Eurovision Wiki:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

From Eurovision Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"WP:AE" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:AE (disambiguation).

    Template:Preview warning

    User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptInEurovision Wiki:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header


    Quick enforcement requests

    [edit source]

    Eurovision Wiki:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Quick requests header

    Permission gaming.

    [edit source]

    Talk:List of Palestinians

    [edit source]

    Melat Kiros

    [edit source]

    Violations of WP:ARBECR

    [edit source]

    Yet another Gaza Genocide move request

    [edit source]

    Page protection for high risk article

    [edit source]

    Page protection: This is an article currently displayed on the main page about a hospital being airstriked leading to mass civilian casualties, and it's part of a conflict taking place in a region designated as a contentious topic area (WP:CT/SA). If this isn't high risk I'm not sure what is. ―Maltazarian (talk<math>\lor</math>investigate) 09:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

    • I've got it watchlisted but it actually seems to be fine at the moment. We can always revisit this if there are serious issues. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
      Sounds good, as long as someone is monitoring it. ―Maltazarian (talk<math>\lor</math>investigate) 10:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

    Riposte97

    [edit source]

    Template:AEPR 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 Riposte97

    [edit source]
    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Snokalok (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs⧼dot-separator⧽deleted contribs⧼dot-separator⧽logs⧼dot-separator⧽filter log⧼dot-separator⧽block user⧼dot-separator⧽block log) 02:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Riposte97 (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs⧼dot-separator⧽deleted contribs⧼dot-separator⧽logs⧼dot-separator⧽filter log⧼dot-separator⧽block user⧼dot-separator⧽block log)

    Template:Ds/log


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    GENSEX
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    There's a discussion on the Donald Trump talk page regarding whether the Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration can *really* be called persecution in wikivoice. I am on that page arguing yes. Riposte has taken the opposite stance, saying that it is extremely bad taste to compare the same measures against other minority groups throughout history (wrt to the appropriate use of the word "persecution") to the actions being discussed here.[8] Not because of the stance he has taken, but in the course of his discussion of that stance and more widely in the GENSEX topic area, Riposte's conduct since his last GENSEX AE thread two weeks ago has been subpar.

    I would have waited for more severe conduct before filing this, however @Tamzin previously said to please bring GENSEX AE cases much more often.[9] Kindly give him the trout or something?

    1. Mar 1, 2026 Personal attack
    2. Feb 18, 2026 Aspersions on a talk page discussion about Imane Khelif
    3. Feb 18, 2026 Personal attack on the Imane Khelif page

    Previous edits raised in the last thread by various users:

    1. Feb 6, 2026 Editing the Imane Khelif page without sourcing for the purpose of, per theleekycauldron, casting doubt on Khelif being cisgender[10]
    2. Dec 28, 2025 OR to a similar effect


    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Feb 14, 2026 Just two weeks ago, he was warned for GENSEX conduct.
    2. June 22, 2024 BRD warning on Hunter Biden. Not relevant to GENSEX, but the jump from the Hunter Biden page to the Donald Trump page is not a far one.
    3. [11] TBan from indigenous peoples of North America for conduct raised at ANI
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    1. Feb 14, 2026 Being warned for GENSEX conduct two weeks ago.


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    1. [12] Has a userbar calling himself a member of the God Emperor's Inquisition. I trust we're all nerds enough here to recognize the connotation.


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    [13]

    Discussion concerning Riposte97

    [edit source]

    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 Riposte97

    [edit source]

    Template:ACWordStatus Bruh. Riposte97 (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

    @TarnishedPath are you saying Americans are a race? Be serious. In any case, we’re both Australian, and you know as well as I do that yank is not used as an insult. Riposte97 (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Theleekycauldron re the two edits of 18 Feb, I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek. My detractors have failed to mention that I apologised once it was made clear to me that it was coming across wrong.
    The comment today was the gentlest possible rebuke to somebody appearing to indirectly suggest that I would support the holocaust. Riposte97 (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    I see we’re getting the band back together. Well, I’ve no interest in responding to everyone point-by-point. Uninvolved admins can assess the strength of those arguments. I still find bizarre the hand-wave that Imane Khelif, an Algerian Arab, is ‘basically black’ because…why? She’s from Africa? That is actual racism, not just an accusation that can be weaponised in a petty online crusade. Riposte97 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    As a side note, she is not an ‘indigenous Algerian’ either, as far as I can tell. That term in a domestic context does not mean what it means in the West, and would seem to imply she is a Berber. Riposte97 (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Simonm223 read the sentence after the one you selectively quoted. Riposte97 (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Newslinger, I stand by that comment, and if that means I fall on my sword, so be it. Simonm223 said Riposte97 has asked the lead to introduce doubt as to whether Khelif is a woman (emphasis mine), quoting me as saying "stating unequivocally that she is female is, in my view, no longer responsible". In the very next sentence, I say, "It would be more responsible to say that Khelif was born a woman." I don't believe it is battleground behaviour to call our that kind of selective quotation. Riposte97 (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Arcticocean Could you please tell me exactly what I've said that violated content rules severely enough to merit a ban? Or is the rule that if enough mud is thrown at someone, some has to stick? Riposte97 (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
    @MjolnirPants I doubt you'll need to retire to your fainting couch, particularly considering that just since the start of February, and just on that page, you have attacked fellow editors again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Riposte97 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    ...and again and again and gearing up for some gravedancing re this very thread here. Riposte97 (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

    I'm probably close to the word limit, so I will content myself with one final observation: something that is hugley disruptive to this project is when a brigade comes together to systematically pursue someone with a different opinion on noticeboards. It wastes an unbeliveable amount of editor time, and when successful, is a large contributor to the systemic bias of this website, weakening the experience for readers. Riposte97 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

    As the Alans, Goths, and Vandals continue to circle the borders, I'd like to request a modest word extension to defend any other points that emerge. Riposte97 (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Theleekycauldron I'm not alleging a coordinated conspiracy, just making what I think is a pretty obvious observations about how noticeboard discussions operate. They are far more likely to be an extension of a content disagreement than some kind of neutral community assessment of behaviour. The person filing this complaint freely owned (with commendable honesty) that we had a content disagreement. Some of my other accusers in this thread have said far more objectionable things in GENSEX from an objective standpoint, but decided to lay the boot into me, I assume because our disagreements trump consistency. Riposte97 (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    As a sidenote, are delusions of grandeur not permitted? Apologies, I was unaware. I will restrict self-comparisons to the Mughal Empire and smaller. Riposte97 (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by TarnishedPath

    [edit source]

    Noting that the two comments towards Simonm223 at Talk:Imane Khelif (Special:Diff/1339082921 and Special:Diff/1339091605) aren't just personal attacks, they're also explicit acts of racism. TarnishedPathtalk 03:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

    @Riposte97, you and I both know that tone and usage are large parts of whether terms like that are meant as insults. Telling someone to stop acting like a yank, after they've told you that they aren't a yank is unambiguously using the term in an insulting and racist manner. TarnishedPathtalk 03:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    @ErnestKrause, writes the following:
    Editing on Political pages can often be a heightened and contested area to start with, and it seems that some added latitude should be allowed in the cases where Politically centered questions are disputed (my emphasis). This is entirely incorrect. The exact opposite is expected in CTOP areas. Refer to Wikipedia:Contentious topics#General provisions. TarnishedPathtalk 22:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Simonm223

    [edit source]

    I'm commenting here because I was mentioned. I wasn't personally very offended by Riposte97 erroneously calling me a "Yank". People forgetting Canada is a sovereign country with people who are influenced by but distinct from the United States is, frankly, kind of normal online. I was even willing to extend the AGF that they didn't intend the expression as an insult. But I do have some racism related concerns with Riposte97's comment that I think are more serious. And that's to do with the real thrust of their comment here: she isn't black. Khelif is an indigenous Algerian and Algeria is a north-African country with a recent history of severe colonialism. My comment was to situate the culture war furor which has made managing that page difficult for two years in the context of intersectional marginalization. "Black" was effectively used as short hand for North-African woman of colour. Attempting to suggest there is some specifically American thing about recognizing how her ethnicity was impactful upon the media circus seems almost willfully obtuse. I've had concerns with Riposte97 and race issues long before I encountered them on gender issues. This was present in their disruptive editing of Canadian Indian residential school gravesites of which this diff is a good example [14] and their contributions to the Grooming gangs scandal talk page such as this [15]. I was unaware of the dispute about Donald Trump and his patently obvious oppression of trans people because I don't watch the Donald Trump page very closely but I would say there is a consistent pattern to Riposte97's editing across political topics. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

    These diffs from this morning are also pertinent to this discussion as Riposte97 has asked the lead to introduce doubt as to whether Khelif is a woman, saying stating unequivocally that she is female is, in my view, no longer responsible: [16] [17]. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by MjolnirPants

    [edit source]

    Template:ACWordStatus I don't have a whole lot of experience interacting with Riposte. In fact, most of my interactions with them consisted of them apparently fishing for a reaction that they could use to get me removed from this topic.

    The result of those efforts was a narrow escape from a boomarang. Which, of course did not seem to register, as no sooner was that thread shut down, they decided to cast more aspersions on editors who disagree with them.

    See specifically this comment of mine in the above-linked ANI discussion, where I lay out some problematic diffs I'd found with a look at just part of the first page of their edit history. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

    • The argument that Riposte is deliberately provoking other editors in an effort to get them sanctioned may also warrant investigation.
    @Toadspike:, see the statement by M. Bitton, who observed the same behavior. I would note that I can be a sort of lightning rod for this sort of nonsense, as I'm generally unafraid of using sarcasm, foul language and colorful euphemisms in my communications, and that creates the impression of a hotter head than I actually have. Also, being the author of WP:NONAZIS doesn't help. So it's not surprising that efforts to the same end directed elsewhere weren't followed through as far as they were with me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    • I woke up today to find that Riposte is still engaged in the exact same type of behavior that almost caused their WP:BOOMARANG back at AN. They decided to cast some aspersions again. For context, the comment they are replying to was one in which I said that the transvestigation of a successful female athlete was motivated by "hate", and in which I implied a distinction between the editors here and those engaged in pushing this narrative. It's quite telling that they would take an attack on a minority belief as a personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Many of the diffs of mine Riposte just posted were previously posted in the ANI thread they started about me. I've documented how that went, above. This one in particular illustrates how bad-faith Riposte's attack is: I'm literally directly answering a question without providing any commentary or interpretation. Just a factual answer to a direct question.
    (Apologies if I have exceeded my word count. I will not post here again unless asked a question.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Black Kite

    [edit source]

    I note that Riposte97 is still trying to bend the edges of WP:BLP at Talk:Imane_Khelif#Lead:_Transvestigation_and_Genetic_Sex. Just read that opening comment and ask yourself what the motivations are of someone who thinks this is important. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by ErnestKrause

    [edit source]

    I'm not a participant in the topic discussion under question here and am responding mainly to the conduct issues being raised against Riposte97. The comment from Toadspike below needs to be taken seriously as to whether the high bar of conduct issues has in some way been breeched, which Toadspike states does not appear to be the case here. Editing on Political pages can often be a heightened and contested area to start with, and it seems that some added latitude should be allowed in the cases where Politically centered questions are disputed. Siding with Toadspike seems to be a good path to take here, with emphasis that care should be taken when Political issues are being disputed. Going with Toadspike on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by M.Bitton

    [edit source]

    I second what Black Kite said. Claims such as The second issue with the above phrase is that is asserts that claims Khelif is biologically male (again, nothing to do with her gender identity) are false. I simply do not believe we can make that assertion anymore, given the weight of sourcing that go so far as to say she is male. can only mean one thing and one thing only.

    As for them deliberately provoking other editors, I will quote what Tamzin said in a previous report: "Riposte decided who their allies are, and who their enemies are, and are treating users accordingly":

    Statement by Valereee

    [edit source]

    Commenting here because I am involved w/re:GENSEX at Imane Khelif. IMO that talk page needs to be ECR'd. It's bad enough when multiple experienced editors are being disruptive in ways that are just not quite disruptive enough to get them pblocked from it, but the talk also gets heavy attention from newer-but-AC editors drawn there by every bit of breaking news sparking outrage in social media. This is a BLP, and things being posted at that talk are overwhelming for well-intentioned editors there. Valereee (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

    @Fiveby, discussion among/between non-party commenters here is almost never helpful and causes more work for workers here. If you disagree with something another commenter has said, it's generally more helpful to express that to the workers here rather than starting a discussion with that commenter. Happy to discuss at my talk, though. Valereee (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

    Toadspike has invited me to point out he probably should have mentioned here that he was asked by Kingsindian to respond to AO's intention to close. Valereee (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by fiveby

    [edit source]

    Valereee, if as you say "multiple experienced editors are being disruptive" then why is the solution ECR? Can you demonstrate that these newer editors are not "well-intentioned"? fiveby(zero) 14:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Kingsindian

    [edit source]

    I will begin with a disclosure: I voted in the recent RfC on the Imane Khelif article, and I have written about this matter on Wikipediocracy. I have not edited the article itself. I note that none of the other participants in this discussion appear to have made the equivalent disclosure, despite the requirement that Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement with parties (if any). That omission is worth noting, given that most of the commenters here are in active content disputes with Riposte97, including on the RfC above, which did not go their way.

    The original filing contained three diffs showing talk page comments, for which Riposte97 has already apologized and which Toadspike has found not sanctionable -- noting that the first diff came in response to another editor comparing a viewpoint to failure to condemn the Holocaust. In my view, the original filing was thin. What followed was a series of additional allegations made by several parties. The current approach -- assessing each charge in turn and moving on when it proves unactionable -- is procedurally inadequate, because it provides no disincentive whatsoever to bad-faith filing. It structurally rewards a "throw mud and see what sticks" strategy, whether or not that is anyone's intention here. From the perspective of someone casting a wide net, the downside is zero.

    The racism allegation illustrates this problem directly. Toadspike has found it unactionable, stating that the evidence is not clear enough to be sanctionable. But that finding raises a follow-up question this discussion has so far avoided: does making an unsubstantiated allegation of racism against a fellow editor constitute casting aspersions? That is explicitly prohibited in enforcement discussions: Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. "Not actionable against the subject" and "appropriate to have said" are not the same standard, and treating them as equivalent lets the conduct pass without examination.

    These are experienced editors familiar with AE procedures. They should be aware that The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If they believe there is a genuine case, they should file their own focused request with specific evidence, with the understanding that their own conduct would then be in scope. The current proceeding, as conducted, rewards exactly the behavior the policy is designed to deter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Emeraldflames

    [edit source]

    I don't know the particulars of every one of Riposte97's comments, but I looked through a sampling and the ones I have seen did not seem to cross a line. Some of the interpretations of certain things he has said do not appear to be at all reasonable to me.

    I would also like to 100% support his point that a number of the individuals commenting here have, themselves, come across quite aggressively and WP:Incivil. Far, far more aggressive and incivil than anything I have ever seen him comment on the Imane Khelif page. The most egregious example is MjolnirPants.

    Very recent examples: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3

    For him to be here commenting on civility is actually quite remarkable. And this is rather typical of the attitudes of a certain bloc of editors on Wikipedia.

    I would also *completely* agree that there is the appearance of a brigade here with a very similar WP:POV, very similar interests, etc. It absolutely is a large contributor to the systemic bias, which, unfortunately, as per the previous examples is actually both blatant and rampant on Wikipedia.

    This is a very serious issue and existential threat to the goals of Wikipedia and I hope there are admins that understand and will act to remedy this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeraldflames (talk • contribs) 18:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by GoodDay

    [edit source]

    I looked over Riposte97's userpage. I don't see any "God Emperor's Inquistion" membership bar. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

    Result concerning Riposte97

    [edit source]
    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Riposte, regardless of what -isms those comments might be described as, can you explain what your thought process was in deciding that those comments were constructive before posting them? (From Feb. 18 onward, to be clear. The other edits have already been considered.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
      @Riposte97: It's certainly one of the bolder strategies i've seen to – at an AE where you're accused of being incivil to people you disagree with – accuse every editor who disagrees with you of being in a conspiracy against you in which you compare yourself to the Roman Empire and do not provide evidence. and, re the word extension: no, you are not getting one preemptively, and even if you did have actual text to respond to, I'm not exactly inclined to have you contribute more to the discourse in considering what your contributions have been so far. I still think that the edits from previous AEs aren't live controversies, but I agree with Arcticocean that they should be examined here as part of the pattern of conduct. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    • While Riposte97's edits before 18 February were reviewed in the previous AE report, the edits are still relevant now. Enforcing admins previously (including me) then regarded the breaches of decorum as trivial, but the breaches are continuing to mount up. With the benefit of a longer period of analysis, I think it is also becoming apparent that the breaches are invariably directed at users with opposing editorial views and taking place within live discussions of BLP controversy. I think this is rising to the level of topic ban to prevent further disruption. I'd like to hear the view of other enforcing admins. Arcticocean ■ 09:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
      Repeated warnings are highly unusual and not generally encouraged under CTOP. In my view, another warning would be an inappropriate outcome from this enforcement request. Enforcing admins have broadly agreed that there has been misconduct and battleground editing. Unless another admins objects or raises a new concern, I will impose a topic ban as the enforcement request outcome. Arcticocean ■ 22:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
      As Toadspike has now objected, I am going to wait a few days for further comment from other admins. We don't by any means require unanimity here, and indeed only one admin appears to think a warning is the maximum justified sanction, but leaving more time for admin discussion cannot hurt. Arcticocean ■ 17:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
    • The first diff was not really an appropriate response to what came before it, but considering what came before it was a comment comparing another editor's views to failure to condemn the Holocaust followed by a frustrated rant, I don't think Riposte is responsible for derailing that conversation. The comments on nationality (diffs 2 and 3) were in poor taste, especially the second one (diff 3). However, since Riposte apologized for these and struck the offending term, and since Simon says he "wasn't personally very offended", I don't think any action is warranted.
    In my view, the evidence supporting the accusations of racism is not clear enough to be sanctionable, and similarly the two diffs linked in Simon's first reply do not seem sanctionable. To sanction an editor for expressing a point of view, that point of view must be so extreme that it is disruptive. The points of view expressed here have not, in my view, reached that high bar.
    MjolnirPants's first diff shows Riposte speculating on other editors' motivations, which is basically never appropriate and might warrant a warning about personal attacks. I have not reviewed all the diffs linked in MjolnirPants's ANI comment [18], which argues that there is a broader pattern of disruptive talk page conduct. That ANI thread was closed with a recommendation to take complaints against Riposte to AE, but it doesn't look like that was done or that these diffs have been reviewed here, so we may want to review them. The argument that Riposte is deliberately provoking other editors in an effort to get them sanctioned may also warrant investigation. Toadspike [Talk] 14:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
    After reviewing the comments made by my colleagues' and others since my last post, I remain undecided. Riposte's behavior has not been exemplary, but neither has the behavior of several others here, not least the repeated and in my view spurious accusations of racism in this very thread. I fear hewing strictly to the two-party rule and letting a lot of concerning behavior slide will be seen as an endorsement of that behavior and will not be the best outcome we can get for the project. Toadspike [Talk] 00:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Toadspike: I think you're right that there's more to do here, but it might make more sense to start with a fresh thread on one or more of the people we also want to look at. Doesn't have to be a super-detailed filing, just "follow-up on this thread, concerns that were raised include x y z". This thread is already pretty big and I worry that expanding the scope now would be unwieldy. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
    I've reviewed all the diffs in the ANI comment linked by MjolnirPants, as well as the others they linked. The only two I found possibly actionable are [19] and [20]. The former seems to be implying that Naomi Klein's political views make her book unreliable for a sentence on Trump's communication style, which was also supported by other sources. The latter is just a really insensitive statement to make. I'm not impressed by how many of the MjolnirPants's descriptions of diffs in their ANI comment are inaccurate at best. I also don't like how many of them are effectively arguing that an editor expressing their opinion on a talk page is some kind of behavioral violation. Users are allowed to express their opinion about sources and blocks, even if those opinions are wrong.
    Riposte has since dumped three dozen diffs of alleged personal attacks by MjolnirPants. Several of these are obviously not personal attacks, which reflects poorly on him. Many may be, but that is out of the scope of this thread and should be reviewed in a separate filing. As an aside, I strongly recommend that MjolnirPants stop threatening other editors with admin action; it is generally sufficient and more polite to call out misbehavior without explicitly spelling out the potential consequences.
    Reviewing M.Bitton's comment, the only parts that seem actionable are Riposte's speculation on other editors' motivations (e.g. "People feel their personal credibility is at stake"), which I already covered in my first comment.
    I think that covers most of the evidence here. I would support a warning for Riposte97, primarily on grounds of civility. I oppose a topic ban as the previous warning was for different issues ("Riposte97 is warned to be more mindful of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV" [21]) and I do not see the violations here as sufficient to justify a topic ban, especially in relation to the vast quantity and severity of accusations made. More broadly, we should not refuse to issue a second warning simply because we have issued a previous warning in the same topic area. Toadspike [Talk] 13:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Toadspike: To issue a warning at AE, I think we have to conclude that either 'no actual violation occurred' or 'exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate'. If I may ask, are you viewing the receipt of a previous warning for disrupting the topic area as an exceptional circumstance? Or is it the possible tit-for-tat conduct that you regard as exceptional? Arcticocean ■ 13:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
    That's not how I understand the quoted bit. A logged warning is an editing restriction. We are allowed to issue warnings even if a violation occurred.
    Re: "tit-for-tat" – the high proportion of irrelevant diffs and unsupported accusations here makes clear to me that we have two camps of editors here going after each other primarily because of their content disputes. In CTOPs this is not "exceptional", but on the project as a whole it is. I took this into consideration as I don't want to reward this kind of behavior. Toadspike [Talk] 13:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
    I understand your position better now. Thanks for responding. Arcticocean ■ 17:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
    • I support a logged warning of Riposte97 for persistent battleground conduct (including violations of the policy against personal attacks), which would be Riposte97's second logged warning in the WP:CT/GG (gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them) contentious topic. It is already rare for an editor to receive two logged warnings for the same topic area instead of a topic ban, so if Riposte97 does not improve their conduct in this contentious topic, their next reported policy violation in WP:CT/GG is likely to result in a topic ban (instead of a third logged warning) even if it is of similar severity to the ones reported here. — Newslinger talk 12:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC); edited to strike superseded position 11:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
      If you are thinking about a second warning, you should probably bite the bullet and issue a topic ban instead -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
      That is certainly one of the rules of thumb that have been used on this noticeboard. With Riposte97 continuing to engage in battleground editing in this enforcement request itself (e.g. Special:Diff/1341588355), I would not support closing this enforcement request without some kind of action for Riposte97, and I am looking for a remedy that would curb this conduct issue in a proportionate manner. Riposte97 appears to apply different behavioral standards for other editors than they do for themself, as seen in the list of diffs they allege to be personal attacks in Special:Diff/1342638113, which suggests that Riposte97 is behaving in the WP:CT/GG contentious topic in a manner that they already understand to be below Wikipedia's conduct standards. — Newslinger talk 13:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
      @Riposte97: Speculating about another editor's motivations based on what you assumed their nationality is (Special:Diff/1339082921) and then telling the editor that they should stop acting like a person of that nationality after they stated their nationality is different than what you had assumed (Special:Diff/1339091605) are both instances of battleground conduct. Unless an editor cites their own nationality in the discussion, there is no valid justification for bringing it into the conversation as part of your argument. While Simonm223 did not take serious offense, that does not make your comments about their nationality acceptable.
      Please note that you have exceeded your word limit here to post additional accusations against editors who are not even within the scope of this enforcement request ("the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported"), despite having been denied a word extension due to the quality of your participation here, which is yet another example of battleground conduct.
      Based on Riposte97's behavior in this enforcement request and the fact that Riposte97 had already received a logged warning in WP:CT/GG, I agree with Guerillero that a logged warning for Riposte97 would be insufficient, and I would support an indefinite topic ban of Riposte97 from WP:CT/GG for persistent battleground conduct, although I would also support a lesser remedy if there is one that can adequately moderate Riposte97's talk page behavior. — Newslinger talk 10:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC); edited to add missing word 14:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    • I have applied the AE participation restriction to this enforcement request, as editors are continuing to make arguments that are outside the scope of this request ("the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported"). Anyone who wants to post a complaint about any other editor's conduct may file a new report. — Newslinger talk 11:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

    Faronnorth

    [edit source]

    Rejoy2003

    [edit source]

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

    Request concerning Rejoy2003

    [edit source]
    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    SerChevalerie (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs⧼dot-separator⧽deleted contribs⧼dot-separator⧽logs⧼dot-separator⧽filter log⧼dot-separator⧽block user⧼dot-separator⧽block log) 07:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Rejoy2003 (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs⧼dot-separator⧽deleted contribs⧼dot-separator⧽logs⧼dot-separator⧽filter log⧼dot-separator⧽block user⧼dot-separator⧽block log)

    Template:Ds/log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#User sanctions (CT/SA)
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 17 March 2026 Added "Citizenship: Indian (from 1961)" on Premanand Lotlikar, in direct violation of their sanction to not add "Indian and/or Portuguese nationality designations". Note that this is WP:OR.
    2. 18 March 2026 Same behaviour on M. Boyer
    3. 16 March 2026 Same behaviour on Maestro Josinho
    4. 15 March 2026 Same behaviour on Krishna Moyo
    5. 11 March 2026 Added info on Portuguese citizenship at JoeGoaUk
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Special:Diff/1326739812 User has an active sanction against them
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Special:Diff/1344250631

    Discussion concerning Rejoy2003

    [edit source]

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

    Statement by Rejoy2003

    [edit source]

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

    Statement by (username)

    [edit source]

    Result concerning Rejoy2003

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

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

    Retrieved from "https://eurovision.jobogamer.xyz/index.php?title=Eurovision_Wiki:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=3822"