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.

Shortcuts WP:ARCWP:ARC WP:A/R/CWP:A/R/C About this page Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. File an arbitration request 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-llists.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 This page is for statements, not discussion. Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning. Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page. Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse. Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Clear consensus that "enforced BRD" is not going to be renamed; however, the community or clerks are free to change the explanations of these concepts (and locations thereof) however they think might add clarity (short of editing ARBPROC). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initiated by WhatamIdoing at 21:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Case or decision affected Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Standard set Clauses to which an amendment is requested WP:STANDARDSET List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) Information about amendment request WP:STANDARDSET Stop using the words "Enforced BRD" to describe a process that is not WP:BRD. Statement by WhatamIdoing WhatamIdoing's statement contains 965 words and exceeds the 500-word limit. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle begins like this: The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of many optional strategies that editors may use to seek consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. Earlier today, a newer editor put this tag on the page: This page documents an Arbitration Committe restriction. It describes a hard rule that the arbitration committee can put in place. This is because ArbCom has adopted the misleading name "Enforced BRD" for a mandatory procedure that has nothing to do with actual WP:BRD beyond the superficial appearance of "If you got reverted, then discuss". We're putting misleading messages on talk pages, like this one: Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this page: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. and then when someone actually tries to read the bold-faced linked page for more information, they're told that it's optional (emphasis in the original) in the very first sentence. We need a new name for this restriction. We need to stop sending people off to a page that emphasizes that this is an optional process that is "best used by experienced Wikipedia editors" and may require more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure and that Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged. Would ArbCom prefer to choose a non-misleading name, or would they prefer that I start an RFC to have the community rename it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] @theleekycauldron, here's a side-by-side comparison for you. I think you'll see that the similarities are mostly in the name, rather than in the substance. Differences Original BRD Enforced BRD 1 Optional? Y Yes N No 2 Defined scope? Y Yes: Undiscussed edits meant to solve a significant problem N No: Reversion of or objection to any edit 3 Requires WP:BOLD edit? Y Yes N No 4 Revert required? Y Yes Y/N Not technically, but it's typical 5 Reverter required to have substantive objections? Y Yes, or BRD doesn't work N No 6 Penalty for re-reverting? N No, but if you re-revert, you've switched to a non-BRD tactic Y Yes 7 Reverted editor required to start the discussion? N No: "The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." Y Yes 8 Discussion target? Y Yes: "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted it" and "Talk with one or at most two partners at once" (not everyone) N No 9 Replies needed? Y Yes N No 10 Discussion time limit? N None Y Yes: Minimum 24 hours 11 Enforcement process? N None Y Yes: at WP:AE 12 Applies to everyone? N No: "BRD is best used by experienced Wikipedia editors" Y All editors 13 Good for CTOPs? N No: "Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged." Y Yes, sole use 14 Requires skill? Y Yes: "It may require more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods" N No 15 Depends on cooperation from others? Y Yes: "BRD only works when both bold and reverting editors follow the process." N No: No response within 24 hours means you can re-revert (unlike the Consensus required restriction). 16 Edit warring banned Y Yes Y Yes 17 Compatible with WP:EPTALK? Y Yes Y Yes 18 Discretion to choose alternatives? Y Yes: Editors are encouraged to use different approaches in different situations Y/N Not allowed as a substitute, but additional approaches can be added on top WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Izno, this should answer your question as well. ArbCom isn't requiring BRD. They are requiring something different that just unfortunately happens to have a very similar name. It would be like merging Java (programming language) and JavaScript: same name, and you can do similar things with them, but they are not the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] No, we're not. We're requiring some editors to follow a process that is optional for everyone else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] @HJ Mitchell, are you really? Or are you thinking that you're requiring editors to follow a process that isn't the one actually described in WP:BRD? Look at the table above and tell me why you think that those two columns represent the same thing. I listed 18 points of comparison, and they match on less than 20%. Imagine this from the POV of a newer editor. They're told to follow Wikipedia:Enforced BRD, but they're given a link to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The first thing they read there is that it's optional, but they've been told that it's required. That's not the same, but fine, because sometimes rules are applied more stringently. Then they read in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#General overview that it's for "editing a particular page that many editors are discussing with little to no progress being made, or when an editor's concerns are not addressed on the talk page after a reasonable amount of effort" – and all they did was fix the grammar in one sentence. That's not the same, and applying a dispute-resolution process to a small grammar fix doesn't seem sensible. Then they read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Use cases that BRD is best used by experienced Wikipedia editors. It may require more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged. That's not the same, and that makes no sense at all. The process that actually matches the Wikipedia:Enforced BRD process is found in WP:EPTALK. It is not found at BRD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Izno, mw:Naming things is hard, but if you want options, then consider these: WP:24HOURTALK WP:Enforced EPTALK WP:Mandatory discussion WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by The Bushranger ...I'm not sure I see the problem being described here. BRD is optional. The arbitration enforcement remedy makes it non-optional. (Also, WAID, I know it wasn't your intent, but the wording of that last sentence really kinda comes across as an ultimatum to Arbcom, you may want to consider rewording it.) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by voorts @Izno: done. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] @asilvering: I didn't even notice that section before adding my endnote, which should probably be removed given that section. This is an even bigger nothingburger than I thought. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] I like Newslinger's idea. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Newslinger One solution would be to create a standalone Wikipedia:Enforced BRD page (similar to Wikipedia:Consensus required) that WP:STANDARDSET links to instead of WP:BRD. Much of the content on WP:BRD is not relevant to contentious topic procedures, so this would at least partially address WhatamIdoing's suggestion to decouple WP:STANDARDSET from the WP:BRD page. The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle § Enforced BRD for contentious topics section could then be deleted and replaced with a "See also" link and a hatnote link to Wikipedia:Enforced BRD. This way, the contents of WP:BRD would no longer be a concern for the Committee in this context. — Newslinger talk 02:03, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Aquillion I do think it's a bit silly to highlight the "best used by experienced Wikipedia editors" and may require more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure and that Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged parts in this discussion. The intent of them is obviously to warn people to be cautious about the WP:BOLD and WP:REVERT parts of BRD, not to warn people that it is dangerous to try and discuss things; and enforced BRD is obviously requiring the latter (and placing restrictions on reverts), it's not requiring people to make bold edits or to revert anything. --Aquillion (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Bluethricecreamman Why not just do the bold edit and create a draft for WP:ENFORCEDBRD? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:26, 31 March 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. WP:STANDARDSET: Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). WP:STANDARDSET: Arbitrator views and discussion Sorry, WAID, I'm not understanding. Is there a difference between the process "enforced BRD" imposes and the process people respect when they choose to follow "normal BRD"? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Also, as I understand it, CONEXEMPT prevents editors from changing the names of ArbCom decisions via RfC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Reading WAID's table: 1, 6, 11, 12, and 18 are the same objection and are inherent in the word "enforced". 2, 3, and 10 assume that enforced BRD would apply to edits where the challenge to the edit is dropped or overridden by consensus, which I would hesitate on. 4 is factually incorrect, enforced BRD says "challenged by reversion", same as normal. 5 is editorialization, there's no reason that enforced BRD should require a revert edit summary because that would be terribly bureaucratic, it's already a pretty widely-enforced norm (and if someone reverts you without explanation in the normal course of things, it's probably still not a terrible idea to go to talk even if not "required"). The quote in 7 is specifically for the scenario in which a reverted edit is boldly reinstated, at which point BRD has already been broken (and a violation of enforced BRD has occurred). 8: Who else would you be discussing your edit with? BRD requires it to be a talk page message. I think the only reason it doesn't require specifically discussing with the reverting editor is (1) that person may not respond and (2) consensus may form for your edit independently. 9 and 15: If you make an edit, get reverted, go to talk, and no one replies, you're good in both contexts. Neither "requires" response. (What would the reverting editor do there, other than discuss?) 13: "CTOP" ≠ "volatile situation", the paragraph in BRD right before "volatile situation" lists several situations one would totally expect to come up in a CTOP. I read "volatile situation" to mean "you shouldn't be BOLDly making edits here in the first place", a situation in which enforced BRD is probably not the right tool to use. 14: It may. Do you expect enforced BRD to only apply to editors with "diplomacy and skill"? I don't see these processes as substantially different. To the extent there are differences here, I see them as inherent to the idea that enforced BRD is enforced. It is also still meant to encourage discussion after a revert. If we want to make a link/page specifically pointing to enforced BRD to explain it, I'm happy to do that. But CaptainEek is right – find an editor who was actually puzzled by the fact that enforced BRD is like but optional BRD but enforced, or this is a solution in search of a problem. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Why can the community, or whomever, not simply update WP:BRD to describe that sometimes it's not optional, pointing to where and when it might not be? Izno (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] To be honest WAID, I think you're being very picky. But if you actually want to see change here, please make some suggestions that are pithy enough to be referenced easily. Izno (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Please don't start an RfC. That would be a waste of everyone's time. As is this request. Lots of things are optional, and ArbCom can make them mandatory for a given editor in a remedy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] I don't see anyone else having this issue...? Some text was added to BRD about how "enforced BRD" is nothing at all like BRD. I found that strange and confusing, so I went to look at the page history, and found that it's a relatively recent change by... WAID. There appears to be no ongoing dispute or confusion except that introduced by the filer. Newslinger, voorts, it looks like you both have been involved in tinkering with that wording. Would you say this is a current consensus version? Is this actually something that is confusing multiple people? -- asilvering (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Ah, I misread a diff, it goes back further than I thought (but still ultimately to WAID, in April 2025). So it does have something of a silent consensus. But it appears to me that one could solve this simply by editing the BRD page so that confusion that it's something different could be resolved. -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] @WhatamIdoing, you've blown way past your word limit. I've reverted your last two additions to the page. You may not post any further without obtaining an extension. -- asilvering (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] I support Newslinger's idea of creating WP:Enforced BRD to explain this particular species of BRD. Perhaps a clerk feels up to it? I'm happy to help in any way I can :) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] If there is confusion, I guess the notice could instead point at Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Enforced_BRD_for_contentious_topics rather than just the top of [WP:BRD. But I think this is a solution in search of a problem. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] I don't see a reason to change anything. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Are there examples of anyone being confused by this? If so, the solution seems to be to clarify at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle that it's typically optional except for some special circumstances such as WP:STANDARDSET. This doesn't seem to be something that needs amendment here, however. - Aoidh (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Extraordinary Writ at 00:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Iranian politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

WhatamIdoing recently pointed out the remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics#RfC moderation. My understanding is that it just encouraged admins to take advantage of the old discretionary-sanctions power to take any "reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project", a power that individual admins no longer have after the WP:CTOP reforms. But it's not especially clear, so I'd appreciate clarification of whether individual admins are currently authorized to impose RfC moratoria. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think IRANPOL needs special tools going beyond what's available in other (much more contentious) areas, and I don't think that was the intention behind this remedy. Maybe a more interesting question is whether to add some of these to the standard set, but although that might have some benefits (e.g., there have been lots of calls for an RfC moratorium at Talk:Gaza genocide), a moratorium is a sufficiently content-adjacent issue that I strongly prefer the status quo of requiring a rough consensus at AE to make sure it's being done prudently. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was, at one point, an administrator active in enforcing what was then the post-1978 Iranian politics GS regime. The remedy as written was necessary at the time: RfCs full of stonewalling and bludgeoning were all too frequent. I am not aware of that pattern persisting, in part because of the arb case, and in larger part (in my estimation) because of various anti-abuse investigations removing some of the worst actors. I think the CTOP authorization of "reasonable measures" ought to take care of any needs we presently have. If an admin more recently active in IRANPOL wishes to correct me they should do so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I'd say they are, since this motion wasn't changed. But we should probably formally state that with a motion? -- asilvering (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This motion was likely missed. Izno (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The wikilink refers to the IRP DS/CT regime, but the text also says its intention is to facilitate consensus through moderation of any Requests for Comments (emphasis mine). I assume the intention is to affect any RFC related to IRP, but that's another thing that ought to be clarified by motion.

  Rather than debate what the status quo is, I think we should figure out what this remedy should say. I would favor terminating the remedy entirely: If this question hasn't come up in the last ~three years, since DS became CT, it probably isn't needed to reduce disruption. If there is not support for that, I can get behind a motion rewriting the remedy for 2026 Wikipedia. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:56, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It may be more useful now than it's been in the last three years, though, for obvious current politics reasons, and it's possible no one's been using it because no one realized they could. Extraordinary Writ, or anyone else handling Iranpol, any comments on whether this is currently necessary or desirable? -- asilvering (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the current politics reasons are strong reasons to not shut down the consensus-forming process, given how quickly the real life landscape can change. I also agree with Extraordinary Writ and Izno. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My read of the PD is that this remedy was intended to be applied to all discretionary sanctions regimes (at least one participant thought so). That intent is slightly confused by the prominent link in this specific remedy to the specific DS designation for IRANPOL.

  I do think it is more useful to focus on what to do with the remedy today. In that regard, WP:CT names no other specific "reasonable measures". This measure would be the first if we were to add it to the procedures.

  Two of the items in this remedy are present now in WP:STANDARDSET: topic bans (i.e. "bans on editors who have disrupted consensus-finding from participation in a particular RfC") and word limits (i.e. "word and/or diff limits on all RfC participants"), which leaves "sectioned commenting rules in RfCs" and "moratoria". "Moratoria" feels like it should require the AE consensus (or ARB consensus). Sectioned commenting rules also seems like it fits into "reasonable measures". So, here are some options?:

  1. add the two remaining items explicitly as examples of "reasonable measures" for AE consensus to ARBPRO,
  2. don't do that explicitly, leave the remedy alone
  3. don't do that explicitly, reword the remedy (DS -> CT, possibly clerkily)
  4. don't do that explicitly, remove the remedy (for any of a few reasons)

  I think either of 3 or 4 are the minimum, 1 is for if we think we want to start a list in ARBPRO about stuff a consensus can do but not an individual admin. I think I tend toward 4 also. Izno (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless an admin working in the topic area shows up soonish with a good reason not to go with 4, that seems simplest and best. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with EW's I strongly prefer the status quo of requiring a rough consensus at AE to make sure it's being done prudently. My only question is whether this is subsequently worth clarifying (it probably is, just to remove the mention of DS if nothing else). Izno (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

Support:

1. Per my comment above. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:21, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per mine above. Izno (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. asilvering (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Daniel (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Aoidh (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
9. As I understand it, these actions can be taken by a consensus of admins at AE these days, in which case I can see the benefit of removing bespoke authorisation from one topic area for housekeeping. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I am failing to see the case to remove this. Especially now, when Iran is suddenly one of the worlds foremost concerns. I supported this remedy at the time, and the goal of encouraging admins to cut down on nonsense remains. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I may get involved later on this one, but I don't wanna hold y'all up in the meantime :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Shortcuts WP:ARMWP:ARM WP:ARBMWP:ARBM This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (arbitrators only) All editors are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension on this page below (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended comments or submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

There is some debate among Committee members about when ArbCom should hear appeals from editors who are blocked based on evidence from the conflict of interest VRT queue. The three options I've thought of are given below, but I am open to other ideas! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by automatic template check

Motion implementation notes

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Passing	Support needed	Notes
ArbCom hears all appeals (live motion)	3	1	0		4
ArbCom hears appeals if COIVRTers believe that it would be better for ArbCom to hear the appeal (live motion)	6	0	0		1

Notes

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Support

1. Distant second choice. I agree with asilvering that this can be handled more transparently onwiki, and I think the safeguard allowing COIVRT members to refer an appeal to us is sufficient. That being said, I think the only thing worse than hearing every appeal behind closed doors is doing so while also arguing about the proper venue for the appeal. Therefore, I support this as a second choice. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Minor preference to the other. Izno (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice to the other. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I don't think sending these appeals through arbcom by default is a good use of anyone's time, including the blocked editor's time. -- asilvering (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Support

1. First choice. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for UPE (while, of course, respecting OUTING), and this will make it easier to appeal such blocks by widening the pool of people who routinely hear them. It is also much more efficient—only one COIVRTer would need to investigate an appeal, but ArbCom needs to corral a majority to act. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think the lightweight process of regular unblocks is best. Any unblocks patroller who notices one of these unblocks has gone too long without response can summon someone of the relevant perms with {{checkuser needed}}. asilvering (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Asilvering the right permissions yes, but not necessarily the right group - that's why we have the separate queue now. I don't think that's a good reason at all for having it on a talk page. Izno (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3. Minor not-preference to the other. Izno (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice. Good enough, but I'm still not fully happy with foisting this onto to people who didn't sign up to review COIVRT blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

• Given this has been open for a week and we've got some great feedback (thank you to everyone who responded!), I've proposed the two options which appear to have non-zero amounts of support by arbitrators: either ArbCom hears all COIVRT appeals or ArbCom hears them when COIVRTers disagree on the interpretation of evidence or refer it to ArbCom for review. If someone supports one of the other draft motions, feel free to propose that for voting :) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How many COIVRT appeals has ArbCom gotten in the year or so since Template:Uw-upeblock was updated? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the work of Izno, we got 14 COIVRT appeals, out of 94 total appeals received. (But most of those appeals are summarily told to appeal on-wiki because their block is out of scope.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster Does "most of those appeals" refer to most of the COIVRT appeals, most of fthe total appeals, or both? Toadspike [Talk] 00:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should've been more clear. Most of the 94 total appeals are out of scope. Most of the COIVRT appeals were heard on the merits (though occasionally we have given non-binding advice to the appellant that they might get a faster response if they appeal onwiki). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is point f intended to expand Arbcom's power over blocks/bans? Or is it just intended to make what already happens more explicitly written down? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC) Dumb question. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Point f is in the current procedures. Izno (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What ArbCom decides to do is the boring part – the actual power is described at WP:ARBPOL § Scope and responsibilities, footnotes and links omitted:

The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:

1. To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
2. To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
3. To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools;
4. To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;
5. To approve and remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools and (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee.

So 45dogs, I'm not sure what you mean by "expand"ing ArbCom's power over (reviewing) blocks/bans. That power is already unlimited since at least 2011. A fraction of it is in use. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the status quo— which is basically number one— probably needs to stay. COIVRT blocks by nature involve evidence that cannot be easily talked about publicly, if it all. If someone is being blocked for evidence that was sent to COIVRT but is otherwise public, then the block shouldn’t be marked as a COIVRT block. This isn’t like CU block appeals, which rarely involve delving into non-public technicals; most COIVRT blocks involve some sort of OUTING element or otherwise have a lot of surrounding BEANS context. There’s no real good way to otherwise handle such private evidence outside of Arbcom; unless we get a separate mailing list for COIVRT appeals, one would have to privately talk to an individual COI agent if they wanted to discuss non-public evidence. This can be, and has been, problematic— it lacks transparency and peer input, and can lead to situations where important clarifications on evidence are lost if the involved functionary isn’t around anymore or diverges from the views of other functionaries in a problematic way. There was an incident not too long ago where a functionary publicly warned an editor for COI editing based on a COI ticket; that editor privately talked the warning down with the functionary, and the functionary later left the project. The COI got called into question again, and ended up being unresolved, as no one else had access to the private discussion. There’s some other BEANS reasons for why I don’t think devolving is a good idea, which I think some Arbcom members can figure out… unfortunately, I think this is one of those things that AC will have to handle. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

unless we get a separate mailing list for COIVRT appeals – definitely spitballing here, but maybe there's a place for just having people appeal to paid-en-wp as a new ticket? For all VRT's faults, it does at least check a lot of the boxes you mention (privacy, a permanent archive, the possibility of peer review). I suppose it would need a backstop like "if you don't get a response in 30 days, you can go straight to ArbCom". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees, I'm surprised to hear you say this, since I've responded to on-wiki unblock requests for your COIVRT or COIVRT/SPI blocks and I'm sure you must have done at least one of mine, and I don't think we had much of a problem. In the event that there is an issue, we've always got the "unsuitable for public discussion" bit handy and can refer unblock requests to arbcom. Personally I prefer HB's #2 option, though I'd change the line to "where members with access to the queue disagree on the interpretation of that evidence or believe the request would be better handled at arbcom" to make that explicit. -- asilvering (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering That is a good point; looking over my UPE blocks, more are for socks of already banned masters than I initially realized. I was more worried about how this would go for more established editors who end up getting blocked (thinking about cases like User:PaulPachad, User:MaskedSinger, User:Jamiebuba and such), and how a case like that might put undue pressure on a VRT agent, but I think your provision would help prevent that from happening. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed, one of those three now has an arbcom block and can't be handled by COIVRT anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PP done by ToBeFree; request to strike non-EC comments not done by Sennecaster. Arcticocean ■ 09:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Talk:2026 Iran conflict (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Requested action: Multiple non-extended-confirmed users are violating the restriction in place on discussing this topic (Arab–Israeli conflict related). Namely, User:RealFactChecker101, who has 35 edits, was already warned three times of the contentious topic on their talk page, and continued to violate the restriction thereafter. User:Editorofwiki9998 has 68 edits, and has also been actively participating in discussions in violation of the restriction; I've just warned them of the contentious topic prior to making this request. Requesting that comments made by non-extended-confirmed users be marked or striked. 9ninety (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC) Note: updated link following page move 13:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] User:Wirmaple73 with 54 edits is also violating WP:ARBECR on this talk page, despite having previously been warned and even blocked for the same thing a month ago. 9ninety (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] @9ninety  Done - ToBeFree has ECP'd the page for a month, and it looks like all the ones have either been removed, struck, or blocked on the current RM. Considering the pace of requests and discussion, trying to strike every last non-extended-confirmed comment is going to be counterproductive. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Permission removed. Arcticocean ■ 15:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User talk:Tzedekha (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Requested action: Permission gaming. See their talk. 🐈Cinaroot  💬 09:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Also, see this plot and the revisions => select 'any ECR page (ECR Except PIA)' to see Gaza war related edits shortly after acquiring the EC grant. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]  Done - permission removed. Arcticocean ■ 10:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This closure request is out of scope for arbitration enforcement, but would be welcome at Wikipedia:Closure requests. — Newslinger talk 17:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gaza Genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Snow Close: WP:PIA area RM. Vast majority of responses are snow close, there is nothing fundamentally changed. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] (Non-administrator comment) I don't think this is within the scope of a quick enforcement request, @Bluethricecreamman. As far as I know, requested moves aren't closed as an AE action (unless they were started by a non-extended confirmed editor or something). Maybe you should make a closure request. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] its in the conflict area on the most contentious page in all of wikipedia, so i thought it would be appropriate here, as I suspect only an uninvolved admin can do a snow close this early. There have been editors sanctioned in WP:PIA5 for attempting to do their own snow-close instead of notifying an admin, i think, on that article no-less. thought it best to post here, but I'll make a closure request if this was an inappropriate quick enforcement request. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Bluethricecreamman is absolutely correct. إيان (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi Bluethricecreamman, arbitration enforcement is strictly limited to conduct-related matters, and this matter does not appear to involve misconduct, so I have to close your request as out of scope. I recommend submitting a standard closure request, as Chess enjoyer advised. — Newslinger talk 17:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No longer on MP Valereee (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2026 Kabul hospital airstrike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Page protection: This is an article currently displayed on the main page about a hospital being airstriked leading to mass civilian casualties, and it's part of a conflict taking place in a region designated as a contentious topic area (WP:CT/SA). If this isn't high risk I'm not sure what is. ―Maltazarian (talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate) 09:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] I've got it watchlisted but it actually seems to be fine at the moment. We can always revisit this if there are serious issues. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Sounds good, as long as someone is monitoring it. ―Maltazarian (talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate) 10:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Maltazarian, if you believe there are urgent issues that haven't been seen, you can also take them to WP:ANI for help. Valereee (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm aware, but my request was not a response to any urgent issue; it was meant as a heads up. ―Maltazarian (talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate) 22:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 1 week by Asilvering. Miniapolis 22:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Najibuddaulah1752 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Requested action: A longer block than 31 hours. Fresh off a 31-hour AE block for an ECR violation, the editor mass-reverted my careful, NPOV copyedit of Sikh attacks on Delhi with nonsensical (or no) edit summaries. Miniapolis 19:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Permission revoked as a normal administrative action (as it is not in the WP:STANDARDSET). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Raigar-RST (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Requestion action: User made a rapid number of small edits adding links before immediately editing the caste group Regar. EC needs to be revoked. 1brianm7 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yup. This plot makes it really obvious. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] EC removed. – robertsky (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by appellant per last reply. Left guide (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2026 Iranian supreme leader election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Requestion action: @Robertsky:, I saw that you extended-protected the 2026 Iranian supreme leader election article. Can you please change that to semi-protected status as its pageviews and edit number has significantly dropped. Similar to 2020 United States presidential election, 2016 United States presidential election etc. RexFaux (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] @RexFaux pageviews and edit counts are not factors for arbitration enforcement actions. what other reason(s) do you have? – robertsky (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] I would argue the other way around. What are the reasons for this page being extended-protected now? I understand during the election week, it was getting massively edited and gained much attention worldwide but that's not the case now. The articles of all candidates of in the election, apart from the winner Mojtaba Khamenei, are either not protected or semi-protected but none is protected. Also, this election is not directly a contentious topic anymore so why is it even even enforced under arbitration? All other Iran-related elections such as 1989 Iranian supreme leader election, 1989 Iranian presidential election, 2024 Iranian presidential election, 2024 Iranian Assembly of Experts election or any other election is not extended-protected so this shouldn't be too for consistency. RexFaux (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Tell me, where do you see edit counts and page views as factors to consider are at on WP:CT/IRP, and since the impact of the Iran War on the election is now more apparent, WP:CT/A-I as well? Each page are evaluated independently of each other, and are protected only after being requested. We don't go hunting down every related page to protect them as it would be too time consuming and counterproductive to do so, hence the mishmash of protection across the project. Six months of protection was what I determined as sufficient then, and still given the recency of the election and the relation to the Iran war. I am open if any other admin thinks otherwise. In the meantime, the talk page is open for your suggestions to improve the article. – robertsky (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] Alright, thanks for replying. I take my request back. RexFaux (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SerChevalerie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rejoy2003 (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 enforcement log#User sanctions (CT/SA)

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

1. 17 March 2026 Added "Citizenship: Indian (from 1961)" on Premanand Lotlikar, in direct violation of their sanction to not add "Indian and/or Portuguese nationality designations". Note that this is WP:OR.
2. 18 March 2026 Same behaviour on M. Boyer
3. 16 March 2026 Same behaviour on Maestro Josinho
4. 15 March 2026 Same behaviour on Krishna Moyo
5. 11 March 2026 Added info on Portuguese citizenship at JoeGoaUk

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Special:Diff/1326739812 User has an active sanction against them

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict at Special:Diff/1326739812 by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User has been warned multiple times of this behaviour. I was hoping that this would stop after the sanctions, but this has unfortunately continued. I am also concerned about WP:BLP issues at JoeGoaUk, previously discussed at Talk:JoeGoaUk/Archive 1.

I understand that the timing of this may seem so but this is an issue that I have previously brought up with the user multiple times on each respective page, to which they have never responded positively. I had hoped that this behaviour would improve after the sanctions but here we are, and my main concern here is the WP:OR. Rest assured, I am here to build an encyclopedia and do not intend any further action against the user if they keep away from the nationality/citizenship edits in this topic area as suggested. I would be even happier if they simply understand where they are going wrong and maybe even get the sanctions reverted. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC) Please comment in your own section. Valereee (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, @Black Kite and @Rosguill, I do not wish for an IBAN since we are both active editors of WP:GOA, which is already very small. As stated above, I am willing to settle my differences with the user. As previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Constantly_being_stalked_by_User:SerChevalerie, this was not the user's first attempt at getting me banned, and we were both told that we cannot get the other editor banned from the WikiProject. However, I am willing to offer an olive branch here to continue our respective work in this small topic area. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering, my olive branch is simple: I am tired of every edit of mine being assumed to be in bad faith, leading to a retaliation and another forum complaint. @Rejoy2003 and I are both interested in a topic area and all I ask is that they are willing to accept that we both are here to build an encyclopedia and follow what advice has been given to them by not just me but others (on this AE thread and the above linked ANI thread). Why the WP:COI complaints were a shock to me is because both of us were actively editing pages like that of Frederick Noronha, our mentor in this common Wikipedia user group, before one-sided evidence was submitted that only I have the COI. As was pointed out at ANI, we are the only two editors on the project, but not every disagreement must lead to an escalation, and I am willing to coordinate on the Talk page of every such article in case of a disagreement. From my end I have always maintained that they have contributed in the creation of a large number of pages on Wikipedia and am willing to hear them out about their concerns with my editing and work upon those. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rejoy2003, I am now presenting an olive branch: I definitely do not want either of us to get blocked, and I am willing to fix my past problematic behaviour. I made my comments because getting another editor from the project banned is acting in bad faith, but I'm willing to move past this. Thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering, I am at my word limit here. May I request for a word limit increase? SerChevalerie (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline:

1. Special:Diff/1341061618: I clean up Viresh Borkar, who is in the news

2. Special:Diff/1341073352: User retaliates, removing sourced content on Gerald Pereira with no explanation. I then restore content; I have since declared my COI here.

3. Special:Diff/1341487738: User files WP:ARC against me (rejected)

4. User files COIVRT against me; I am now unblocked.

When the both of us are part of WP:GOA, which Viresh Borkar comes under, why did the user choose to escalate? This felt like getting me banned in bad faith, out of retaliation. (I reiterate: I am willing to let this go.) SerChevalerie (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting another 50 words. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted, @Valereee and @Vanamonde93. I care more about the project, and agree to stay away from their edits, as suggested instead of IBAN. Request that @Rejoy2003 reconsider; we may disagree but we both care about the project, deeply so. Also, happy with their positive behaviour here wrt TBAN. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting 25 words to understand how 2-way IBAN works. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think either of us understands how many pages this restricts us from editing. How is this calculated? Enforced? "Come back together", how, if we can't interact? Also, can I still use Wikipedia Library? SerChevalerie (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can I appeal for a logged warning for us both, instead of the IBAN? We're both not WP:DE. Obviously ok with a ban if this escalates, which I promise it won't. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1344250631

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.

The sanction was placed because I advocated for Portuguese nationality at BD in its lead section. And the sanction explicitly states "from Indian and/or Portuguese nationality designations". Emphasis should be made on "Nationality designations". The OP has plainly manipulated with the above examples wherein I simply stated the obvious there which was "citizenship" of the subject's country of birth as can be seen at Premanand Lotlikar and in no means advocated for pushed for Portuguese nationality which was a violation of WP:OR, which I completely understand now.Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 10:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Black Kite I am a little confused. I had pushed for Portuguese nationality on Goans born and dead before 1961 it was deemed as textbook OR, which I was completely unaware of. But how can we ignore when multiple reliable sources for example Lotlikar literally say he is "Indian". I haven't added anything new from my side, it was simply in coordination with Indian nationality law which states Goans were designated as Indians as soon as the annexation took place in 1961. Or is it still WP:OR despite not advocating for other nationalities here? Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 11:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Black Kite I agree with you, if source says Indian he is Indian. I didn't do these edits in bad faith, if you were to ask why what's the motive for it? I merely used the same reference to Mahatma Gandhi. Now I know the "nationality" parameters have been depreciated if I am not wrong it must be after my sanction was placed last year in December. If you had seen on Gandhi's article it said in the citizenship parameter British Raj (until 1947), Dominion of India (from 1947). Now how sure are we that there were references that actually said that? because the last time I checked it was unreferenced. And the topic ban was made mainly because I pushed for Portuguese nationality confused about how WP:OR works around these corners. And I would be happy to learn more because I have more questions regarding nationality and Goans. I know I should had atleast asked an admin before adding the years but I am willing to fix this problem. I tried to appeal before but still had questions with how these nationalities work on Wikipedia [1], but unfortunately this editor didn't wanted to answer more of my questions. Until later when I was busy in this [2] to which this Arb request was filed in the first place as a reaction. I am open to learning more on these nationality and citizenship issues and editing constructively, perhaps you could help me with this?Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 12:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Black Kite I want to learn more about this to be really honest as many of my questions have been unanswered. But at this point, like you have said I think I should clearly stay away from any aspects of nationality and citizenship areas and I would like to do that so. Speaking about SerChevalerie, as many of us are aware this is a retributive filing taken as a revenge to which the filler was blocked. I completely disagree to the statements made by them. FN did NOT serve as my mentor nor have I ever met this person in real life nor do I know much about him, in contrast to SC, WP:COIVRT is aware. The same goes with SerChevalerie, I never met this person as well. The Wikipedians Goa User Group they are talking about is a whatsapp group I was part of something along the lines of "Wikipedians of Goa". I never met anyone from there nor do I know anyone personally. Well SC statements above may seem "peaceful", I rather believe it is to save face for a re-block. I would like to mention he has advocated to kick me out of WP:GOA also showing WP:OWN behavior as evident here [3] where he stated I have "acted in bad faith against other editors." The same can be seen here where he passed personal attacks on me [4] stating "I cannot be trusted and actually been working against the interests of our group". He then retracted his statements later [5]. SerChevalerie passing such statements within hours of getting unblocked clearly seems like for revenge against me. I find this actions to be deeply disturbing when I have given my heart and soul to WP:GOA. I just cant let such personal attacks slide.Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:21, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  GP is on my watchlist. I edit fast and across many Goan articles and tend not to leave edit summaries usually, I did here [6] [7]. I find the same article to be inflated and pushed everywhere obviously because of SC's COI and have evidence for it if anyone needs. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Two-way iban, me okay. Reoccurring problem. Can't let this pass [8]. Stalking remarks? Willing to share report to @Asilvering who started. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 17:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanamonde93 I am looking for a one-way iban, given their past circumstances. Willing to carry the can for a two-way for Goa. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 07:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand which part of @Vanamonde93 comment have they not understood regarding IBAN. You can't edit articles where the other editor is a major contributor, and as stated in WP:IBAN Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 10:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, that appears to be a very obvious breach of the sanction imposed. I'd be interested to see the rationale for it. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Rejoy2003 There are a number of issues here. Firstly, your sanction was "broadly construed" and I am sure that most people would agree that this would include citizenship designations. Secondly, part of the issue for which you were sanctioned was adding this material without any sources, and I see this is still happening in some of these cases. Thirdly, I'm looking at the example Premanand Lotlikar who was 7 years old when India invaded Goa. I think we'd need a source to say he immediately became an Indian citizen at this precise moment? Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• If multiple reliable sources say that Lotlikar has Indian citizenship then it shouldn't be difficult to add them. But the main issue here is that you shouldn't be messing with these descriptors, that was the whole point of the topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Rejoy2003 I think you just need to agree to stay away from nationality/citizenship edits in this topic area. This does not bar you from other edits about Goa and its people. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• This is very clearly a retributive filing and I am contemplating reblocking the filer. We may need to set a two-way iban here. -- asilvering (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed it is, but it is not without merit. I have suggested to Rejoy2003 above that they just need to keep away from the area and we'll be good. Pinging Rosguill as the admin that performed the original topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This looks like a clear topic ban violation to me. I don't immediately see the basis for calling the filing retributive, asilvering, Black Kite, what's leading you to that conclusion? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I am assuming it is because of this edit which led to the filer's COI block. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, thanks. I think particularly the exchange of 1, 2, followed by this filing is pretty clear-cut retaliation, although Rejoy2003's response vis-a-vis the COI concern also seems excessively rude, so I feel a bit more sympathetic to SerChevalerie given the circumstances. If there is an IBAN to be imposed, two-way does seem appropriate. Beyond that, Rejoy2003's argument that citizenship is somehow distinct from nationality falls flat--while they're not synonymous, they are definitely related, and thus covered by the topic ban's broadly construed provision. Taken together with their recent attempt to appeal their sanction to me, which quickly devolved into wikilawyering and failing to get the point, I'm left favoring a block and/or a broadening of the sanction, as the current scope is clearly not sufficient for addressing disruption related to nationality. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Diff 2 is the same as 1, I think you probably meant this?

  The discussion on your user is dismaying. "Help me understand" is basically a more polite "I think you're wrong and will keep questioning until I get the answer I want". Valereee (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SerChevalerie, I agree that a mutual iban would be quite difficult. This EIA is huge: [9]. But to my understanding, this dispute between you has been going on for some time. You were trading COI notices more than a year ago already. What would this olive branch look like? Why would @Rejoy2003 accept it? And what olive branch would you need from them? -- asilvering (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SerChevalerie, can you give us a bit more context about I made my comments because getting another editor from the project banned is acting in bad faith, please? -- asilvering (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rejoy2003, you're already pretty far over. Go ahead and take an extension to 800 words for now. -- asilvering (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rejoy2003, they are under no obligation to describe the exact terms of their relationship with the COI topics. They have declared the COI, and that is enough. -- asilvering (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SerChevalerie, go for it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rejoy2003, a one-way is not on the table. You have been harassing SerChevalerie. I understand you to have also been harassed to at least some extent, but that doesn't give you a free pass to the same. -- asilvering (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SerChevalerie, ask away. -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of wondering how much of that EIA is from these editors following one another around? In general I dislike Ibans, but I think these two editors are going to have to decide what's more important to them:

1. Working in the topic
2. Policing the other editor's work in the topic

I'd highly suggest the two of them start behaving as if an Iban is the next stop for them, because if they don't end up with one from this, it probably is. Unless you see something that is actually harmful to the project -- BLP vios, copyright vios, for instance -- leave the other editor's edits alone. Stop checking each others' work. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• SerChevalerie, you can take another 100 words. Valereee (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rejoy2003, what is it that you need it for? You can take 25 words to explain. (Also you don't need to get that permission from me, every worker here is likely watching on and off.) Valereee (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rejoy2003, well, for beginners, start leaving useful edit summaries consistently. You are working in an area where you have ongoing friction with another editor. Stop trying to work fast and instead work smart: edit summaries are at least as important as the edits, especially in cases where you know another editor may disagree with you. And even the edit summaries you mention leaving such as "(irr)" when removing an entire section don't really explain anything. Irrelevant, I assume? Edit summaries are supposed to explain your thinking to other editors. Valereee (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The filing may be retaliatory but the TBAN violation is pretty clear cut. I am amenable to warning Rejoy2003 rather than blocking in the expectation that they will avoid further edits about Indian and Portuguese nationality or citizenship. I find the interaction history of these users quite concerning. The internal functioning of a group seeking affiliate status is outside our remit, but this does not make me hopeful that these editors will be able to get along. An IBAN is going to be difficult, but unless both editors are willing to make peace, it seems to be needed. Both editors should read the terms of such a sanction: it will severely restrict your ability to edit pages to which the other editor has been a major contributor. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• @Black Kite, Asilvering, and Valereee: We need to give this closure. We don't have a mutual attempt to mend fences, and it seems to me a two-way IBAN is needed, along with a warning about the TBAN breaches. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I'm happy with that. Stating for the record that I've received private communication from both that I will forward to arbcom so it's on file in case it's needed in the future. @Rejoy2003, @SerChevalerie, if this resolution is unsatisfactory and you wish to appeal or amend this, please contact arbcom instead of going through the normal AE process. -- asilvering (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe it'll help to let them deal with a 2-way iban within a topic they're both very focussed on to let them see the value of learning to work together? They can come back together in a few months and ask for it to be lifted if they like. Valereee (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• IBAN conditions are described at that shortcut. They are enforced, as with most TBANs, via vigilance from the whole community, including the banned parties. You aren't entirely prohibited from editing the same pages, but you are prohibited from reverting each others' edits in part or whole, and that includes rewriting content the other party wrote. This means that in practice you will find it very difficult to edit pages in which the other editor's contributions are extant. I cannot give further instruction on how to edit articles you have both previously edited; you need to not modify each other's edits, and whether you have done so will be judged on a case-by-case basis, and please note we pay attention to the spirit of the rule (you must avoid each other) and not just the letter. The exceptions to the ban are explained at WP:BANEX. I am not minded to ease this to a logged warning (though please note, an IBAN in some ways carries less social sanction than a logged warning) without mutual agreement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.[10] 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".[11] User:ActivelyDisinterested had to finally hat the discussion to avoid further derailing of the thread.[12]

These diffs came after he was already warned for incivility by an admin just a day ago.[13]

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:[14][15]
3. Another violation of 1RR on Dhurandhar: The Revenge, this time on 29 - 30 March 2026: [16][17]
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)

1. Talk page messages during this period were also similarly hostile and lacked AGF.[18][19]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [20]: "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.[21]

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

[22]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

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 ([23], [24]) 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 ([25], [26]) 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 ([27]) 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 ([28]) 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]

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