once they pinged me. They continued to assume bad faith with me (something that I ignored). That obviously had nothing to do with the rest (them assuming bad faith with others, editing against consensus, breaching 1RR multiple times and even describing the AE notification as vandalism). M.Bitton (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor: given the contentious nature of the topic and the fact that they talk page is an area where assumption of bad faith seems to be the norm (as explained above), it had to be mentioned somewhere to at least ascertain whether they are aware of the rules. Their responses and the rest of what they did speak for themselves. M.Bitton (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor: that's your opinion. As far as I know, those who are "aware" of the "rules" don't describe notifications as vandalism. M.Bitton (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning FellowMellow

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 FellowMellow

I am being accused of this because the user was in disagreement with me. I took the matter onto the talk page to find a consensus. The users were intentionally delaying finding a consensus when I was asking for a solution and asked for everyone’s opinions. User: M.Bitton disrespected me and another user as well saying that our opinions didn’t matter because it didn’t coincide with their. Please see the talk page of Gaza genocide. There were reverts on my edits I did not have clear explanations, so they were reverted back. When an explanation was provided, I did not revert anymore and took it to the talk page. M.Bitton’s claim is beyond ridiculous. The user has discussed on the talk page in very bad faith and presented clear bias, which was also pointed out by another user. I also want to point out that I have not made anymore reverts after the second time. The edits I made were based on because the talk page were intentionally delaying progress of the discussion and the main factor of this issue is M.Bitton, where the user intentionally tried to ignore any of my discussions. I also want to note that I didn’t violate the 3RR rule.

Statement by berch

I'm not sure whether this user is just very enthusiastic and doesn't realize how often they're replying without saying anything new.. or if they're trying to be problematic. But at least a warning to them regarding bludgeoning would be ideal. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to be problematic whatsoever. Also what have I repeated and have not said something new? Maybe you didn’t read what I wrote, as you have not replied to a single thing I wrote and ignored me. I resent the fact that you are making an assumption like that. If I was being problematic, I wouldn’t have engaged on the talk page and opened a discussion. I understand that my edits were reverted as it was not agreed upon and have not made any edits since then. Also I’m not sure what enthusiasm has anything to do it. I’m sorry for trying to defend Wikipedia’s neutrality policy, that in my view has been violated. You are even the user that has been disrespected by M.Bitton as the user made it clear your opinions didn’t matter. FellowMellow (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CommunityNotesContributor

I just wanted to flag that there was a hatted conversation that imo really didn't help matters at all here, nor should have occurred on that talk page per WP:FOC. If that discussion had appeared on the user's talk page, as should of occurred, it might not have contributed to aggravating the situation which ultimately resulted in the issues raised in this request. I otherwise didn't read the entire discussion beyond that part as it had already devolved into all sorts, but am also far from surprised given how it started. This comment isn't intended to point fingers, only encourage self-reflection. Regards, CNC (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton The first link is after that discussion. I just meant it didn't belong there and only raised the temperature of the discussion even if unintentionally. It would of been better had on the user's talk page even if it were to be reverted like the ctop notice, then at least other editors wouldn't have to read it either. I'm not blaming you for any of the disruption to be clear.. CNC (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton It wasn't necessary as they were already aware per WP:AWARE. CNC (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning FellowMellow

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

I see multiple clear-cut violations of WP:1RR by FellowMellow after they removed the CTOP notice, which included a 1RR warning, from their talk page with the edit-summary "Disruptive vandalism omitted". I have blocked them for 48 hours for violating 1RR. I will leave this open for a brief while to allow further opinions: I believe this was on the milder end of possible sanctions, given the aggressive tone they have employed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

إيان

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 إيان

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kowal2701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: إيان (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

12 October 2025 Accuses fellow editor of being WP:NOTHERE for disagreeing with them
12 October 2025 Characterises two disagreeing editors as WP:IDL and their own 'side' as "[expressing] support", despite both opposing editors invoking policy
13 October 2025 Again characterises said editors as IDL, argues for discarding one "!vote" (despite this being an informal discussion) on the basis of them being canvassed (whether this is within the bounds of reasonable interpretation idk, but certainly ABF). Seems to be trying to circumvent WP:CONSENSUS in a disagreement between 2 and 3 editors.

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)

24 January 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Making this report after discussion at User talk:Tamzin#POV pusher? (my first report so apologies if there're any errors). My main concern was a lack of NPOV editing, scrolling through their contribs reveals a consistent POV. But I only met them recently and my impression is based off of a small sample size, they're an experienced editor with a clean block log and no bans. They started an RM at Talk:New antisemitism where, at best, they don't appear to have consulted the literature nor policy (at worst intentionally contradicted them), and it looks like they just saw a (weakly implied) POV in the clearly common name/term they didn't like. But POV pushing is notoriously difficult to illustrate and I'm not going to attempt a proper investigation. Per N95 70% of their edits are in the PIA topic area, Tamzin's initial thoughts were to impose WP:BER which I thought would be good. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[43]

Discussion concerning إيان

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 إيان

Hi, this user had never raised an issue with my editing, as far as I know, and I had never interacted with them beyond having happened to participate in some of the same talk page discussions, so I was surprised to be pinged with complaints on an admin's talk page. I apologized for my mistakes and offered to take the warning and affirm that I would be more conscientious and adhere to WP:Civility. Would that be possible here or do I have to take up everyone's time with a full contextualization and thorough defense of the accusations brought against my editing here? As the accuser has correctly noted, my record is clean and I would very much like to keep it that way. Is there a risk that I would receive a sanction without prior discussion or warning? إيان (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning إيان

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

I lean toward a BER here, but I do appreciate إيان's conciliatory response on my talkpage, and would be open to a logged warning with the understanding that future incivil comments will lead to a BER. I await other admins' thoughts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems minor enough that, with the added apology, a formal warning will suffice, though I'd lean toward a temporary TBAN from the area instead of BER if issues were to persist in the future. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 11:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by BZPN

Appeal unanimously declined. Widening the tban was proposed, but, given the WP:AN thread, appears moot. -- asilvering (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: BZPN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – BZPN (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from "anti-LGBTQ sentiment, broadly construed and including 'mirror' concepts such as heterophobia"

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by BZPN

BZPN's statement contains 524 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

I am respectfully appealing the indefinite topic ban imposed on me by @Tamzin on 17 October 2025, concerning "anti-LGBTQ sentiment, broadly construed and including mirror concepts such as heterophobia." This is my first edit involving LGBTQ-related content, with no prior history of contentious editing in this subject area. I have no prior sanctions, warnings, or ArbCom-related issues involving gender or sexuality wiki content. My edit history shows compliance with BRD and other content policies.

The sanction was imposed without a proper basis under the contentious topics procedure. No edit warring in my entire edit history before this situation, no personal attacks, or advocacy were present. The sanction was issued solely due to my disagreement with the inclusion of a quote from a non-academic personal webpage, which fails the standards of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. The dispute was purely content-related, not behavioral. Under WP:CTOPIC and the ArbCom’s own precedent, sanctions must be applied for disruptive conduct, not for engaging in policy-based content criticism.

The disputed edit was fully compliant with Wikipedia’s core content policies. The removed quote (by Raymond J. Noonan) came from a non-peer-reviewed personal website (bway.net), whose domain belongs to a private internet provider ("New York City’s Best Internet Service Provider Since 1995"), not an academic publisher, and the very existence of this Nooan's statement is not even confirmed on the basis of this source. The content used subjective and non-neutral language ("pseudoscience", "victimology") and was not contextualized with scholarly balance. My edit replaced it with a neutral, well-sourced definition based on peer-reviewed psychological and sexological literature (APA, Merriam-Webster, Parent et al. 2019, Haldeman 2006, etc.). This is verifiably within WP:V and WP:NPOV.

The ban targets the editor (me) personally, not the behavior. User:Tamzin explicitly justified the sanction by referring to my "strong views" and not to any editing misconduct. This contravenes WP:AGF and the principle that sanctions must address disruptive conduct, not the mere possession of views. The edit itself was not reverted for inaccuracy, bias, or lack of sources, but due to perceived association with "anti-LGBTQ sentiment" - which I firmly deny.

The sanction has a chilling effect on policy-based editing. Imposing a CT ban in response to a legitimate policy-based removal discourages editors from enforcing WP:RS and WP:V when dealing with poorly sourced material. This undermines editorial neutrality and sets a precedent where criticism of non-academic sources becomes sanctionable depending on topic sensitivity. Previous issues with user space MfD were procedural or administrative matters (controversial issues - with different opinions on the subject) and did not concern content disputes, nor do they reflect on my ability to edit neutrally.

Given the above, I respectfully request:
(a) The topic ban be lifted in full, as it lacks behavioral basis and conflicts with the principles of WP:CTOPIC enforcement; or
(b) At minimum, the ban be reduced or replaced with an advisory warning, conditional on future adherence to WP:BRD and article talk discussion norms.

I am willing to discuss content disputes through the article’s talk page or relevant noticeboards (e.g., RSN) and to abide by collaborative standards in all further edits. I have not engaged in any advocacy, disruption, or incivility.

Thank you, BZPN (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Grossly exceeded word limit. — Newslinger talk 13:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Tamzin, @Pirate Belle: with all due respect, both of these comments misrepresent the situation and make personal assumptions without factual basis. First, this is my first-ever edit involving LGBTQ-related content. There is no prior editing background, battleground behavior, or conduct issue in this content topic area - neither on enwiki nor on any other project. My block log is completely clean, and my on-wiki record includes years of constructive editing across Wikimedia, e.g. simplewiki, always in compliance with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Second, there is no "bias" or "advocacy" involved in the disputed edit. The change in question was the removal of a non-academic personal webpage of unknown origin (bway.net) as a source - clearly failing WP:RS and WP:V - and replacement with a neutral, verifiable, and peer-reviewed definition cited from APA, Haldeman (2006), Parent et al. (2019), Merriam-Webster etc. That is the essence of policy-based editing, not activism. Third, U4C or Discord-related disputes mentioned by Tamzin are completely unrelated to content editing and occurred in a separate, procedural context. Referencing them as justification for an indefinite CT ban conflates off-wiki and on-wiki matters, which contradicts both WP:CTOPIC and ArbCom precedent. AE should focus on on-wiki conduct related to the specific edit, not on unrelated, outdated disputes. Finally, both comments assume a "bias" and "partisan views" without any evidence in the diffs or discussion (against AGF). According to WP:TEND, a single edit is not sufficient to establish a pattern of bias or POV pushing. It explicitly says that issues arise only when an editor repeatedly engages in biased editing over a sustained period of time. In my case, there was only few edits related to this topic in just one article section, and no previous involvement whatsoever in gender- or sexuality-related areas. Therefore, labeling this as "tendentious editing" or applying a topic ban is inconsistent with WP:TEND an WP:TBAN. The purpose of a topic ban is to prevent further disruption in an area where an editor has already caused repeated issues, not to penalize a single, good-faith contribution. The edit in question was NEUTRAL, properly sourced, and aligned with core content policies. No part of the CTOP framework authorizes restrictions for merely holding or being accused of "strong views." Therefore, the ban lacks procedural and factual justification. I again request its full removal. BZPN (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: @Tamzin: the claim that "heterophobia" constitutes a "mirror concept" to LGBTQ-related topics is factually incorrect. The term is independently studied in peer-reviewed literature (e.g., Plummer 2001, Parent et al. 2019, Haldeman 2006) as a social and psychological phenomenon distinct from homophobia. The edit in question was based on scientific sources. BZPN (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was posted by BZPN as a reply to #c-SarekOfVulcan-20251017140300-Statement_by_SarekOfVulcan. — Newslinger talk 14:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have I edited any LGBT content before Heterophobia? Check my contribs. BZPN (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was posted by BZPN as a reply to #c-SarekOfVulcan-20251017163300-SarekOfVulcan-20251017140300. — Newslinger talk 05:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After these MfDs I changed my point of view, but it's none of your business, it's a private matter. BZPN (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

This isn't about the content merits, which it's not up to AE to decide. This is about BZPN's zero-to-sixty battleground approach in a topic area in which they've already expressed strong partisan views (MfD 1, MfD 2), causing sufficient disruption as to prompt a U4C member to comment, in voting to throw out their case over a ban from Discord for anti-LGBTQ advocacy, that local enforcement processes should take action. Usually, when someone enters a topic area and causes trouble, there is a degree of AGF accorded based on the assumption that they are here to build an encyclopedia rather than push a political ideology. BZPN has made it very clear up till now, and continuing now in how they've approached this dispute itself, that their purpose on Wikipedia is to reduce a perceived pro-LGBTQ bias—not because they have evidence that that supposed bias runs against WP:DUE, but because they feel their own, differing views are entitled to equal or greater respect. They seem to be under the mistaken impression that other editors are not allowed to take note of that agenda. But we are, just as much as ArbCom has taken note of both pro- and anti-trans agendas in WP:ARBTRANS. Whether someone's edits are geared toward building an encyclopedia is at the core of user conduct enforcement. I'll refer to an essay I recently wrote, Wikipedia:Partisans, for more on that subject. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BZPN: If you'd like me to modify the wording to "bias on the basis of people being or not being LGBTQ, all terms broadly construed", I'm happy to, if that addresses your "mirror" concern. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to expanding the TBAN, other than to nitpick that the scope of the topic is "gender-related disputes and controversies", not "gender and sexuality". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: It probably would be good to broaden GENSEX to actually be GENSEX, and I've thought about taking that to ARCA once ARBTRANS resolves, although in either case, any culture-war-ish LGB-related matters still fall under gender-related disputes and controversies broadly construed. There are cases where the incomplete coverage of LGB topics would be an issue (say, someone who edits tendentiously about statistics on some undesirable attribute among gay men), but none relevant in this case I don't think. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

In view of BZPN's repeated statements that they have not edited LGBT content, I suggest that the appeal not be granted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that here, he claimed to be one of 1.4 billion members of a religion, and here he added a Jewish userbox. My ability to AGF is ebbing quickly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

I've said as much elsewhere today but I honestly think Tamzin's action was, if anything, too lenient. BZPN does very little but stir up drama regarding their personal beliefs about LGBTQ+ people. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by BZPN

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 GoodDay

BZPN, recommend you withdraw your appeal & accept your t-ban. Move on to other areas of the project. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BZPN's recent comment at WP:AN, suggests retirement. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 3)

Result of the appeal by BZPN

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

I don't see any issues with Tamzin's action here as an uninvolved admin trying to reduce disruption in a CTOP. As xe explained above and on the related AN thread, it's clear the OP can't separate their bias from normal Wikipedia editing. That, plus the battleground behavior, makes this a good TBAN (maybe even too lenient a sanction). Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 11:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the OP's comment on Tamzin's talk page, the topic ban seems somewhere between reasonable to very lenient --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is where GENSEX covering sexuality explicitly would be useful -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To enforce the 500-word limit, I have collapsed BZPN's replies. — Newslinger talk 13:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline appeal. The restriction is reasonable; if anything, it's too limited. $Salvio giuliano$ 13:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, I support extending the topic ban to the entirety of the gender and sexuality contentious topic. $Salvio giuliano$ 14:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BZPN received a contentious topic alert for the gender and sexuality topic area at 18:32, 24 June 2025, so Tamzin's application of the current topic ban is procedurally sound. In the sanction notice, Tamzin stated that BZPN has "been sanctioned for tendentious editing on content matters, as seen in this AN thread, that furthers your history of disruptive on-wiki activism on this topic (MfD 1, MfD 2, declined U4C case)".
After reviewing the listed discussions, I see that BZPN's claim "This is my first edit involving LGBTQ-related content, with no prior history of contentious editing in this subject area" is incorrect in light of their prior creation of the now-deleted page User:BZPN/LGBT, which was speedily deleted in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BZPN/LGBT per the snowball clause after many participants described the page as "divisive" and "inflammatory". Similarly, BZPN's U4C case request, in which BZPN appealed their ban from the Wikimedia Community Discord server for the use of anti-LGBT rhetoric, was unanimously declined by the U4C; one of the U4C members stated: "BZPN appears to have violated point 3 of section 2.1 – Mutual respect, which states: Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves."
The above shows that BZPN has a history of disruptive behavior concerning LGBT-related topics on the English Wikipedia and in other Wikimedia-related communities. Now, BZPN has filed a conduct report at WP:AN § Censorship of valid edit on Heterophobia section arguing that another editor is engaging in "censorship" for reverting BZPN's edit Special:Diff/1317194168, in which BZPN removed content from the Homophobia article. BZPN's accusation matches the description of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing § Accusing others of censorship, and when combined with the remainder of BZPN's behavior, justifies the topic ban imposed by Tamzin. I also believe that the topic ban is too lenient, and should be expanded to the entirety of the gender and sexuality contentious topic. — Newslinger talk 14:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline the appeal, and for the record there is a siteban proposal at AN. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 17:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does a clerk need to remove the out-of-section and over-word-limit comment that BZPN added to SarekOfVulcan's section? Or can any admin do it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any admin can, but the thread can also be closed by any admin if they read a rough consensus -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "the management and maintenance of order at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement has traditionally been left to the administrators active there" per the clerk procedures. A consensus close will have to wait until the request has been up for 24 hours per WP:ARBPROC#Noticeboard outcomes. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 01:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved the comment. — Newslinger talk 05:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

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