杨能斌：加强中层干部队伍建设充分发挥企业中坚作用

百度　　毋庸置疑，本书意义非凡，对青年来说更为意义深远。

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
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

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358

Anpanman11

Latest comment: 6 days ago39 comments9 people in discussion

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 Anpanman11

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sybercracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Anpanman11 (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 — WP:ARBIMH

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

Copyright violations over two articles.[1][2][3] even after warnings copyrighted content still exists as 70.9%.[4]
After the previous violation of the 3rr rule,[5][6][7][8][9] still edit warring against default sorting.[10][11]
Calling good-faith collaborative edits as disruption.[12][13]
For creating new articles he merely provides quotes, page numbers from the sources.(Here, Here, Here) And mostly using outdated primary sources.
For removing or adding content, he merely provides any edit-summaries.[14][15][16]
Battle ground mentally and with false allegations hoax fillings.

I believe this user has a competence issue he doesn't know how to cite sources properly with pages quotes per WP:V, basic policies like Copyvio, Edit war, 3rr, and what is not vandalism/disruption. Sybercracker (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see User talk:Anpanman11#Introduction to contentious topics)

User_talk:Anpanman11#c-Rosguill-20250714185600-Introduction_to_contentious_topics

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Anpanman11 These are not the answers to the issues raised here; you have violated copyright on multiple occasions, violated 3RR, still edit warning, and still have sourcing issues (you often cite sources without providing pages, quotes & outdated/unreliable sources). After doing this, all you're not accepting these mistakes showing negligence.[17]

Even after Copyright violation on Muslim-Gujars you created article "Fazal Ali Khan" and directly copy-pasted content from the sources when Lovkal tagged page for revdel you removed tagged adding further new copyrighted content then he restored the tag again. But now copyright content still exist as 22.5% It clearly show your competence issue.
There is also another issue of WP: Owning on many occasions you said I created this page and why 'Syber' or other editors are editing this page? You're also not aware that on Wikipedia any page or content is not your personal property.
No, you don't have to revert other's edits violating 3RR rule and edit war. You violated 3RR on Muslim Gujars then still you're edit waring on Yahya Khan (Lahore) against improvements.[18][19][20][21] British census reports are outdated and unreliable for ethnic/caste claims in the Indian subcontinent.
I believe edit summaries are mandatory for removing content & sources from pages or replacing pre-existing content with new content that you were doing.
I didn't accuse you of sockpuppetry. I raised a concern that the page, Yahya Khan Bahadur was created 2-3 times by socks and deleted under G5 then the reviewing admin said the content is different from the previous sock's versions.[22] Sybercracker (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Anpanman11 All issues mentioned in this report were also of concern to an admin. He said there were sourcing & copyright issues and you need to provide pages, and quotes from the sources.[23] Other editors also gave you warnings for disruption. You're not accepting your mistakes when you know you committed them, and you're not in the mood to listen to anyone. I think you'll repeat all these mistakes purposely If you'll be allowed to go unsanctioned.
In your comment you said "I'm not your father...?" I believe It is WP:UNCIVIL.
There was a clear copyright violation. Sybercracker (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Tamzin: @CoffeeCrumbs: After ECR reminder Indian military history social group.[24][25][26][27] Sybercracker (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User_talk:Anpanman11#c-Sybercracker-20250727220400-Notice

Discussion concerning Anpanman11

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 Anpanman11

Moved into own section in reply to filer. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. I already discussed the matter with @Diannaa and she restored my edit

2. I had to revert your edit as it cited wrong figures with unreliable sources claiming here are 33 million Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan. British census data put the number of Gujjars at around 2m only.

3. Those were unnecessary edits on a page you knew nothing about. You added nothing to the page itself. You merely used it to increase the number of your edits.

4. Unlike you, I always quote authoritative and contemporary or semi-contemporary sources. The fact you're calling these "outdated" tells a lot about your knowledge about how historical sources work.

5. Edit summaries aren't mandatory.

6. You're the one who accused me of being a sockpuppet. You're the one who came up with false allegations.

Also, it's impressive that you've learned how to launch discussions, complaints, accuse someone of being a sockpuppet etc. all within a month of joining Wikipedia. Anpanman11 (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just recently you mentioned Abdullah Khan Alakozai (a page I created) as a Mughal subahdar. Had you read the very first line of the article you would've known he was an Afghan and had nothing to do with the Mughals. It seems you're the one who has basic reading competence issues. Anpanman11 (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Moved into own section again: I believe this one is a reply to Sybercracker (below). Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Don't teach me what sources to use, I know better. You have reading issues and you're trying to teach me my expertise.

1. There was no copyright violation on Muslim Gujjars, that's why my edits were restored.

2. I know it's not my personal property, just as I'm not your father that you have to follow me.

3. Sorry, your edits don't add anything to Yahya Khan (governor).

4. That's your opinion, which doesn't matter.

5. You launched Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anpanman11 a week before the page Yahya Khan (governor) was created. Anpanman11 (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Moved from Sybercracker's section, again. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|??) 07:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. I edited that page & copyright went from 75 to 22%. Will still edit more if required.

2. Irrelevant

3. If there was a clear copyright violation in your opinion why did the extended editor restored my edits after a discussion? Copyright of old books (1920s) is expired so it can't be a copyright violation. Anyways, you should discuss this with the editor who restored my edit instead of wasting my time. I'm explaining it for the third time now. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Moved from CoffeeCrumbs' section. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|??) 07:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not aware of any such thing. The pages are not locked. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Moved from admins' section. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|??) 07:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

i think you should elaborate. I don't see Shams Khan page locked. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

why are they protected now? What else can I edit? This was my expertise. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

CoffeeCrumbs, "India" historically referred to a broad and vaguely defined region. The people of Hazara are different from Indians and don't consider themselves Indians. In fact they'd feel insulted being lebelled as such. They have a separate identity, a different language, values, culture, and code of conduct. India usually referred to the lands beyond the Indus, and Amb being to its West is excluded. Anpanman11 (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Amb was an independent state. It wasn't part of the Sikh Empire. NWFP was just one of the many administrative units created by the British in South Asia just as Burma for example. Both aren't part of India. Anpanman11 (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

In fact I didn't in this case. All the territories west of the Indus river weren't part of India. This region is historically called Hazara or Pakhli, and it was part of Pakhtunkhwa, Roh, or Afghanistan. The British included it in India just as they did with Burma and other regions. Both are racially, civilizationally, culturally, ethnically, morally, and linguistically distinct regions from India. Anpanman11 (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

Just want to note that Anpanman is continuing to edit the area covered in the recent Indian military history case [28]. I'm not sure how aware they are, though, of the consequences of the very recent arbitration case that placed this area under ECP protection. Anpanman11, can you confirm whether or not you are aware that editing Indian military history topics now requires an editor to have WP:ECP status? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tamzin, I think my biggest concern is that Anpanman11 has stopped engaging about this, and in fact, their response to others making it clear what extended-confirmed protection meant was to continue making those edits, with no acknowledgement they understand what the problem is. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Aaaaand he's back and editing in the same area [29], [30], [31], [32]. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hazara region is not in India. It's Afghanistan/Pakistan. Anpanman11 (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, "Indian military history" does not mean simply things that happen within the post-1947 India borders, nor did the case focus on that. This is an absurd level of Wikilawyering to edit in areas you're not supposed to be editing. And for the millionth time, reply to things in your own section not in those of others. This rapidly becoming an instance of WP:IDHT. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

asilvering, just to note, the Sikh empire some of the edits were talking about encompassed parts of the Maratha empire, which was one of the focal points of the arbitration case. I fear that if "Indian military history" just means "the modern state of India, only within the post-1947 borders of India" it's going to be a mess. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

In addition, the very first sentence of Mir Jehandad Khan explicitly notes that this was in British India. I don't think it's a stretch to call a military leader fighting the Sikh Empire in British India something related to military history. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Anpanman11 Yes, a broad and vaguely defined region, which you may not edit the military history of while you're not extended confirmed. Frankly, while it seemed a stern warning to stay out of this area until you are extended confirmed was appropriate two weeks ago, given that you do not respond to warnings or even a temporary block, I think a topic ban from South Asian military history, broadly construed, is appropriate, and would urge the administrators evaluating the case to consider that action. I do not believe that you take this community's policies and guidelines or the community's concerns about your behavior seriously. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Anpanman11, the restriction is not to military history only specifically "called" India within the modern borders of the state of India. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that a battle in Canada during the American Revolution is not part of American military history. In any case, I believe that administrators have more than sufficient evidence to form a decision, so I have nothing more to add. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Statement and question by Robert McClenon

I just closed a dispute at DRN between Anpanman11 and Sybercracker that appears to have been related to this dispute, but I have a question. Sybercracker is concerned that there may continue to be a content dispute with Anpanman11. Is Anpanman11 permitted to edit in this topic area? Exactly what articles within the South Asia contentious topic are subject to extended-confirmed restriction? If I should ask this question somewhere else, please let me know where to ask it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Statement by ZDRX

The filer has been blocked as a sock puppet.[33] THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 04:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Anpanman11

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

Without commenting on any of the more specific allegations here, @Anpanman11, you have to understand that Indian military history and South Asian social groups are now under an extended confirmed restriction. This means that until you have made 500 edits, you cannot create or edit articles like Shamas Khan, Yahya Khan (governor), or Abdullah Khan Alkozai, as these people are primarily known for their military roles. I've draftified the latter two articles as an arbitration enforcement action. Going forward, do you understand this rule? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|??) 06:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Anpanman11: Please read WP:ECR. You may not edit about any topic covered by an ECR, whether or not there is a page protection in place. If a page is all about Indian military history, you cannot edit it at all. If parts of a page are about Indian military history, you cannot edit those parts. Also, please only reply in your own section. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|??) 07:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've blocked Anpanman11 for 72h as ECR enforcement over Special:Diff/1303999381 and various borderline violations. Is this sufficient for now, or do others feel something beyond that is necessary? FWIW I do also spot another copyvio here (cf. [34]), although it's not egregious. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|??) 11:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@CoffeeCrumbs: My philosophy on ECR enforcement for people who seem to truly be ignoring the ECR as if it doesn't exist at all, is that the first block is an AE tempblock and the second is a non-AE indef for DE/CIR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|??) 16:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Regarding CIR, the fact that various people have had to move Anpanman11's submissions into the correct section five times suggests that they aren't exactly showing competence or reading ability at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
They're now editing on Pakistan milhist, which... -- asilvering (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@CoffeeCrumbs yeah, I'm aware. @Anpanman11, please meditate on the words "broadly construed". -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
You have reading issues and you're trying to teach me my expertise. 1. There was no copyright violation on Muslim Gujjars, that's why my edits were restored. Yeesh. In view of the attitude over the copyvio and this kind of mindset, I'm not sure about their compatibility on the site overall. Copyright indefs kick in at 5 clear instances; you can have a minor instance if the rest are egregious. 3/5 of the way there is not great. When this 72h block ends I'm not optimisitc about further actions being unnecessary. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Mikewem

Latest comment: 2 days ago12 comments7 people in discussion

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 Mikewem

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:PIA

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

Zionism: 27-July-2025 they restored their changes while making a claim about copyvio and commenting about some unrelated minor changes.
Zionism: 27-July-2025 they admitted that they are violating the rule that says "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page", though their explanation for doing so is baseless (as you shall see in the additional comments section).
Zionism: 14-July-2025 they removed the section about the Haredi (while falsely claiming that it's not about “anti-Zionism”).
Zionism: 27-July-2025 they removed part of the Haredi section (this time claiming that it's fringe).
Non Jewish victims of Nazi Germany: in two successive edits, they removed the estimate death toll of the non Jewish civilians (while claiming that it's the "Most common description") and then, they removed more content (while claiming that "Modern scholarship says not to focus on this kind of numerical total"). A few days later, they removed the sources and the content about the death toll of non-Jewish civilians.
Double standard: 27-July-2025 they restored unsourced content while falsely claiming that "lots of sources call [the early Muslim conquests] colonialism". This is an editor who doesn't hesitate to remove what they think is FRINGE (as evidenced by this edit on the Zionism article). Struck as withdrawn. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust ??) 21:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

User_talk:Mikewem#October_2024_2 blocked for edit warring on the Zionism article.
User_talk:Mikewem#October_2024_3 indeffed for WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and clear intent to ignore WP:PIA. Their unblock appeal was accepted by ScottishFinnishRadish and Rosguill.
User_talk:Mikewem#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction they were subject to an arbitrary enforcement sanction because of their edits on the Zionism article (again).

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

Regarding diffs 1 and 2: after an IP left a comment on the Zionism talk page about a possible grammar error, Mikewem took the opportunity to completely change the paragraph (while claiming to address the raised issue). I reverted their edit, addressed one of the issues that was raised by the IP and left an explanation on the talk page. Mikewem restored their edit while making a baseless claim about copyvio (something that even if true, wouldn't justify all the changes). When challenged to prove their claim (I was very specific), they gave a non answer. When I insisted, they made a completely baseless claim about copyvio and ignored the rest of my comment. When I asked them (again) to self-revert, they provided this reply (which ignores what I said). The rule of not restoring challenged material (mentioned at the top of the article's talk page) has served us well and kept the disruption to a minimum, so for them to deliberately ignore it is disruptive at best.

diffs 3 and 4 are more or less about the same rule that they obviously have no respect for.

The other diffs are self-explanatory. M.Bitton (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Mikewem: ignore 5 and 6 (per SilverLocust). M.Bitton (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Mikewem

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 Mikewem

I’m not sure I can give an initial response before receiving more clarification. I don’t understand how diffs 5 and 6 relate to PIA enforcement, so I feel like I must be misunderstanding some important aspect of this report or of PIA. I’m sorry for asking @M.Bitton:, but would you be willing to provide a more detailed explanation for your inclusion of 5 and 6? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewem (talk ? contribs) 22:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Cdjp1

As I have looked into and commented on a couple of the edits identified here, I’ll add what I found for the recod.

On the claim of copyvio, Mikewem argues that the phrase "notion of being a nation" is a copyvio of the lyric "notion of a nation" from the song "Non-stop" from the musical Hamilton. If we do a quick Google Scholar search for the exact lyric, we find it appearing in 1,270 results prior to 2012, which is prior to the first public showing of what was then the Hamilton Mixtape in 2013. Or if we want to go prior to 2009, when Miranda has stated he started working initially on Hamilton, the results are 1,010. This should be more than enough to show that the exact lyric is a common enough phrase in academic discussions of things like nationhood to not be a copyvio of a musical that came about after the scholarly sources looked at. We can then move on to how "notion of being a nation" is a different phrase to the lyric "notion of a nation". To put it bluntly, I very much believe any claim of copyvio is fallacious and is being used to justify the removal of a sentence that Mikewem doesn't like.

Secondly on "lots of sources call [the early Muslim conquests] colonialism", they later added a reference to support the claim, which was a single unpublished paper, that was written by Craig S. Wright, a person who only has degrees in computer science, works in financial technology, has no history of publication in relevant topic areas, and was found by UK courts to lie about what he has done/achieved. This is a potential indicator of a poor ability to assess the validity and references of sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Absolutiva

Mikewem also involved by changing short description for The Holocaust to include dates as it fail WP:SDDATES, this was frequently discussed on Talk:The Holocaust#Short description. But I attempt to change this short description before it was changed or reverted by Mikewem (1, 2, 3). Absolutiva 01:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Result concerning Mikewem

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

On diffs 1 and 2, that looks like a clear consensus-required violation. The "affirmative consensus on the talk page" requirement does need to be via discussion on the talk page – not merely citing (implicitly) things like the WP:COPYVIO policy, MOS:CAPS guidelines, or the WP:UCR essay. (And the asserted copyright violation is not remotely a copyright violation.)
On diffs 5 and 6, I think Mikewem is correct that those edits are not within WP:PIA. The subjects of victims of Nazi Germany and early Muslim conquests are not generally within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust ??) 03:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Absolutiva: Likewise, those edits regarding the Holocaust are not in the WP:PIA topic area. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust ??) 02:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Until this thread is resolved, I have now temporarily topic banned Mikewem (limited to articles/article talk pages). On 4 August, they said on their talk page that they would respond. No response has been forthcoming, even as Mikewem has continued editing at Zionism/Talk:Zionism. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust ??) 23:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am having a lot of trouble assuming good faith on the copyright removals. A four-word phrase from an unrelated work, not even identical to the five-word phrase used on-wiki? Seriously? Editors do get weird ideas sometimes about how copyright works (partly because our copyright-related policies intentionally exceed, and also sometimes unintentionally misstate, copyright law, I say with a cough in the direction of WP:COPYLINK), but there's only so much AGF I'm willing to extend given the history of sanctions here. The minimum outcome I can see here is a balanced editing restriction (noting that per N95 Mikewem is currently at 74% [133/180] PIA edits in the past 30 days), but at this moment I lean more toward a full TBAN. We do not need editors in this topic area weaponizing policies to gain the upper hand. As with most PIA sanctions, I favor making this thread's outcome, whatever it is, appealable only to ARCA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|??) 04:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm not totally sold on a full TBAN here, depending on further replies from Mikewem, but I agree that the first two diffs appear to violate the consensus required requirement. (That's a ... weird mouthful). And I find the "alleged" copyright violation to be so much of a reach that I'm having trouble assuming good faith on Mikewem's part for putting it forward. The fact that Mikewem was already indeffed but unblocked less than a year ago is not exactly encouraging. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Stix1776

Latest comment: 12 days ago15 comments7 people in discussion

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

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

Appealing user: Stix1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Stix1776 (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sanction being appealed: I was given a topic ban of on circumcision.

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

Notification of that administrator: sorry it's late, my job keeps me very busy

Statement by Stix1776

Since the ban, the other editor in the conflict has has a litany of blocks, topics bans, and finally a indefinite ban for sockpuppetry. I understand Wikipedia needs to be careful of outing, but this user was almost certainly creating a fake profile on Reddit to claim that the other side was "canvasing", something he often does [35] [36] to edit war.

It should be noted that the previous Outing policy in April 2022 did not include a mention to external sites. This was fixed in January of last year. I was not the only editor to find this confusing. Before the topic ban process started, I was genuinely surprised yet apologetic. I am sorry that I did an outing, but this situation is quite confusing.

Since my topic ban, the other contentious account and their socks had multiple blocks for edit warring, something I tried very hard to explain in my AE defense. Since the ban, I've had zero behavioral issues, and the other editor and his socks have had 10+. It's almost comical comparing this user's behavioral history and his socks and more socks and more socks and more socks after I was topic banned. Stix1776 (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

– Edit: may I add that an admin decision was made on my topic ban BEFORE I had a chance to post a response. As other editors have noted, most of the complains in the AE report were for things BEFORE I got warned for DS. Reading the original AE report, most of the "personal attacks" that I was blamed for, including accusations of sockpuppetry and a future block for edit warring, in hindsight are fully correct.Stix1776 (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Replies to The Blade of the Northern Lights

Jesus hell. So we're not allowed to argue, with a preponderance of evidence, that the topic ban was a massive mistake? How about that KlayCax and his socks have edited 20% of the page?

As noted, this admin has been a lock em up and throw away the key judge, literally making a decision before I even responded to the AE post. This is shameful.Stix1776 (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also KlayCax wasn't the filer, he was the one I was blamed for for "complaining".Stix1776 (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Replies to Pppery

I literally apologized several times throughout this process.Stix1776 (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

This was rushed as hell.Stix1776 (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Statement by The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights

Just to note I'm aware of this, I don't think I'll have a lot to say but I know whatever I do say will probably be tomorrow, RL today has been absolutely relentless. Admins (and anyone else who has input), feel free to weigh in before any statement of mine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

To the extent I have anything to say, I note this appeal almost entirely focuses on the conduct of the filer at the time. Stix1776 hasn't picked up any other additional sanctions, and KlayCax has engaged in subsequent misconduct, and still nothing about this appeal is stating what the benefit would be for Stix1776 to be allowed to edit this topic area again. If there's a followup statement forthcoming I'm open to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Stix1776

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Stix1776

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

Decline this entire appeal per WP:NOTTHEM. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
As much as my sympathies would normally be on Stix's side, their last few edits to this page suggest that lifting the topic ban at this time might be unwise. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Stix, if you want this to end in your favour, some advice: back up. Way up. Start again, from the beginning. Explain the circumstances that led to your tban in a way that would make sense to someone who is reading about you for the very first time. Explain why you think the ban is no longer necessary. Focus on your own conduct, not that of others. If you think your conduct was perfectly fine and AE admins erred previously, go ahead and make that case - but focus on your conduct, not someone else's. Promise not to repeat whatever led to the tban, even if you think that's kind of stupid. And restrict yourself to one edit to this page every 24 hours. -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Stix1776, please put any comments and replies only in your own section. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust ??) 08:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
As the blocking admin for KlayCax, I'm pretty open to this appeal, and I don't like the idea of declining an appeal merely for having a bad attitude int he appeal itself, but I agree with asilvering that Stix needs to back up and restart. Frankly I'd be fine with them just collapsing what they've written so far and starting the appeal fresh. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|??) 11:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Agree re: collapsing. And I know I beat the "for Pete's sake, 500 words!!" drum around here a lot, but I would happily ignore all of the words written thus far and not consider them in any count. -- asilvering (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Bhaskar sunsari

Latest comment: 7 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion

By AE consensus, Bhaskar sunsari (talk · contribs) is TBANned from south asia social groups, broadly construed. Additionally, they are indefinitely blocked with the first year being an AE action and then converting to a regular admin action. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Request concerning Bhaskar sunsari

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: CoffeeCrumbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Bhaskar sunsari (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

15:12, 27 July 2025 Addition of material to a caste group in Nepal, inappropriate attack on others in edit summary please don't remove any sourced data doing fake edits here in Wikipedia won't change your status in society
15:25, 27 July 2025 Addition of material to a caste group in Nepal, in appropriate warning to members of a caste Removed manipulated content added by yadav editors like prominent
01:47, 31 July 2025 Removal of section related to an ethnic group on Nepal, borderline personal attack on editor editor should learn editing first

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

14:27, 31 March 2025 Blocked two weeks for persistent disruption and addition of unsourced content
10:26, 22 April 2025 Blocked for two months and 29 days for persistent distruption and addition of unsourced content
17:17, 22 April 2025 Talk page access removed during block due to making personal attacks on talk page
09:17, 22 July 2025 Extended-confirmed status removed.

Notified editor on talk page in plain text that they no longer had extended-confirmed access and provided a link to WP:CT/SA. [37] Editor at least acknowledged that this was read and gave no indication that anything was misunderstood. [38]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I notified this editor last week in the hopes that they would stay out of an extremely sensitive area until they had their extended confirmed rights restored. This was ignored, and given that these edits in this area have inappropriate edit summaries, I didn't think another warning was inappropriate. Given the attacks on people who are members of a caste that they appear to have a poor opinion of, and the relevant block history, I would have filed this even if the editor did have extended confirmed access. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Bhaskar sunsari

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 Bhaskar sunsari

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bhaskar sunsari

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

That's pretty clearly a violation. Given the past history, I'm inclined to a topic ban and/or block ... two months blocked doesn't seem to have gotten the point across, not sure a topic ban would be better. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Ealdgyth. Pending a response, I'm leaning on a TBAN + AE indef at the moment. Moneytrees???(Talk) 20:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree with my colleagues. This is a straightforward case. AE indef + GSCASTE TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Merline303

Latest comment: 2 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Blocked by Voorts as an ordinary (non-arbitration) administrative action. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust ??) 22:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Request concerning Merline303

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Merline303 (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/Indian military history#Final decision

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

4 August 2025 Creation of a page with unreviewed and hallucinated AI-generated references, such as:
- Gombrich, Richard & Obeyesekere, Gananath (1988). Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in Sri Lanka. Princeton University Press. pp. 39–42., which is used to cite a paragraph on British colonial policy but the relevant pages concern Buddhist spiritual doctrine
- Roberts, Michael (1994). Exploring Confrontation: Sri Lanka—Politics, Culture and History. Routledge. pp. 42–45., which is used to cite a paragraph on the aftermath of the Uva Rebellion but the relevant pages are unrelated
- Pfaffenberger, Bryan (1994). “The Sri Lankan Tamils.” In: Spencer, J. (ed.) Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict. Routledge. pp. 148–150., which is a chapter that does not exist in a book that does.
1 August 2025 Creation of a page with unreviewed and hallucinated AI-generated references:
- Wijeyaratne, U.; de Silva, N. (2011). "Forest Use and Poaching under Conflict Conditions". Environmental Conflict Review. 6.
- Vithursha, K. (2019). "Impact of Indian Trawler Poaching on Northern Sri Lanka". Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences.
- Jayathilaka, R.; Maldeniya, R. (2017). "Status of sea turtle nesting in Sri Lanka". IOSEA Marine Turtle MoU.
- de Silva, Rohan (2009). "Ivory Trafficking and War Economies: The LTTE Case". Sri Lanka Wildlife Review.
25 July 2025 Creation of a page with unreviewed and hallucinated AI-generated references:
- Richardson, John M. (1979). "Socialist Experiment in Sri Lanka". Asian Survey. 19 (6): 547–564.
- Fernando, Ralph (1982). "The State and the Media in Sri Lanka". Media Asia. 9 (4).
- Perera, L. A. (1982). "Religious Education and the Takeover of Schools in Ceylon". Ceylon Journal of Historical and Social Studies.

And so on and so forth across 19 articles created in the past two months and goodness knows how many others edited. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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 18 April 2025 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Thought AE would be simpler than ANI. Suggest an immediate block, draftification of all their article creations (or CSD if you want to anticipate the RfC that looks close to a SNOW close), and reversions, as far as possible, of their other edits. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Voorts, and for the RfC close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Merline303

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 Merline303

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Merline303

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

I've blocked Merline as a regular admin action. The block is without prejudice to a consensus of admins at AE taking further action, but I don't see another admin unblocking this editor unless they demonstrate an understanding of how to edit without using LLM-hallucinated garbage. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Initiated by IdanST at 10:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Case or decision affected

User_talk:IdanST#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban

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

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

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
I followed step #1 (contacting the administrator), which was rejected, and I'm now following steps #2 and #3.

Statement by IdanST

Hey,

Since I was topic banned nine months ago, I’ve made over 500 substantial edits on English Wikipedia, as well as more than 18,000 edits across Wikimedia projects.

I apologize for my past behavior and acknowledge that I wasn’t ready to contribute constructively to contentious topics at the time. However, I now believe I’m better prepared and could contribute more effectively if the topic ban were lifted.

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Arbitrator response from when this was originally filed at ARCA

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

IdanST appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

@IdanST: the Arbitration Committee generally isn't the right body to appeal a CTOP restriction to, if it's on the basis of changed behavior. We only overturn CTOP actions under very narrow circumstances, usually having to do with the CTOP action being problematic when it was placed. Like the sanctioning administrator said, a better place to plead this case would be at WP:AN or WP:AE, if that's the path you're looking to take. theleekycauldron (talk ? she/her) 09:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Agree with leeky above; Wikipedia:Contentious topics#On community review (ie. AN or AE) allows for an appeal on the grounds that "the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption" which seems to best align with the purpose of this appeal, while the three criteria ARCA can consider does not include this. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Recused, as I placed this sanction. I do agree with what was said by my esteemed colleagues though, which is why I said to appeal at AE or AN in my response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Result concerning IdanST

Gianni888

Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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 Gianni888

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Gianni888 (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#GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction

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

10 August 2025 turns an article on a surname into a clan in violation of ECR
1-7 August 2025: Created Draft:List_of_Kamboj_Personalities_and_Families

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 on 1 August 2025 by Agent VII (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1195#User:Kambojahistory is engaged in disruption only which discussed Gianni tangentially. I've already ECP-ed Sagoo as an AE action since it's been subject to a long, long history of hijackings of that sort, bringing this here to discuss sanctions for Gianni888, which is an area I prefer to stay out of as an admin (and promised I would in my RfA). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

In response to SilverLocust, at least the edits to Sagoo were disruptive on their own merits (unilaterally attempting to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagoo) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Gianni888

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 Gianni888

Sorry if i broke any laws of wikipedia but i was just trying to associate the saggu/sagoo page with caste identity because my grandmother is a saggu/sagoo and to find out her history ask my father and therefore i thought that it would be useful to show that Saggu/Saggoo Lineage belongs to Jat and Ramgharia

And for the Draft:List_of_Kamboj_Personalities_and_Families, my fathers lineage is Kamboj and whenever i meet a Kamboj they never know anything about the history of the Kamboj community so i thought it would be a bright idea to show people and my family the notable Kamboj/Kambohs of history

the main reason i origninally created my wiki account was to edit the Kamboj page

Sorry if i broke any rules on Wikipedia

Sincerely Gianni888

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gianni888

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

Since Gianni888 apparently had not been specifically told about WP:ARBECR before this, I wouldn't sanction them merely for violating ECR (beyond a warning). The alert templates {{subst:Alert|topic=sa}} and {{subst:Alert/first|topic=sa}} have since been updated to include ECR information. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust ??) 22:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keith Thomas (record producer)

Latest comment: 7 minutes ago6 comments3 people in discussion

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: GENSEX, BLP

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

2019/10/08 17:24 - BLP vio; earliest diff of this
2019/12/02 02:41 - BLP vio (The edit before this one was also a BLP violation but not relevant to this case)
2020/08/07 05:55 - BLP vio
2020/12/27 18:23 - BLP vio
2022/12/13 22:48 - Good-faith insertion of contested BLP material (Editor would edit this paragraph over the next few edits, including to add a questionable source)
2023/01/29 21:27 - Good-faith restoration of contested BLP material
2023/01/29 21:35 - Good-faith restoration of contested BLP material
2023/04/12 00:35 - BLP vio
2023/11/08 13:26 - BLP vio
2025/07/25 03:02 - Bad-faith insertion of contested BLP material

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A, seeking page-level sanctions

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

N/A, seeking page-level sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I apologise for the very nonstandard request again, and the situation is the same as it was back then. (Seriously, we need an ArbEnf template for articles, not just users.)

I'm here to seek an indefinite semi-protection on Keith Thomas (record producer) under the GS and BLP CTOPs due to what appears to be a long-term campaign to draw undue attention to a lawsuit filed (and then apparently quickly settled) against him as part of #MeToo that has been ongoing ever since the lawsuit was filed in late 2019. Someone claiming to be the article's subject complained about it on the Help Desk, which prompted me to do some digging. I can't find any sources about the lawsuit that aren't strictly about its filing (hence my hedge above), and this content seems to frequently find its way into the lede courtesy of unregistered users. I am bringing it here rather than WP:RFPP/I because this is a situation where I would rather have a consensus to protect the page rather than a unilateral action that could easily be challenged after a year. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Voorts: GS is being invoked because the allegations are connected to #MeToo, which is unambiguously in that topic area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discussion concerning Keith Thomas (record producer)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Keith Thomas (record producer)

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

SEMI is generally for high-traffic pages. PCP makes more sense here. Given that this is a BLP and the allegations are extremely serious, I would be in favor of indefinite PCP under BLP. I don't think "broadly construed" can be stretched far enough for this to be covered by GENSEX; the IP editors are adding this to portray the article subject in a particular way, not comment on gender/sexuality. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The fact that a lawsuit was filed during the MeToo era does not make it fall under GENSEX. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

PC is a poor solution for BLPs as it allows the disruptive content to be viewed in the history. For articles subject to serious BLP concerns (as opposed to occasional drive by vandalism) semi-protection should be used. It's better to protect the subjects of our articles than to kowtow to the ideal of '"the encyclopedia that anyone can edit".-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

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

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

[a]

[b]

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

梦见牙齿掉了是什么征兆	肺结节是什么	电泳是什么意思	息怒是什么意思	pap什么意思
吃什么降血脂最快	孕妇腹泻可以吃什么药	假冒警察什么罪怎么判	世界屋脊指的是什么	大便黑绿色是什么原因
双氧水是什么东西	微量泵是干什么用的	什么使我快乐	鼻翼两侧发红是什么原因	七月份什么星座
掌中宝是什么东西	手指甲发紫是什么原因	吃什么可以让胸部变大	乙肝15阳性什么意思	什么叫性生活

岁月不饶人是什么意思inbungee.com	胎儿脉络丛囊肿是什么原因引起的hcv8jop6ns8r.cn	脾虚湿气重吃什么好hcv9jop7ns0r.cn	吃什么补脾胃hcv8jop0ns2r.cn	补蛋白吃什么最好hcv8jop7ns7r.cn
穷兵黩武是什么意思wmyky.com	纤维素纤维是什么面料hcv9jop3ns0r.cn	痤疮是什么引起的hcv8jop6ns1r.cn	为什么不一样hcv8jop0ns1r.cn	地级市副市长是什么级别hcv7jop4ns5r.cn
梦见自己化妆是什么意思hcv8jop9ns0r.cn	细胞是什么hcv8jop6ns4r.cn	血气方刚什么意思aiwuzhiyu.com	疝气什么症状hcv8jop4ns0r.cn	为什么地球是圆的hcv9jop1ns3r.cn
梦见发工资了是什么意思hcv7jop6ns1r.cn	骨穿刺主要检查什么病hcv7jop4ns7r.cn	夏天为什么热hkuteam.com	平均红细胞体积偏低是什么意思hcv9jop7ns5r.cn	o型血有什么好处hcv7jop6ns9r.cn

杨能斌：加强中层干部队伍建 设充分发挥企业中坚作用

Anpanman11

Request concerning Anpanman11

Discussion concerning Anpanman11

Statement by Anpanman11

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

Statement and question by Robert McClenon

Statement by ZDRX

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Anpanman11

Mikewem

Request concerning Mikewem

Discussion concerning Mikewem

Statement by Mikewem

Statement by Cdjp1

Statement by Absolutiva

Result concerning Mikewem

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Stix1776

Statement by Stix1776

Statement by The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Stix1776

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Stix1776

Bhaskar sunsari

Request concerning Bhaskar sunsari

Discussion concerning Bhaskar sunsari

Statement by Bhaskar sunsari

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bhaskar sunsari

Merline303

Request concerning Merline303

Discussion concerning Merline303

Statement by Merline303

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Merline303

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

Statement by IdanST

Statement by {other-editor}

IdanST appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

Result concerning IdanST

Gianni888

Request concerning Gianni888

Discussion concerning Gianni888

Statement by Gianni888

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gianni888

Keith Thomas (record producer)

Discussion concerning Keith Thomas (record producer)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Keith Thomas (record producer)

杨能斌：加强中层干部队伍建设充分发挥企业中坚作用