Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against a previously alerted editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic (including community-designated contentious topics),
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics,
request enforcement of, or appeal sanctions arising from, community-imposed general sanctions (per 2025 RfC), or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

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

Only registered users who are autoconfirmed may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by temporary accounts or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests, appeals, and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Administrators may remove or shorten comments that are overlong or unconstructive, and may instruct users to stop participating or impose AE sanctions in response to disruptive contributions such as personal attacks or groundless complaints.

The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each, unless AE admins waive this rule. Any uninvolved admin may further restrict participation by non-parties at their discretion.

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives (index)

Quick enforcement requests

Violations of WP:ARBECR

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

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

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

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

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

@9ninety

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

Permission gaming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet another Gaza Genocide move request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page protection for high risk article

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 $\lor$ 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 $\lor$ 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 $\lor$ investigate)} 22:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Najibuddaulah1752 (again)

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]

Gaming EC

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]

2026 Iranian supreme leader election

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]

Page protection

Talk:2021 anti-Pakistan protests (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Rejoy2003

Rejoy2003 and SerChevalerie are warned that they are required to edit collaboratively and to not treat Wikipedia as a battleground. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Rejoy2003

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

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.
18 March 2026 Same behaviour on M. Boyer
16 March 2026 Same behaviour on Maestro Josinho
15 March 2026 Same behaviour on Krishna Moyo
11 March 2026 Added info on Portuguese citizenship at JoeGoaUk

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

SerChevalerie's statement contains 865 words and is within 10% of the 800-word limit.

Extension granted to 800 words.

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]

Accepted @Rejoy2003. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1344250631

Discussion concerning Rejoy2003

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 Rejoy2003

Rejoy2003's statement contains 862 words and is within 10% of the 800-word limit.

Extension granted to 800 words.

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]
@SerChevalerie I am willing to accept your olive branch, provided you stay true to your words "agree to stay away from their edits" and this means especially where I have been a significant contributor. Anyone looking at the EIA knows, you have always come out of nowhere and edited articles where I have been a major contributor. It has always been a problem now and then for almost 2 years. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 18:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rejoy2003

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:

Working in the topic
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]

Agreed (sorry, I missed that ping). Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 1 April 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]
The parties seem to have agreed between them that they will play nice without an iban. I'm a bit concerned this will simply become bickering at talk pages with no edit wars anyone else notices and no dragging anyone to drama boards...maybe that's okay? I dunno. Valereee (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: To be quite honest Rejoy's latest makes me more confident an IBAN is needed. There is still no recognition that their own conduct has fallen below expectations. But I suppose we can extend the rope a bit. I'd still like a logged warning for both. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Totally support a logged warning. My thought was that if they're already deciding they can manage this themselves, we'll just be dealing with a request from both to remove the iban as soon as they realize how onerous it is vs just trying to get along. I'm not optimistic. Valereee (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's go with the logged warning and cross our fingers. -- asilvering (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gotitbro

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

Request concerning Gotitbro

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Wisher08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/SA

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

18:02, 27 March 2026 - Clear failure to WP:AGF with the comment "you deliberately falsified the consensus result, synthesised a false status and labelling of a source at RSP and are still defending that hoaxing".
01:14, 28 March 2026 - Continued failure of WP:AGF and actually violation of WP:BATTLE, given User:ActivelyDisinterested had already concluded "I can't see any deliberate attempt to mislead. Discussion needs to return to the reliability of the source." Even the editor (the one with whom Gotitbro was interacted) had acknowledged his misunderstanding.[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."
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]

19:43, 29 March 2026 - Continued uncollaborative behavior. Asking "SNOWCLOSE" of a properly initiated RfC without any valid basis.
Violation of 1RR (page notice) on Dhurandhar: The Revenge on 26 March 2026:[14][15]
Another violation of 1RR on Dhurandhar: The Revenge, this time on 29 - 30 March 2026: [16][17]
05:51, 29 March 2026 More of the same WP:BATTLE and failure to WP:AGF.
Made 4 reverts on Muridke during 8 March - 10 March:

13:32, 08 March 2026 (+727)

20:35, 10 March 2026 (+727)

20:40, 10 March 2026 (+727)

20:44, 10 March 2026 (+727)

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[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."
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

@Rosguill: Could the disruption be ignored if the report was not filed in timely fashion? Muridke is not the only place where Gotitbro has edit warred since his last AE warning. These are some more pages where he has edit warred in last few months:

Asim Munir, 3 reverts over the same content: 9 February, 9 February, 9 February
Hindutva, 3 reverts over the same content: 13 January, 13 January, 13 January
Sangh Parivar, 4 reverts over the same content: 14 December, 14 December, 16 December, 7 January.

There is no doubt that Gotitbro has regularly edit warred despite last AE warning over edit warring. Wisher08 (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Gotitbro already has received one logged warning for edit warring a few months ago. [23] Wisher08 (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [24]

Discussion concerning Gotitbro

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

Statement by Gotitbro

This is barely worth responding to, considering that it is a baseless retributive filing stemming from content disputes at one particular article (I have never interacted with this user before nor at the article where this stems from either). Dubious or worse malicious is the only way to describe this (trawling through editor histories to find something to nail at AE).

RSN: An editor when asked to clarify why they faked RfC results and reliability status when editing the RSP list doubled down claiming it was only a change of color and nothing to be bothered about. The comments followed after. At the same RSN thread an RfC was initiated for another source (which I too agreed wasn't really reliable) for which there seemed to be general agreement about its unreliability, opined a snowclose as the RfC appeared unnecessary and non-specific.
Dhurandhar: The Revenge (the article from where this retributive filing stems from) [the 1RR pertaining to the lead]: of the first these ([25], [26]) 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 ([27], [28]) 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 ([29]) 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 ([30]) then continued doing so asking for consensus despite there being one very well against their prior attempts at blanking (discussions can be seen at Talk and at NPOVN). The user then took this to ANI with no further engagement with that baseless report. Should've been more calmer and somber here with the edits but basic neglection of prior discussions and consensus to double down on vandal blankings by new accounts was debilitating.

Though the previous blocks are hardly relevant, will address. Two of the previous blocks came while dealing with blocked IPs and sock accounts. The last one (at an article for an extremist publisher) from my own report for an editor acting against sources and consensus (see Talk). This is not a defence against those blocks but the context should be seen. Gotitbro (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The filer here just looks to pile on "dirt" in an attempt to barely a string a case to boot off an editor, without looking at/engaging with any prior discussion.

But addressing some points below. Past discussions for Hindutva referred to this and this. For Asim Munir, at the RSN discussion my contentions were unanimously supported (i.e. "majority of editors backing Sheriffisintown's reading" isn't correct), I further took it to BLPN again garnering majority support; despite this never bothered with the article again at all for not wanting to partake in the dispute any longer (much like all of the other cases cited here).

Nonetheless, I agree that in these cases the discussion should have been much more prompt not reverts (however valid that I might've initially thunk they were). Gotitbro (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gotitbro

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

Across the evidence presented here, the only thing I see that warrants concern would be the edit warring, particularly at Muridke. Note that the 1RR restriction at Dhurandhar only applies to the lead and short description--it does not appear that the diffs displayed here show any violations of that. The 26 March diffs only include one edit to the lead (the other is to the Critical response section of the article), whereas the March 29-30 edits appear to have occurred over the span of 31 hours, so 1RR does not apply. I think that the SNOWCLOSE !vote was ill-considered in context but I'd be hard-pressed to consider a sanction on that basis. The comments at RSP seem understandable in context, even with some room for disagreement, and the final few diffs of supposed lack of AGF on the 10th and 29th do not in my view rise to the level of disruption. In general, this report also suffers from a lack of timeliness, what with the reporting of supposed edit wars that had already died down weeks ago. At most, I could see issuing a logged warning for the edit warring at Muridke, but even that may be excessive. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wisher08, the lack of timeliness doesn't excuse it entirely, but it is a mitigating factor, and I will say bluntly: when a few untimely edit warring diffs are included alongside a grab bag of other essentially unrelated allegations, it gives the impression that this is an attempt to get an opponent sanctioned, rather than a sincere attempt to address disruption in a topic area. But edit warring can be a serious issue, so let's look at the further examples you provide:
At Asim Munir, it looks like the chronology is: at 21:34 GMT on 9 February, Bravo786 removed content with a somewhat misleading edit summary (Special:Diff/1337495959). Gotitbro reverts 9 minutes later on the basis of the edit summary. Sheriffisintown then reverts Gotitbro about 11 minutes later, with an edit summary arguing that the sources used for the content Gotitbro restored are not reliable, as well as some comments about BRD that don't really seem to relate to anything relevant in context. Over the next half hour, Gotitbro and Sheriffisintown each revert two more times, before Gotitbro lets Sheriffisintown have the last word on the article and moves to open a discussion at RSN (with discussion on the article talk page indicating this course of action). The RSN discussion ends somewhat inconclusively, with a majority of editors backing Sheriffisintown's reading but no formal closure. At any rate, the edit warring at Asim Munir never restarted, with the status quo favoring Sheriffisintown's preferred copy

At Hindutva, it looks like EarthDude made an edit at 19:57 GMT, which was then reverted by Gotitbro, resulting in both editors rapidly reverting up to 3 times. At first Gotitbro pointed to a past Talk page discussion, although I'm not able to find which discussion that referred to. Eventually both editors made their way to the article talk page. I'm not terribly impressed by Gotitbro's engagement in the discussion, where they (and others) essentially handwave at a past consensus without clearly identifying it. Nevertheless, the dispute appears to have been resolved (after extended discussion) by EarthDude modifying their proposed inclusion of references to fascism to more closely follow sources, with no further dispute apparent.

At Sangh Parivar, EarthDude makes a unilateral change, Gotitbro quickly reverts, EarthDude reinstates it, Gotitbro partially reverts, this repeats one more time before talk page discussion commences. The Talk page discussion is not very impressive, as most of it is mired in wikilawyering rather than addressing the substantive issue; it's also muddled by the participation of a sockpuppet who gets blocked during the discussion. The edit warring briefly flares up again a month later on Jan 6/7. Ultimately, a 3rd opinion is summoned, and they largely support EarthDude's view, seemingly ending the dispute.
So, overall, I do think there is an issue on display of Gotitbro taking 3RR as an entitlement, and I don't like the amount of wikilawyering-to-substantive-content-argument ratio on display in the latter two discussions. I think this puts me squarely in "logged warning against edit warring" territory, but would appreciate other admins' input. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Gotitbro, regarding my characterization of the RSN discussion, my view was colored by the article's status quo being what it was. Reviewing them again now, I would characterize both the RSN and BLPN discussion as "inconclusive", although I think that in the BLPN discussion in particular you come across as being significantly more constructive than most of the editors arguing against your point. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TryKid

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

Request concerning TryKid

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ratnahastin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:00, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia

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

21 March - Rude and uncollaborative approach.
22 March - Another rude edit summary
2 April - Another rude edit summary while reverting warning
25 March - casting WP:ASPERSIONS
27 March - engaging in the same battleground mentality as above
30 March - Unnecessarily adding toxicity to a fair discussion. Himself engaging in battleground behavior but falsely accusing others of "brazen ideological battleground complaints" regarding the source in question.
30 March - 31 March - Made 3 reverts to remove reliably sourced content from Diet in Hinduism.[31][32][33]
2 April - Canvassing and exhibiting page ownership.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [34]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [35]

Discussion concerning TryKid

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

Statement by TryKid

(Diffs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 of the original report are in the context of Talk:Dhurandhar: The Revenge)

Diff 1: Removal of a template that was placed for two edits ([36] [37]) restoring the status quo while discussion was ongoing. An admin action was eventually necessitated to restore this status quo against aggressive edit warring.

Diff 2: Removing another template posted for two edits ([38] [39]) restoring an edit request with substantive discussion that was closed without any attempt to resolve the underlying issue. The edit request was closed after I started an RfC.

Diffs 4 and 5: I agree the talk page was not the right venue to raise my concerns, and I took the advice given at the time and did not post further.

Diff 6: admittedly forceful, but nothing beyond the pale I believe.

(Diffs 3, 7, and 8 are in the context of the content dispute over at Talk:Diet in Hinduism, which seems to have triggered this report.)

Diff 8: The pinged editors are longtime contributers to the article who have previously collaborated on the article despite mutual disagreements and participated in previous discussions on the talk page. Seeking wider input by pinging previous regular contributors is not canvassing.

Diff 7: My engagement with the article was constructive and collaborative. A timeline: an edit adds a long, misattributed quote, I revert along with other material (I ideally should have made individual reverts), but it is added back (with correct attribution this time). I revert again but offer a rewritten version based on WP:FIXCLOSEPARA: (Extensive quotations are forbidden by policy.) EarthDude states that the idea of not extensively quoting copyrighted sources verbatim in article body "is completely made up, out of thin air". The verbatim quote is added back.

Diff 3 is the removal of another template similar to the other two above. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TryKid

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

[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]

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