Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Transgender healthcare and people	21 October 2025

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	9 October 2025
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	18 October 2025

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Abstention for non-votes procedure	30 October 2025

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 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:

Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction

There is a clear consensus among participating Committee members that contesting a speedy deletion on the talk page is considered an edit request for the purposes of WP:ARBECR. Non-extended-confirmed editors may therefore do so. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Ahecht at 14:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

WP:ARBECR

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

• Ahecht (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• GWWU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Special:Diff/1315940092

Statement by Ahecht

I am requesting clarification on whether contesting a speedy deletion on the talk page is considered an edit request for the purposes of WP:ARBECR. This issue originally came up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 224#User Intarface encourages actions that are against rules and can have unintended consquences for new users and was further discussed at Template talk:Db-meta#Modify Db-meta template to hide "Contest this speedy deletion" button to non-extended-confirmed users on pages with ARBECR restriction.. In the latter discussion, Primefac suggested that contesting an speedy deletion on the talk page could potentially be considered a type of edit request, while HouseBlaster was unsure whether we should prevent a non XC editor from contesting a speedy deletion altogether because the likelyhood of success is low, or whether we should modify the notice to instruct all non-XC editors, even if they're not the page creator, to contest on the talk page rather than trying to remove the speedy deletion tag themselves if the page is subject to WP:ARBECR.

Statement by GWWU

Statement by Nil Einne

My view is it arguably is technically possible for contesting a speedy deletion to be an edit request but it's of so little benefit it's not worth saying it is lest it confuses people. Let's remember an edit request isn't for simply requesting a change to an article but requesting a change either already has consensus or so simply that it clearly has consensus even for someone unfamiliar with anything about the article (i.e. uncontroversial) e.g. a typo correction, adding details to a ref etc. Edit requests shouldn't be used for proposing controversial changes, editors should start a discussion and gain consensus first. If they cannot start a discussion because of ARBECR, then using an edit request to initiate a discussion is IMO a clear abuse of ARBECR even if they stay out of it after. Given all that, it's technically possible for contesting a speedy deletion to be an edit request when it's so simple that any editor with extended confirmed status even one who knows almost nothing about speedy deletion would be willing to remove the speedy deletion template because there's something so problematic about it that they do not need to let an admin or at least someone more familiar with speedy deletions look it over. But in such cases, surely an admin would see that without needing to be told. And so all this is doing is hoping some other extended confirmed editor sees it first and removes it to slightly reduce the workload on admin. But if we say it's okay, it's far more likely that it will be mostly used by non EC editors in cases where it's not so simple why the speedy deletion template shouldn't be removed but this isn't allowed similar to the way editors cannot make "edit requests" which are actually an attempt to start discussion on controversial changes. Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Extended confirmed restriction: Clerk notes

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

Extended confirmed restriction: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Contesting a CSD is not an edit request. If you can't discuss the deletion of an article you can't request a CSD be removed or added. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
• Not an edit request in my opinion, which has a very narrow definition. Prohibited by ARBECR. Daniel (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter much. "Contesting" a speedy deletion is a non-formal process adding a mostly meaningless message to a talk page that, if we're honest, often won't even be read before deletion. It is not the start of a formal internal project discussion such as an actual deletion discussion at WP:AfD. And it is equivalent to creating a formal edit request for "Please replace {{the CSD template}} by nothing". To me, it doesn't matter if we explicitly forbid making the last protesting comment before the page and the comment are removed forever. We should perhaps clarify that blocking someone for clicking a button inviting them to do so, and de-facto for creating an edit request, would be rather inappropriate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  PS: I think the only reason why this blue button exists is to secretly discourage users from removing the speedy deletion template by letting them send a meaningless message, channeling their frustration to a place where it doesn't disrupt the process, instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• I seem to find myself in the minority here, but I think that the example given by ToBeFree is exactly how a contested deletion request should be taken. "Please remove this deletion nomination because..." is a request to edit a page they should not normally be able to edit. Just because it is not headed by {{edit protected}} should not immediately invalidate it, and just because they cannot participate any further than making the request does not mean the request needs to be invalidated. Primefac (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think you're in the minority there, as I agree. - Aoidh (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  CSD is a deletion process that falls outside article content. Since one of the main points of ECR was to keep non-EC editors out of internal processes it seems to me that they shouldn't be making arguments as to why a page shouldn't be deleted. It's the same as RMs not falling under edit requests even though they're requesting a change to the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• This seems like a very edge case but I agree with TBF. "Please don't delete this page" is largely equivalent to an edit request. It's an action that doesn't have much effect anyway because if the page unquestionably meets the CSD it will be deleted anyway, and if it clearly doesn't the speedy will be declined but I wouldn't want to rule out an edge case within an edge case where a non-EC editor can add vital context. But more importantly blocking somebody for contesting a speedy deletion would seem absurdly bureaucratic, and policing the content of a talk page that is about to be deleted is probably a waste of time and would come across as mean-spirited. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Given that CSD contesting is one of the few areas where consensus isn't a factor, I don't really see the harm in allowing it, especially when they wouldn't be allowed to follow up at AN or DR. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Inclined to allow contesting/keep the button, per others. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing

Initiated by Johnpacklambert at 16:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 4) Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect. This sanction supersedes his March 2017 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
2. Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [diff of notification Username]
• [diff of notification Username]

Information about amendment request

• 4) Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect. This sanction supersedes his March 2017 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • I want it to be clear this clause allows me to participate in categories for discussion
• Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
  • State the desired modification

Statement by Johnpacklambert

The restriction on my participation in deletion discussions and related discussions was imposed in July 2022. I understand that I was at times too combative on issues and apologize for that. The discussion at the time focused only on my participation in article deletion discussions. However when the restriction was written it was written in a way to cover topic discussions on things other than articles. This included a ban on participation in discussions about categories. After almost 38 months I am asking that that specific part of the restriction be lifted so that I can participate in discussions about deleting, merging and renaming categories. I understand these restrictions were imposed for wise reasons back in 2022, but I feel allowing me to participate in Category discussions would be reasonable at this time. The decision speaks of reconsideration after 12 months. There has been no discussion on this restriction now for I believe 22 months, and I better understand now how to cooperate with others. I feel allowing me to participate in Categories for discussion discussions would be a reasonable modification of this restruliction at this time. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• I was wrong in my actions in late 2022 that lead to a total editing ban for a time. That was over 3 years ago and I have not done anything like that since. I have tried to avoid discussing deleting articles at all. My understanding was that the ban applied to articles. I did not think it prevented me from making comments on the organization of categories. I was under the impression that I was not able to participate at CfD because the pan on Afd was extended to other general discussion formats. My understanding though was that the broad ban on discussing deletion was a ban on deleting of articles, broadly construed, and did not apply to non-article things such as categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

The best way to learn if an editor has learned their lesson, is to allow them to prove it. Recommend lifting the aforementioned restrictions. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Per GoodDay above, that's the way to find out if it's going to work. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by HouseBlaster

Johnpacklambert has a habit of requesting that editors merge categories, time and time again. Their talk archives have plenty of examples (I have yet to find one without such comments), and they were blocked for violating their topic ban back in 2022 following an AE thread.

I gave Mr. Lambert a note about this last year, and it seems the behavior has continued. However, AE seems to think that merge/rename nominations are not covered by the topic ban. I strongly believe that merger discussions are covered; the only difference at CFD between "merge" and "delete" is whether the former contents of the category are added to another before deletion. I have no firm opinion on whether rename discussions at CFD are covered, though a sizeable minority of rename nominations end with deletion or merging. If the ban is not lifted or narrowed, some clarification on what is and is not permitted would be appreciated.

Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Harry, I was deliberately vague about that because I don't have a firm opinion on the matter :) ... consider my above comment something of a Brandeis brief.

From what I can tell, the restriction was a deliberately overbroad; to paraphrase a recent vote of yours, it was ensuring the same caravan did not pack up and move on to overzealous deletion of categories or files or drafts. Mr. Lambert was already under a community XFD restriction, an unrelated topic ban in religion, his block log is not super pretty, and a site ban was on the table and was seriously considered; in those circumstances, broad strokes would seem wise. Using more refined strokes would not be a terrible idea, though I would oppose repealing the ban wholesale; the article deletion processes (PROD, AFD, BLARing articles) should continue to be covered. A suspended removal, allowing uninvolved admins to reinstate the ban if need be, would be wise. In other words, I think a probationary lift allowing all participation regarding CFD would not be a terrible idea.

My impression of Mr. Lambert's comments are that they are helpful, though I have not read them in detail. I would be curious to hear Smasongarrison's thoughts on lifting the topic ban; she is a category superstar, CFD regular, and has interacted with Mr. Lambert frequently. My real advice would be to listen to whatever she says :)

Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Pppery

This topic ban was imposed for overzealous behavior in AfD discussions. It never made sense to expand its scope beyond AfD discussions and I would suggest it be narrowed to that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Smasongarrison

I have mixed feelings about JPL becoming more involved at CFD. He has a long history with categorization. Most of the discussion has focused on his topic ban in terms of article work, but historically, he's had similar issues in categorization (e.g.,Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#User:_Johnpacklambert_emptying_categories_prematurely;_edit_warring, which makes this directly relevant here.

On one hand, I do think he's shown real growth. When editors are willing to put in the time to work with him, he's open to the feedback and able to have productive conversations. On the other hand, consistent follow-through on that feedback hasn't been his strong suit.

My main concern with full participation at CFD is that he can be extremely rigid on certain topics, particularly when it comes to distinctions between nationals from modern and/or former countries. That rigidity tends to cause recurring friction (e.g., recent ones include [1] User_talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2025/October#Manually_overriding_templates, User_talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2025/August#Please_populate,_parent,_and_sort_key_the_categories_you_create). There's also a bit of irony in his approach: he often points out that categories are underpopulated and should be merged, but he continues to create new, narrowly defined ones of the same kind, without recognizing the contradiction.

All that said, I don't think the answer is to exclude him entirely. He does have good ideas and, given structure and oversight, can make valuable contributions. I'd support allowing him to comment in CFD discussions but not to make proposals himself. I think that that would strike the balance between giving him the opportunity to demonstrate his growth, without disrupting the project. ^SMason_Garrison 05:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by FOARP

I've been very occasionally keeping tabs on JPL and as far as I can see the ban converted them into an effective, productive, gnoming member of the EN WP community, and they have (admittedly with some shakiness at the start) kept their nose clean. I can't claim to have reviewed every edit they've made since the ARBCOM decision, but the ones I've reviewed have been entirely on-point. In the spirit of WP:ROPE I think at the very least the request can be granted, and that possibly loosening of restrictions can go further. FOARP (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

S Marshall

• As a participant in the Arbcom case being modified, I would support this provided that JPL's reintroduction to deletion discussions is rate-limited in some way, such as for example: (a) participating in no more than one XfD at a time (he can choose a new one to participate in when the previous one is closed); or (b) editing no more than one XfD page per day.

JPL's conduct in individual XfDs isn't highly problematic. It's the aggregate effect of participating in hundreds of them.—S Marshall T/C 16:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

500 words is very long for a CFD !vote, isn't it?—S Marshall T/C 07:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Barkeep49

At the time of the decision, JPL asked if merges were included in the topic ban, and then arb L235 answered yes something that I, as another then arb agreed with at that time. I believe there might have been more discussion about this either on arbwiki or the list (or maybe it was IRC) at the time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes

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

• Recuse (CFD is my wheelhouse, and I am considering adding a statement). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm reasonably receptive to this request but XfD is not my area of expertise. HouseBlaster should I take your comment as opposition to the request? Besides the ambiguity of whether the restriction applies to CfD, have JPL's contributions there been disruptive or unhelpful? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• There was some discussion of whether merge discussions are incorporated into this sanction at that AE thread, but I think the controlling factor was really the nature of his participation and the question wasn't fully dissected. I would hold that participating directly in a merge discussion almost certainly violates the restriction. They involve whether a standalone page should exist or not, which gives them a lot of the same personal-philosophy baggage as AfD.
  As for amending the sanction to allow weighing in on categories, I'm hesitant. As I understand it, the category area combines a lot of procedural rigor with a tendency for controversy disproportionate to the weight of the matter a la ARBCAPS. If we were to do something that allows him to show he's here to contribute constructively, I'd say an unban that allows for a maximum of 3 CfD comments per day – limited to 1 comment per thread, 500 words per comment, and no nominations – would be my starting place. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  happy for it to be 250 as well :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• I think leek's idea for cats is a reasonable way to proceed, maybe with a 6 month wait before review. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Though I'm generally in favor of simple restrictions when possible, I'm open to a suggestion along these lines. - Aoidh (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • 250 is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• I'm fine with leeky's proposed modification. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with the above, but tend to also agree with S Marshall's comment that 500 feels quite long. Reckon 250-300 is the sweet spot - this comment, for reference, is 42. Twelve times the length of this, is a very long CfD comment. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• There was a 2022 clarification request and 2023 amendment request on the possibility of a categories exemption to the topic ban. Based on community input here, I think that we can loosen this, especially since some of the cited misconduct is quite old.
  I don't like overly-complicated restrictions: enforcement eats into time and energy that is better spent elsewhere. Of the options so far (word limits, nomination ban, CfD rate limit) I think that having all would be too much: from the case's findings, the main issue is the speed at which Johnpacklambert works, so I would have only the CfD limit that automatically expires. If we want to give someone the ability to show that they have changed, having an extremely short leash is not always helpful. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Motions

Abstention for non-votes procedure

Motion adopted EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Abstention for non-votes procedure: Clerk notes

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

Motion: Amendment to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures relating to automatic abstentions for non-votes

The Committee resolves by motion:

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitrator activity and voting is amended to include the following subsection:

Abstention for non-votes

Where an arbitrator does not vote on a proposal that requires an absolute majority, the process below may be followed.

• For votes at a Proposed Decision page, or on a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
  • At any time after seven days from the proposed decision or motion being posted, any arbitrator (but often one of the drafting arbitrators, or a coordinating arbitrator) may initiate the 'abstention for non-votes' procedure. To initiate this, they will a) post a link to this subsection, along with a ping for each arbitrator potentially affected, to the 'Implementation notes' section of the proposed decision page (or equivalent section for a motion); and b) an email to the arbcom-en mailing list detailing the same.
  • After 72 hours, any arbitrator votes still outstanding will be automatically considered as an abstention for the purposes of that individual proposal.
  • Should an arbitrator who had abstentions automatically registered for proposal(s) under this clause subsequently vote on a proposal before it is closed, that vote will override and replace the automatic abstention.

A vote will not be closed as successful if the total number of arbitrators voting on it is less than an absolute majority of the Committee.

The application of this clause is not automatic, and arbitrators should use their best judgement when deciding whether or not to apply it. Factors that should be considered include levels of communication, statements around voting in the immediate future, as well as the nature and count of the votes.

Note that this process cannot be applied to the process that governs the removal of an arbitrator.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6

Enacted – EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Support:

1. Following on from recent events and recent cases, and as discussed on the mailing list. The key sentence here is the one that starts The application of this clause is not automatic - judgement as to its best application (whether or not to activate, timing etc.) will be on a case-by-case basis. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
5. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
6. Cabayi (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
7. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
8. Katie^talk 17:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
9. I am actually rather hesitant to support this. The Committee has done well enough without this for some 20 years. As Barkeep notes on the talk, Arbs should make the Committee their first Wiki priority. But that hasn't always been the case as of late. I understand the suggestion that we should simply remove inactive arbs, but that is an extreme step that requires the expenditure of considerable political capital and good will, reduces our already low manpower, and is very drama filled (our job is to reduce drama, not create it). Short of arbs taking personal responsibility and going inactive when they're really inactive, it seems this is our next best solution. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
10. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator views and discussions

Community discussion

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

• "A vote will not be closed as successful if the total number of arbitrators voting on it is less than an absolute majority of the Committee": is that supposed to be an absolute majority of the full Committee or an absolute majority as defined at WP:ARBPRO#Calculation of votes? Either way it would create perverse incentives: if there are seven supporters and no one else has voted, the item would pass if an eighth member opposed but fail if he just stayed quiet. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Absolute majority is defined by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Calculation of votes as the total number of arbitrators, not including any arbitrators who are recused, abstaining, or inactive. Note that this safety provision (and its wording) is copied from an existing internal procedure. While I understand this proposed scenario as creating perverse incentive, I think the benefits from the safety net of requiring a majority to at least vote on an issue outweighs the narrow edge case. Daniel (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    • That's less of a problem, then—thanks for the response. Obviously I'm not privy to the underlying issues here, but I'll just make two other comments: (1) it's really a shame if we're having to rewrite procedures because arbs aren't willing to go inactive or abstain when necessary, and (2) you all have a duty to promptly remove arbitrators who consistently fail to "[p]articipate conscientiously in the Committee's activities and deliberations", for security reasons if nothing else. I know it's got to be incredibly tempting to take one of the less confrontational paths, but we elect arbs in the hope that they'll do the right thing even when it's uncomfortable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
      • Somewhat restricted by what I can/can't say, but to answer your final sentence first, I reckon the 2025 Committee has a decent track record of doing the right thing even when it's uncomfortable — AC/N currently is an example of that, and we've had a few others throughout the year similar (think the mass checkuser event earlier in the year, etc.). For (1), you have my full agreement there; it was hard to reach an outcome at Transgender healthcare and people for example, due to lingering outstanding votes impacting outcomes. For (2), also agree, although the key word is consistently - this proposed motion provides a mechanism that can serve as a spot-fix for occasional issues, where a consistent pattern that requires that (somewhat extraordinary) step may not exist. But overall, I'm fairly aligned with your comments and the sentiment that underpins them, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I certainly don't mean to suggest that this is an issue unique to the current Committee; it's been going on for a while now. But CaptainEek's comment above is kind of reïnforcing my worry, which is that some arbs are letting concerns about drama and political capital control their responses in this area. It's a completely understandable approach, and ninety-nine times out of a hundred it'll turn out just fine, but I sure hope it won't take a redux of 2011 to show why the risk-reward calculation just doesn't work. I guess I'm kind of wandering from the matter at hand, though. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

A minor copy editing suggestion: instead of "(but often one of the drafting arbitrators...", I suggest "(such as one of the drafting arbitrators...".

As it's an internal procedure, I defer to the arbitrators on what they think is the best way to initiate the process. Nonetheless, I suggest re-examining if all of the proposed steps are needed. In particular, is it necessary to specify that there must be a link to "Abstention for non-votes" section? Arbitrators should have familiarized themselves with the procedures. isaacl (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrators would be familiar with the section, but parties or observers of a case or motion may not be - and to make the reason why majorities on proposals are changing obvious to all, I believe including a link to the section is prudent. We saw questions like this one at the most recent PD, and it would be fair to say there would be similar questions if proposals had changing majorities. Daniel (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

To me, it just seems very detailed about one specific aspect, as if posting [[link to section]] {{ping|arbitrator 1|arbitrator 2| ...}} is enough to initiate the process. I'd as soon say something like "the arbitrator will post a message in the implementation notes section of the proposed decision page (or equivalent section for a motion), with a ping notification to all arbitrators potentially affected," and let the clerks add a link if it gets left out. That being said, I appreciate the desire to write down best practice. isaacl (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

In the first line of text, please change "the below process" to "the process below". The thought of a "below process" sounds wrong to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Eek made the change. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Requests for enforcement

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

Aesurias

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 Aesurias

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TheNewMinistry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Aesurias (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:AC/CT

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

1. 19 September 2025 Responded to second warning from admin by asking the same admin to engage in WP:PROXYING on their behalf
2. 23 September 2025 Added WP:FALSEBALANCE to politician's article with weasel-wording about their support of Palestine relief group UNRWA - they had previously tried to insert the same unsourced information into the article back in March ([2])
3. 28 September 2025 Reclassified an Israel-sponsored trip by right-wing political figure, implying such trips are not controversial
4. 29 September 2025 Removed sourced quote from pro-Israel politician's article where she equated Palestinians to barbarians
5. 2 October 2025 Removed passage identifying group's founder as Gerald Ronson and his connection to Netanyahu - Aesurias acknowledged the information is correct and should be in lead instead, but chooses to delete everything
6. 3 October 2025 Removed passages explaining that Israeli-Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican in the 2012 US Presidential Election, and that democratic socialist Bernie Sanders is Jewish
7. 9 October 2025 Admonished another user for removing a tag from an article they created, telling them "DO NOT REMOVE A TAG WITHOUT IT BEING DISCUSSED, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS YOUR OWN ARTICLE"
8. 10 October 2025 Tagged The Holocaust and the Nakba for deletion, but was widely rebuked in the AFD discussion and it failed
9. 11 October 2025 Deleted passage from The Holocaust and the Nakba explaining its views on Israeli Jews
10. 12 October 2025 Removed notability tag from JEXIT, an article Aesurias created, without allowing any discussion
11. 13 October 2025 Created page on the pro-Israel Zioness Movement, with half the sources either dead links or direct links to the Zioness website
12. 14 October 2025 Removed sourced passage explaining that Israel's doctrine they use to justify denial of the Gaza genocide was authored by biased individuals
13. 14 October 2025 Removed a passage explaining that the Australian Jewish Association defended a former neo-nazi
14. 18 October 2025 Moved List of companies of Palestine to draftspace, saying the formatting is incorrect
15. 18 October 2025 Started an AN investigation into a userpage having a vague reference to Hezbollah, which was promptly closed after the consensus was that Aesurius was wasting everyone's time
16. 21 October 2025 Moved article on Track AIPAC, a watchdog group monitoring pro-Israel group AIPAC to draftspace, calling it improperly sourced and non-notable
17. 21 October 2025 Created page on Better Australia, a group supporting pro-Israel politicians, using only five sources - two of which are primary, and one of which is a blog
18. 22 October 2025 Reverted my addition of Template:Promotional to Zioness Movement page they created without making any changes to content or sourcing

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None.

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 11 September 2025 by Helpful Raccoon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for condiuct in the area of conflict on 19 September 2025 by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor is clearly inserting pro-Israel messaging into Wikipedia's articles and suppressing criticism of Israel, and a topic ban on any material covering the Arab–Israeli conflict would be appropriate. Their New page reviewer permission should be revoked. TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

Discussion concerning Aesurias

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 Aesurias

I previously opened an NPOV discussion against this user, here, over an image taken of a political candidate in 2007, which the user uploaded to Wikimedia as their 'own work'. The user, paradoxically, insisted that they had no COI with the candidate. Other editors questioned the user about this, because by insisting on 1) the image being their own work and 2) them having no connection to the person in the image, they were lying about at least one thing.

After I opened that discussion, I was incessantly hounded by the user, who has been reprimanded by administrators for his behaviour here, but didn't acknowledge it.

• They thanked me dozens of times, spamming me with notifications, seen here.
• Their recent edit history, seen here, is made up almost entirely of my articles -- they created talk pages for more than a dozen of them, adding the 'contentious topics' tag to each one, notifying me.
• Their recent edit history also shows they were adding tags onto my articles without explaining why on the talk pages.
• On Better Australia, they added an NPOV tag and opened a talk page discussion (the only page where they explained why they added the tag!) here. I was receptive to this, adding things they wanted to the article. The user then stopped replying. Another editor replied to the talk page saying I didn't need to add any of what this user wanted in the first place, as it was not relevant.

Additionally, they previously received a 48hr ban for personal attacks against me, seen here. They have received other bans of various types, including another ban for personal attacks on other users.

Creating articles on Wikipedia is not a crime, as the user is trying to insinuate. Other editors approved these articles with no problem. I stand by all of my own reviews of pages, they weren't ready for mainspace. Cherrypicking a few of them relating to Israel-Palestine and ignoring the dozens that weren't is disingenuous. My edits were fine -- for example, the Israeli-American one was false info, it was a poll asking Israelis in Israel who they would theoretically vote for if they could, which is why I removed it. I removed some parts of 'criticism' sections because they didn't contain criticisms, rather they contained things that the editor who added them didn't personally like. A failed AfD is not relevant, some editors agreed with me, some didn't.

This request is unserious. The user's assumption of bad faith, accusing me of "inserting pro-Israel messaging into Wikipedia", is not only offensive to me, but offensive to the dozens of well-respected editors who have approved my pages.

• User:Sean.hoyland I had not seen this post before you sent it, and although I have a Reddit account I am not active in that subreddit. I would have disclosed this in the AfD if I had seen it prior.

• I don't believe a topic ban is warranted. If I am allowed to go over 500 words, I can rebut each claim and explain each edit. Aesurias (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• I'm requesting that I be allowed to go over the 500 word limit, to explain each edit. I don't feel that these accusations have validity and would like to discuss each point! Thank you. Aesurias (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  The allegations against me are flawed -- I have a 200word limit but some examples: Accusation #6 falsely claims I removed info about Israeli-Americans from an article about American Jewish politics - the edit history would show that it was actually a poll of Israelis living in Israel who can't actually vote (therefore shouldn't have been in the article). #8 is about an AfD (irrelevant), #9 was an approved edit from AfD discussion, #11 and #17 were just me creating articles (one of the points of Wikipedia...?), #18 was me removing a tag placed without explanation in talk page as part of their harassment campaign they were indef blocked for. Only of my only genuine errors in these accusations is #1 -- I had just begun editing and wasn't aware. The other editor in the convo kindly explained contentious topics rules but because my writing had no issues, it wasn't reverted and there was no issue. Aesurias (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by TheNewMinistry

Asilvering (talk · contribs) is literally the administrator who advised me on October 15, 2025 to open an investigation on this very forum when I asked them for advice regarding Aesurius' biases in Israel/Palestine editing:

As for Aesurias, if you have npov concerns regarding Israel-Palestine, the place to raise those is at en:WP:AE. [4]

For Asilvering to claim they are an uninvolved administrator is laughable. I'm politely asking @Asilvering: to recuse themself from this investigation. TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect Asilvering (talk · contribs) - I last thanked Aesurias (talk · contribs) before today on October 12th, according to the logs posted above. I only thanked Aesurias once, today, after they left contact information on your Talk Page so you could both discuss ways to retaliate against me offsite. Again, @Asilvering: - please recuse yourself from this investigation since you clearly hold a grudge against me. If you did not direct me to this forum in good faith in your advice to me here, as I had assumed, and instead thought you could lure me here to punish me for non-related matters, as you imply in your edit here - that is quite disturbing. TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

The following line caught my eye.

• 10 October 2025 Tagged The Holocaust and the Nakba for deletion...

Looking at the timing and the fact that the nomination for deletion was, I think, Aesurias' first visible interaction with that page, I would be interested to know from Aesurias whether the action was in response to this Reddit thread or perhaps another site. If so, I do think for ARBPIA, for processes susceptible to external influence like AfD, it would be helpful if people just openly described the off-wiki discussion/social media post etc. that caused them to take action on-wiki whenever it happens as part of the nomination. That way we might have better visibility into the off-wiki/on-wiki causal connections that exist. Just a simple - saw this post/discussion... - might help. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Aesurias. I take that to mean that you also think that something like a WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT for these kinds of things might help. If so, that probably makes a total of two of us. It's a start. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Aesurias

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

• Disclosure: I was the administrator who warned TNM about hounding Aesurias ([5]), having earlier blocked TNM for harassment regarding the same. I have also responded to Aesurias's questions about where to take various disputes, and about the word limit in AE proceedings. I do not feel that either of these prejudice me unfairly in this case, but am more than willing to move my comments up if other admins think I ought to. Regarding the evidence against Aesurias, I have not fully investigated but it looks at least good enough that we should investigate, not reject this filing out of hand for being retaliatory. However, the filing is quite clearly the most recent salvo in a pattern of harassment that I warned TNM over just yesterday. Clearly, some sanction for harassment on the part of TNM is required, regardless of the ultimate outcome regarding Aesurias. -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, @TheNewMinistry, I told you to raise complaints at AE. A week ago. In the intervening time, instead of raising concerns at AE, you continued to harass Aesurias, and I then gave you a final warning, as I stated. As I have said, if other admins think I should move my comments up, I am happy to. I have, however, only been involved here in an administrative capacity. -- asilvering (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding Aesurias's assertion that TNM has been cherrypicking, I'm not sure that can possibly be true, given that, unless I am much mistaken, TNM's evidence does not contain anything about Talk:Pallywood, Aesurias's most-edited talk page. That discussion has also spilled out to WP:NPOVN#'Pallywood' (though, note also the personal attack on them here [6]). Their position appears to be that Pallywood is "real". Pallywood is both a slur and a conspiracy theory. Someone who cannot distinguish between Pallywood and Misinformation in the Gaza war should not be editing in WP:CT/PIA. -- asilvering (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Aesurias, you can have another 200 words. -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Well, I think asilvering is fine to participate. I also think that Aesurias deserves a topic ban at minimum from PIA. TNM should get an interaction ban with Aesurias for the harassment at this point. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• I have blocked TNM indefinitely for their comment above in which they acknowledge that they used the "thank" button in response to an edit by Aesurias that they characterize as part of a conspiracy to "retaliate against me offsite"—obviously not sincere thanks, but a continuation of the same harassment Asilvering warned them for. I might have gone with a p-block from thanking, or a longer tempblock, but their complete lack of self-awareness that this is harassment suggests a problem broader than this one issue, and so for now at least an indef siteblock is the least restrictive remedy that addresses the disruption. This is not an AE action, and should not lead to an early closure of this thread. For now I have no opinion on TBANning Aesurias, but support an IBAN on TNM, blocked or not. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Tamzin, if you agree with a PIA tban for Aesurias, that leaves us at unanimous consensus and you're clear to close the thread. -- asilvering (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Asilvering: I think I remain neutral on a TBAN. Not neutral in the sense of having a long analysis at the ready of the pros and cons, but neutral in the sense that the evidence doesn't quite click for me and, if not for the overlapping matter of TNM's conduct, I would have just not commented here. Please don't delay a close on my account, though. 3 support to 1 neutral is still a rough consensus. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• I also support a TBAN for Aesurias from PIA and an IBAN for TNM with Aesurias. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Thisischarlesarthur

tbanned from GENSEX -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2025 (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 Thisischarlesarthur

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Thisischarlesarthur (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:ARBGENSEX and WP:ARBBLP

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

1. 28 September 2025 This page will be confusing until it recognises that athletes such as Caster Semenya (XY 5-ARD) are male. They added this to the talk page.
2. 10 October 2025 between the years 2000 and 2023, between 50 and 60 male athletes with differences of sex development (DSDs)] who were wrongly recorded as female at birth took part in 135 female elite international finals ..... This was added to the article.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• 21 July 2025 I placed {{Contentious topics/aware}} templates for the areas of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I only listed the worst offending comments by the editor who, since 11 August 2024, has edited nothing else by topics that are related to GENSEX (nibbling at them to see how far they can push what they truly believe in).. M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Thisischarlesarthur: why didn't you comment on the diffs that I listed above? M.Bitton (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Thisischarlesarthur

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 Thisischarlesarthur

  Thisischarlesarthur's statement contains 1231 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

Update: How wonderful! I tripped over another invisible laser beam: nowhere in the submission system does it say you have to keep topics to 500 words. (It says it in teeny type so people can miss it. And there's no word counter.)

responding to M.Bitton

Re your first diff: I wasn't aware of the restrictions that are placed on this discussion. A paper co-authored by a biologist supports what I said there. Re your second diff: as I point out below, the Guardian article that I linked to in the edit directly implies what I wrote. There is no other reasonable interpretation of the phrase "athletes with differences of sex development (DSD), who have a 46 XY karyotype with male testes but were reported female at birth". Male testes are found in males. Only. The phrase "Assigned female at birth" implies the potential for mistakes in registering birth sex.

The content of Special:Diff/1316517130 is defensible as fact. The Imane Khelif page describes "false claims" which were never made: there has never been any credible suggestion that Khelif is trans (ie: someone registered as male at birth who later identifies as female). Yet the phrase "false claims" links to "transvestigation", which this never was. To represent the Olympic boxing controversy in those terms misleads the casual reader, while leading the informed reader (ie anyone who has read a few articles on the topic) to conclude Wikipedia is wrong, and to wonder why a theoretically world-editable wiki remains wrong.

However the BLP rules create a Catch-22 where it is disallowed to point out what the actual topic of the controversy is, on the basis that this is a BLP violation. So now I know why Wikipedia remains wrong.

responding to Simonm223

"It seems like this editor's only interest in editing Wikipedia is to engage in debates about how to define the gender of women athletes" - Not true. My interest on those pages was to correct inaccuracies. I have accepted that my initial attempts were clumsy.

responding to TarnishedPath

"Without extremely strong sourcing, these sorts of claims/speculation should not be occuring." The phrase "unsubstantiated allegations" might be more appropriate, given the BLP. But as this discussion on a Talk page on a different page points out, the BLP handcuffs clear explanation of what the allegations around Khelif are. I don't think any reasonable person believes Imane Khelif was not registered female at birth.

responding to @theleekycauldron

I reject @theleekycauldron's claim that I am "only here to push the idea that SRY testing is completely determinative of sex". I have never said that, because it isn't true. SRY screening does not determine sex. It determines the presence or absence of the SRY gene. However, it was used in the 1992 and 1996 Olympics to determine entry to the F category, and has now been reintroduced by multiple global sporting organisations. Therefore it is important in understanding modern and past sporting categorisation systems: currently the Sex verification in sports page is lacking this information, so I tried to add it. My attempts to introduce edits about this were however reverted, without any explanation or offer of help. Go Wikipedia!

responding to Tamzin

"If in 450 edits TICA [ie me] has been dispelled of their fringe views" - thank you, but I don't find the offer of doing it to Julia instead enticing. What if it's your views that are fringe, and wrong? A paper co-authored by a biologist explicitly contradicts the views you and others here hold about multiple athletes, and shows its reasoning, with scientific references. (In passing, the word "intersex" was determined by medics to be outdated due to being "confusing" and "potentially stigmatising" by a consensus meeting in 2005. The phrase "DSD" has been preferred in the literature for the past 20 years.)

The tenor of accusations here holds that the group is correct, and this individual wrong. However scientific resources (as above) support the view that it is the group which is wrong. I don't expect this to be accepted, since absorbing a new and different opinion into the group is challenging. But you should always wonder: what if you're wrong?

I suggest that the rapid adoption of SRY screening by multiple sporting organisations which have independently done their own scientific enquiry shows that those organisations hold significantly different views about DSDs (or "intersex") in sports than those reporting me here. To quote from the Guardian article that I tried to add into the Sex Verification page, "In a presentation to a scientific panel in the Japanese capital on Friday, Dr Stéphane Bermon, head of health and science at World Athletics, outlined why the sport’s governing body believes such screens are necessary as he presented data collected over the past 25 years. He said it showed that athletes with differences of sex development (DSD), who have a 46 XY karyotype with male testes but were reported female at birth, were significantly “over-represented” in major finals…"

Wait - "but" were reported female at birth? What could Bermon have been implying? Tamzin attempts to thread a needle on this: using the conjunction "but" to describe an AFAB person having some male sex characteristics, does not imply that it's the view of The Guardian (let alone of Bermon or any actually reliable source) that it is incorrect to assign such a person as female Who exactly is doing the "assigning" here? The midwife? Tamzin? Testes are not "some" male characteristics. They are defining male characteristics. The phrase "with male testes" appears again and again in every article about the presentation, so a reasonable conclusion is that these were Bermon's words. Bermon is director of health and science at World Athletics with a long history in medicine, and those are clearly his words. For Wikipedia to reinterpret them as meaning something else would be perverse and against the obvious sense of the words, in the absence of any explanation by Bermon that such athletes belong to the female sex.

If you allow me to continue editing, I will do my best not to knock over the furniture; for the newcomer, these important topics have invisible laser beams linked to alarms everywhere, and I feel as though I tripped them all. At the same time, I take my guidance about the facts from the scientific literature and (on this topic) the sporting bodies - which is how references should work - not from the beliefs of other Wikipedia editors.

--Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

====Responding to @Arcticocean====

a number of this user's edits are inconsistent with WP:NPOV.

I assert they're inconsistent with a number of Wikipedia editors' POV, which is a very different thing.

Their statement in this enforcement request heightens my concern, particularly at para 5 where there is an apparent attempt to refute one view on scientific consensus by cherry-picking a single citation.

My revised version (which has sections, hurray), points out that the "single citation" actually distils what is becoming more clearly stated within science (ie biology) and sports. See the link to searches on what Bermon said.

The final paragraph seems to reflect a troubling intention to edit as an WP:SPA.

Obviously I would say this, but that's not my intention. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

"For the avoidance of doubt, you don't have permission to go beyond 500 words."

"Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words".

None of my sections is over 500 words. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

It concerns me to see this continuing from Thisischarlesarthur. On October 8 they conceded their comportment was a BLP violation: [7] as such it's rather concerning that, instead of stopping with an approach they know to be a BLP violation, they just moved the discussion to other pages. [8] [9]. It seems like this editor's only interest in editing Wikipedia is to engage in debates about how to define the gender of women athletes. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

Admins, please refer to Special:Diff/1316517130, in which Thisischarlesarthur suggests that Imane Khelif is male. Without extremely strong sourcing, these sorts of claims/speculation should not be occuring. TarnishedPath^talk 03:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Thisischarlesarthur

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

• I can't see how Thisischarlesarthur's editing is consistent with the expectations of GENSEX and BLP. Given that Thisischarlesarthur is a new editor, I think a GENSEX TBAN that automatically expires when they qualify for extended confirmed would be appropriate at this point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't think Tamzin's second TBAN is necessary at this point as the issue seems to be centred on a broader gender-related dispute taking place on BLPs. Just by bringing up the issue Thisischarlesarthur would be creating a gender-related dispute. I'm also fine with SilverLocust's any admin removal after 500/30. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
• Poking around, it seems like Thisischarlesarthur is only here to push the idea that SRY testing is completely determinative of sex, and that if someone hasn't undergone SRY testing, their sex is undetermined (shifting the burden of proof that applies to contentious BLP claims). People who do have 5-ARD, like Caster Semenya, are labeled as "male" (see M.Bitton's diffs). Curiously, this only seems to apply to sportswomen who have been transvestigated – but somehow, someone being "male" and identifying publicly as female doesn't make them transgender. In other words, this seems like an attempt to invent a policy and factual framework for labelling sportswomen who have been transvestigated as "male" or of "undetermined" sex in a way no RS comes even close to supporting (while also trying to avoid getting painted with the same brush as transvestigators). I would support something stronger than a 'til-ECR GENSEX topic ban, but I'll support that at a minimum. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  I actually think this is a bit overly charitable to TICA's rhetoric. There's been some debate about where we draw the line on WP:FRINGE on trans medical issues, it being an area where academic consensus is still developing, but describing woman athletes who may have DSDs as "wrongly recorded as female at birth" is utterly fringe, possibly more so than your typical "secretly trans" conspiracy-theorizing. Yes, there are reliable sources that think such women have a sufficiently unfair advantage that they ought to be categorized separately in sports, but I have never seen a single such source say that assigning those women as female at birth is wrong. The absolute best-case analysis here is that TICA dramatically misunderstands what "female" means, as that term is used in essentially all scholarly sources—and I don't mean "woke" gender stuff, I mean the basics of the science of sex, in which "female" is not mutually exclusive with "intersex" and in which no single genotypic or phenotypic attribute is the sole determinant of whether someone is male or female. I always want to be careful at AE about not promoting any one side's view as right, but this is not reasonably in dispute among any subject-matter experts, even those strongly in favor of excluding trans and intersex women from women's sports.

  That's the best-case analysis. The worst-case analysis is deliberate misrepresentation of science to libel living persons. If I were convinced it were the latter, I would just indefblock. Lacking a smoking gun in that regard, though, I think the minimum I'd support here is two related topic bans: one from GENSEX, and one under WP:CT/BLP (of which TICA is aware) forbidding them from commenting on the actual or alleged gender or sex of any living person (except implicitly through using the pronouns/etc. already in place in an article). I oppose any automatic lifting upon extendedconfirmed. If in 450 edits TICA has been dispelled of their fringe views, I'd like to see them make that case to an administrator to get the ban lifted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  The Guardian—not Bermon, but The Guardian, which is not a reliable medical source, paraphrasing Bermon—using the conjunction "but" to describe an AFAB person having some male sex characteristics, does not imply that it's the view of The Guardian (let alone of Bermon or any actually reliable source) that it is incorrect to assign such a person as female. "But" implies some level of unexpectedness, but not necessarily that one of the two statements is incorrect. Picture a source that talks about people who "Had no COVID symptoms but tested positive for it"; that "but" doesn't mean that the tests were all incorrect, just that most people who test positive also have symptoms. Again, this isn't a question of which side one is on in the trans and intersex sports debates, but rather a basic foundational scientific understanding necessary to understand those debates. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  support a GENSEX topic ban as well per above. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• I'll support a WP:CT/GENSEX TBAN that may be lifted at an administrator's discretion after they qualify for extended confirmed. I'm fine with Tamzin's additional TBAN, though I struggle to imagine when that wouldn't already qualify as a "gender-related dispute" (broadly construed). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  I think the second one is necessary because "gender-related dispute" doesn't clearly extend to something about an individual person's gender or sex, if that hasn't been the subject of political or cultural controversy. Claiming that Imane Khelif is male would fall under GENSEX, but saying "obscure athlete ABC has disorder of sexual development XYZ" might not. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• I agree that at least a GENSEX topic ban is appropriate. As others have said, a number of this user's edits are inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Their statement in this enforcement request heightens my concern, particularly at para 5 where there is an apparent attempt to refute one view on scientific consensus by cherry-picking a single citation. The final paragraph seems to reflect a troubling intention to edit as an WP:SPA. Arcticocean ■ 14:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Thisischarlesarthur: Yes, it does. The notice at the top of this page, headed "important information", reads in part: Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Please read the instructions fully and please keep your statement within the word limit. For the avoidance of doubt, you don't have permission to go beyond 500 words. Arcticocean ■ 18:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Given all the "at a minimum"s happening in here, I think we have consensus for a GENSEX tban, without any references to XC. If no one objects to that resolution in the next 24 hours or so, I'll close this thread as such. -- asilvering (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Thisischarlesarthur, you don't get a word count extension just by putting a new section header in. That's not how this works. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

ItalianTourist

ItalianTourist is cautioned to follow the extended confirmed restriction in the future. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:36, 30 October 2025 (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 ItalianTourist

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nil NZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

ItalianTourist (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

1. 24 Oct 2025 – Comment at RSN discussing the reliability of German-language sources reporting on Saleh al-Jafarawi, a recently-deceased Palestinian journalist.
2. 26 Oct 2025 – After being informed their first diff above violates ECR, they make a very similar comment two days later, this time at Talk:Saleh al-Jafarawi

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

• Following their comments on RSN (from diff 1 above), an administrator, Rosguill, posted a CTOP introduction on their talk (Special:Permalink/1318399802). ItalianTourist removed it, with the edit summary Another beaurocratic rule of Wikipedia...figures (Special:Diff/1318450868).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In addition to the templated CTOP introduction, Rosguill specifically said that their comment from Diff 1 was in violation of the ECR restriction, and included links to WP:ECR & WP:ECREXPLAIN, which explains that, whilst non-XC editors may post on Talk pages, they are restricted to non-controversial edit requests that follow WP:EDITXY. Instead of following this restriction, ItalianTourist tried to make a very similar comment again, but this time at Talk:Saleh al-Jafarawi in Diff 2.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Special:Diff/1318810183

Discussion concerning ItalianTourist

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 ItalianTourist

• Yeah ok, I initially misunderstood how ECR worked and now I will avoid contributing to all the articles that have extended confirmed protection as well as their talk pages. ItalianTourist (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• To clarify, I misunderstood when Rosguill posted mainly about contentious topics while my edits at RSN were an offence not because they were on the topic of the Arab-Israel conflict, but because they were from someone who didn't have 500+ edits already. It added to my misunderstanding when I read in WP:ECPGUIDE: "Pages within contentious topics that are not covered by ECR are not automatically eligible for ECP." I would've understood clearly if Rosguill posted something like: "Hello. RSN is under extended confirmed restriction, which means that only those with 500+ edits can contribute. Those with less than 500+ edits also cannot contribute to the talk pages of ECP articles unless it is to make an edit request. You can find more info on this at WP:ECREXPLAIN etc." Anyway, everything is clearer now so it won't happen again. ItalianTourist (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Nil NZ

• I'm satisfied from IT's explanation that this was a good faith misunderstanding of how WP:ECR is applied, and trust that they will be more cautious with regards to WP:PIA in the future. I'd support a caution as a sensible outcome. Nil🥝 00:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ItalianTourist

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

• I'll wait a day or so to provide time for ItalianTourist to comment, but absent something convincing, I intend to do a 1-week block for breaching ECR. The diffs provided above, including in Nil NZ's comment, appear to demonstrate that ItalianTourist does not intend to comply with ECR and so a block seems appropriate at this point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
• I think that this was a genuine failure to comprehend procedure. My preference would be to warn the user for breaching ECR, but I don't think a 1-week block would be inappropriate either. Arcticocean ■ 18:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• This appears to be a genuine misunderstanding, so I think a caution should be sufficient at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Lumbering in thought

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 Lumbering in thought

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Longhornsg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lumbering in thought (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

1. [10] [11] Adding OR and info not supported by RS or in the article body to the lede of Jewish lobby
2. [12] Readded OR and wrong information after reversion asking for sources
3. Refusal to provide an RS for additions to lede on talk [13]
4. [14] Continued to add OR to the page and not engage with RS on talk

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, [15]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Clear disregard for the need for RS in this topic area.

Despite multiple requests to present RS, multiple times, none were presented. Diff 4 was after several attempts for RS. I just reverted but am not interested in getting into an edit war.

The diff shared is further evidence that they don't know how to constructively edit on Wikipedia, especially in contentious topics. What I did was WP:BRD. I reverted, discussed on talk page, and we achieved consensus.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16]

Discussion concerning Lumbering in thought

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 Lumbering in thought

I take issue with 1-3 to the point of belief that the plaintiff has committed WP:BLUD, as for 4 [[17]] you can see the plaintiff didn't revert my revert when I started the request to get consensus. My revert being allowed to stay when we entered the talk was confusing. Thus arguably, the plaintiff's established pattern of behavior is worse than mine as per Special:Diff/1318135022. Lumbering in thought (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

In response to the plaintiff's latest, recognizing that I never broke the 1RR per WP:PIA, I should have replied to their message on my Talk page, an attempt to establish a pattern of behavior which didn't have an invitation to the article Talk page done in coordination with their first edit summary revert reason [[18]] implying satisfaction with edit summaries, with an invitation to the article Talk page and a reminder that they should be discussing the article substance.

Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that a re-revert edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond without risking an edit war. See also WP:QUO. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, or invite the editor to the talk page if they insist on using only edit summaries, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle.

Lumbering in thought (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

A couple of comments for what it's worth.

• It's probably debatable whether the entire article is covered by PIA restrictions resulting from its relationship to 'the Arab–Israeli conflict, a contentious topic'. Maybe the ARBPIA template should have |relatedcontent=yes. Either way, it is currently unprotected.
• I'm not sure I agree with the way Longhornsg has constructed this complaint. Isn't the right question - are the additions consistent with WP:LEAD? Other rules like OR, RS aren't pertinent because it's the lead. So, maybe it's about whether or not the changes are trying to crowbar content into the lead that is not present in the article body (always a red flag in PIA) i.e. it's not a valid summary, or is it? I haven't actually checked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Lumbering in thought

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

Chronos.Zx

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 Chronos.Zx

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Chronos.Zx (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:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation

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

The participation of several editors at Sati (practice) and Sati (practice) has left a lot to be desired. But Chronos.Zx has approached the topic with a degree of aggression that is not appropriate to a contentious topic.

1. 28 September, 29 September: Edit-warring (same content), assumptions of bad faith ("whitewashing").
2. 1 November; more edit-warring, claiming source misrepresentation without evidencing this on the talk page.
3. 28 September Assumptions of bad faith, selective reading of the source to support content contrary to its intended meaning.
4. 15 October Source misrepresentation: see my explanation in reply.
5. 18 October continued inability or unwillingness to understand the nuance in the phrase "largely historical".
6. 27 October misrepresenting article history; see my explanation in reply.
7. 1 November, 1 November further assumptions of bad faith.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions that I can see.

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

Chronos.Zx's multiple accounts and username changes make the history at AE difficult to track. They were given a GS/CASTE notification here and an ARBIPA notification here, in October 2023, and participated in an AE discussion with their previous account here, in April this year. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The recurring theme here is a "give them no quarter" battleground attitude that has precluded any meaningful discussion of this complicated topic. Chronos.Zx is not the only offender here - if an uninvolved admin would like to give that talk page some attention, it would be appreciated - but their aggressive approach has been among the worst. This topic is a complex one, with a long history. Editors need to be willing to discuss differing interpretations in good faith, with sensitivity to nuance: Chronos.Zx has been consistently unable to do so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Discussion concerning Chronos.Zx

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 Chronos.Zx

Addressing all the mentioned diffs:

1. I said "no stonewalling" here because removal of sourced content by UnpetitproleX was backed with the "get consensus first for your WP:BOLD changes to longstanding WP:STABLE version of lead" instead of justifying their removal of the content. This is frowned upon by WP:STONEWALLING which says "Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion." Similarly, this is not "assumptions of bad faith" because UnpetitproleX was indeed removing reliably sourced content by falsely asserting "source misrepresentation".
2. This is outright misleading. You are describing a partial revert by wrongly terming it as "more edit-warring" and falsely asserting "claiming source misrepresentation without evidencing this on the talk page," when the evidence of misrepresentation was already provided on talk page in lengths.[20][21] It was only after that I made this partial revert. The editor who was actually edit warring has been page blocked for 2 weeks.
3. This is also misleading because UnpetitproleX was indeed removing reliably sourced content by falsely asserting "source misrepresentation". UnpetitproleX failed to justify their false assertion after another editor got on the point before switching their opposition to claiming "it fails WP:LEAD" instead of "source misrepresentation" anymore. UnpetitproleX was wrong about that as well because the article body covers the content at Sati (practice)#Opposition to the ban. Vanamonde93 removed the concerning sentence without ever discussing it,[22] however, the content was re-added to lead by another editor with almost same wording.[23]
4. There is no source misrepresentation there. This is my whole response. Where is the misrepresentation? Both sources confirm Sati practice has not faded away.
5. This is purely content dispute. Nothing to do with conduct.
6. I linked to this version because this is the last version that required page protection.
7. This is no "assumptions of bad faith" here. As for this, I am sure that the charge of "second time you have tried to misrepresent this particular source" is wrong, and so is how UnpetitproleX trying to treat the word "may" to be indicative of a false claim.[24]

Crux of this complaint is, that saying Sati practice still happens or arguing anyone who says the contrary is either "misrepresentation of source" or "assumption of bad faith". Anyone who reads Sati (practice)#Current situation will not doubt that the practice does happens to this day.

Talking about "misrepresentation of source", Vanamonde93 clearly added an inaccurate summary of the source on the main article,[25] and failed to justify their edit on the talk page by completely evading the point.[26] Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Chronos.Zx

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