Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration Committee

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Maghreb	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	07 Apr 2026	21 Apr 2026
SchroCat	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	15 Apr 2026	29 Apr 2026

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Pbsouthwood	19 March 2026

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 5	none	(orig. case)	8 April 2026

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Standard enforcement provision reform	8 April 2026

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a direct violation report of an editor who has violated a restriction directly imposed by the Arbitration Committee.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-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

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

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

Initiated by Makeandtoss at 15:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. [1]

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

• Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• [2]
  • Appealing topic ban

Statement by Makeandtoss

I’m here to appeal my topic ban enacted as part of the ARBPIA case last year.

Initially, I took some time away from the topic area, to create, expand and make DYKs of Jordanian articles: King Faisal Street (Amman), Grand Husseini Mosque, Seil Amman, Roman baths (Amman), Amman railway station, Ten Arches Bridge, List of Byzantine churches in Amman, and most proud work of Philadelphia (Amman) (collectively 112k views).

But then, I realized I needed time away from WP; and to my surprise, this gave me space I hadn’t realized I needed to focus on my own life, including mentally. And what a year that was…

Personal stories aside, I can now see how my editing in that area was disruptive, including slow-motion edit warring, which contributed to increased conflict in a contentious area and made collaboration harder for other fellow editors. I was given a final warning, but I did not appropriately adjust my behavior at the time.

Sure, I may not fully agree with every characterization in the case, but I understand how my editing (specifically how I handled discussions and engaged in disruptive reverting) was seen as non-neutral and unconstructive, and why it led to being topic banned.

I have reflected on my past behavior, and I apologize and accept responsibility for it. I understand the importance of engaging constructively on talk pages and not pushing a POV when consensus is against me.

If I’m unbanned, I’ll be applying these learnt lessons to work constructively with other editors, strictly abiding by 1RR, avoiding disruption such as slow motion edit-warring, stepping back when discussion becomes unproductive, using talk pages before reverting, and accepting consensus even when I disagree. I’d like to come back and contribute constructively to the topic area, as I have for a decade, but now without causing problems as I fully understand the consequences of past behavior.

Thanks for considering. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Statement by Wafflefrites

• Support: I support accepting the amendment request. I have worked with Makeandtoss on several articles in the I-P area. He usually tries to make articles more organized, especially if they are articles that he has created. He is knowledgeable about Jordanian history and current Jordan events. He is also helpful in finding citations for Jordanian articles (for example, he helped add several citations to Wasfi Tal and helped clear up confusion around source discrepancies about Tal’s birthplace and birth year). He also verbally assumed good faith of my contributions that I was doing my best trying to follow the sources and policies in my edits, even if I made mistakes or misread the policy. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

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.

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I really appreciate this self-reflective appeal, and I am glad to see you have done some excellent content work. I'll give it some time for comments—though, as always, I ask that editors consider whether they have something important to say or believe it is important to say something—but I'm inclined to lift the ban. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Motions

Standard enforcement provision reform

Back in 2012, ArbCom created standardized enforcement and appeals provisions for arbitration remedies. In 2014, the Committee promoted simplicity by amending the procedure to behave like the discretionary sanctions procedure (discretionary sanctions are the precursor to contentious topics). Since then, DS has received multiple improvements, especially during the 2021–2022 updates. However, the standard provisions were not updated anywhere near as frequently, and the two are now have numerous small differences, which everyone (admins, restricted editors, onlookers) must keep track of.

The primary motion updates the standard provisions to work like the contentious topic system currently does. It then modifies the contentious topic procedures to refer back to the new provisions, harmonizing the two systems and preventing future Committees from accidentally reintroducing differences down the line. A second motion would remove restrictions on further appeals after an unsuccessful appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee.

These are posted for editor feedback before voting begins. I am particularly interested to hear feedback on the motion about appeal restrictions, but all comments are welcome.

A diff between the contentious topic procedures and the proposed standard provision is available. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Standard enforcement provision reform: Clerk notes

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

Draft motion: Standard enforcement provision reform

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Enforcement is amended to include the following procedures:

Enforcement of arbitration restrictions

Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the arbitration enforcement log.

Appeals and modifications of enforcement actions

All active arbitration enforcement actions may be appealed. Only active restrictions may be appealed, and all labelled enforcement actions (including ones alleged to be against policy) must first be successfully appealed under the applicable arbitration enforcement appeals procedure before they can be modified.

Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, the following procedure governs arbitration enforcement appeals. An editor may:

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

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

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

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the Committee, once the Committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction, who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever other period the Committee may specify.

Changing or revoking an enforcement action

An administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

• The administrator who originally imposed the restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
• The restriction was issued more than a year ago.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:

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

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

Standard of review

On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn an arbitration enforcement action only if:

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

Standard provisions

A copy of the standard enforcement provision and appeals procedure will be included in the enforcement section of cases which include an enforceable remedy but do not include case-specific enforcement or appeal provisions.

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments is amended to read:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed according to the standard appeals and modification procedure for arbitration enforcement actions, with two exceptions:

• Contentious topic restrictions, except site-wide blocks, imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may not be modified without a successful appeal (i.e. they do not become ordinary administrative actions after a year); and
• Renewed page restrictions do not become ordinary admin actions until a year after they were last renewed.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Standard provision: enforcement of restrictions and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Standard provision: appeals and modifications are hereby removed from the Arbitration Committee's procedures.

For the avoidance of doubt, these changes apply to all Committee-issued restrictions—past, present, and future—without specified enforcement or enforcement action appeal procedures (including cases which used the prior standard provisions).

References

Again, the TL;DR of this motion is that enforcing Committee-imposed restrictions would work like contentious topic actions currently do. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft motion: Removing restrictions on appeals

The following text is removed from the Committee's procedures:

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the Committee, once the Committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction, who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever other period the Committee may specify.

All restrictions on appeals issued pursuant to that text are terminated, and the arbitration enforcement log shall be updated to strike all such restrictions.

I don't like the clause—and therefore currently support this motion—for myriad reasons. To highlight two practical ones:

1. It is unclear how this clause (which exists in the current procedures, at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Important notes point 2) interacts with unilateral modification by admins after one year. Rather than answer that tricky question, we can just eliminate the source of confusion.
2. With the standards of review, ArbCom declining an AE appeal does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sanction. It merely didn't meet the high bar for ArbCom's involvement, and restricting appeals in those cases is downright unfair.

Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Community discussion

• Maybe more substantive thoughts later, but for now just a nitpick: Given that a protection cannot be renewed until it is imposed, isn't whichever is later unnecessary? Even if a sanction were imposed, renewed, lifted, and then within a year imposed again, that would still be a new imposition, so it's not like the timer would go from the previous iteration's renewal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Great catch; Fixed. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Page restrictions issued by a single administrator become ordinary administrative actions a year after they were imposed or last renewed – this is (excepting renewal) true of editor restrictions too, right? Might be easier to just point people to Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Duration of restrictions rather than trying to restate it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  The point of that bullet is that renewal is an exception to the modify-one-year-after-it-was-issued rule. Maybe Renewed page restrictions do not become ordinary admin actions until a year after they were last renewed? I'm not a huge fan of pointing to #Duration of restrictions; "follow the instructions at X with the exceptions at Y" seems more confusing than "follow the instructions at X with these two exceptions listed right here: [1] [2]". Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think your suggestion would make it a lot clearer. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Awesome;  Done :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• I'm guessing one reason for restricting appeals after an appeal to ArbCom was to make the potential cost of a bad appeal very high, and thus limit the number of poor or repeated appeals to ArbCom. I don't like unappealable sanctions, but I think the Committee should consider whether it has the capacity to take on that potential consequence of this change. Toadspike [Talk] 08:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Toadspike, can you clarify which potential consequence you're referring to? Right now it appears to me to be limit the number of poor or repeated appeals to ArbCom, so I don't understand the concern about capacity. -- asilvering (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think there might be some confusion regarding HouseBlaster's point 2 in their explanation for the motion. Specifically, it seems to be saying that there is no difference between the committee declining an appeal and declining to consider an appeal. I believe that if the Committee actively considers an appeal on its merits then no subsequent appeals should be permitted for the next 6 months (or other specified period). However, that should not be the case if the Committee declines an appeal without considering the merits, which is basically just an instruction to appeal elsewhere (first).

  Similarly this sort of confusion arises in the "On Arbitration Committee review" section of the first motion, where point 3 reads like a reason to consider or not consider an appeal rather than a reason to overturn or not overturn a sanction after consideration. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Asilvering Basically what Thruduulf says. The way I read it, Draft motion: Removing restrictions on appeals would allow unlimited appeals to ArbCom of the same sanction, so ArbCom might get a lot more appeals. Toadspike [Talk] 10:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  You've encountered reason 2,647 I dislike this clause: editors can already file unlimited appeals to ArbCom. The restriction only limits appeals to AE and AN. (To address a concern before it is raised: I wouldn't worry about flooding those venues, either. The new procedures let a AE or AN specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.)

  To your first point, I think the new standards of review are enough of a deterrent against appealing to ArbCom because community appeal processes have a lower bar to accepting an appeal. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  We're used to it. -- asilvering (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• As a very minor point, in or whatever longer period the Committee may specify. (in the "Appeals and modifications of enforcement actions" section of the first motion), I'd suggest changing the word "longer" to "other". While longer periods before a subsequent appeal will be the most common other period specified it seems unnecessary to disallow the specifying of shorter periods should circumstances warrant it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Great point; updated. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed – there should be a comma before "who". Conifer (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

   Done :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement

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

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)
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) 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) @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)

Permission gaming.

Permission removed. Arcticocean ■ 15:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
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) 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)  Done - permission removed. Arcticocean ■ 10:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Page protection for high risk article

No longer on MP Valereee (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
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) 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) Sounds good, as long as someone is monitoring it. ―Maltazarian (talk$\lor$investigate) 10:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC) @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) 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)

Najibuddaulah1752 (again)

Blocked 1 week by Asilvering. Miniapolis 22:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
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)

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)
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) Yup. This plot makes it really obvious. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC) EC removed. – robertsky (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

2026 Iranian supreme leader election

Withdrawn by appellant per last reply. Left guide (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
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) @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) 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) 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) Alright, thanks for replying. I take my request back. RexFaux (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

Masare012

• Masare012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Requested action: Block for violations of GS/KURD after multiple and final warning. User was issued a couple of warnings about GS/KURD edits. They were then issued a final warning on April 7. They then edited List of Ayyubid rulers 8 times after that final warning. While they did undo several of their edits, they still did make multiple changes to the page. Separately, they're trying to bump their ECR threshold edit count through poorly executed RCP and RFPP requests. CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• They are making dozens of reverts of TA accounts, many of which are perfectly good edits. I have removed their ability to edit articlespace until they address this issue, but anyone else can change the block to an indef if they wish. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I understand the GS/KURD restriction and I did not intend to edit restricted-topic pages after the final warning. I misunderstood that the List of Ayyubid rulers page was included in the topic area. After realizing this, I reverted several of my edits and I will avoid Kurdish-related pages until I meet the extended-confirmed requirement.

Regarding RFPP requests, I understand now that I should be more careful before making protection requests and will follow the guidance given to me.

Thank you. Masare012 (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

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)
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) 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. Y 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) @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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Requesting another 50 words. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC) 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) Requesting 25 words to understand how 2-way IBAN works. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC) 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) 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) Accepted @Rejoy2003. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC) 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. Y 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) @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) 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 [3], but unfortunately this editor didn't wanted to answer more of my questions. Until later when I was busy in this [4] 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) 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 [5] 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 [6] stating "I cannot be trusted and actually been working against the interests of our group". He then retracted his statements later [7]. 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) GP is on my watchlist. I edit fast and across many Goan articles and tend not to leave edit summaries usually, I did here [8] [9]. 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) Two-way iban, me okay. Reoccurring problem. Can't let this pass [10]. Stalking remarks? Willing to share report to @Asilvering who started. Rejoy2003(talk) 17:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC) @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) @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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) @SerChevalerie, I agree that a mutual iban would be quite difficult. This EIA is huge: [11]. 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) @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) @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) @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) @SerChevalerie, go for it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC) @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) @SerChevalerie, ask away. -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC) 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) SerChevalerie, you can take another 100 words. Valereee (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC) @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) @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) 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) @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) 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) 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) Agreed (sorry, I missed that ping). Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC) 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) 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) @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) 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) Well, let's go with the logged warning and cross our fingers. -- asilvering (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gotitbro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/SA

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

1. 18:02, 27 March 2026 - Clear failure to WP:AGF with the comment "you deliberately falsified the consensus result, synthesised a false status and labelling of a source at RSP and are still defending that hoaxing".
2. 01:14, 28 March 2026 - Continued failure of WP:AGF and actually violation of WP:BATTLE, given User:ActivelyDisinterested had already concluded "I can't see any deliberate attempt to mislead. Discussion needs to return to the reliability of the source." Even the editor (the one with whom Gotitbro was interacted) had acknowledged his misunderstanding.[12] Now instead of letting things go, Gotitbro continued to derail the discussion with continued battleground mentality by writing "You falsified a consensus and status (apparently merely a color according to you), and are still treating it as a no big deal."
3. 01:24, 28 March 2026 - continued WP:IDHT with WP:BATTLE. Worse is that it is written in response to another editor who told him to avoid this battleground behavior and another editor merely had a "misunderstanding".[13] User:ActivelyDisinterested had to finally hat the discussion to avoid further derailing of the thread.[14]

These diffs came after he was already warned for incivility by an admin just a day ago.[15]

1. 19:43, 29 March 2026 - Continued uncollaborative behavior. Asking "SNOWCLOSE" of a properly initiated RfC without any valid basis.
2. Violation of 1RR (page notice) on Dhurandhar: The Revenge on 26 March 2026:[16][17]
3. Another violation of 1RR on Dhurandhar: The Revenge, this time on 29 - 30 March 2026: [18][19]
4. 05:51, 29 March 2026 More of the same WP:BATTLE and failure to WP:AGF.
5. Made 4 reverts on Muridke during 8 March - 10 March:

13:32, 08 March 2026 (+727)

20:35, 10 March 2026 (+727)

20:40, 10 March 2026 (+727)

20:44, 10 March 2026 (+727)

Talk page messages during this period were also similarly hostile and lacked AGF.[20][21]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [22]: "warned to provide full and clear justification for any reverts in their edit summaries, and to follow WP:BRD rather than making multiple reverts."
2. Multiple blocks for edit warring until 2025.[23]

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

[24]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

• 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)

@Rosguill: Gotitbro already has received one logged warning for edit warring a few months ago. [25] Wisher08 (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[26]

Discussion concerning Gotitbro

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

Statement by Gotitbro

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

• RSN: An editor when asked to clarify why they faked RfC results and reliability status when editing the RSP list doubled down claiming it was only a change of color and nothing to be bothered about. The comments followed after. At the same RSN thread an RfC was initiated for another source (which I too agreed wasn't really reliable) for which there seemed to be general agreement about its unreliability, opined a snowclose as the RfC appeared unnecessary and non-specific.
• Dhurandhar: The Revenge (the article from where this retributive filing stems from) [the 1RR pertaining to the lead]: of the first these ([27], [28]) only the latter is a "revert" for addition of unsourced info (with no editor ever having challenged this basic edit then or since); of the second of these ([29], [30]) the first of these was challenging a contentious label which I followed with a discussion at the Talk page (discussion ongoing), the second of these pertained to an edit marked as a revert ([31]) but which wasn't actually so. 1RR was neither intended nor I believe manifested in either case and would/would've retract[ed] any of these if so informed.
• Muridke: The first of these was reverting a vandal blanking of content by a new account. The latter pertain to another editor who restored that blanking without any valid explanation ([32]) then continued doing so asking for consensus despite there being one very well against their prior attempts at blanking (discussions can be seen at Talk and at NPOVN). The user then took this to ANI with no further engagement with that baseless report. Should've been more calmer and somber here with the edits but basic neglection of prior discussions and consensus to double down on vandal blankings by new accounts was debilitating.

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

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)

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)

  Wisher08, the lack of timeliness doesn't excuse it entirely, but it is a mitigating factor, and I will say bluntly: when a few untimely edit warring diffs are included alongside a grab bag of other essentially unrelated allegations, it gives the impression that this is an attempt to get an opponent sanctioned, rather than a sincere attempt to address disruption in a topic area. But edit warring can be a serious issue, so let's look at the further examples you provide:

  1. At Asim Munir, it looks like the chronology is: at 21:34 GMT on 9 February, Bravo786 removed content with a somewhat misleading edit summary (Special:Diff/1337495959). Gotitbro reverts 9 minutes later on the basis of the edit summary. Sheriffisintown then reverts Gotitbro about 11 minutes later, with an edit summary arguing that the sources used for the content Gotitbro restored are not reliable, as well as some comments about BRD that don't really seem to relate to anything relevant in context. Over the next half hour, Gotitbro and Sheriffisintown each revert two more times, before Gotitbro lets Sheriffisintown have the last word on the article and moves to open a discussion at RSN (with discussion on the article talk page indicating this course of action). The RSN discussion ends somewhat inconclusively, with a majority of editors backing Sheriffisintown's reading but no formal closure. At any rate, the edit warring at Asim Munir never restarted, with the status quo favoring Sheriffisintown's preferred copy
  2. At Hindutva, it looks like EarthDude made an edit at 19:57 GMT, which was then reverted by Gotitbro, resulting in both editors rapidly reverting up to 3 times. At first Gotitbro pointed to a past Talk page discussion, although I'm not able to find which discussion that referred to. Eventually both editors made their way to the article talk page. I'm not terribly impressed by Gotitbro's engagement in the discussion, where they (and others) essentially handwave at a past consensus without clearly identifying it. Nevertheless, the dispute appears to have been resolved (after extended discussion) by EarthDude modifying their proposed inclusion of references to fascism to more closely follow sources, with no further dispute apparent.
  3. At Sangh Parivar, EarthDude makes a unilateral change, Gotitbro quickly reverts, EarthDude reinstates it, Gotitbro partially reverts, this repeats one more time before talk page discussion commences. The Talk page discussion is not very impressive, as most of it is mired in wikilawyering rather than addressing the substantive issue; it's also muddled by the participation of a sockpuppet who gets blocked during the discussion. The edit warring briefly flares up again a month later on Jan 6/7. Ultimately, a 3rd opinion is summoned, and they largely support EarthDude's view, seemingly ending the dispute.

  So, overall, I do think there is an issue on display of Gotitbro taking 3RR as an entitlement, and I don't like the amount of wikilawyering-to-substantive-content-argument ratio on display in the latter two discussions. I think this puts me squarely in "logged warning against edit warring" territory, but would appreciate other admins' input. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  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)

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)

User against whom enforcement is requested

TryKid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia

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

1. 21 March - Rude and uncollaborative approach.
2. 22 March - Another rude edit summary
3. 2 April - Another rude edit summary while reverting warning
4. 25 March - casting WP:ASPERSIONS
5. 27 March - engaging in the same battleground mentality as above
6. 30 March - Unnecessarily adding toxicity to a fair discussion. Himself engaging in battleground behavior but falsely accusing others of "brazen ideological battleground complaints" regarding the source in question.
7. 30 March - 31 March - Made 3 reverts to remove reliably sourced content from Diet in Hinduism.[33][34][35]
8. 2 April - Canvassing and exhibiting page ownership.

Diffs since this report

1. 4 April - Provided a misleading analysis of the cited sources. Almost doubled down when called out.[36]
2. 4 April - Falsely claimed that the quote is not supported by the source. Repeated the same false claim on talk page.[37] Apologized after being called out.[38]
3. 4 April - Fourth revert over the same sourced content.
4. 6 April - Fifth revert over the same content with the same status quo stonewalling.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

[39]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[40]

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 ([41] [42]) 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 ([43] [44]) 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)

Result concerning TryKid

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

Dy2834

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

Request concerning Dy2834

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dy2834 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Caste 500/30

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

1. Apr. 07, 2026 - Edit on talk page telling users not to trust edits made about Yadavs
2. Apr. 07, 2026 - Ditto but with the Ahir, a group that has been referred to as a caste
3. Apr. 07, 2026 - Edit that also changes caste-related information
4. Apr. 07, 2026 - Revert to restore said edit with sketchy sourcing

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

Mar. 26, 2026

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Apr. 08, 2026

Discussion concerning Dy2834

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

Result concerning Dy2834

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

• I've temp-blocked. I don't think pre-emptive XC revoke is necessary, but I wouldn't stand in anyone else's way on that either. -- asilvering (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Nyxaros

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

Request concerning Nyxaros

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nyxaros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

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

1. 1 October 2025 Removed cited genocide information
2. 1 October 2025 Made same edit again after being reverted, personally attacked a user ("You clearly have not written a good article") who actually helped promote many GAs and FAs. Nyxaros received warning for incivility
3. 15 February 2026 Returned with now outright genocide denial negationism, claiming "neutrality"
4. 22 February 2026 More massacre censoring, replaces 'massacre' with 'suppression of rebellions" and calls it a "fix"
5. 15 February 2026 removing mention of genocide from another article, calls a reliable historian "undue" without ever explaining why
6. 15 February 2026 rephrasing to push a Turkish nationalist POV (ex. "role in justifying the establishment of a single-party autocracy" becomes "functioned to legitimize the political order that emerged under single-party rule")
7. 15 February 2026 After rephrasing text to diminish controversy, removes 'and controversies' from the header because "where is the actual controversy?"
8. 21 February 2026 removes Armenian cuisine in a sentence about Çiğ köfte. The benefit of the doubt that they haven't read the linked article diminishes when minutes later they edit Çiğ köfte's both lead and Armenia sections, where it's stated being part of Armenian cuisine/culture
9. 21 March 2026 removes Armenia from the countries list ("NPOV & UNDUE issues") despite there being an entire cited section on Armenia
10. 6 April 2026 moves Armenia in both the template regions and sections to be after Turkey and adds an origins paragraph about the Armenian tradition being a "related form" to the Turkish one, but the source makes no mention of "related form" and is original research.
11. 2 April 2026, 3 April 2026, 3 April 2026 edit warring and return to personal attacks (Oxford? You don't even know what you are talking about, "lol".)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 20 May 2019 blocked for 3RR edit warring
2. 10 August 2019 blocked for being incivility toward other editors after being warned
3. 14 February 2026 warned about edit warring by an admin

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 7 April 2026 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I had posted on Nyxaros's talk page about the Ashure changes, explaining the issue with switching the order of Armenia and Turkey and that "related form" lacked verification, and asked Nyxaros to self-revert. Nyxaros replied without addressing the original research problem and then just removed the earliest origins header.

I'm requesting WP:AA3 to be enforced, but I would note that Nyxaros' problems go outside AA3, and his edit warring problem goes beyond Turkey (Marty Supreme article, for example). KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[45]

Discussion concerning Nyxaros

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

Statement by Nyxaros

Nyxaros's statement contains 942 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

First of all, I clearly warned this editor on my talk page about making baseless accusations against me. So, to address the matter directly:

The information in parentheses was removed because its placement disrupted the flow of the article, and no source was provided alongside it (I know there is at least one source that can be used for that unnecessary and long parantheses explanation but that was not cited there). What I had actually added to the article, as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk&diff=1338545969&oldid=1336053915

I am not ”denying genocide” in this edit; my edit summary and the talk-page discussions make that clear. This user is the only editor opposing these changes, which remain in the article because they are, contrary to their assertions, neutral and verifiable.

Again, the material I added/changed remains in the article without any issues, and there is clearly no ”massacre censoring”. The sentence beginning “His critics denounce…” was an instance of WP:SYNTH, whereas my addition is less verbose and more neutral and verifiable than the previous wording. I find it difficult to understand why this user is presenting the POV-pushing version as though I had done something improper by removing it. In my opinion, it should be unacceptable as an editor the defend the non-neutral language. Their response suggests that they see nothing wrong with such biased wording. If I were actually biased in the manner this editor alleges, I would not have added statements such as “the origin of the dish is disputed” or “kataif has Arabic origins” with aeveral refs, along with the many other edits I have mentioned or not mentioned here. Rather, I would have made tendentious changes to Armenian–Azerbaijani articles where issues relating to these countries are more directly relevant, for example by recasting such matters in relation to Turkey.

Exactly the same issues continued on the Nutuk article. I hardly need to explain them, since I simply removed material that presented NPOV and UNDUE problems, yet this editor claims that I did the opposite. They should review the sources and recognize the distinction between biased and neutral wording. I also referred to the text as undue, not the historian; we do not describe historians themselves as undue.

Unsurprisingly, no one else objected to these edits, and they remain in the article months later. No one has even questioned these additions, because they are not POV-pushing, problematic, or whatever this editor may claim. Also, if you are going to title a section “Controversies”, you should ensure that the section explicitly identifies and discusses controversies…

I have grown increasingly weary of this sort of conduct from both IP and registered editors. While I have been accustomed to dealing with such behavior over the years and, when necessary, reporting it, I have been encountering it more frequently than usual. As I explained in my response to this editor on my talk page, I noticed a number of issues in articles of this kind and chose to work on them. However, these topics appear to attract strongly biased editing, and hostile responses with accusations have become increasingly common. For that reason, I am no longer interested in contributing to these articles. The editors may continue adding regionally biased material to the lead or filling articles with synthesis as is shown here, but I no longer wish to spend time dealing with it. ภץאคгöร 09:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Adding my detailed talk page explanation as well, just in case:

“The additions on the page are not WP:OR; they rely on information and sources already present on the page and cited in those sources. "Ashura (Arabic: عاشورا ˁāşūrā), meaning 'tenth day'": That is literally what is stated in the source, so I corrected it. The justification lies in the old and newly added, source-supported information: ashura is associated with several regional and religious traditions and sources especially document its place in Turkish/Anatolian culture, but Armenian sources usually discuss anoushabour in a Christmas/New Year context. They are not exactly the same forms of ashure.

The previous wording/order suggesting that Armenia is the primary or most prominent region associated with ashure requires an explicit comparative claim that is not directly supported by the cited sources. Per OR and NPOV, we are of course avoiding synthesizing conclusions that are not clearly stated in reliable sources. The sources I have reviewed support a narrower and more verifiable info. Academic literature describes ashura as a multi-regional dish known across Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the Caucasus, and the Balkans, stating its strong place in Anatolian/Turkish culinary culture. At the same time, Armenian sources typically discuss the related form under a different name (anoushabour), often in the specific context of Christmas and New Year traditions. For example, a 2024 Gastronomica article published by University of California Press describes ashure as especially significant in Anatolian/Turkish culinary culture, while Sweet Treats around the World: An Encyclopedia of Food and Culture describes anoushabour as an "Armenian Christmas pudding". That is sufficient to support neutral wording distinguishing the Turkish/Anatolian ashure tradition from the Armenian (holiday) form, without making stronger comparative or synthetic claims. The ordering was adjusted accordingly and an explanatory statement was added. Why was priority given to Armenia and to content that is (still) problematic?“ ภץאคгöร 10:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I am aware that the limit was exceeded, but I felt it necessary to respond before the situation escalated. As a side note, I would also point out that the reporting editor appears to focus exclusively on articles related to Armenia, and one of the two articles they have created has been tagged for independent sources and tone issues. I have not examined their actions or editing history, but even this is consistent with the concerns I described above. ภץאคгöร 20:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Nyxaros

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