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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
~~Pbsouthwood~~	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Consensus of AfD concerning PIA topic article and ArbCom article enforcement	none	none	22 December 2025
Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88	none	(orig. case)	31 December 2025

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
ARBPIA5 topic bans	28 December 2025
2026 Review of the PIA topic area	2 January 2026

Requests for arbitration

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!)

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.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
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.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

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:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

Clarification request: Consensus of AfD concerning PIA topic article and ArbCom article enforcement

There is consensus that the article was not covered by ARBPIA entirely, so AfD participation that didn't touch on the topic is not a violation. Daniel (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Initiated by 11WB at 18:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli_conflict; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5

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

11WB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Regioncalifornia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Triggerhippie4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Easternsahara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Boutboul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Iljhgtn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by 11WB

I recently closed an AfD as keep (now undone), it turns out many of the participants had WP:CT/PIA topic bans. The article does not have active ArbCom enforcement. A DRV suggested it should. Consensus of the AfD may be affected due to this. Please clarify on whether the AfD consensus is affected and whether the article should be included in PIA. 11WB (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I was unaware @Boutboul's was lifted. I have also not implied that anyone acted maliciously. 11WB (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @Easternsahara says they "looked at notifications". This seems to contradict their talk page banner, which states they "should not be given alerts for those areas". Is a TBAN editor in violation of that rule should they use WP:PPAL notifications to participate in PIA AfDs? 11WB (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It's a filter, thank you for the clarification. 11WB (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts: @Iskandar323 created the article before their TBAN. If the article is not included in PIA enforcement, I don't think any sanction is required. I cannot comment on whether @Easternsahara has violated their TBAN by discussing the topic here. The other editors I included either don't have an active PIA TBAN or have a TBAN that isn't relevant. The article seems to be slightly contentious based on the AfD and talk page discussions. My list was not accurate and for this I apologise, I should've been more thorough. 11WB (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Regioncalifornia

Statement by Triggerhippie4

Statement by Easternsahara

Easternsahara's statement contains 588 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

I didn't think that this was covered by PIA because neither Palestine nor Israel had existed yet. The earliest one can say the start of the Israel-Palestine conflict was with the advent of zionism, although even then no violence had immediately occurred until the settlement of Jewish people in the region of Palestine. The name may be the same as the modern state but names change in various ways all the time (etymological fallacy). OwenX says that since "all these topic-banned editors swarmed to !vote on this AfD" 1 it must be related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but I was just looking at the notifications for WP:PPAL when I saw this and I suspect this is why other editors also voted on this, not because of malicious reasons, as is implied. Simply being tagged for wikiprojects Israel and Palestine is not a strong enough argument by itself, as the region encompasses territory now a part of both modern-day places (so Wikiprojects Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon should also be tagged) User:Easternsahara 20:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I wasn't saying that you were implying that anyone acted maliciously, but that the quoted section could've be interpreted as such User:Easternsahara 21:12, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, I don't think there is any serious scholarly debate about whether or not Jewish people are native to the region of Palestine, that is very obviously yes. Rather, some argue whether the current inhabitants of Israel are descended from the Jews, who lived there thousands of years ago, and whether thousands of years makes their connection to the land invalid enough that they cannot establish their own state there (or whether such states should exist). The Roman Palestine article is not very developed right now, but if it included any data on population, then it would note that Jews are the majority of the inhabitants. So, I don't think that this article is very pertinent to the Palestine-Israel conflict, though it is certainly relevant to Jewish history. User:Easternsahara 03:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB: you seem to misunderstand. I looked at the WP:ARTICLEALERTS section of WP:PPAL. Article alerts are used to inform people of various nominations and discussions relating to a given WikiProject. If you click on the bolded "alert" on the Template:Contentious topics/aware, on my userpage, you will see that it links to Template:Alert, which is used to tell users about a contentious topic that they have edited about. I hope you can understand that "alert" means two different, unrelated things in these contexts. You also assume that I "participate[d] in PIA AfDs", but it had no indication of being related to PIA and this matter is being discussed right now. I implore you to research matters before you implicate that another user has broken the rules in the future. In this case, you could've clicked on the bold "alerts" linked onto the template at the top of my page (which you stated you saw) and then realized that that was a different thing than the WikiProject Article Alerts. Alternatively, you could've viewed the source of my talk page, found Template:DS/aware and read the first sentence, learning that its function is not to be a restriction for the user whose talk page it is placed on, but a notice to other users. User:Easternsahara 03:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boutboul: I am sure that you think that you know what you are doing and that you are acting in good faith. However, I do think that you are wrong because I am only discussing PIA to avoid further sanctions, by clarifying that this page is not related to the PIA (despite the name). User:Easternsahara 06:42, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

To be clear, I enquired in advance with @SFR as to whether participation would be problematic, and the answer was not a yes. I then tagged SFR again for absolute clarity and transparency when I participated in the discussion. My response was based purely on the lack of a deletion rationale. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boutboul

@User:Easternsahara, My purpose is not to put you down, but in my opinion you are skirting the edges of your PIA TBAN too much, several editors already told you that. For example, this kind of sentence: “The earliest one can say the start of the Israel-Palestine conflict was with the advent of zionism, although even then no violence had immediately occurred until the settlement of Jewish people in the region of Palestine.”, clearly falls under the TBAN, since it is broadly construed. I do not think that mentioning Roman Palestine necessarily falls under it, but it is still not a good idea for someone under a TBAN to test the boundaries. I know what I am talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boutboul (talk • contribs) 13:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iljhgtn

The main purpose of the PIA enforcements are to reduce edit warring on contentious pages. Observably, pages of this nature i.e., which are about the history of Israelis and Palestinians does lead to edit wars. Per CNC, the historical association of this page with Palestine makes it quite obvious that it is within the PIA purview. I’m not sure how it could be construed otherwise. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CommunityNotesContributor

Noting that Roman Palestine appears to be a child article of History of Palestine. The latter has been protected under PIA since 2018, the article in question was created in 2024, but seemingly not as a split. CNC (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Bushranger

If I - for instance - came across Roman Palestine at WP:RFPP with a request to ECP it under PIA, I would decline it, as the article is clearly not primarily related to the Palestine-Israeli Conflict. It does seem that there's a popular misconception that PIA covers everything related to Palestine and/or Israel, but it clearly is more limited than that. Now, the fact there are potentially portions of the article that are PIA-related is true; whether or not that would make 'participation in an AfD about the article a violation of a PIA topic ban', I'd have to think about, but my off the cuff reaction would be no - only actively editing those small portions of the article would be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Metallurgist

I initiated the AFD and didnt expect it to be so contentious, altho perhaps I should have. It looked to me to be an unnecessary duplication of other articles. I do think PIA should at least somewhat apply here as the keep or deletion of this page can be taken by some editors as relevant to the PIA conflict, as SFR has pointed out. That said, I do think Iskandar deserves an exception to the TBAN as creator of the article to robustly defend it. And as for ES, if it is considered PIA, I think it is a good faith error to have participated and they should not face any sanction for this, but the !vote should be discarded in that case. And they made a good point about that it should have included other Wikiprojects. I didnt even think of that and I try to be comprehensive. Finally, given the contentiousness of the ongoing discussion, I think the closer should have left it open for longer than a week regardless. But no harm no foul at the end of the day here. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Consensus of AfD concerning PIA topic article and ArbCom article enforcement: Clerk notes

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

Consensus of AfD concerning PIA topic article and ArbCom article enforcement: Arbitrator views and discussion

Reviewing this comment, I'm not sure I agree with this list. Regioncalifornia does not have a tban, just a logged warning regarding 1RR (which is very much not the same thing as a tban). Triggerhippie4 is also not topic-banned. Boutboul's topic ban was successfully appealed and lifted. Iljhgtn's topic ban is in my opinion clearly not applicable here ("political living people"). That leaves only Iskandar323 and Easternsahara who are topic-banned from PIA. Currently considering whether this should be in scope of PIA or not, which is the main crux of this issue that's been brought to ARCA. Daniel (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly parts of the article which relate to the conflict, as whether or not the Jewish population in the area is considered indigenous/native is a sticking point in the conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a bit of a stretch of "broadly", as indicated by others, that an area that existed a substantially significant amount of time before the Arab/Israeli conflict started would be considered under this CTOP. I will note that the article has been edited rather heavily since this request was first brought to us, but as of Special:Permalink/1330343946 the only modern mentions are in the infobox. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No longer on the committee. Izno (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the history of the geographic area comprising the Arab-Israeli conflict is part of this CTOP's jurisdiction as its historical composition is used to justify actions of multiple groups in that area. I do not think editors should wait until the Arab-Israeli conflict is mentioned in the article before the CTOP is applied. I recommend resolving this by putting a notification to affected parties that they should avoid these types of articles while their topic bans are in effect, as we have 7 million articles on Wikipedia that they can choose to edit instead. However, I don't feel particularly strong about this designation so I probably won't be too bothered if the decision goes in a different direction. Z1720 (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No longer on the committee. Izno (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree broadly with SFR—the parts about the origins of Jewish people are covered, but the intricacies of which Roman served as governor of the Roman province are not. I would tag the talk page as {{contentious topics/talk notice|a-i|section=the history of Jews in the region}}, and allow AFD participation from editors with a PIA topic ban so long as their comment itself doesn't violate the tban.
But I will caution editors who are topic banned from PIA to tread carefully, and ideally (but optionally) find something completely unrelated to edit. That will lead to fewer headaches for everyone involved and, when it comes time to appeal, demonstrate that you are capable of dropping the stick. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 06:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Minor note as I work through this, Easternsahara has been indefinitely blocked for TBAN violations. Izno (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And since the beginning of this ARCA, the AFD has been reclosed, with no further action at DRV or elsewhere. So that part of the question is obsolete. Izno (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At present, after review of the article of interest, I would agree with Bushranger that a priori ECP is clearly not valid here. I otherwise agree with various and sundry about the potential for the conflict to be relevant but that such is not clearly so in the current article. I'll also echo that topic bans are typically broadly construed and that those TBANned are best off finding something else to edit. If there are concerns about TBAN vios occurring at this article half a week later, those should probably be raised separate to this discussion, IMO. Izno (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88

Initiated by Catflap08 at 13:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88 § Catflap08: Topic ban (I)
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

Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
- State the desired modification
Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
- State the desired modification

Statement by Catflap08

Hi, I would like to ask for the editing restrictions in place against me to be lifted. As you can see, I am no longer very active on Wikipedia, whether it concerns the English or German version. Some articles dealing with the subject of [Nichiren Buddhism] are, in my opinion, still very toxic and unbalanced, but I cannot see myself becoming a major contributor to them anymore. The conflicts ten years ago have left their mark. Since its been so long I am not even sure if I am getting this request right.

Moved from arbitrator-only section 10:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC) Asilvering, to be honest this discussion [1]concerning this discission [2] caused me to file the request. The specific file was deleted years ago on en.wikipedia. My watchlists on de.wikipedia and en.wikipedia in terms of Nichiren Buddhism are more or less identical. Articles dealing with Soka Gakkai do have a tendency to be a bit unbalanced lacking NPOV. For that reason, I would like to be able to raise one or the other issue on the talk page at least. I do not think it would be a good idea being involved in any sort of edit war after my ban being lifted, but I could assist in providing references and sources in any future discussion or debate. I am not planning to edit articles I have previously been banned from immediately, that would not be appropriate, I think. I would however like to contribute to the discussion first. The Soka Gakkai topic is potentially toxic … also elsewhere on the internet – I am very well aware of that ... ten years later. So, I am not entirely inactive on Wikipedia, but I limit my edits to those I can manage also in terms of time. Catflap08 (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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

Notified Hijiri88 and TH1980 as they have not been notified yet by the filer. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Catflap08 is subject to an interaction ban with both -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

I find this appeal uninspiring --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That the TBAN was put into place ten years ago looks to be the only point in favor of removal. Inactivity is not itself a compelling reason to remove a TBAN, and Some articles dealing with the subject of [Nichiren Buddhism] are, in my opinion, still very toxic and unbalanced doesn't help the appeal. As an aside, it doesn't look like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Proposed decision#Hijiri88: Topic ban (I) should have passed since six of the eight votes were a second choice to another remedy that did pass. - Aoidh (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think it's a great appeal, but it's also been a decade, so I'm willing to extend some rope. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on the substance. I would expect Hijiri and/or TH1980 to be notified of this request. Izno (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Guerillero's "uninspiring" and Aoidh's criticism of why we should remove the TBAN. "I was topic banned from an area and I think that area is Still Wrong" is one of the top three reasons any appeal is rejected. Izno (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Catflap08, can you clarify why you are interested in having the tban lifted? If you're not going to edit in the area, then it hardly matters that you're tbanned. I notice that in 2022 you mentioned Now and again I’d like to ask some questions on several talk pages though. Is this still the reason? Can you give us an example? -- asilvering (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on converting it to a suspended topic ban? That is, if there's any disruption, any administrator can simply reinstate the tban. -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Shortcuts

This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (arbitrators only)

All editors are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension on this page below (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 comments or submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

ARBPIA5 topic bans

The Arbitration Committee has received several complaints without standing regarding violations of topic bans imposed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Following the unsatisfactory conclusion of an enforcement request against Iskandar323 (due to the standing of the filer), the committee invokes its jurisdiction over matters previously heard and will review all topic bans issued during that case. The committee will determine by motion 1) whether violations of a topic ban have occurred, and 2) what sanction, if any, to levy for any edits determined to be violations. Editors with standing are welcome to present diffs of alleged violations for the committee's consideration.

ARBPIA5 topic bans: Clerk notes

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

Recuse, I participated as an AE admin in the thread. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 20:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AndreJustAndre: Your statement is above the 500 word limit for statements. Please reduce your word count or request an extension by using {{@ArbComClerks}} or email clerks-l. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AndreJustAndre: you are granted an extension of 500 words (for a total of 1,000 words) to address Paprikaiser's evidence. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Alleged violations and analysis

Iskander323
- Blocked for a fortnight on 26 November 2025 for topic ban violation.
- AE request largely focused on Dome on the Rock and edits around history of Judaism.

General discussion

I'm bringing this here because we have a rough consensus on-list that something needs to be done, but no actionable complaint has yet been presented and the Iskander thread at AE closed without a resolution because the filer was found to be a compromised account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we either need to do a formal review (PIA5.5) or consider roughly 15 potential motions to tie up some loose ends revealed in the 12 months since PIA5 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per User:Newyorkbrad below, I am still very much against using standing to describe anything on Wikipedia, as it reads like Standing (law) which is only going to cause problems and confusion and is completely unnecessary. The community soundly rejected codifying "standing" into Arbitration Policy for good reason, and I do not intend to support any motion that encourages or uses this wording. - Aoidh (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had abstained from the discussions behind the scenes and do so here too. I'm not sure if it matters much as this isn't a case and I won't be an arb anymore tomorrow; WP:AC/C/P says something about "motions not related to a case", whatever. It would amuse me if my abstention is struck through. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No longer on the committee. Izno (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the characterization that there was a rough consensus to come here. One Arb, around Christmas, suggested bringing it here, and no one else agreed. I hadn't even read the email as I was away for the holidays (as I suspect many other Arbs were). At any rate, this is far too broad, open ended, and lacking in structure. We're just sending up a call for any diffs about the editors we topic banned a year ago? Without even having a case structure? That is going to create more drama and problems and more work for everyone. We're at ARM and there aren't even any motions. I do hope Guerillero goes and posts his motions though, perhaps in a separate header, as he had some general ideas aimed at tying up loose ends. But I oppose this structureless attempt to fish for further sanctions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we can probably come up with a better word than standing, but it would be nice to have it clearly laid out that we're not accepting emails from random anonymous editors about CTOP/AE violations, especially if the topic is covered by ECR. However, of something is raised on-wiki, this is more or less my view on that. Much as it is when one UPE sock reports another UPE sock, there are no free passes depending on who raises a violation. Special:PermanentLink/1330538550#Bad math contains violations by both Iskandar and Levivich discussing an earlier violation here, and this is after Iskandar's last block for topic ban violations. I don't think ignoring this is the way to go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to highlight this from dlthewave in the comments below: It would be immensely helpful to have either a noticeboard or a list of admins' talk pages where someone could post "Hey, this situation is starting to get out of hand, could you please take a look at it?" I think adding "quick requests" to WP:AE was a very good idea, and something like this could be an interesting further reform to the process. New editors in particular are often perfectly capable of observing that something is going very wrong, but completely unable to navigate the complex CTOP processes to make a report. In theory, WP:ANI would be the place to go with this kind of complaint, but in practice, not so much. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Paprikaiser, AndreJustAndre, I would say that the comment about Graham Platner, [3], is really on the edge. The linked source makes no direct mention of the conflict, and neither does Andre. But GW's initial post very clearly does mention the topic area. I don't think posting something that close to a tban subject is wise. If this is part of a larger pattern, I would say this is a problem. The Bari Weiss comment, [4], is not related. Or, at least, if we're calling that related, then a PIA tban is effectively a tban from politics altogether, which I'm sure was no one's intent. -- asilvering (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from parties

Statement by Iskandar323

One has to marvel at the effort that is being committed to here on behalf of a globally account that was hacked/criminally hijacked by a bad actor. I doubt that even in the bad actor's wildest best-case scenario they imagined their actions could spur ARBCOM to contemplate embarking on a nebulous re-examination of the actions of all participants in a past case. They will surely be, somewhere, raising a champagne glass in toast to a job well done on their part in causing such a ruckus with their throwaway account. What a potential reward for not only disruption, but digital crime within the Wikipedia system in general! What great profit for such a similarly great misdeed! And the principal diff in question that this has been raised over? A comment on a talk page with (then) no CTOP template and with no political bearing and no conflict relevance, but more pertinent to, say, WikiProject Islam, than anything else. A diff that already garnered a collective 'meh' among administrators at the procedurally invalid AE. THAT should be a priority – a diff that disrupted nothing – and not the new-found knowledge that accounts are being hacked and then kept in a sleeper state for up to two years only to brought out for use in CTOPs, and, when and where conducive, to be used to weaponize AE? If this is the direction of travel then I fear the committee has gotten horribly confused somewhere along the lines over its priorities and where its attentions best lie in mitigating disruption. The only disruption that has been meted out here is that by the bad actor, and yet it is precisely this disruption that the motion before the committee proposes to not only oblige, but to amplify. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from uninvolved discussion. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 17:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehushtani: being 'uninvolved' is a droll notion. This despite them having taken me to ANI, alongside other CTOP-related posts, on my talk page. All in Archive 8. They were also involved in presenting evidence in the instigating AE thread. All this despite me never interacting with them prior to the ANI filing. Here's to hoping that they (unlike the many Icewhiz and NoCal100 socks and now unknown account hackers that have graced my user page) are acting in good faith, but uninvolved and just coincidentally calling for a CBAN? I think not. If proceedings proceed, I must insist that they join us on this merry goose chase! Iskandar323 (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

Statement by Levivich

Statement by Nableezy

Going along with Guerillero's statement below about no such thing as an allowable violation, I suggest an additional motion on Nableezy having violated his topic ban with a remedy of an indefinite block. Wouldn't want anybody confusing this body with one that is thoughtful, deliberative and proportionate. nableezy - 22:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Jfc.Selfstudier (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AndreJustAndre

Extension granted to 1000 words.

Received this [5] but per [6] there isn't an allegation about me. Confusing. Assuming that this falls under BANEX, let me know if not, I volunteer, in the interest of transparency, that I edit history topics and avoid anything to do with Israeli state and politics, Zionism anti-Zionism, modern Palestinians, pan-Arabism, Hamas, etc, but my understanding is that ancient archeological Israelites/Judeans aren't covered by the ban. If that has changed, let me know. I have not been warned for any violations since returning from the last sanction, or repeated anything that was sanctioned. I was involved in a discussion on the Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world#Jews_as_second-class_citizens where it was getting close to the topic and per this suggestion I have since refrained, even though the discussion was pre-exodus dhimmi status and not post-1948. I don't see that I am flouting the ban with my edits and only received that one nudge as far as I can recall. If there is any concern about my editing I only ask that I be given feedback and a chance to adjust or comply with the guidance.

To elaborate on my thought process of how I observe my topic ban, e.g. part of the Khazar hypothesis page, or changing Palestine to Israel if there isn't a source-based historical reason in that context. Those would violate how I think the ban is broadly construed. If the obvious underlying subtext of an edit is ARBPIA-related, such as a statement in the Khazar article that says "it is used by anti-Zionists," well that's explicit, but now if the edit were e.g. [7], well, that edit doesn't mention Zionism, but it certainly makes oblique reference. So I have not reverted that. Similarly, I would consider Pirate Wires to be off-limits, and have avoided that. Even generally on the reliability of Pirate Wires. Technically, not a violation, since they do other stuff, but if an obvious reference to its coverage, that could be. Similarly, I would consider Dome of the Rock to be too close to the Western Wall and how that interacts with East Jerusalem and its inhabitants, the uneasy tension of sharing etc. It's not something from the middle ages, it's a current-day charged political and religious dispute. So I would avoid that and modern Western Wall topics. But I do not consider it a violation to edit Jerusalem Talmud. The Talmud Yerushalmi happens to also be known as the Palestinian Talmud. That doesn't automatically make it a violation to edit about a guy writing manuscripts analyzing rabbinical literature interested in Jerusalem Talmud.

Edited Andre🚐 23:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding diffs by Paprikaiser, they are minor, and not violations. One is explicitly a revert of vandalism per the edit summary. Bari Weiss/CBS and Graham Platner might have aspects that fall under ARBPIA, but not in entirety, and I didn't touch those aspects. If there is a diff that someone thinks is a violation, please explain why, and I'll request a few more words. Andre🚐 23:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Paprikaiser, these diffs do not contain a violation or any problematic pattern of editing, require no warning or any action, they are uniformly constructive and not disruptive, push no particular POV, and some are stale:

[8] Hellenistic Palestine. This was reverting what was identified in the edit summary as vandalism. Anonymous user broke the page and removed sources while changing Palestine to Judea. This is against my "type categorization" also - I was restoring Palestine, so even ignoring that it was apparent vandalism, it would be opposite my theoretical POV to push.
[9] Hasmonean Judea. Simply wikilinking the Books of Maccabees. Minor, not a violation. Article not under ARBPIA, edit doesn't relate to it.

On Yahweh, article not under ARBPIA, edits not related:

[10] add 1931 to source for a depiction of Yahweh to qualify the statement.
[11] Per consensus on talk, simplify geography to "South".
[12] Removed weather god in lead per talk.
[13] Removed volcano god category.
[14] Add "likely" 2x to lead
[15], [16], [17], [18] Tweaks to Fleming citation.

RSN:

[19] About Platner's neo-Nazi tattoo, adding CNN source showing he wasn't truthful to support additional to Jewish Insider. Unrelated to ARBPIA. It's true that OP's comment mentioned it, about JI's reliability, but the discussion moved on from that, and that reply was strictly about Platner, and corroborating the reporting about his tattoo fibs. JI, nor Platner, isn't completely under ARBPIA.
[20] Suggesting that we wait and see how Bari Weiss affects CBS. Unrelated to ARBPIA. The fact that Bari Weiss has a warning saying part of her article relates to ARBPIA does not make any edit about her to RSN related to it.
On edit filter log: includes many edits that are entirely un-ARBPIA-related. I can't respond to all of them, so raise one if needed. The discussion on Bondi said it is ISIL/Syria Civil War, not ARBPIA.

I believe between my original statement and this outline of diffs, I have responded to all concerns raised by Paprikaiser. The comparison to Iskandar's and Levivich's more clear-cut violations is not apt, and unfortunately betrays a lack of understanding of what a topic ban does and does not cover. These edits could have violated a ban in those places, but they didn't. If of course it is I who am mistaken, someone please swiftly inform me. I do have many edits to Jewish history and other history or politics topics, and if any others are of concern, I have always been open to that. I have tried to neutrally and thoughtfully contribute to those areas. Andre🚐 00:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, my understanding was that as long as I didn't respond to the PIA portion of OP's post, and the discussion was a page away, I was not engaging with it, just like when you edit elsewhere in an article. Since it was only two sentences of the post. Andre🚐 04:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's evident. I still find it uncomfortably close. But again, I wouldn't call it a tban violation in itself. -- asilvering (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how you might say that and I don't think there are any other similar situations to that in the past year, and I can maybe keep an eye for that on RSN in the future. Andre🚐 04:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Makeandtoss

Statement by Nishidani

I was topic banned in good part for taking issue over how to correctly construe a diff, innocuous but thought damning by enough admins. So, here, I'd once more draw your attention to sloppy and imprecise language.

The Arbitration Committee has received several complaints without standing regarding violations of topic bans imposed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Following the unsatisfactory conclusion of an enforcement request against Iskandar323 (due to the standing of the filer), (a) the committee invokes its jurisdiction over matters previously heard and will review all topic bans issued during that case.(b) The committee will determine by motion 1) whether violations of a topic ban have occurred, and 2) what sanction, if any, to levy for any edits determined to be violations. Editors with standing are welcome to present diffs of alleged violations for the committee's consideration.

In (a) the bolded 'that case' would appear to refer to the action against Iskander, but grammatically its wording suggests that at issue is the antecedant 'Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5' higher up, meaning contextually that the committee will 'review' the original 'topic bans' themselves.

However as (b) shows, there will be no 'review of all topic bans issued during that case', as clumsily asserted. Rather, and contradicting itself, the text then asserts that all the topic bans stand, and the committee will only adjudicate sanctions for any edits since which violate the bans laid down in the Palestine/Israel articles5 case.

If the point of the exercise is to 'tie up a few loose ends', by all means. But as one hanging from a dropped noose, any further measures in my regard at least would be Flogging a dead horse. Cheerio Nishidani (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (uninvolved editors only)

consider roughly 15 potential motions to tie up some loose ends revealed in the 12 months since PIA5 are these motions that did not pass from PIA5 or additional motions besides those? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just a wording point at the moment. For the past several years, I have urged that the Committee do its best to keep the rule-set in this area as simple as possible; and there has also been a desire for ArbCom to use less legalistic language. For both of these reasons, if "editors with standing" just means "extended-confirmed editors," then please use the latter wording. If you don't, I foresee that sooner or later, someone will try to wikilawyer some distinction between them. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad, the most obvious example here is of BlookyNapsta, who initiated the Iskander323 AE thread and has since blocked as a compromised account. So "editors with standing" is indeed intended to have a broader meaning than simply "extended-confirmed editors". -- asilvering (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the CT refers explicitly to the "Israel-Arab conflict". This "conflict" involves two parties, Israelis and Arabs, and in some cases Jews and Muslims. The recent trend to expand it to anything related to Jews or Arabs separately is a widening that is not supported by Arbcom decisions as far as I know. To take a pertinent example, Iskandar323's recent edit to Talk:Dome of the Rock is about whether the structure is a mosque or a shrine. This is a question which lies entirely within Islamic law and practice. It has nothing to do with either Israel or Jews and therefore nothing to do with the Israel-Arab conflict. I am not aware of any Jewish or Israeli interest in the question. Incidentally, I'll remind the committee that the CT notice was added after Iskandar323's edit. (It is incidentally the wrong notice—it should have the "related content" attribute since only a fraction of the article refers to PIA.) Zero^talk 02:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
isn't Zero an involved editor and should be above as he were a party to the case last year? even if he only got a warning? asking honestly, if the involved editors is only folks who got topic bans, apologies. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the title and the description given by the filer, this is about topic ban violation, and since I don't have a topic ban I can't violate it. If the committee decides to widen it, that might be a different matter. Zero^talk 05:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added |section=yes. It seems clear that most of the page content should be accessible to non-extendedconfirmed editors to edit without having to post an edit request. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s somewhat clear that Iskandar doesn’t have any “hard” tban violations in the edits they were reported for by the compromised account (though they’ve been served a warning and tempban for other ones in the past year). The question, as Guerillero framed it, is twofold:
- whether the naked violation of their topic ban linked by Guerillero is worthy of a more severe sanction, when taken in conjunction with their prior vios, and
- whether Iskandar’s editing in the tangentially-related areas you describe is a “soft” violation; i.e. not explicitly editing a TBANned page, but a pattern of subtly attempting to push a narrative on related pages (as Guerillero also stated).
The Kip ^(contribs) 07:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My only comment at this time is that I would encourage the Committee to allow presenting evidence on the various sanctioned editors' behavior in general, not just within PIA. When an editor is sanctioned in an ArbCom case, and then continues to disrupt the project in other ways, it is within ArbCom's jurisidiction to consider evidence regarding their general fitness to edit the project. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin, what you call for is the kind of rough justice that we generally see at ANI. If we were to do as such, I would argue that there be allowed the presenting of evidence against anyone who meanders into this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 13:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who comments here is in-jurisdiction for AE. The conduct of the ArbCom-TBANned editors is a special matter because it's ArbCom's job as sanctioning authority to make sure that the sanctions are sufficing to avoid disruption to the encyclopedia. That is not something that can be determined without looking at editors' conduct holistically. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In Iskandar323's case specifically, this shows revisions by Iskandar323 post-ARBPIA5-close to pages that are templated as being within scope of CT/A-I, either in whole (blue) or in part (orange) because of the presence of '|section=yes' or '|relatedcontent=yes'. Apologies, but posting an image for this kind of data is my only option at the moment. No comment on the accuracy or completeness of topic area related templating. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe don't reward complaints by accounts compromised to stir up trouble by stirring up trouble at their behest. Just a thought.Dan Murphy (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community seems happy with the current faith-based trust-and-don't-verify 'crime does pay' approach to whether an account is in 'good standing'. A 'crime doesn't pay' approach might be a lot of work e.g. CUs for anyone who uses reporting systems, erasure of content created by accounts found to not be in good standing etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community is happy because of both WP:AGF and because misconduct on the part of the filer shouldn't excuse misconduct on the part of the accused. It's an unwinnable situation where misconduct is being excused either way and, assuming bad filers keep getting caught (as they almost always are), the current approach results in the least long-term damage.

The alternative described is to mandate that any bad-filer reports with merit (read: not frivolous) are re-filed by a non-bad account, either creating more unnecessary work for everyone in re-filing and re-processing the report, or getting the accused off scot-free if nobody re-files the report. The current approach is effectively the community judging that they'd rather just cut out the middleman.

Remember that Arbcom are not paid employees; they're all volunteers. Sometimes the most convenient option is best. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a time-saving exercise? What a world.Dan Murphy (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody but the obvious bad faith account "bothers to refile", how actually disruptive can the behavior that desperately MUST be punished be? Is this about bettering the encyclopedia or simply punishing for the sake of it? Parabolist (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: I'm only addressing filings that were judged to potentially contain valid misconduct, i.e. the Iskandar one that sparked this - that filing wasn't dismissed because Iskandar hadn't done anything wrong, but because the filer literally stole another user's account. We're now here because an arb said there was potential legitimacy to the complaint despite the filer's actions. Frivolous filings in bad faith are what they are, and the community is good at shutting those down.

I'm also saying that for cases with valid complaints, there's the potential that no non-bad account could refile, which could happen for various reasons; a desire to avoid conflict, to avoid ARBPIA, to avoid being labeled a partisan within ARBPIA, ideological/personal alignment with the accused, etc. I think the second item applies to a lot of Wikipedians, and the fourth item sums up why many cases in the area are accused (usually justifiably) of weaponization - I can only name one recent ARBPIA filing where someone reported a user that was "on their side." I can dig into more research on that if requested.

All of that could be avoided if you mandate that cases containing legitimate misconduct be re-filed by good-faith editors, which I'd support, but again, that creates more tasks for what's already an over-strained volunteer system. The Kip ^(contribs) 09:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this doesn't address the systemic issues. If the objective is to improve something, or reduce something, it probably won't do that in any way that matters. That seems to be what history shows. If we can't tell the difference between accounts "in good standing" and accounts created or acquired by people evading a previous sanction, then sanctions related to "legitimate misconduct" can only be imposed on accounts "in good standing". This is perhaps the most important property of the ARBPIA system for me because it breaks the symmetry, it ceases to be a symmetric game, different players have different payoffs, and that changes everything. We know that people who employ ban evasion are effectively unsanctionable and weaponize reporting systems to target editors "in good standing", and so we know that sanctions related to "legitimate misconduct" can only be effectively imposed on people who believe that the rules apply to them and accept the verdict. Under these conditions, what is the objective when we allow people who think the rules don't apply to them to sample the vast number of revisions in the topic area to target opponents and then reward them by pretending that any "good-faith editor" might have done the same thing because it's just about dealing with "legitimate misconduct"? It's not about misconduct. Why would we allow ourselves to be played and pretend that it is? It's about them removing perceived opponents and us rewarding bad actors who employ deception. Many, many people have already learned that it is better to use disposable accounts in the topic area. Some of them keep their heads down, and don't bother anyone, and good for them. Others, like the person who acquired the BlookyNapsta account have a value system that is incompatible with Wikipedia's, and yet we keep reminding them that using disposable/compromised accounts was the right decision. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the train of thought above. If no actually in good faith editor is willing to raise a complaint, then any complaints raised by a not in good faith, actually in BAD faith, compromised editor must be considered fruit of the poisonous tree and dealt with accordingly. To do otherwise is a rabbit hole we do not want to go down. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In Iskandar323's case specifically, this shows revisions by Iskandar323 post-ARBPIA5-close to pages that are templated as being within scope of CT/A-I, either in whole (blue) or in part (orange) because of the presence of '|section=yes' or '|relatedcontent=yes'. Apologies, but posting an image for this kind of data is my only option at the moment. No comment on the accuracy or completeness of topic area related templating. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since finishing their 2-week block for TBAN violations, Iskandar323 has edited Talk:Dome of the Rock (as already discussed), while the article was explicitly tagged as ARBPIA. On 18 December 2025 they edited Syria Palaestina which has an ARBPIA template. Additionally, on 15 December 2025 they removed a phrase that appears in 1988 Hamas charter (to quote from that article "The 1988 Hamas charter proclaims that jihad against Jews is required until Judgement Day."). In their edit summary, they cited "marginal sourcing" from Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust museum. On 16 December 2025, they violated their topic ban by discussing the conflict on another TBANed user's talk page. On 17 December 2025 they violated WP:CIVIL.

In addition to the above violations, they have also edited extensively on the history of Judaism just outside of the topic ban. While no particular edit is problematic, the edits together show an ARBPIA related POV being pushed by minimising the historical Jewish presence in ancient Israel. The connection of Jews to Israel or the denial or downplaying of this connection is one of the major issues of the Israeli-Arab conflict (some of these examples are from before the latest block, but this issue was not addressed in that block and continues). 5 November 2025, 5 November 2025, 25 November 2025, 25 November 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, and 17 December 2025.

Other users TBANed in ARBPIA5 have also violated their TBAN. Levivich responded to Iskandar323 above, also violating their TBAN on their talk page on 16 December 2025. On 25 December 2025, they also violated a participation restriction at AE.

On 4 November 2025, Nableezy edited another editor's comments on Talk:Gaza genocide, violating their TBAN. They wrote in their edit summary "worth a block of any length", meaning that they were well aware that this was a violation.

On 28 April 2025, Makeandtoss violated their TBAN with an edit about a sabotage plot related to Israel (see the source cited, and note that in the current version of Islamic Action Front, the section is titled "Reaction to Israel-Palestine war").

Nishidani was blocked on 22 August 2025 for a month for TBAN violations.

In short - several of the users TBANed in ARBPIA5 have not been meticulously observing their TBANs and continue the same behavior as before their TBANs. I think that ARBCOM needs to get involved. The pattern shown with Iskandar323 is especially disturbing. The user had multiple TBAN violations, and following a block for those violations, they continue with the same behavior. Multiple warnings and a temporary site block have not deterred them from violating their TBAN over and over again. I see no alternative to an indef CBAN. I also recommend to ARBCOM to take a look at the behavior of other senior users who have been involved in similar conduct to those who were banned in ARBPIA5. Nehushtani (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Makeandtoss claim feels weak - unless I'm missing something, neither the Reuters source nor the article address anything directly related to ARBPIA, and another Reuters article says the sabotage plot was planned attacks within Jordan. The Kip ^(contribs) 09:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Reuters source is about the sabotage plot that links to an article from a week earlier that explains the full context at Jordan says it has foiled attacks by Muslim Brotherhood which explains that "Security forces found a rocket manufacturing facility alongside a drone factory, according to a statement by the General Intelligence Department released on state media. "The plot aimed at harming national security, sowing chaos and causing material destruction inside the kingdom," the statement said. ... It said some of the arms were bound for the neighbouring Israeli-occupied West Bank, adding that they have arrested several Jordanians linked to Palestinian militants. ... Jordan has over 3,500 American troops stationed in several bases and, since the war between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza erupted in October 2023, it has been increasingly targeted by Iranian-backed groups operating in neighbouring Syria and Iraq." In other words, the "sabotage plot" was intended to smuggle weapons to Palestinians to use against Israel. Nehushtani (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying question here is "what to do when sockpuppets, compromised accounts, etc. bring an at least potentially valid concern to AE." This is a particular problem in the ARBPIA topic area due to the large number of recurring sockpuppets, who aggressively target ideological opponents, coupled with lots and lots of people with restrictions that they may in fact have violated. On one hand we don't want to ignore potentially valid problems, but on the other hand moving forward based on allegations from sockpuppets encourages them to continue pressuring Wikipedia via those vectors and creates potentially one-sided examinations because the socks can freely harass people, getting banned repeatedly, then report them when their targets react; additionally, normal users would get in trouble if they repeatedly abused AE, whereas sockmasters can keep creating new accounts and throw things at the wall until they find something that sticks. That said, I feel that this shouldn't actually be that hard of a question - we've already answered it, albeit in lower-pressure situations, when it comes to WP:BANREVERT. Specifically: If it's found that someone is a sock or otherwise shouldn't have been bringing things to AE, it can be closed without prejudice until / unless an editor in good standing is willing to vouch for it; but anyone can choose to vouch for it and re-open it (or create a new case based on it), effectively taking over as the filer. This avoids situations where people can use sockpuppets to spam our system with weak accusations, while still making it easy for cases to happen when there's clearly something that needs to be looked into. --Aquillion (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the iskandar blookynapsta filing situation tban vio is a good initial place to start from. I have no opinion for or against further creep scope at this point User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone filing lots of reports against ideological opponents/participating lots at AE should just be page blocked from it, uninvolved editors in good standing should be using their social capital to clean up these CTs Kowal2701 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed the rapid fire ae reports was not a good look. Nor was the participant restriction not being used earlier and more often. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that abuse of AE should be dealt with, but I wrote an essay about this here - as long as requests have a valid basis, I don't think we should bar people from bringing a bunch of AE cases against people they're in a dispute with. The facts are that:

1. Many topic areas are filled with stuff that needs to be brought to AE or SPI. ARBPIA and ARBTRANS in particular are flooded with both sockpuppets and outside canvassing, which have brought a lot of people whose edits could reasonably be described as tendentious. Sometimes someone making a lot of reports just means there's a lot of problems. And while these problems are not one-sided, they do tend to come in waves.

2. People are simply more likely to notice issues with someone they're in a dispute with. It's a lot easier to spot incivility when it is directed at you! It's much easier to notice revert-warring and 1RR / 3RR violations when it's your edits being reverted! Tendentious editing sticks out a lot more when it's pushing a position you also believe to be wrong; and believing something to be WP:FRINGE usually means disagreeing with it. The simple fact is that most people don't look too closely at edits they agree with.

3. Making an AE case is a lot of work. Only a few people are willing to actually do that work; and people who have done it a lot in the past tend to be better and faster at it and more willing to do it again, simply because they know how.

The combination of these things means that in certain topic areas, you're going to see a lot of reports from the same people, often aimed at those they disagree with. It's a reason to be a bit more thorough and cautious with those reports and to avoid just assuming things are valid... but if the reports do in fact seem legitimate, I don't think people should be prevented from making them. Because the flipside is that AE is one of the few venues we have to report actual abuse that is, in fact, happening; if you bar people from reporting too many people they're in a dispute with, you'll end up with actual issues festering until they reach ArbCom. And finally, yes, while people do make plenty of invalid or ridiculous reports... ultimately that's a WP:ROPE situation. People like that are probably part of the problem in the topic area; by filing reports they're calling attention to themselves and will eventually get removed. (This doesn't apply to sockpuppets / compromised accounts for the reasons I outlined above, of course. But it's why I do want editors in good standing to be able to "cure" those reports. AE might be frustrating but we do need it - as the ArbCom cases showed, the flood of reports in these topic areas isn't people trying to remove otherwise blameless ideological opponents; it reflects genuine problems.) Basically, for someone to be abusing AE, they have to actually be filing weak or frivolous reports. If they're filing a bunch of valid ones then that's not abuse. Look at eg. the recent WP:ARBTRANS case - a lot of filings leading up to it were dismissed as just people targeting opponents, yet almost everyone who had an AE case filed against them was ultimately removed by ArbCom, several of them with verbage that made it clear it was not a hard call and that those people probably should have been removed earlier. AE needs to be able to handle those cases, which means it can't just dismiss otherwise valid reports as partisan griping. --Aquillion (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but having ideological opponents file reports to ban each other only makes the topic more battlegroundy and entrenched. Theoretically It’d be better for people not involved in the topic area to make reports. It’s not too time consuming for such an editor/admin to glance at articles often subject to disputes, identify someone who seems tendentious, and keep an eye on their conduct in other disputes they get into. I don’t know why admins only get involved when something’s placed on their desk (though I’m sure there’s a good reason). All CTs need is a couple Frams Kowal2701 (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is huge and recognizing a pattern of tendentious behavior in particular requires both experience with the topic (to recognize when someone is eg. clearly pushing for undue weight rather than trying to fix genuine existing bias) and, usually, experience with an editor's contributions that comes from interacting with them a lot or caring enough to go over them. Even recognizing a pattern of low-key uncivil behavior can require focused attention. Administrators can't randomly go through checking everyone, especially given the amount of work it often requires to identify complex or long-term problems; realistically the system depends on those who interact with each other making reports, because they're the first ones who will notice something wrong. And I don't agree that it causes battleground entrenchment; I think it's a symptom. I think genuine bad-faith reports are rare - people do usually actually believe the people they report have conduct issues; this belief is just sometimes tainted by their biases. If you bar them from making reports, they're still going to think the people they interact with have conduct issues and shouldn't be editing, and that will leak through and taint interactions. IMHO it's better to encourage people to "put up or shut up" - to take concerns to AE quickly, handle them rapidly and with minimal back-and-forth or crossfire, and accept the results if they're told there's no issue. AE is a pressure-release valve, basically. I'm all for making it smoother and less... squabble-y, but we should be encouraging people to take things there quickly, not discouraging it, because that is how you get those uninvolved admin eyes on something; and whether there's an issue or not, getting that attention is how you resolve things. But, like I said - we get a lot of eg. ARBPIA reports because there are, in fact, a lot of problems in the topic area. Making it harder for things to be reported is just going to make them fester and will ultimately make the battleground behavior worse, you just won't see it until it explodes into a full ArbCom case or some other issue that can't be ignored. --Aquillion (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Back when I was more active in contentious topics, I always felt like discretionary sanctions were underutilized because there's no neutral way to request that an uninvolved admin step in. You're either borderline-canvassing related projects (editors often know exactly which wikiprojects are monitored by those who agree with them) or making specific accusations at AE or ANI. It would be immensely helpful to have either a noticeboard or a list of admins' talk pages where someone could post "Hey, this situation is starting to get out of hand, could you please take a look at it?" –dlthewave ☎ 16:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering:, thanks for pointing out the "quick request" option, it's exactly what I had in mind. I might go over there and suggest that we explicitly include individual admin CT actions, including blocking editors, without requiring a request for a specific action.

When I've asked for CT enforcement at AN and ANI, the discussion either turns into a vote where no admin is comfortable taking unilateral action without waiting for consensus or I'm directed to AE which likewise required specific accusations and a drawn-out process. Both inevitably led to drama and delays, but it looks like "quick requests" are the answer. –dlthewave ☎ 00:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We ought disregard with prejudice filings made by sockpupppets/compromised accounts. Their edits and arguments are in bad faith by definition given their block evasions. There is no further analysis required. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What would it mean to disregard them with prejudice, though? What happens if someone else goes "wait, that was a sockpuppet, but their filing pointed out a serious problem with how Lex Luthor is editing our BLP on Superman?" Do we tell them "sorry Lex Luthor was reported by a sockpuppet so now everything they did is excused?" --Aquillion (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my language is a bit sloppy, but I meant with prejudice against the filing party, not against other editors who are in good standing. TarnishedPath^talk 22:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
there reports were thrown away with prejudice. but the diffs are real, and if arbcom believes they can separate the prejudicial value of the original report from possible real concerns at play, let them. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with asilvering's highlighting of Dillthewave's comment. Even people who are experienced editors but not familiar with the topic (area) and/or regular players in it can often tell that something seems wrong even if they can't put their finger on what or who is the problem. Somewhere where they can bring their observations to the attention of those who do have the relevant knowledge would be valuable. I suspect that some experienced editors are using informal channels (IRC, Discord, email, whatsapp, etc) for this purpose currently but those channels are not available to everyone. Thryduulf (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, one thing I wish we had was a simple "report diff" button (similar to the "thank" button), coupled with a page that simply showed recently reported diffs sorted and filtered in various ways, especially the most-reported diffs, and who reported them; probably we'd also want a place to see every diff someone has reported to investigate abuse. Then admins could just regularly glance at the page and investigate diffs that get reported. It wouldn't be perfect (it would put the burden on admins who see the reports to figure out if some actual policy has been violated and turn it into an action if that's the case) but it would be extremely easy to use and intuitive for new users. While reports would be public they wouldn't produce notifications (in particular the person being reported wouldn't get a notification, though they could see it if they happened to look) - this is IMHO necessary to avoid turning it into a back-and-forth argument like we see in ANI and to a lesser extent AE; the idea is that this is only a very light "hey, someone should look at this" request, with the actual process-heavy case and the chance to defend oneself happening afterwards if an admin decides reports are worth doing something with. This would also mean that if someone is brought to AE or ANI, all their reported diffs could be reviewed to get a bigger picture of what potential issues there are. --Aquillion (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some amount of "report diff button" is the intent of mw:Product Safety and Integrity/Incident Reporting System. Izno (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Before addressing the substance of the proposed remedies, I want to register a serious procedural concern others have raised too. This enforcement request was originally filed by a user who has since been banned and whose activity forms part of a long running sock and meatpuppet operation active across multiple accounts, which I'm currently looking into for a case, and overlaps with earlier documented sock and troll activity in this topic area. This network has for years engaged in coordinated participation in CTOP discussions, enforcement filings, and deletion debates to advance a pro-Israeli POV, and it has targeted editors named here as a perceived threat to this. Levivich has also previously played a key role in exposing this network. As Sean.hoyland and others noted, I believe arbs should seriously consider whether the allegations against Iskandar323 and Levivich have been raised disproportionately by the same small cluster of related accounts, as failing to acknowledge this provenance risks incentivizing precisely the kind of conduct the Committee has sought to deter while rewarding persistent sock/meatpuppetry.

As to the case, I see that AndreJustAndre, the sole active editor previously sanctioned who wouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny by the aforementioned network given its pro-Israeli POV, has plenty of edits that match the potential t-ban violations mentioned for Levivich and Iskandar323.

If Levivich has violated his t-ban for commenting in a discussion of a source which touches the PIA topic, this is a violation too, considering the discussion specifically mentions PIA. The same applies to the discussion surrounding CBS News reliability after Bari Weiss's appointment since she as a topic is also covered by PIA.

As for Iskandar323, is the problem that the pages are considered to be in the topic? If so, AndreJustAndre has edited on 3 of the 7 pages presented as potential t-ban violations, including the only one that is tagged as belonging to PIA (Hellenistic Palestine); Yahweh ([21]), Hellenistic Palestine ([22]), and Hasmonean Judea ([23]).

If the problem is that the edits per se are "non neutral" then I second Parabolist in asking for more details regarding what exactly constitutes a non-neutral edit. From what I can see in the diffs provided, Iskandar323 removed content that failed verification or was sourced to WP:GUNRELs, removed WP:OR, and opened a discussion asking for feedback after being reverted, following WP:BRD. That is arguably the opposite of being disruptive.

The 1339 filter might not be great since there are a lot of pages not properly tagged. But just by looking at it, Levivich has never triggered it since his t-ban ([24]), whereas Iskandar323 has triggered it 24 times ([25]) and AndreJustAndre has triggered it 30 times ([26]).

Is the problem related to editing in topics that are too close to PIA, such as the history of Judaism, even if it precedes the creation of Israel? If so, again, AndreJustAndre has plenty of edits that match that description, way too many to mention here. Yet his edits haven't been subject to constant and intense scrutiny by the aforementioned network given its POV, unlike Iskandar323. I believe this should be taken into account.

I ask that the same standards be applied to everyone equally. If this is framed as a "Review of the PIA topic area" then the logical assumption is that this would entail an overall review of all of the editors involved in the previous case, with the thresholds for violations explained properly and applied to everyone. A proper analysis then should follow, with everyone scrutinized equally. This could even include new parties. Otherwise, I don't see the point of this when it only includes two editors, or why it wasn't dealt with over at WP:AE. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Review of the PIA topic area

These motions came out of an informal brainstorming session that included myself and several other arbs. I would catagorize several of these proposals as blue sky ideas that may not have the support of the committee or the community. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Review of the PIA topic area: Implementation notes: Clerk notes

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

2026 Review of the PIA topic area: Implementation notes

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by automatic template check at 03:40, 31 January 2023.

Motion implementation notes
Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Support needed	Notes
Iskandar323 topic ban violations	12	0	0	.
Iskandar323 further POV pushing	9	0	0	.
Iskandar323 banned	8	0	0	.
Iskandar323 topic banned	3	4	0	4	One second choice packaged with 3.3 to 3.1.
Iskandar323 warned	3	5	0	4	One second choice packaged with 3.2 to 3.1.
Levivich topic ban violations	8	0	1	.
Levivich banned	1	5	0	6
Levivich warned	2	5	0	5
Levivich warned (alt)	4	2	1	3
Direct violation reports I	1	3	0	6	One third choice to 6.4.
Direct violation reports II	0	4	0	7
Direct violation reports III	2	0	0	5	One second choice to 6.4.
Direct violation reports IV	3	0	0	4
WP:ARBPIA EC by default adjusted	5	4	0	2
Administrators permitted to topic ban from a wider area	1	0	0	6

Notes

Iskandar323 topic ban violations

1) Iskandar323 (talk · contribs) has violated their topic ban. ([27][28][29]). Iskandar323 was previously warned by Tamzin on 21 February ([30]) and blocked for 2 weeks by ScottishFinnishRadish ([31]) on 26 November for violating their topic ban.

Support

Factual. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Added mention of the warning and block, borrowing from Guerillero's language. CC ScottishFinnishRadish. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per Tamzin, I might want to add something like Iskandar323 was previously warned by Tamzin on 21 Feb and blocked for 2 weeks by ScottishFinnishRadish on 26 Nov for violating their topic ban. to give addtional color --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With the addition of the logged warning and block is better. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. asilvering (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Izno (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator views and discussions (Iskandar323 topic ban violations)

Community discussion (Iskandar323 topic ban violations)

This should probably also mention the warning I gave and the subsequent tempblock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323 further POV pushing

2) Since their topic ban in WP:ARBPIA5, Iskandar323 has been engaged in consistently non-neutral editing around the history of Judaism ([32][33][34][35][36][37][38]). This is a continuation of the misconduct that led to the original topic ban.

Support

The edits are obviously a continuation of PIA-related editing just outside of the topic area. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A topic ban doesn't mean find something only partially covered by your topic ban (as demonstrated by the warning and block) and continue POV pushing. As to what Parabolist said below, WP:NPOV is policy and non-neutral editing is disruptive. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVOCACY and not a WP:BATTLEGROUND to further disputes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We're not calling these topic ban violations, because they are not. I am saying that these are continuing the same behavior that led to the topic ban: pushing a point of view. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Izno (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
per above, and consistently non-neutral editing is absolutely disruptive. When it's intentional, it's POV pushing; when it's not, it's incompetence. Either way, that's disruptive. see Transgender healthcare and people § Partisanship. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 18:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per HB. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit _(blether) 23:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator views and discussions (Iskandar323 further POV pushing)

If this is the most damning evidence we have, I am unimpressed. This one is problematic, but not for neutrality reasons; the problem is that ngram results are not useful to decide this question in the first place. This one removes a statement that had been tagged as failed verification for nearly two years: [39]. This one fixed a sentence that presented the Twelve Tribes of Israel as historical fact in Wikivoice: [40]. If these are non-neutral edits, what would the neutral version of them have been? In any case, I think consistent non-neutral editing is much easier to demonstrate with reference to behaviour on talk pages, and I'd be interested to see that evidence if available. -- asilvering (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (Iskandar323 further POV pushing)

Is the claim that these edits are disruptive, or does a topic ban prevent an editor from getting in editorial disagreements in non-banned pages now? "Non-neutral" editing doesn't imply misconduct, and if this is meant to be the evidence that calls for a indef block below, I'd expect it to point to or claim that this is actual disruptive editing. Should he venture no opinions? Parabolist (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I allowed to respond? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can respond here. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 22:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I missed it, but has ArbCom given any explanation as to how the diffs constitute POV pushing? As an experienced editor in the CTOP I didn't notice anything on a shallow inspection. Also, it would be good to know what kind of evidence/analysis ArbCom considers to be sufficient to demonstrate POV pushing, which is something notoriously difficult to prove when reporting someone for it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323 banned

3.1) Iskandar323 is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support

First choice --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to someone violating their topic ban multiple times and working at the edges of it to continue the same dispute isn't to further broaden their topic ban. It's to make it clear such behavior isn't allowed. When you've been warned, topic banned, blocked for topic ban violations, let off with time served then topic banned again by Arbcom, warned, blocked, and continue to violate your topic ban another warning or broadened topic ban isn't going to fix things. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mulling it over, I have to agree with SFR. This is not the first time around, the POV pushing has continued; given the topic ban violations, I can't have confidence that Iskandar323 will abide by the expanded topic ban. Support in addition to 3.2 and 3.3 for if and when an appeal is accepted. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 22:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the necessary and proportional response to continued misconduct after a topic ban. The pattern suggests someone who is not here to write a neutral encyclopaedia but has a blind spot in one area, but rather someone who is determined to write "their" side of history wherever they're technically allowed to. Ever-broader topic bans won't fix that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Enough is enough. - Aoidh (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're past the point of lesser sanctions, given the previous sanctions were ignored. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Iskandar323 topic banned

3.2) Iskandar323 is further topic banned from any edit related to Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Antisemitism, Palestine, Palestinians, or anything else that is related to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Support

Second choice as a package 3.3 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The topic ban did not stop the disruption. I support this with 3.3. I am still considering the siteban, but if I support it, it would be in addition to 3.2 and 3.3. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Insufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that the ban needs such a broad and novel definition is evidence that a site ban is necessary. I can quickly think of ways one could continue to make the sorts of edits that are problematic on this context while remaining within the letter of the ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Iskandar323 warned

3.3) Iskandar323 is warned for violating their topic ban imposed in Palestine-Israel articles 5. Administrators are authorized to block Iskandar323 for any reasonable length, including indefinitely, for further topic ban violations. Blocks imposed under this remedy may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee.

Support

Second choice as a package 3.2 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With 3.2. I am still considering the siteban, but if I support it, it would be in addition to 3.2 and 3.3. Note that this allows editors to block for violations of the expanded topic ban. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice if the siteban doesn't pass (with or without 3.2). I see this as similar to the suspended siteban we passed for Andre in PIA5, except the difference is that I believe Andre is fundamentally here for the right reasons and the threat of a ban is a motivator to behave and not just a hurdle to be overcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Insufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Izno (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Arbitrator views and discussions (Iskandar323 remedies)

The only diff we have in evidence for topic ban violations since SFR's block in November is this one: [41]. Is this it? Are there others? -- asilvering (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (Iskandar323 remedies)

Another option not listed, and you're not going to like this, would be to vacate the topic ban. Why might that be an option? Maybe it was an unsafe conviction. For example, the verdict says Iskandar323 "engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including consistently non-neutral editing (FOARP evidence)". But if we look at the 9 samples presented, what other patterns might people see there? One pattern is that 6 out of the 9 !votes are consistent with the current titles of the articles, which presumably represents the current policy based consensus. Does this tell me that Iskandar323 is biased towards policy compliant results? No, because 9 samples don't tell me anything useful about anything. I mention this for 3 reasons - 1. consistently non-neutral editing is the norm in the topic area, 2. violating topic bans is common in the topic area, but the usual device is to use sockpuppetry/ban evasion to hide it rather than do it out in the open, and 3. the sunk cost fallacy.

id	rfc	!vote	current title	!vote = result
1	Netiv HaAsara attack → Netiv HaAsara massacre RM (10 Oct 2023 - I)	Iskandar323 - oppose	Netiv HaAsara massacre	0
2	Nahal Oz massacre → Nahal Oz attack RM (6 November 2023 - I)	Iskandar323 - support	Nahal Oz attack	1
3	Nirim massacre → Nirim attack RM (14 Nov 2023 - I)	Iskandar323 - support(nom)	Nirim attack	1
4	Nir Yitzhak massacre → Nir Yitzhak attack (10 Jan 2024 - I)	Iskandar323 - support	Nir Yitzhak attack	1
5	Holit massacre → Holit attack RM (10 Jan 2024 - I):	Iskandar323 - support	Holit attack	1
6	Kissufim massacre → Kissufim attack RM (8 March 2024 - I)	Iskandar323 - support	Kissufim massacre	0
7	Engineer's Building strike and massacre → Engineer's Building airstrike RM (7 April 2024 - P)	Iskandar323 - oppose	Engineer's Building airstrike	0
8	Nir Oz massacre → Nir Oz attack RM (1 June 2024 - I)	Iskandar323 - support	Nir Oz attack	1
9	Al-Tabaeen school attack → Al-Tabaeen school massacre RM (10 Aug 2024 - P):	Iskandar323 - support	Al-Tabaeen school attack	1

Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another option not listed… would be to vacate the topic ban.

I can’t think of a worse possible option, nor do I see the usefulness in attempting to relitigate FoFs from a year ago. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to measure whether it is actually better for Wikipedia for Iskandar323 or the other editors to be topic banned or not, so I don't rule out any option. My position is always, keep an open mind and have some humility. Nobody really knows how to make the topic area function better. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor wants a topic ban ~~violated~~lifted, they should make a good-faith effort to abide by not just the letter but the spirit of it, ideally make themselves useful on a different subject, then appeal it. I would look favourably on an appeal in those circumstances. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich topic ban violations

4) Levivich (talk · contribs) has violated their topic ban. ([42][43])

Support

As far as a FoF goes, yes, this is pretty straightforwardly true. -- asilvering (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those are indeed violations, but both of them have mitigating circumstances: the first is responding to misleading claims made about them in an external publication and the second is, to take asilvering's term, a massive nothingburger. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Izno (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. These in specific are minor violations, but topic bans are not a suggestion and Levivich absolutely knows what he's doing here. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

I can't oppose because the FoF as written is true, but whatever other issues I have Levivich's editing, it would be perverse not to allow him a right of reply to criticism of him personally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions (Levivich topic ban violations)

I very much reject the view that there should be allowable topic ban violations. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (Levivich topic ban violations)

It is somewhat surprising to me that the drafter of this section (Guerillero) failed to propose a remedy such as "Levivich commended" for having the bravery to WP:IAR in order to debunk blatant disinformation targeting himself and others. (first diff) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Although these are technically violations, that is not a reflection on Levivich but more an example of why absurdities can result from applying PIA to user talk pages. Topic bans should be about protecting article and talk space from unsuitable editors, not about forbidding editors to defend themselves against malicious off-wikipedia lies. All that is really needed on-wikipedia is permission for admins to extend TB's to own-talk if that is abused. Zero^talk 07:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich banned

5.1) Levivich is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support

As a response to the two cited diffs, this would be completely disproportionate. I even oppose a warning for those two edits. Topic-banned editors are permitted an exemption to defend themselves when their conduct is discussed at noticeboards; I'm not sure responsind to external criticism is wise but I understand the urge and I would struggle to sanction someone for it.
Nonetheless, I support a siteban based largely on Tamzin's comments which tally with my own anecdotal experience. The admission that he doesn't edit the encyclopaedia should be enough on its own for an immediate indef in my opinion. The drama boards, where Levivich spends a disproportionate amount of his Wikipedia time, are an unfortunate necessity in a large and complex community but they must always serve the encyclopaedia; they are not an end in themselves. Politicking in projectspace is not contributing to the goal of the community. As we are a goal-oriented community, anything (or anyone) that does not serve that goal needs to go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But Levivich, please don't make me regret this vote. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the infractions, opposed. Izno (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can easily understand why someone topic-banned from an area they'd spent a lot of time and effort on would choose to pull back from editing in general, and I did enough investigating to decide that Tamzin's if he ever was, at least, is unfair. I didn't get very far into investigating the rest of Tamzin's comment before being seized by a deep "wtf am I even doing here". Are there legitimate concerns here? It appears so. But this has nothing to do with the tban, it is in no way in arbcom's remit, and I'm horrified I even contemplated it. If the community at large agrees that Levivich's behaviour is WP:NOTHERE, the community can issue a ban. If the community sends the issue to arbcom, then it's ours to handle, but not before. asilvering (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Levivich warned

5.2) Levivich is warned for violating their topic ban imposed in Palestine-Israel articles 5. Administrators are authorized to block Levivich for any reasonable length, including indefinitely, for further topic ban violations. Blocks imposed under this remedy may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee.

Support

Doesn't really need the additional parts per HouseBlaster below and this will become second choice if someone puts that forward. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Needing a warning from the committee to stay within the bounds of your topic ban should mean that the next violation could be indefinite. First choice --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I would need to see extreme misbehavior to support indefinite, appeal only to ArbCom blocks enacted by a single admin. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 5.4. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disproportionate. Izno (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
asilvering (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As written. I won't sanction someone for responding to external criticism of them personally even if it technically breaches a topic ban. Not the first time, anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Levivich warned (alt)

5.4) Levivich is warned for violating their topic ban imposed in Palestine-Israel articles 5.

Support

Proposing a vanilla warning. If there is further violations then I will be supremely unimpressed, but I don't see a reason to skip the initial block for for a month. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Per 5.2. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
per Izno but more so, basically, and with thanks to Barkeep49 for putting into words what I was struggling to say when I tried to draft my response earlier. I think any admin would have been within bounds to block for either of these, since they were tban violations. But, with apologies to my colleagues who believe strongly in "no exceptions", I would not have blocked, and I just cannot bring myself to care even enough for a formal warning. asilvering (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Honestly, I can't even get to a support here for the infractions of interest. Izno (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions (Levivich remedies)

I really struggle to imagine what could be more of a nothingburger than [44] while still clearly being in scope of the tban. -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am currently at a regular warning, without the attached extra enforcement. Note that admins can already place blocks which are appealable only to ArbCom for the first year per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict § Appeals only to ArbCom. As worded, this remedy would admins to place indefinite blocks which are indefintely appealable only to ArbCom, which is not something even AE consensus is authorized to do. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first block needs to be for a month or less and the second can be for no more than a year. If we are warning again, we should allow more admin discretion than the standard enforcement. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (Levivich remedies)

A warning seems sufficient in this case - it's one of those situations where technically yes, the TBAN was openly violated, but the disruption/severity was, as others have put it, a nothingburger. Might be worth considering as a factor should Levivich have a more impactful violation in the future, but on its own merit it's obviously not worthy of any substantial sanction, especially when compared to the proposed FoF for Iskandar above (which IMO is far more of an issue). The Kip ^(contribs) 09:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm would have previously agreed with Guerillero regarding there being "no allowable topic ban violations", the edit to their user talk quoting what an external source has said about them, is not at all the sort of conduct or content that the topic ban was intended to cover and does not harm the project in any way. Accordingly, if that were the sole diff brought here I would say the appropriate remedy would be acknowledging it as technical violation and no other action. However, that is not the only diff and the other one cannot be excused in the same manner. A block at this point feels punitive rather than preventative, so I would go for a warning that any future violations will (not might, will) result in blocks of increasing duration. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This was not disruptive. Even a warning feels disproportionate here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Got to agree with the sentiments above. One can maybe nit-pick over the scope of the TBAN, but frankly I can't see how Levivich complaining about the way an external source has misrepresented him constitutes anything that is going to have a material effect on Wikipedia content. Likewise, the nothingburger. TBANs are supposed to prevent harm to the project, not act as gotchas for griping. Possibly a warning is appropriate. Certainly nothing more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of a similar situation with Eric Corbett in late 2015, involving critical coverage of him in an Atlantic article. The article involved a subject he was topic banned from; see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2#Discussion_following_The_Atlantic_article for further context. Corbett disputed parts of the article and wasn't sanctioned for doing so, but was blocked when he started talking about the topic instead of the article. Obviously this isn't a 1 to 1 comparison-- and it's been 10 years since then, and Wikipedia culture has changed a lot since-- but I think it's worth thinking about in this context. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea that Levivich should have no opportunity to defend himself onwiki against allegations from a major source feels contrary to the spirit, though not the letter, of BANEX. Given that so much of this review is about people's relationship to the spirit and not just the letter of things, I'm surprised to not see that get more thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No warning. I think I disagreed with Levivich on that very page in the map discussion (a different ongoing discussion on that page), and I know I have disagreed with their account on other occasions. But when an editor (as Levivich was) is on a page and he is even obliquely accused of disruptive "coordination" and an argument that we should accept that report of coordination as reliable, they deserve a right of reply. And his reply was not itself disruptive. But an accusation of disruptive coordination is a serious matter, as this committee's cases show. So, I think, even a warning is unjust no matter how you read 'the rules' and will not improve the project. I would go so far as saying, his reply is a benefit to the project, because now we know the other side on this internal-Project-disruptive-coordination accusation that has apparently arisen abroad. But do yourself a favor, Levivich, and know you've had your reply. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[Adding, having read the statement below. I would suggest, the author should go to dispute resolution before seeking a site-ban here based on a post-Arbcom-case NOTHERE behavior allegations unrelated to the topic ban, and a claim that Arbcom got the topic ban wrong. I assume you already know this, but that generally involves a discussion with the target laying out the points for the site ban and then moving to AN, if the discussion is not satisfactory. I would suggest you may want to explain why you don't point to any of this assumedly disruptive behavior being discussed for remedy at any of the proper forums before. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)][reply]

I think the approach so far here misses the forest for the trees. The core issue with Levivich' conduct since his TBAN is that he is no longer here to build an encyclopedia, if he ever was. Last month, while he was using a made-up definition of "plagiarism" to defend an administrator for copyright violations that ArbCom subsequently saw fit to desysop and block that admin over—which were themselves partly a result of Levivich encouraging these edits two years before—I observed that he has essentially contributed zero content to the encyclopedia in the past year, with only 6% of his edits to mainspace and almost none of those substantive. His defense—not of the made-up definition of "plagiarism" or the fact that someone was about to get desysopped and blocked for following his obviously wrong advice, which apparently are not things that bother him, but just of his complete lack of recent experience in content editing while nonetheless pontificating on nuanced (and completely incorrect) points of verifiability and NPOV—was that "I'm not making any mainspace edits; the community said I engaged in consistently non neutral editing, so that was the end of that." It boggles the mind that someone could conclude the community does not trust them to make any mainspace edits (which is in fact the opposite of what a TBAN conveys, but it's Levivich' right to misinterpret it that way) but still see themself as fit to not just stand in judgment of their peers at the dramaboards, but to, I reiterate, actively mislead someone facing sanctions based on a misreading of V that no competent editor would be capable of.
Am I being unfair? Is Levivich actually dispensing great wisdom in projectspace despite being by his own appraisal unfit to edit the encyclopedia? Well I have 90 minutes to kill at a bus stop so let's see. To take just a few of Levivich' recent comments (and I would encourage arbitrators to look further on their own, but I'm on mobile and getting eaten alive by mosquitos):
- Absolutely shameless, Ed. in the HEB ban thread.
- Then Doubling down? Absolutely shameless. Funny how you didn't have any such questions for the editor with 600 edits who proposed the indef you supported. One might conclude you have double standards. I think it's time for both of you to disengage with each other
- But no response to the editor with 600 edits when asked what the issue was.
- Then a few days later, on that same user's talk page, Please stop voting to cban editors and find something more useful to do on this website. Wikipedia is not a PvP game (or at least it shouldn't be).
- Drop the f'ing shade already, gawd. in the recall RfC discussion
If there is an outcome in ARBPIA5 to be criticized, it is the decision to TBAN Levivich. That's because a TBAN conveys two things: That an editor is disruptive in one area and that they are constructive in others. The first was established here. It's understandable that ArbCom assumed the latter given Levivich' tenure, ubiquity at noticeboards, and long list of wikifriends. Levivich would certainly like people to make those same assumptions: Just as he insists someone with 600 edits should not !vote on bans, he cites his 40k edits, most of which are arguing with people about policy, as content editing bona fides. But ArbCom did in fact assume incorrectly. Despite his invocation of Wikipedia not being a game, I don't think there has ever been an editor who played the game harder than Lev. A telling mask-off moment came 3 years ago when he cited an admin's 300+ support at RfA as evidence that they were right. (Somehow I suspect he won't apply that same standard to this comment.) To Levivich, Wikipedia is a game of leveling up, collecting coins, and lots and lots and lots of PvP. He already had little to no interest in building an encyclopedia when ArbCom TBANned him; it just happened that he decided to bring his battleground mentality to a content arena for once and found less tolerance of his antics there. His TBAN and his subsequent boycott of content work have removed any question of what he is here for: winning arguments and playing the game.
ArbCom has sanctioned a user so that he could edit constructively elsewhere. He has instead continued his longstanding pattern of gamesmanship and incivility. The minimum remaining sanction to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia is a siteban. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I substantially agree with Tamzin's characterization of Levivich's editing, I disagree that should factor into the descision at hand. Arbcom's remit for now is PIA-specific actions taken by Levivich and remedies against them, not thier general behavior. Imo, the concerns expressed should go to WP:AN(I?) (unless the community explicitly decides that they want to kick it back to ArbCom). -- Sohom (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Direct violation reports I

6.1) Violations of sanctions on a specific editor imposed by the Arbitration Committee as a remedy of an Arab-Israeli Conflict-related case may be reported directly to the committee. Reports may come via Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee, by accounts with 1 year tenure and 1000 edits, or to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (AR/CA), by any user who is extended-confirmed. Emails sent to the Committee through other channels or by users who do not meet this requirement about sanction violations will be discarded without a response. Valid reports received via email will be posted at AR/CA by a member of the Committee.

Support

~~Second~~Updated with creation of 6.4 Third choice, somewhat weakly. All of the same comments apply as 6.3 to the concept of ArbCom assisting with enforcement of our own topic bans. The part about emailing was based on general commentary that some long-term editors do not want to insert themselves into the dispute, especially against established editors that we sanctioned with topic bans, for fear of reprisals. Allowing emailing (ie. anonymous reporting) is definitely going to cause some consternation I imagine, but if topic ban violations aren't being processed due to this, that's equally concerning. Trying to find the balance between these two things might not result in this, but it's a conversation worth having. The restrictions placed on who could use this potential new process was designed to prevent it being abused by drive-by sockpuppets and similar. As with 6.3 again, the statement about discarding without a response emails that don't come from people who meet the requirements to report them correctly is key to prevent abuse. Daniel (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The corollary to this vote potentially failing is an inferred statement of opposition to the concept that the Committee will accept (and take action against) such reports in our inbox in the future. That's something I am personally very willing and happy to see (and a position I've strongly held over the past 12 months). Daniel (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Onwiki stuff stays onwiki, in the interest of transparency. I am not interested in playing telephone for the arbitrary user who sees an issue, and I know it's left ArbCom with egg on its collective face before when it's initiated proceedings onwiki as the result of offwiki requests. Izno (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per Izno. Onwiki ought to be onwiki. If this does pass, note that it mandates the use of Special:EmailUser so we know who is making the report. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
per my comments in discussion below. asilvering (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Direct violation reports II

6.2) Violations of sanctions on a specific editor imposed by the Arbitration Committee may be reported directly to the committee. Reports may come via Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee, by accounts with 1 year tenure and 1000 edits, or to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (AR/CA), by any user who is extended-confirmed. Emails sent to the Committee through other channels or by users who do not meet this requirement about sanction violations will be discarded without a response. Valid reports received via email will be posted at AR/CA by a member of the Committee.

Support

Oppose

I originally thought it might be better for 6.1 to apply across all cases, if it was indeed to pass, hence 6.2. On reflection, given the somewhat extraordinary situation that PIA5 creates, I now think it's better that (if 6.1 passes rather than 6.3), it be restricted only to that scope. Consider it another "enough is enough" moment, where the Committee may, as a last resort, be compelled to adopt robust measures. I think there's an argument that 6.1/6.2 would benefit maybe one or two other topic areas, but it would be strange to have it apply to 2-3 topic areas and not all of them. I think, when presented with 1 topic area vs all of them, 1 topic area is the better of the two options. Daniel (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Onwiki stuff stays onwiki. Izno (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per Izno. Onwiki ought to be onwiki. If this does pass, note that it mandates the use of Special:EmailUser so we know who is making the report. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
per my comments in discussion below. asilvering (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Direct violation reports III

6.3) Violations of sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee as a remedy of a case, on a specific editor may be reported directly to the Committee via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (AR/CA) by any user who is extended-confirmed. Emails sent to the Committee about topic ban violations will be discarded without a response, unless there are privacy or other factors that are unsuitable for public discussion.

Support

~~First~~Updated with creation of 6.4 Second choice. To be clear, this would only apply to topic bans which we specifically have placed, not topic bans placed by administrators under CTs etc. These are 'our' topic bans that we voted to place, normally placed against long-term contributors, and I think we should be another avenue of hearing reports of their breaches by these established editors. This will also help with workload to a small extent at AE. The sentence about people emailing us with topic ban violations is also critical - it establishes firm restrictions that, yes, people can report topic ban violations to us (through AR/CA), but it can't be done anonymously via email. Daniel (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 6.4. If it is our restriction, we should have the ability to directly enforce it. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 06:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Added , unless there are privacy or other factors that are unsuitable for public discussion. to the end per Tamzin's point. Pinging Daniel (who voted) and Guerillero (who wrote this originally and I don't think intended this to prohibit reporting off-wiki WP:PROXYING). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 22:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, all good thanks. Daniel (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Direct violation reports IV

6.4) Violations of restrictions imposed by the Arbitration Committee on a specific editor may be reported directly to the Committee via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (AR/CA). Emails sent to the Committee about violations will be discarded without a response, unless there are privacy or other factors that are unsuitable for public discussion.

Support

Proposing and supporting as a first choice. There are the following differences:
1. Instead of sanctions, it says restrictions per Thryduulf's comment
2. The limitation to restrictions from cases is removed; I see no reason to place this off limits for restrictions imposed by motion (such as the ones we are considering above!)
3. The requirement to be XC is removed per my comment below
Wordsmithing welcome. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Before others have voted, adding another difference: the no email apply in all cases unless there are reasons to keep it private. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 06:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First choice, per comments at 6.3 and below. Daniel (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator views and discussions (Direct violation reports)

I don't know if any of these are good ideas, but they are certainly interesting ones. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can we remove the word 'sanction' if at all possible, given its double meaning (which is why it's generally not a good word to use onwiki at all)? "Violations of sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee as a remedy of a case, on a specific editor may be..." -> "Violations of remedies imposed on a specific editor by the Arbitration Committee as the result of a case may be...". (This also fixes a grammar issue in the prior version.) Izno (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(And I see Thryduulf was also concerned about this wording.) Izno (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than transparency (since there's no email aspect here), I lean toward opposing 6.3 as effectively duplicating the support we already provide to admins at AE. I am not really interested in being the first group of people to be approached for enforcement when the rules are already laid out, and that pathway to ARCA from AE already provides a reasonable minimum set of permissions (namely, being an admin). If we need to loosen the level of consensus required to account for, say, a low-activity AE, we can, but that is not this proposal. Izno (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am apprehensive about introducing yet another thing you must be XC for—note that this requires XC to file about violations of remedies from any case, not just PIA—without direct evidence that this will end poorly. We already have means to dismiss frivolous complaints, ECR would still make this apply to PIA reports, and the community firmly said no to introducing this concept ("standing") in 2024. (As a sidebar, I would like to get back to that 2024 refresh.) I might propose this, without the XC provision, as an alt if there is appetite for that. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-XC can go to AE, that option is still available. That being said, I would also support a version that removed the XC requirement but maintained the rest of it. Daniel (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but we are still blocking something off from XC editors without direct evidence they will be, by and large, unable to behave themselves. Anyways, I have proposed IV above. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to be XC to touch PIA, so adding XC here is really just restating other restrictions --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  - But this allows reporting violations in non-PIA topics. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do worry about how editors may avoid reporting others at AE for problematic behaviour, because of the various on-wiki social dynamics that can make that uncomfortable, and how that can lean to undesirable behaviour continuing where AE could have stopped it if only a report had been made. I think that is a particularly dangerous problem in this CTOP, of all of them, and that's additionally compounded by off-wiki considerations. So in principle, I'm sympathetic to a proposal whereby an established contributor could alert arbcom or AE to an issue without needing their name attached to it, provided the rest of the discussion happens on-wiki. But this is also a topic area where the most recent AE filing came from a compromised account - one with more than 1000 edits, and more than five years' tenure. -- asilvering (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have similar worries to Asilvering. I wonder if making AE easier to use would increase the number of reports? For example, if someone could just drop a diff and ask "is this a topic ban violation", that might be less intimidating than filling in the whole form. That said, I have no doubt that the majority of the anonymous emails we've received asking us to take action against individuals in this topic are have been bad-faith attempts to avoid scrutiny rather than genuine "concerned citizens". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell, I have some hope that the new "quick requests" at AE will help with the "making it easier" end of things, but it'll take some time for people to get used to that, I think. Regarding the emails, I can't say I'd be too surprised to learn that all of them were bad-faith attempts to avoid scrutiny. Would we get more good-faith reports if they were actually encouraged? Well... maybe. -- asilvering (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Typing it out like that has convinced me against. "Will certainly cause problems, benefits uncertain" is not great math. -- asilvering (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (Direct violation reports)

In regards all three, Violations of sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee as a remedy of a case, on a specific editor may be reported would I think be more clearly worded as Violations of sanctions imposed on a specific editor by [...] of a case~~, on a specific editor~~ may be reported. In 6.1 and 6.2 or by users who do not meet this requirement should be set off with commas. Generally, it's not immediately clear to me what restrictions other than topic bans are likely to be imposed on specific editors meaning the wording using a mix of "restrictions" and "topic bans" is slightly confusing and 6.3's final sentence seems to imply that (nearly?) all reports received will be discarded without a response. As that would be pointless, I suspect that either I'm misinterpreting something or 6.3 is missing some words? Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interaction bans come to mind, so I will make some fixes; however, 6.3's last sentence says exactly what it should say in light of what is missing from it compared to 6.1 and 6.2 -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some less common restrictions might have off-wiki components (e.g. off-wiki evidence someone is operating what would be a WP:GOODSOCK but is in violation of an one account restriction). I suspect most of the time we would not take action, but there's more room for shades of gray. I am really struggling to see how a topic ban violation could involve off-wiki evidence, and given that we regularly get reports from anonymous editors attempting to stir up trouble, firmly establishing that this will get no response seems like a good idea. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Users have been blocked before per off-wiki evidence of proxying TBAN violations. ZaniGiovanni, memorably. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great point. I know 6.1/2/3 were written to prohibit "look at these naughty diffs [1][2][3]" (those diffs may or may not be actually problematic; if they are problematic, they may or may not be topic ban violations). Mentally I would consider the block to be for proxying around the tban rather than the tban, but that is entirely academic. I'll think on it, but I suspect I will switch to oppose on 6.3 for that reason. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 06:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, I noticed that an unregistered user had been repeatedly violating ECR by using numerous temporary accounts to participate in conduct disputes within WP:CT/A-I. They asked various administrators (including me) to perform arbitration enforcement against certain editors (e.g. in Special:Diff/1328730103 and Special:Diff/1329090403, as well as Special:Diff/1324244034 for which the linked U4C case refers to Talk:Antisemitism on Wikipedia and a related Commons deletion request) while opposing sanctions against another editor in a noticeboard discussion (e.g. in Special:Diff/1324759095). As they have ignored my logged warnings, I have blocked ~2025-36583-02 and all of the temporary accounts listed in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ~2025-36583-02 and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ~2025-36583-02; see the enforcement log entries for more information. I suspect that some of the email reports described here have been sent by the same individual. — Newslinger talk 07:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA EC by default adjusted

7) Remedy 1 of the Palestine-Israel articles 5 case ("ECP by default") is rescinded and is replaced with Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles strictly covered by WP:PIA.

Support

Reaffirming my support for doing this, which is aligned with my vote in October 2025 at this same page. Daniel (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
per my comment below --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per Sdrqaz at the previous appeal attempt, and my comments over at ACE. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the word strictly per discussion below; cc @Daniel, Guerillero, and ScottishFinnishRadish. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 22:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, thanks. Daniel (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per my vote when I raised this motion last year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
asilvering (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Slightly opposed largely per Eek's oppose on the motion from 3 months ago. Plus, the balanced editing restriction relies on PIA ECR articles being ECP'd. The initial wave of protections already happened. Logging is no longer an extra burden with the creation of WP:AELOG/P. And if RFPP admins don't want to deal with these requests even at this point, they can take up the suggestion at WT:RFPP § Should ECR page protections be deferred to AE? to refer these to AE (e.g., via the new quick requests section). But if some admins start declining these even though the article topic is strictly within the topic area, that will just mean that the requester will need to go ask again of some admin (e.g., at AE) willing to implement the ECR and BER based on disruption to the topic rather than inspecting each particular article for disruption. Or some such admin(s) will just go check through RFPP archives from time to time for PIA requests declined as preemptive. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, slightly per prior Eek and more per my own comment at the same ACE. This is a systems problem and it will be a net negative of resources to take some apparent pressure off RFPP and effectively put it on SPI or ANI instead. And I feel a lowercase reminder is warranted that ECP is called for in the relevant remedy for only those topics which are strictly within the scope of PIA. I am also not a fan of asking practically the same question all of 2 months down the road. Izno (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per Izno. Protecting a lot of pages is not a particularly big burden compared to investigating and unwinding socking. And, as mentioned by SL, the big wave is already done. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per CaptainEek and Izno. - Aoidh (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Arbitrator views and discussions (WP:ARBPIA EC by default adjusted)

After answering his question at ACE, I think Daniel Quinlan is probably correct that we made a bit of a mess at RfPP by introducing a must into the process. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically this change is both a reduction and an expansion in scope. Articles covered by PIA is an enlargening and preemption of protection is a reduction. It does differ from the previous attempt in that you don't have to suspect an issue, you just can make the protection. Izno (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno, what's the enlargening? I don't follow. Possibly I'm misreading something. -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The current text requires the topic to be strictly within the scope of PIA. The text suggested... does not. Izno (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it does. I expect that's an oversight. @Guerillero? -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I have no problem with adding strictly -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (WP:ARBPIA EC by default adjusted)

I agree that this is a good change, though now that most of the topic area is protected and CTOP logging is automated I'm not sure it'll have a large effect. Toadspike [Talk] 19:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who spent a lot of time proactively protecting ~900+ articles this is a welcome change. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Users are subject to ARBPIA rules regardless of whether there is a technical ECP. There are some edge cases, where an article shouldn't be locked, because it has a broader scope, but in most cases ECP is the logical outcome. SilverLocust's comment on balanced editing makes little sense without ECP by default for relevant articles. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As a regular these days at RFPP, I don't quite understand the process behind this: there doesn't seem to be a glut of PIA-related articles flooding RFPP. Also, since this doesn't remove the ECR from the topic area, a note that Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:PIA strikes me as pointless, as ECR is de facto ECP, and thus making it de jure by 'pre-emptively' applying ECP to articles covered by ECR is already cromulent (and widely done in all ECR coverage areas). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're not wrong @The Bushranger, I think this just prevents us from having to protect pages that aren't really covered by this in spirit. Like every stub article about every geographical feature ever involved in this area. It felt kind of silly to ECP those when I was doing a big chunk of them awhile back. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it strikes me as "should just strike completely" instead of replacing with this, if we're going this route. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I invite the Arbitrators to look at the history of WP:RFPP/E and WP:RFPP/D with regards to Gaza genocide and Zionism over at least the past six months, if not the 2025 calendar year. Then ask, "When will the next PIA ideological flashpoint emerge?" —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ECP by default mandatory for PIA articles works. And the hard work is done already, and ctop restrictions are autologged. would prefer to know there is a significant reduction in spurious attempts to enter the topic area. Jéské Couriano above is right, they haven't. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators permitted to topic ban from a wider area

8) Based on an explicit finding that a topic ban from the Arab-lsraeli conflict has been insufficient to prevent disruption, a rough consensus of administrators at Arbitration Enforcement may extend an existing topic ban to include other topics related to Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs. They should cite at least one diff pertinent to each area into which the ban is extended.

Support

When I was an AE admin, last week, I think I would have found the extra tools to be useful --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator views and discussions (Administrators permitted to topic ban from a wider area)

This isn't anything that AE can't already do per WP:CTOP: A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose ... any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. I would prefer to put this in PIA's standard set of restrictions (for imposition by individual admins or AE) for an editor already topic-banned who "nibbles around the edges"/continues problematic behavior in topics adjacent to the modern conflict (such as historical or religious disputes used to bolster either side of the conflict). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I might suggest the relevant line was intended to be read for extraordinary remedies inside the topic area (e.g. a remedy like a limit on words in a discussion levied on a specific user), not extending the consensus of AEdmin's powers outside the topic area. I would not hang my hat on that line for such a use as you suggest. Izno (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Izno. If we want to let admins topic ban around the edges, we need to do so -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I get why Based on an explicit finding that a topic ban from the Arab-lsraeli conflict has been insufficient to prevent disruption is included, but where it currently sits makes it look like there has already been a finding rather than that being the process by which admins at AE might issue a wider topic ban. This motion needs rewording to remove "we found" case as a possibility.
That aside, I'm open to an adjustment here; I'd like to hear from AEdmins first to see if this is a knob they would appreciate having access to, and whether they would appreciate something like this in the specific topic area or in all named contentious topics administered by ArbCom. (And if it should be explicitly granted/rejected in the context of the line that SilverLocust has noted.) Izno (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an AEdmin, I quite like that WP:CT/SA has this effectively baked in. I think in WP:PIA specifically we're seeing that this would be useful, given, for example, the suggested motions about Iskandar above, and the Roman Palestine AfD question. -- asilvering (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Izno: If AE admins think this would be helpful, I am more than happy to support some iteration of it; I have dropped WT:AE a line to get their opinions. I disagree with SilverLocust—AE admins cannot already do this. That line didn't fall out of a coconut tree; it exists in the context of all that came before it, including the fact that the previous sentence is about enforcement. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence I quoted is also about enforcement. I don't think AE can or should impose other restrictions not meant as enforcement – namely of PIA (or other CTOPs). Rather, a PIA+ topic ban would be appropriate enforcement when the editor has been continuing PIA-related disruption in adjacent topics/pushing the limits of the topic ban in contravention of the topic ban broadly construed. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Restrictions might be the wrong word, though I am not sure what the right one is. The standard set is all about restrictions within the topic, so I read that line to refer to bespoke things within the topic. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I generally like encouraging AE admins to act, but I'm not convinced that this is a helpful power to give. A topic ban is only a good sanction if it seems likely that doing so will allow an editor to focus on more productive editing they do (or likely would do) in other areas. If an editor's reaction to being topic-banned is trying to find sneakier ways to push the same POV... well, then trying it again is probably not a good idea. See the Asshole John rule. It's just not possible to ban someone from "changing the POV of any article in a way that might influence coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict" – without giving away exactly what for BEANS reasons, extending a ban like this to Iskandar wouldn't be nearly comprehensive enough to stop them from subverting it yet again to influence coverage of the conflict, if that is their intention. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron, in a situation where someone is acting as you describe, sure, that might not be useful. But I can easily imagine situations where someone has been caught because they were editing in PIA, but their actual problem editing is something like "Jewish history, broadly construed" or "fiqh" or whatever. -- asilvering (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to support this one as written mostly because it looks to me like it's adding extra bureaucracy (diff requirements, a specific list of allowed topics) for no reason. If what we mean is something like "AE admins are encouraged to consider whether a topic ban that extends beyond the conflict itself (for example, "Jewish history", "human activity in Palestine", "Islam") is necessary to prevent the disruption", we should just say that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to do this would be to make the area of conflict Israel and Palestine, broadly construed, including the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The downside is that you would expand everyone's topic ban overnight without telling them --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we expand the topic (either just the CTOP – which I've been considering – or also the ECR), I would prefer to leave existing topic bans with their current scope (cf. Thryduulf). (As to just expanding the CTOP, most ECRs are subsets of a broader CTOP – "super contentious subtopics", to borrow a HouseBlaster coinage.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (Administrators permitted to topic ban from a wider area)

Any reason Judaism is included but Islam is not? Toadspike [Talk] 18:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike: No, just oversight on my part. I have no problem with adding it. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since some editors here may not have seen it I will link to my 2025 AE report and also share the PIA observations I made there: The number of PIA (the number 1 topic area by a lot since it basically equaled #2 and #3 combined) reports dropped from 81 to 62 but unlike last year those reports were statistically different from the overall reports, being open longer than other kinds of reports. When filtering out PIA from the totals you get an average length of 10.1 and and median of 8 meaning PIA averaged 2.1 days more and had a median of 3.5 days more than other cases. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AE rough consensuses have at times enacted sanctions that went slightly broader than the relevant topic area's scope. If, say, AE TBANs someone from trans topics under GENSEX, well, not everything related to trans topics is a "gender-related dispute or controversy", but I think it's well-understood that AE can do that, or even an individual admin. I can try to find instances later but I think I've also seen a few sanction scopes lacking a date- or region-based restriction from the underlying CTOP. But, despite wording arguably allowing it, AE has so far resisted passing any sanctions that would go leaps and bounds beyond a CTOP's scope. Perhaps that informal status quo is sufficient; perhaps ArbCom should clarify the limits here going forward. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looking through every rough-consensus TBAN from 2024 and 2025, I see four that I would say nontrivially exceed the CTOP scope (where I would consider my trans/GENSEX example as only trivially exceeding). Only the fourth is a major broadening of the scope, however.
- Southasianhistorian8's IPA TBAN that adds Sikhism
- ThatBritishAsianDude's IPA TBAN that adds Hinduism
- Lemabeta's AA TBAN from the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage
- Dustfreeworld's CAM TBAN from medical topics
(Iljhgtn'sA TBAN technically qualifies too but would not if it were recategorized under CT/BLP, of which the user was aware at time of sanction.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, the predecessor to contentious topic designations gave admins the flexibility to enact sanctions at their own discretion that they deemed would best fit the situation, without any predetermined limits. (The counter-balance was for the restriction to be appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.) My understanding of the progression from the discretionary sanctions framework to the contentious topics framework is that bespoke restrictions are still authorized, when determined through a consensus of admins at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. I appreciate that the logistic difficulties in remembering and enforcing custom restrictions has resulted in admins favouring well-known restrictions as much as possible. isaacl (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The downside is that you would expand everyone's topic ban overnight without telling them this is not necessarily the case. Arbcom could expand the topic area without expanding the scope of any topic bans issued within the topic area unless specifically noted. This is what happened with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history for example. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotally it feels like it's often the case at AE that brief, obviously problematic behavior in PIA (and less frequently, AP2) is often accompanied by additional problematic conduct relating to Judaism more broadly or American politics more broadly. This has sometimes caused cases to languish while admins ponder jurisdiction limits, and I think that clear license to issue broader related topic bans will be beneficial. There is a similar phenomenon for topics relating to the Ottoman Empire as well, with editors often being reported for AA and KURD violations that end up highlighting problem behavior in relation to broader areas of Persian and Turkic history. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives (index)

Quick enforcement requests

This section may be used for short requests for enforcement intended to be answered by a single administrator. This can include requests for page restrictions or requests to revert violations of a restriction, but it should not be used to request that an editor be blocked, banned, or given other editor restrictions – for those, file a long-form enforcement thread.

To add a quick request, copy the following text box, click to edit this section, paste in the copied text at the bottom, and replace "Heading", "Page title", "Requested action", and "Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated)" to describe the request:

=== Heading ===
* {{pagelinks|Page title}}
'''Requested action''': Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated). ~~~~

Example request

Wikipedia:Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One-revert restriction: Changes on this page are frequently reverted back and forth. User:Example (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: This doesn't involve any contentious topic, so an admin doesn't have discretion to impose a one-revert restriction here. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ShoBDin

ShoBDin is prohibited from reinstating any of their article edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic that are challenged by reversion until ShoBDin posts a talk page message discussing the edit and waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message. — Newslinger talk 21:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning ShoBDin

Lf8u2's statement contains 468 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Lf8u2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ShoBDin (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:ARBPIA5

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

This report concerns the addition of over a dozen MOS:SEEALSO links to a newly created article by the same editor to pages only tangentially or not at all related to the subject and outside its scope, while the article is undergoing an active AfD discussion.

When reverted by others and myself, and also taken note of in the AfD with these reasons cited, the editor did not engage in WP:BRD or appropiately respond to the concerns noted in the edit summaries, but restored them with edit summaries such as Totally in scope. The pattern and timing of these edits also raise concerns about promotional activity, as well as potential improper influence on the deletion process, rather than routine encyclopedic improvement. The article was also nominated to DYK hours after being created.

Some diffs/edit summaries:

Rome Statute Totally in scope
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 Related to the article
Geneva ConventionsAn example of Geneva Conventions violations, related e of Gen
Human Rights Watch Related to Human rights
United Nations Human Rights Council Has everything to do with Human rights
Amnesty International Related as Amnesty published a report about these crimes
Rape during the Sierra Leone Civil War - no reason cited
Rape during the Syrian civil war - no reason cited
Rape during the Rwandan genocide Rape is a sexual crime, related
War crime Sexual abuse is a war crime
Violence against men Violence was inflicted on the hostages
Violence against women Female hostages experienced violence, surely related
Gender-related violence GENDER is in the headline
Prisoner of war Complete relevance

Conduct issues

WP:CANVASSING / WP:POINT: While no explicit notifications were made, the addition of links to multiple pages during an active AfD may constitute indirect or effect-based canvassing. The edits appear likely to increase visibility or perceived notability of the article during the deletion discussion, which is discouraged under canvassing guidance, even if framed neutrally.

WP:NPOV: The editor knows we also have a page on sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians as they also recently linked their newly created article to its See also. The only difference here is that victims and perpetrators are reversed. Yet they did not include a link to this article alongside their newly created one to any of the other pages, which indicates a double standard and editing in violation of NPOV.

WP:SPAM / WP:NOTADVERTISING: Adding links to a newly created article on loosely related pages, particularly during AfD, risks being promotional rather than encyclopedic. Links should be added only where they clearly improve reader understanding of the target page, independent of the linked article's deletion status.

WP:UNDUE / WP:WEIGHT: The insertion of links to a new article across multiple pages may give the subject disproportionate weight relative to its demonstrated coverage. This is especially problematic when the article’s notability is actively being evaluated at AfD.

Additional notes

ShoBDin has engaged in the same behavior with other articles they created, such as Hamas external European operations and Hezbollah's drone smuggling network. Their additions have been reverted by other editors, yet the behavior persists. Some were also immediately promoted to DYK, despite being new and unreviewed. This is not limited to PIA.

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)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 7 July 2025 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Chaotic Enby fixed it. Also appreciate the feedback so far, but can @ShoBDin and admins also review in my view most concerning issues I raised, in particular what appears to be rather blatant WP:NPOV nature of the mass-linking, which as another editor noted continues to be exhibited in the partial self-reverts after the apology, and the stealth-canvassing?Lf8u2 (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of AE discussion

Discussion concerning ShoBDin

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 ShoBDin

ShoBDin's statement contains 176 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I would like to sincerely apologize for the differences noted above by the filer. Over the past several weeks, I became emotionally involved in the topic of sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages, as an increasing number of disturbing examples appeared in the media. I was deeply troubled to see that some editors were calling for, and attempting to persuade others into, deleting the article. This led me on one hand to focus on improving the article, while on the other hand, I was adding links to it and of it on other relevant and less relevant Wikipedia pages. I now recognize that attempting to insert these links forcefully was a serious mistake. I regret using measures that did not align with Wikipedia’s standards, and I acknowledge that allowing this issue to become personal affected my judgment. I am truly sorry for this lapse. I fully understand the importance of following Wikipedia’s guidelines, and learned from this experience. I assure you that I will not repeat these mistakes, It will not happen again. ShoBDin (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Sean.hoyland's statement contains 262 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

If it is the case that one or more editors/admins believe ShoBDin's behavior qualifies as disruptive, and I have nothing useful to say on that, then can I suggest that an alternative approach would be to file an SPI to rule out the possibility of ban evasion and potentially save some time processing an AE report. I have put some information here. Whether it is enough to justify a checkuser, I have no idea. Anyone is welcome to use it if they believe an SPI report is merited and might help. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Newslinger, I understand. My filing an SPI would be a straight up WP:NOTLAB violation to be honest, but other editors can do whatever they think is for the best. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:asilvering, yes, SPI reports need actual evidence. In this case, I've provided the only evidence I'm able to supply at a near zero cost for me (because I don't want to spend time on detective work) that may or may not be enough to trigger a CU - coincidental registration, timecard resemblance, a couple of somewhat improbable revision comment matches, a number of improbable page intersections at pages with few revisions, few unique accounts, relatively low pageviews and less than 30 watchers. Pretty weak sauce. It's limited to addressing the question - what are the similarities (and differences) between these 2 particular currently active accounts. If anyone wants to look into it, they can. But for me, ShoBDin getting a better understanding of what can look disruptive to other editors and adapting to that probably has more utility. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smallangryplanet

Smallangryplanet's statement contains 422 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

As an editor who reverted some of the relevant see-also links, I'm glad to see ShoBDin say they understand why their edits were misguided. I would ask if they could also explain why (if it was the result of an emotional attachment to this particular subject) did they repeat this behaviour with the other articles they had freshly made, including outside of PIA? They nominated Hezbollah's drone smuggling network to DYK just a couple of hours after creating the article. While this is notionally compliant with the DYK policy (WP:DYKNEW), the sourcing in this and other articles does or did not live up to other policies in the DYK flow, i.e. WP:DYKCITE. Speaking of other articles, they repeated what they were doing with the smuggling article and other pages, adding them to a lot of pages not necessarily compliant with MOS:SEEALSO, for reasons I can only speculate about. The 2025 Hamas executions article was wikilinked from - for example - the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights page (diff1), they then attempted to justify the inclusion when reverted (diff3), saying that there was a clear connection as they reacted on the executions. With the (now deleted) Hamas external European operations article, it was added to - among others - Global Sumud Flotilla (diff2) and Loyal to Familia (diff3). As noted by Lf8u2, they have also engaged in this behaviour with pages outside PIA.

I would like them to also explain what, to me, is the most troubling issue raised here: mass-linking their own newly created article about sexual violence against Israelis to all these pages, but not the equivalent page for Palestinians (while also adding the former to the latter)? If ShoBDin believes the former is within the scope of these other articles, why wouldn't the latter also be, by the same standard? (Let alone WP:DUE.) This editing MO extends more generally to articles about sexual violence in other conflicts (like those in Syria, Sierra Leone, Rwanda etc.) to which they added the Israeli wikilink, but none of the broader articles about human rights and war crimes more generally, where they did not include any of these other conflicts' sexual violence on the Israeli one's See Also in turn.

Also: can ShoBDin please explain why in the self-reverts they did after apologising here and taking accountability they retained the links in pages including Rome Statute, Rape during the Syrian civil war, Gender-related violence, and Wartime sexual violence? Thanks. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@theleekycauldron Totally agree - I'm not proposing a refocus on DYK, I thought I would mention the DYK stuff as part of a broader pattern. Indeed, let's not get side-tracked and instead focus on the inappropriate mass NPOV and possibly advertising-ish See Also linking, particularly in PIA. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee I've struck my DYK comments. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

Though unrelated to WP:PIA, they've continued to promote their newly created articles, in this case, Barry J. Brock sexual misconduct allegations, in the "See also" sections of questionably related/appropriate articles [45][46][47][48] - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ShoBDin

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

@Sean.hoyland: In most cases, sockpuppet investigations (SPIs) are partially out of scope on this noticeboard (AE), because "The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported", and an SPI would involve a examining the conduct of a third editor. If you are unwilling to open a new case at WP:SPI with the data you collected, then it is unlikely to be actionable here, because AE is not designed to handle SPIs. SPIs that require complex behavioral analysis can easily take weeks to resolve, which is why they should be decoupled from AE reports that typically focus on more obvious conduct issues. — Newslinger talk 12:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sean.hoyland, what's the supposed ban evasion here? It looks to me like neither account is blocked or has any restrictions. Am I missing something? -- asilvering (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland, if someone filed an SPI saying "these guys are similar" without any evidence of abuse or ban evasion, the case would simply be closed. I'd be happy to look into this, but you've got to give me something to work with, and "I have a list of banned people that are similar but I won't tell you who they are" isn't that. -- asilvering (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
why are we fixated on the DYK thing? it's not weird to nominate an article for DYK after you created it, that's the point. If the article has faulty sourcing, just talk about that on its own. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Articles must be submitted to DYK within a few days of having been moved to article space, so it's not unusual for them to hit DYK before being patrolled. And the vast majority are nominated by their creators. Newer editors often submit articles that don't meet DYK criteria, the resulting peer review/helping these new editors learn general policy is part of the value DYK provides to the project. I'd just strike the DYK concerns. Valereee (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the rest of the original filing, the "Some diffs/edit summaries" list contains 15 instances of edit warring, as ShoBDin is undoing another editor's reversion of their edit in every one of these diffs. There were three additional instances of edit warring in "See also" sections that were missed: Extrajudicial killing (06:57, 21 October 2025), Human rights in Palestine (06:54, 21 October 2025), and Al Mezan Center for Human Rights (06:45, 21 October 2025), which brings the count up to 18. However, I see that ShoBDin self-reverted 10 of these instances shortly after posting their statement in this discussion.
Looking beyond the "See also" links, I found other articles on which ShoBDin has edit warred to restore disputed content:
- Muslim Brotherhood: Added content at 15:19, 20 November 2025; was reverted by first editor at 18:24, 26 November 2025; undid reversion at 08:43, 9 December 2025; was reverted by second editor at 23:34, 10 December 2025; undid second reversion at 11:51, 15 December 2025; talk page discussion started by first editor at 23:27, 15 December 2025; did not join talk page discussion
- Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war: Added content at 12:17–12:23, 12 December 2025, was partially reverted at 00:26, 13 December 2025; undid reversion at 07:21, 14 December 2025; no talk page discussion
- Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip: Added content at 11:33, 15 October 2025; was reverted by Smallangryplanet at 13:29, 18 October 2025; undid first reversion at 06:53, 19 October 2025; modified content at 06:58, 19 October 2025; was reverted by second editor at 23:44, 25 October 2025; undid second reversion at 08:25, 26 October 2025; was reverted by second editor at 02:10, 27 October 2025; talk page discussion started by second editor at 02:24, 27 October 2025; undid third reversion at 08:04, 19 November 2025; was reverted by second editor at 17:55, 19 November 2025; undid fourth reversion at 07:57, 20 November 2025; was reverted by Smallangryplanet at 12:21, 20 November 2025; joined talk page discussion at 12:40, 20 November 2025

The above shows that ShoBDin has a pattern of reflexively undoing other editors' reversions of their edits, often with edit summaries such as "Do not remove relevant sourced information, if you want it removed open a discussion on the Talk page" that are inconsistent with the WP:ONUS policy ("The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content").

At a minimum, ShoBDin should receive a logged warning for edit warring, but I would also support a revert restriction. Although this is not in the standard set, I believe an editor-focused variant of the enforced BRD restriction ("an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message") for ShoBDin in the WP:CT/A-I topic area would specifically target the issue here. — Newslinger talk 15:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to support this revert restriction. As an aside, I don't think "revert restrictions" in the WP:STANDARDSET are limited to WP:0RR/ WP:1RR with only the standard exceptions, but could include 0RR with added exceptions (such as for reverts after some wait time, discussion, or consensus), which is what that would be. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable and I'll make that my understanding from now on. — Newslinger talk 18:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purely in terms of readability: @Lf8u2 and @Sean.hoyland, you respectively have 23 diffs (not counting the required ones) and 745 words, exceeding the limits of 20 diffs and 500 words. Please either request extensions or shorten your respective statements. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:09, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been inactive for over a week. If no other administrators comment in this section within the next 1–2 days, then the proposed enforced BRD restriction should be implemented as a WP:0RR editor restriction with exceptions. — Newslinger talk 18:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to Butterscotch Beluga's statement, I see that ShoBDin's now-deleted article Barry J. Brock sexual misconduct allegations was speedily deleted as an attack page per criterion G10 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry J. Brock sexual misconduct allegations). ShoBDin's additions of the unwarranted "See also" links to this article were particularly inappropriate because they were done while this enforcement request about a similar incident was still open. As a result, I am also applying a topic ban of ShoBDin from adding a "See also" link that leads to any page related to the WP:CT/BLP and WP:CT/A-I contentious topics; this topic ban is performed in my capacity as a single administrator and is not included in the closing summary for this request. — Newslinger talk 21:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hogshine

Indef TBAN from GS/ACAS topic area for 777network and Historynerd361. Hogshine banned from making comments about the conduct of other editors on article talk pages in the WP:GS/ACAS topic area. Additionally, I've indefinitely blocked Historynerd361 as a normal admin action due to LLM. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Hogshine

Historynerd361's statement contains 546 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Historynerd361 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Hogshine (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

Sanctions on ACAS topics.

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

[49] Pattern of Personal Attacks against me WP:NPA

"intentionally dishonest”
"serious case of lack of competence”.
repeatedly insinuated that I am part of a "meat/sockpuppet network”.
backhanded uncollegial remarks "I'm being charitable towards you (again), try to be charitable back for once”
Your contributions to this project are minimal’’
”Gaming the system to rack up edit counts”
"I don't think you're here to build an encyclopedia”

2. 12/11 Accusing user:777network of: ″using ChatGPT to write articles″ (several times) – ″gaming the system to rack up edit counts″

13/11 ″Good faith was assumed and handed to you on a silver plate, but you've proven otherwise″

6/12 tag-teaming for consensus’'

3. On the latest ANI Hogshine's primary reply's avoided addressing the new allegations of personal attacks and incivility, instead spending significant effort re-litigating a prior, closed ANI case and your past edits, which demonstrates a failure to constructively engage with the dispute resolution process. A similar behavior also exists on the talk pages mentioned above.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

11/10-25 Warned by admin Asilvering

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

11 October 2025 Administrator Asilvering issued a formal, logged final warning to Hogshine regarding conduct in ACAS topics during a prior ANI. This warning explicitly references the WP:GS/ACAS sanctions.

29 November Hoghsine makes edit where he acknowledges the GS/ACAS warning.

On Michael the Syrian talkpage he mentions ACAS several times.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On 15 November user Hogshine asked Asilvering ″ how is pointing out another's disruptive behavior considered disruptive itself″. Asilvering provided Hogshine guidelines regarding personal attacks. Despite receiving explicit guidance from Asilvering on regarding personal attacks, Hogshine continued to make them, as documented in the Jacob of Edessa talk page discussion and his subsequent ANI reply. This shows a pattern of behavior that persists even after administrative correction. Hogshine's interactions with other editors and administrators are consistently uncollegial. Even when directly addressed by an administrator about his motivations (see this,) his response was to argue semantics ('The aspersion was the "ejecting opponent” part') rather than engage constructively. This pattern of confrontational, rather than collaborative responses, contributes to the hostile environment in ACAS topics.

You still continue with your personal attacks... Your reply labels my actions as "WP:DISHONEST," insists 777network "demonstrably" used ChatGPT, and suggests this AE request itself was written by an "LLM" or "different person." These are not good-faith critiques of edits; they are attacks on other editors' character and motives, violating WP;NPA and WP:AGP. Your repeated, serious claims of a coordinated "sock/meat network" are presented without new evidence and serve primarily to discredit complainants rather than address their specific conduct concerns. This AE request is about a pattern of hostile personal interactions that poison collaboration. Hogshine's response attempts to shift the discussion back to content disputes about individual articles and old warnings, which is beyond the scope of this enforcement request.

Please note that this AE was filed on request of Asilvering if the ANI would be archived without any results, which it was, hence my report. Also note that I’m not trying to get you out of Wikipedia, I just want you to know your behavior of editing and replaying is not acceptable. Historynerd361 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[@Newslinger:] I filed this request specifically regarding Hogshine's pattern of personal attacks and incivility, as I believe it is the primary conduct issue disrupting collaboration in ACAS topics. My evidence and focus are on that pattern. While I defer to administrator discretion, I believe keeping the scope focused on Hogshine's conduct would allow for the clearest evaluation of the behavior I reported. If there are separate concerns about 777network's conduct, they could be addressed in a different venue as you suggested. Historynerd361 (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1

Discussion concerning Hogshine

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 Hogshine

Hogshine's statement contains 698 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

This is the third complaint by Historynerd361 against me. It's sounding more and more personal. [50][51] Almost all was addressed in 2nd ANI.

The list of‌ "personal attacks" were not attacks but objective statements. Proof below. The thread went on for a while before HN realized his own mistake in mis-citing a work. User:777network proceeded to published their edit before consensus was actually reached. HN's history, per 2nd ANI, proves he misses citations, either intentionally or not, hence the WP:CIR & WP:DISHONEST accusations.

HN was found "Possible" in two SPIs to a now-banned sock/meat network.[52]. Canvassed twice by the main puppetmaster [53] [54]. Substantial contribution to puppetmaster's draft which brought on this whole ordeal (Draft:Aramean people), only second to Wlaak. HN voted in accordance with other now-banned puppets in this Redirect discussion [55]. Same type of edits as puppets i.e. changing/removing any mention of "Assyrians", including wikilinks to Assyrian people, plus edited a number of similar pages that involve ACAS topics, the same pages at times. [truncated 47 diffs]
777network displays similar if not more meatpuppet-esque behavior; I can provide diffs if requested.

Accusing user:777network of: ″using ChatGPT to write articles which they demonstrably did, hence the false citations (other evidence aside).
closed ANI case and your past edits So did a LLM also write this for you, or was it a different person?
contributions... are minimal If you spend as much time building this encyclopedia as posting complaints & removing thousands of my bits [56], I wouldn't say it.
response was to argue semantics This accusation has been thoroughly addressed but you keep bringing it up. It is abundantly clear, from the links you posted, that the accusation was baseless. On that same page/discussion, 777network was repeatedly told to undo their contentious edit &‌ establish consensus in talk pages, to which they ignored.
backhanded uncollegial remarks Same user threatened me and called me a shit talker. [57]
An ANI‌ was posted against HN by a different user (to which he ignored, despite being reminded twice [58][59]) about his gaming-like edits to his Draft:Beth Aramaye. Please see the draft's history.

HN is unable to point to where I violated my warning despite mentioning it several times. In fact, he himself violated his own [60]

Honestly, it has been beyond frustrating dealing with these nonstop contentions and formal complaints by User:Historynerd361 and User:777network. I try to improve neglected articles like Michael the Syrian but I find myself having to play this song & dance with them every few days. Whatever reason they want me out for, they're collectively grasping at straws to prove it. ~ Hogshine (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, critiques of your disruptive behavior are not personal attacks. The mountain of evidence I provided to prove so demonstrates that it is you who's consistently violating rules & warnings. Not using AI that makes mistakes, including this very AE here, would have avoided us days worth of disputes. ~ Hogshine (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@777network, I will not stop the allegations until you stop committing them. You've been informed of this before [61]. I stand by everything I said about your disruptive behavior, and I'm under no obligation to stop no matter how many times you order me to as long a you're continuously doing it.
No, I did not call you a shit talker. I said I was tired of this shit talking I'll let that absurd statement speak for itself.
You even implied that the admin @Asilvering gave me permission to threaten you No, I pointed out that you called me a shit-talker and Asilvering said nothing about it in their reply to you. Please don't make things up just to make me look bad.

In that same discussion you keep quoting, you were repeatedly told to undo your edits & make talk page discussions [62]. You did not, and in fact reverted me [63]. ~ Hogshine (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no further comments at this time unless asked by a reviewing administrator — Newslinger talk 19:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Newslinger Please further note that 777network edited & published Draft:Aramaization of Assyria by User:Devi van velden, a banned meatpuppet (article was deleted once before for copyvio). How could they possibly have found it?
Additionally, they reinserted nearly identical edits from DVV and DavidKaf in Michael the Syrian: [64][65][66][67][68]. Sorry for going over limit. ~ Hogshine (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 777network

777network's statement contains 867 words and complies with the 1037-word limit.

Extension granted to 1037 words. — Newslinger talk 18:04, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving this to AE. Keeping this as short as possible, Hogshine has repeatedly made personal accusations during content disputes, including claims of bad faith, POV-pushing, rule-breaking, gaming the system, and using AI to write articles at Michael the Syrian.

Despite being asked multiple times to stop, he continued, told me Wikipedia might not be for me, characterized me as "emotional," and later misrepresented my objections as a "threat" under WP:THREATEN (which an admin told was not the case). This behavior is coupled with POV enforcement and clear double standards across Michael the Syrian and Jacob of Edessa, where he selectively invoked policies to block sourced content related to Aramean identity while refusing to revert his own disputed changes.

Other editors noted that Hogshine’s objections were transparently POV-driven rather than policy-based, including an editor stating that WP:CVREPEAT was cited in a first-time warning to eject an opponent from the topic area. While Hogshine denied this and accused others of casting aspersions, an admin intervened and stated that the observation was "so transparently true" and cautioned him accordingly. However, this did not make him stop either, Hogshine tripled-down on the ANI page, stating that the observer and the admin were both wrong, whilst also again throwing aspirations and personal attacks at me. He was already told that I had not threatened him, yet he kept saying I did.

As Historynerd noted, because we were both involved in the same discussion, hogshine accused us of tag-teaming for consensus, despite neither of us continuing to engage. He also seems to be shifting focus a lot towards past SPI’s, for reasons I do not understand. Editing within the topics I do, should not really be considered to be basis of "meat-puppetry." There is only a handful of articles that cover these topics, hence the overlaps between different users. Same logic/argument could be said about Hogshine, but it just doesn’t make sense. Judging by Hogshine’s reply, it seems as he’s not even denying the allegations.

It’s difficult to summarize everything briefly, so I strongly recommend that any admin read this ANI comment of mine thoroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777network (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[@Hogshine:] Just like you did on the ANI, here too you are proving the points we have presented ([69][70]). You do not stop the allegations. If there is a genuine concern that we are sockpuppets, file an SPI. If you genuinely think I have threatened you, file a complaint. If you genuinely think we have tag teamed to manufacture consensus, file a complaint. Do not run around numerous talk pages and topics accusing us of these things.

This must be the third time I am telling you to stop saying that I have threatened you. My comment about this being the last time I am saying this was perfectly fine according to Asilvering. No, I did not call you a shit talker. I said I was tired of this shit talking. There is a difference between the two. I judged content, not the person.

Wikipedia doesn't have unlimited articles covering ACAS topics. It is only natural for different users to have overlapping edits. Stop saying that I am a sockpuppet because of this.

On the ANI you did the exact same thing as you are doing now. You keep deflecting the topic and only prove our points. Everyone seems to be wrong, including admins, except you. You even implied that the admin @Asilvering gave me permission to threaten you. Now that, I'm pretty sure, is an aspiration without excuse. 777network (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Newslinger, moved to correct section

Can I explain/defend myself? I find this highly speculative and not representing the truth. 777network (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger, my word count would be up to 806, so sorry but is it possible to increase it a bit more? 777network (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for extending my word limit, @Newslinger.

To address the concerns raised, I would like to start by acknowledging my unconstructive edits regarding date formats. I was previously unaware of MOS:DATE, but I realize the amount of cleanup work I created for others and I regret the disruption. As noted in my user contributions, I ceased these edits immediately after I was told about the guideline.

Regarding ECR (WP:GS/KURD), I would like to point out that when I discussed this with the admin Bushranger, it was determined not to be a violation. Consequently, Bushranger removed the ECR protection from the article. While I found the scope of GS/KURD confusing, I did not believe that editing an article merely because it mentioned "Kurds" fell under those restrictions.

I also understand the worries regarding sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but I categorically deny any off-wiki coordination with Historynerd361, and I have no connection to Wlaak/DavidKaf. While disputes regarding Aramean topics go back decades, there is a very limited number of articles involving them, so overlapping edits should be expected among the few editors interested in this topic.

Regarding the flag, anyone searching for the Syriac-Aramean flag would notice that the colors were recently changed, I noticed this and attempted to fix it. I had already been active prior to it, me editing this topic would naturally also come across the flag.

Extended content

Me and Historynerd361 seeming to be active during the same periods is because we are both reacting to specific content changes made by Hogshine, Historynerd361 had also edited this specific page before (while Wlaak was still around). I do not deny that we seem to be on the same side of this specific content dispute, but sharing a viewpoint is not evidence of coordination, in my opinion. I would also note that we have not "farmed" consensus nor tag-teamed, in fact, I would like to believe that we adhered to WP:DROPTHESTICK here, which is also evident in Hogshine's version to be standing today. In my honest opinion, Historynerd361 seems to have been active when Wlaak was active, his editorial patterns (such as creating drafts; in the past, while Wlaak was still around, as well as recently) as well as activity level, seems to not deviate from that time, so I do not see how they would be meat/sock puppets, let alone have me linked to him.

In the SPI you had linked, Asilvering, who looks to be the most involved person in this dispute, made a comment not thinking Historynerd361 and Wlaak to sound the like the same person at all, judging by edits/behavioural patterns I assume. I have not gone through all his edits etc., but the few ones I have, I do not see a change in edit pattern nor "speech" from then.

Finally, I have already begun distancing myself from this topic area, and my activity has significantly decreased compared to a few weeks ago. I believe a block/topic-ban would be too extreme considering the reasons. I do admit that I think all involved parties should distance themselves a bit, hence I will see this as a "semi-topic-restriction" until I get further experience. It is way harder trying to clear me from meat/sock puppetry since I have nothing prior to compare to from this topic, I am sorry if there is confusion still.

I do not know what else, except the above, is linking me and Historynerd361, if there are any additional questions you have for me, please do not hesitate to ask me. We can perform a CheckUser to exclude sockpuppetry, but naturally, it can't clear your concerns of meat puppetry.

777network (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hogshine

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

Hogshine, there is a max of 20 diffs. You've provided 57. Please trim that down to the 20 that will be most helpful to responding admins. -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hogshine: A "possible" SPI result does not justify making allegations of sockpuppetry in content discussions. Since there was insufficient evidence to take action against 777network in the SPI, please do not continue accusing 777network of sockpuppetry unless you are doing so in a new case at WP:SPI with new compelling evidence. If you have evidence that 777network is engaging in other types of misconduct in the WP:GS/ACAS contentious topic, you can file a new enforcement request on this noticeboard. (777network's conduct is out of scope in this request, except to the extent necessary to determine whether Hogshine's comments were appropriate.) — Newslinger talk 13:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, it may be easier to waive the two-editor scope requirement and expand the scope of this AE request to also include 777network. asilvering, what do you think? — Newslinger talk 13:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Newslinger, I think that's probably fair and I don't think it would result in a filing much more complicated than what is already here. -- asilvering (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hogshine's primary reply's avoided addressing the new allegations of personal attacks and incivility, instead spending significant effort re-litigating a prior, closed ANI case and your past edits, which demonstrates a failure to constructively engage with the dispute resolution process. reads like LLM output, especially as it's referring to Historynerd's edits as "your edits". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Historynerd361, Hogshine, and 777network: As all of you have exhausted your word limits, and the continued discussion has been unhelpful for evaluating this enforcement request, please do not make any further comments here except to answer a direct question from an uninvolved administrator in this section. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was approached by an editor about an article 777network had expanded that I eventually deleted at copyright problems (Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2025 November 2), but I believe I'm uninvolved here. At this point everyone needs a break from the topic area; the sheer amount of arguing and accusations I saw on Asilvering's talk page was more than enough when I was reviewing the copyright matter. Enough is enough. I recommend topic bans at this point. Sennecaster (Chat) 07:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish that Historynerd361 appears to be posting LLM-generated comments in talk page discussions without disclosure. The most obvious example is Historynerd361's comment at 13:07, 27 November 2025, in Talk:Jacob of Edessa § New edits, which not only has signs of being copied-and-pasted, but also included the hallucinated claim: "According to WP:P and WP:PROD, well sourced content should not be removed without a policy-based reason." WP:P redirects to Wikipedia:Portal, and WP:PROD redirects to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, neither of which are remotely relevant to the discussion. After Hogshine noted the error, Historynerd361 deleted "and WP:PROD" from their comment at 22:57, 29 November 2025, without disclosing the deletion as required by WP:REDACT. "According to WP:P" still remains in the comment as of now.
Historynerd361's first piece of evidence is a link to Hogshine's comment at 06:07, 30 November 2025; Historynerd361 pointed out a number of accusations Hogshine made about Historynerd361 (which I intend to take a closer look at later), but omitted that Hogshine said to Historynerd361 in the same comment, "This is what happens when LLM writes your articles for you". The LLM accusation was in response to Historynerd361's comment at 22:56, 29 November 2025, which stated that the content in the Jacob of Edessa article that was deleted in Hogshine's revert at 06:42, 27 November 2025, was supported by excerpts from the source "Syriac and Syrians in the Later Roman Empire: Questions of Identity" (specifically, pages 157–158), as published in The Syriac World by Daniel King. However, the actual citation in the article at the time was pages 157–158 of The Syriac World: In Search of a Forgotten Christianity by Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet and Muriel Debié. The incorrect citation was originally added by 777network at 13:45, 1 November 2025. It is strange that Historynerd361 did not notice the erroneous citation that 777network had added, and instead made an argument referring to the source that 777network had intended to cite. Historynerd361 and 777network provided their reasons for the mistake at 12:33 and 14:56 on 1 December 2025, respectively, but this irregularity warrants further examination.
Based solely on Historynerd361's undisclosed use of LLM-generated comments to advance a point of view in the contentious topic, I support an indefinite topic ban of Historynerd361 from WP:GS/ACAS. Alternatively, I also support an indefinite block for Historynerd361, with Historynerd361 being advised that a credible unblock request from Historynerd361 would be more likely to be accepted if Historynerd361 agrees to the following unblock conditions: an indefinite topic ban from WP:GS/ACAS, and a prohibition on using large language models to edit Wikipedia.
I intend to share comments focused on Hogshine and 777network after some additional review. — Newslinger talk 22:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hogshine frequently fails to focus on content during content disputes on talk pages such as Talk:Michael the Syrian and Talk:Jacob of Edessa, and often makes conduct accusations without adequate substantiation in the discussion, which constitutes casting aspersions. Even if the conduct accusations were true, they must be properly supported by evidence, and they should ideally be presented in a venue that is specifically intended for resolving conduct disputes. It is a violation of the civility policy to tell another editor "Your contributions to this project are minimal" in a content dispute, as Hogshine said to Historynerd361 at 06:07, 30 November 2025, or "If you're going to get emotional with every single disagreement, maybe this place isn't for you", as Hogshine said to 777network at 10:11, 14 November 2025.
  It was also unconstructive for Hogshine to argue that Historynerd36 and 777network were "gaming the system to rack up edit counts" in content disputes at 06:07, 30 November 2025, and 05:15–05:17, 12 November 2025, respectively, because the conduct complaints were unrelated to the article talk page discussions they were posted in, despite being plausible or true. Historynerd361 did make 26 unconstructive edits in rapid succession to Draft:Beth Aramaye after being warned for violating the extended confirmed restriction (ECR) in WP:GS/KURD (with their deletion of links to the Assyrian people article from 32 articles about Turkish areas), although Historynerd36 claimed in the ANI discussion that they were trying to add a WikiProject template to Draft:Beth Aramaye. A week before that, 777network did make approximately 70 unconstructive date format changes (e.g. to "December 31th, 2011") after being warned for violating ECR in WP:GS/KURD for removing a link to the Assyrian people article (and other instances of the word "Assyrian"/"Assyrians") from the article Dereiçi, Savur (another Turkish area) at ~~23:24, 10 November 2025~~ 16:17, 30 October 2025.
  I am going to pause right here because, at this point, I have seen enough behavioral evidence to believe that Historynerd361 and 777network are engaging in off-wiki coordination (i.e. meatpuppetry). Considering the findings here alongside the behavioral evidence in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wlaak/Archive, as well as 777network's unsuccessful attempt on Wikimedia Commons to restore the version of the File:Flag of the Syriac-Aramaic People.svg image that had previously been reinstated by DavidKaf (talk · contribs), who Wlaak (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of, I would group Historynerd361 and 777network with DavidKaf/Wlaak. While Hogshine should receive some type of sanction to curtail his uncivil comments, I support an indefinite block for both Historynerd361 and 777network. — Newslinger talk 19:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC); edited 22:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @777network: Your word limit has been extended to 1,014 words, which provides you with 400 words to address my comments. If you would like to request a larger word limit, please say so. — Newslinger talk 20:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Corrected diff in comment. Courtesy ping to 777network. — Newslinger talk 22:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - @777network: Could you please post the most essential parts of your response (up to 400 words), and then post the remainder in a collapsed format by surrounding it with {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} tags? — Newslinger talk 18:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Newslinger, just reminding you that the collapse was done as asked. -- asilvering (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that 777network's edit to the Dereiçi, Savur, article at 16:17, 30 October 2025, is not within the scope of WP:GS/KURD, but that is not central to my point. Here, the similarity between 777network and Historynerd361 is how both users made mass edits after they were warned about violating WP:ECR in WP:GS/KURD, regardless of whether the warning was correct. 777network's edits appeared to be made in a hurry: 777network demonstrated knowledge of the correct forms of ordinal numbers in English by using "July 31st", "21st August", "23rd March", and "December 23rd", yet still made other edits with the incorrect forms "December 23th" and "December 31th".
    In his collapsed comment, Hogshine notes that 777network added a paragraph to the Michael the Syrian article beginning with "Michael the Syrian states that he belongs to the race or nation (umṭo) of the Arameans [...] the preservation of this language demonstrated the historical continuity of the Syrians." at 12:29, 1 November 2025, with the edit summary "Added more information / sources". The same paragraph with identical citation templates had previously been added to the article by DavidKaf (17 September) and added twice by DavidKaf's sockpuppet Devi van velden (12 September, 22 September). Note that DavidKaf's block for sockpuppetry (via Wlaak) expired on 20 December, but DavidKaf is still subject to the indefinite topic ban issued to Wlaak on 14 May. — Newslinger talk 18:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In summary, my recommendations:
  - Historynerd361
    - For undisclosed LLM use to advance a point of view in WP:GS/ACAS, an indefinite sitewide block (for which an appeal would be more likely to be accepted with two unblock conditions: a prohibition on using an LLM to edit Wikipedia, and an indefinite topic ban from WP:GS/ACAS)
    - For apparent off-wiki coordination, an indefinite sitewide block or an indefinite topic ban from WP:GS/ACAS
  - Hogshine
    - For making irrelevant or inadequately substantiated negative comments about the conduct of other editors on article talk pages, one of the following: a logged warning, a one-week sitewide block, or an indefinite topic ban from posting comments on article talk pages within the scope of WP:GS/ACAS about the conduct of other editors
  - 777network
    - For apparent off-wiki coordination, an indefinite sitewide block or an indefinite topic ban from WP:GS/ACAS
- This is a panel discussion, so I would like to hear from other reviewing administrators, especially on whether all of the information here is sufficient to establish a finding of off-wiki coordination involving Historynerd361 and 777network. Another option to consider is expanding asilvering's warnings of Hogshine, Historynerd361, and 777network logged in WP:GS/ACAS § Individual sanctions to topic bans from changing and/or discussing changes to identity words under the scope of WP:GS/ACAS, such as "Assyrian", "Chaldean", "Aramean" and "Syriac". — Newslinger talk 18:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Sennecaster, your previous comment was supportive of tbans for all, but Newslinger has some more granular sanctions suggested here, what do you think? @ScottishFinnishRadish, any thoughts?
  
  As for myself, for the past while I've been encouraging these editors to file at AE so they can have someone other than me handling this, so I'd prefer to just stick to an advisory role here. With that in mind, I would warn against changing those logged warnings about changes to identity words to tbans from doing so. From my experience following up on those warnings, I still think they were a useful first step, but I think the tban would be messy to enforce with these editors in particular and would come close to being a tban from the entire topic anyway. For what it's worth, I previously gave a warning that was in effect a time-limited topic ban of this nature to Wlaak and Surayeproject3, and both editors handled it well. Regarding off-wiki co-ordination, it's been my position since the first Wlaak SPI that there is obviously canvassing going on in consensus discussions like AfDs. No comment on whether these two editors, specifically, are improperly co-ordinating their efforts. -- asilvering (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Indef Historynerd361 for the LLM usage (I don't know if that can be an AE action, but I think that could probably be done as an individual admin action with the unblock condition being set by the Unblocks admins? If they commit to not using LLMs I think they could definitely be a productive editor outside of ACAS). Give 777network and Historynerd361 topic bans from WP:GS/ACAS.
  
  Hogshine's incivility has been an ongoing issue for longer than these diffs show - they are fundamentally unable to talk about issues other editors have without serious unsubstantiated claims, incivility, or repeatedly trying to persuade asilvering that something was a violation of the logged warning that they handed out earlier. (Edit: also, like every other one I've come across, this edit is wholly AI-generated. [71]) (You have twice already broken the rule to which you tried framing me for, [72]) (everything at User talk:Asilvering/Archive 27#Another vio). I'm not sure what the right solution is here between the ones you've proposed, Newslinger, but at the very least, I don't think Hogshine is capable of interacting with anyone that isn't on "their side", whatever it may be, in a productive manner. They were told almost two months ago to change their approach to ACAS, and they haven't. The chances of them acting like they have in what Newslinger has found and what I have seen on asilvering's talk page to someone fresh coming into ACAS is pretty high it seems. At the very least, if they're not topic banned here, at the next instance of incivility they're either getting a block or a topic ban to go see if they can be collaborative in less heated topic areas. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:46, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I didn't look into this in much detail, I just wanted to provide my weather eye on the LLM issue ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323

No action — Newslinger talk 03:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments in this thread are restricted because an administrator has placed this enforcement request under an Arbitration Enforcement participation restriction (AEPR). Comments violating the restriction may be moderated or removed and may result in sanction of the commenting user. Further information on the scope of the restriction is available at WP: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 Iskandar323

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ~~BlookyNapsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)~~ ( Compromised account)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Iskandar323 (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:ARBPIA5

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

23 January 2025 Iskandar323 is indefinitely topic banned by Arbcom during the ARBPIA5 case ("Disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including consistently non-neutral editing".)
26 January 2025 Erased a text including a reference to Hamas
27 January 2025 Warned by a fellow editor on their talk page for the above violation
24 January 2025, edited Solomon's Temple, an article that the main page clearly says it is included in ARBPIA. 24 January 2025 they self reverted "pending clarification on CT restrictions".
30 January 2025 an editor asks them to reconsider the topics they edit since receiving their topic ban.
13 February 2025 - Starting an AfD for a personality related to ARBPIA which came to news in connection with Gaza
21 February 2025 - Logged warning by an admin (Tamzin) for the violations on the above page
6 November 2025 - edited El Sayyid Nosair, an article about an Arab who assassinated a controversial Israeli politician.
6 November 2025 - complaint in Administrators' noticeboard, after which the user reverted the above edit.
25 November 2025 - Iskandar323 removed Land of Israel and replaced it with historic Palestine
26 November 2025 - 2 week block for the above violation imposed by an admin and arbcom member (ScottishFinnishRadish)
3 December 2025 - User asks admin to reconsider, asserting that "wandering into the grey twice in nine months isn't really much an indication of malicious intent for the project". 4 December 2025 - Another editor pointed out that there had been many more than 2 violations. Iskandar323 then erased that comment, saying in their edit summary "Thanks, but no thanks – please consider yourself disinvited from my talk page".
17 December 2025 - Iskandar323 commented on Talk:Dome of the Rock, an article that the main page clearly says it is included in ARBPIA.
16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, and 16 December 2025 - Iskandar323 participates extensively in discussion on Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting, including a discussion if it should be called a terror attack (where they opposed it). This attack is connected directly to ARBPIA: It was conducted by Islamic-State linked perpetrators, against Jews and Israelis celebrating a Jewish holiday. Jews, including an Israeli Jew, were killed. The authorities say it was motivated by antisemitism. Israel's intelligence believes Iran is behind the attack, which occurred just a short time after Australia expelled Iran's ambassador following intelligence showing the country was involved in hate crimes against Jews. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps blamed Israel of orchestrating the attack as a false-flag operation. The article's very background (following major sources) section connects the event to a rise in antisemitism in Australia in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks and the Gaza War.
17 December 2025 - I wrote to them on their talk page recommending steering away from these topics. The erased my comment, writing in the edit summary "Erroneous and unwelcome - no thank you!".

Despite an indefinite ARBPIA topic ban (and a year long ARBPIA topic ban before that), multiple warnings, and a prior block, the editor has continued to participate in pages and discussions within the ARBPIA scope. Attempts to raise these issues on the editor's talk page have been reverted. A recent two-week site block has not resulted in improved compliance.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

21 September 2021 logged warning
25 September 2021 topic banned from ARBPIA for 12 months
23 January 2025 indefinitely topic banned from ARBPIA on WP:AE
21 February 2025 - Logged warning for tban violation by ARBCOM in ARBPIA5
26 November 2025 - 2 week site block for tban violations

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

2 September 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Guerillero: can you explain more about the process with ARCA? Does this mean the report should be closed here and then reopened there? and who is responsible to send the issues to ARCA? me, as the filer of this report, or admins? 07:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Iskandar323

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 Iskandar323

Iskandar323's statement contains 498 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I don't know this editor, and aside from in relation to their unsolicited messages on my talk page, I haven't interacted with them in the slightest. Their filing is therefore more than a little bit concerning in its intensity and the time it presumably took to research and compose. I'm also not sure why they have posted a litany of items from before my latest block, which obviously were known about and factored in at the time of that block. There are exactly two items of any bearing on content after that: 13 and 14. Point number 13 involves an incredibly academic dispute about whether the Dome of the Rock is a mosque or a shrine. If there is a political or ARBPIA-related angle to this then its not a dispute I'm familiar with. The page has no ARBPIA template, and presumably if a page as old as this had ever had any bearing on an ARBPIA-related dispute historically, it would have been templated up in a second. As to what the ARBPIA twist could be on the mosque/shrine dispute is, I haven't the foggiest. The dispute was initially instigated in this thread, in which the OP makes fairly clear that they believe it to be a Sunni-Shia variance. Point number 14 involves the recent mass shooting. It is templated for its relationship to the Syrian war and Isil CTOP(s), nothing else. I have engaged solely on talk on the matters of WP:BLPNAME in relation to naming the intervening bystander and, separately, on noting the provisions of MOS:TERRORIST in an informal discussion on the title where familiarity with the NC appeared lacking. The OP doesn't appear to have pointed to any specific diff that strays into ARBPIA space, so much as waved their hand at the whole un-templated page. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Butterscotch Beluga: Again, all but the last three items of this filing date to before or during my last block. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehushtani: As has already been mentioned, the Bondi page CTOPs were discussed and the ARBPIA template was rejected by admins. And asking editors not to post on your own user talk is allowed, per WP:USERTALKSTOP. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: no one edit is a giant problem ... yes! So why even join dots between edits at pages with no templates and push a CTOP link? Four of these edits predate my last block, including one related to it (the one defined problem). At least one edit saw me thanked by an admin, @Doug Weller, presumably because OR and misleading content are still, in principle, bad things. Meanwhile this edit is part of a collegiate effort involving other editors on talk aimed at moving the page away from any one academic POV, nothing else. @AndreJustAndre launched the effort in this thread. The wider edit package just removed one 'parent' that was unsupported on page. If there's a CTOP angle there, I need help to see it. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cdjp1

On point 14, while I would consider the article to fall into the area due to Netanyahu's comments and their inclusion, per Admin comments, it is only that sentence about Netanyahu that is part of PIA, and not the article as a whole. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally admins have clarified for others that editing the article does not break their TBs from PIA, User talk:The Bushranger/Archive40#Clarify and/or guidance? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

I agree that 2 & 10 were clearly against the topic ban & they should've known better with 8/9, but I'm unsure if edits that were borderline related & subsequently self-reverted like 4 should be held too harshly against them.

Also 5 was a warning by Alaskan wildlife fan, a sockpuppet of NoCal100 & 12 needs some context.

As Cdjp1 has already noted, it's been clarified that their participation is allowed as long as they don't touch any WP:PIA content & I think your reasoning that the whole page falls under WP:PIA is a stretch. This clarification was also made before you left your comment, so I don't see a problem with it's removal.

I do think that the admins have shown quite a lot of good will to Iskandar323 for such a contentious topic & I hope they internalize that they've already been walking on thin ice. If this concludes in only a warning, know this will almost definitely be your last chance. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

2025 Bondi Beach shooting is not WP:ARBPIA related as is made clear in the discussion which @Metropolitan90 started at Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting/Archive 2#"Active arbitration remedies". TarnishedPath^talk 22:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The filer, now blocked by WMF office as compromised, participated in a number of AFDs. Perhaps those AFDs should be looked at and anything that was close to a nocon outcome reopened. TarnishedPath^talk 11:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nehushtani

Dome of the Rock has the ARBPIA template. I don't know why the talk page does not, but if the article is restricted, so is the talk page. I would have expected the editor to more diligent in checking that considering that they had just finished a site block for similar violations.
Regarding 2025 Bondi Beach shooting, British police announced following the shooting that they will arrest protestors who chant "globalise the intifada", a chant against Israel used at pro-Palestinian rallies [73]. The connection is not only only that Jews and Israeli were tageted by Islamists, but governments around the world recognise the connection between the attack and pro-Palestinian protests. How could this be interpreted as being unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict?
In addition to the above violations, on 15 December 2025 they removed a phrase that appears in 1988 Hamas charter (to quote from that article "The 1988 Hamas charter proclaims that jihad against Jews is required until Judgement Day."). In their edit summary, they cited "marginal sourcing" from Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust museum.
17 December 2025 - They violated WP:CIVIL.
They wrote to me in an edit summary on 4 December 2025 "please consider yourself disinvited from my talk page". This violates WP:CIVIL and/or WP:BATTLE.
Iskandar323 says above in their statement that "I'm also not sure why they have posted a litany of items from before my latest block, which obviously were known about and factored in at the time of that block." But the pattern shown here is very disturbing. The user had multiple TBAN violations, and following a block for those violations, they continue with the same behavior. Multiple warnings and a temporary site block have not detered them from violating their TBAN over and over again. I see no alternative to an indef CBAN. Nehushtani (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Sean.hoyland's statement contains 458 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Excuse me for responding to Nehushtani here, (and the "an article that the main page clearly says it is included in ARBPIA" statements from BlookyNapsta), but just to clarify, the protection status of a page and/or the presence or absence of a WP:BLUELOCK icon, doesn't tell you anything about whether a page is within scope of WP:ARBECR. It's the presence of the talk page template that does that (along with some common sense hopefully). Or you can look at the Talk page categories. You can see the current-ish protection status for the topic area here. Dome of the Rock seems like it should have the Talk page template with relatedcontent=yes or section=yes. Whether something is a violation would presumably depend on whether it addressed content or a matter within scope i.e. relatedcontent. The diff cited looks like it may be out of scope. But maybe there were other edits to that article. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding off-wiki collaboration, I don't think that is necessary to explain things like the AE pattern, and since it is almost never provable, it's not a testable idea in practice. The case against this editor, for example, has already been adjudicated in social media and the media where people do not need to play the civility game. That's probably enough to explain all sorts of things that happen on-wiki. And the decisions made here or at ARCA will be fed back into that system by partisan actors, and the cycle continues. As for suspicions of a filer's motives, I think asking the question "Why do you care?" is useful because preventing weaponization of systems is useful. Why a filer turned over a particular rock when the topic area has thousands of rocks of all varieties, should probably matter because many people seem to believe that they can steer the topic area in preferred directions by targeting and removing specific actors. That is the lie that has been told, over, and over again, and many people seem to believe it. As for trying to do complicated things like deciding whether something is a) "a pattern of editing in the history of Judaism", and b) whether something is "just outside of the topic ban", and c) whether a pattern shows "an Israel-Palestine related POV being pushed" (outside of the topic area as defined by our templating system), wouldn't it be better to just have simple violation tests? Is there a prominent global or local 'no smoking" sign that the person could reasonably be expected to see and comply with? Without simple tests, I think there is a risk that Wikipedia strays into the see-the-pattern-you-want-to-see territory preferred by the clouds of partisan actors that surround Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The filer's account has been globally locked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Kip

No comment on the actual case, but - @Black Kite:, I'd be more sympathetic to that perspective if the prior two complaints you allege to be offsite collaboration/AE weaponization had ended with a consensus that they were weak and/or baseless complaints not worthy of substantial measures against the accused party. There's been multiple past instances of this, such as here, or here (albeit before the user's ARCA-imposed tban).

However, both ended with clear consensus that misconduct did take place, with the first resulting in a two-week block and the second an indefinite tban. I don't think that suspicions of a filer's motives should act as a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card for an accused party who's actually acted poorly unless those suspicions are proven extremely quickly, and even then, it's debatable. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Levivich ... nakedly violate their topic bans the other day ... Not true. I was fully clothed when I made that edit. Merry Christmas everyone! Levivich (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Iskandar323

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

No comment on the actual issue (I will do so when I have time to study it) but I am going to make the observation that a scan of this page appears to suggest a number of editors with relatively low edit-count are still trying to weaponise AE as a tool against their ideological opponents; there are now three sections with the same people doing this over and over again, and the filing editor here (1,074 edits) appears to be one of those. And call it ABF, but I can't help thinking that there may be some sort of off-wiki collaboration occurring here. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kip Yes, I acknowledge that, but I am also always understandably wary when new-ish/low-editcount accounts start peppering AE with requests that their "opponents" be banned, especially when there are multiple editors involved. In such cases I generally start looking to see if those accounts are net positives in the CTOP area; I haven't had a chance to do this yet, but I will when I get a moment (which probably won't be today, unfortunately). Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Black Kite, any chance you've had a moment to look at the reporting accounts yet? -- asilvering (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, I was looking at BlookyNapsta's odd swerve into ARBPIA after a few years of non-contentious gnoming, but that seems to have been answered. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- And, further, I'm always unimpressed with the "TLDR of diffs" approach trying to throw multiple items at the walls and seeing if one of them will stick. The thing I notice straight away is that all but the last four diffs predate Iskandar323's last block for violating their topic ban, so why are they there? I mean, it would actually be easier to leave them out if you wanted admins to analyse the ones that actually matter. Black Kite (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- So - Diff 12 doesn't claim to be a violation, it's just "context". Same with Diff 15. So this boils down to a simple thing with Diffs 13 and 14 - are Dome of the Rock or 2025 Bondi Beach shooting covered by ARBPIA? I think we can discard 2025 Bondi Beach shooting - it's covered by ISIL, but again the talkpage has no mention of ARBPIA, and I think it's a stretch given that the gunmen were of Indian extraction. So that leaves Dome of the Rock - I actually wouldn't have been surprised if it was covered, and the protection says it is, but it's never had a talkpage ARBPIA notice as far as I can see. Further, Iskandar did not edit the article, they left a message on the TP which wasn't even tangentally related to ARBPIA. So I guess this is technically a breach, but I'd say it's the weakest one possible. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I have a few days before I am an arb. Missing from this report is part of the interaction between Iskandar323 and Levivich (talk · contribs) where they both nakedly violate their topic bans the other day. [74] There is also a pattern of editing in the history of Judaism just outside of the topic ban where no one edit is a giant problem, but together they show an Israel-Palestine related POV being pushed ([75][76][77][78][79][80][81]). I recommend sending this packet of issues to ARCA because we can't fully adjudicate everything here. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're 14 comments in, of which only 2 of which are from uninvolved administrators, and I don't think having lots of uninvolved, un-namedropped editors chiming in with opinions will be useful, especially given the sheer size of the other PIA threads that were active recently. I'm invoking AE participation restriction here to hopefully make it go smoother, even if this does ultimately end up at ARCA. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed the CT notice on the talk page of Dome of the Rock - I'm honestly tempted to say close without action on the diffs here. The TBAN violation is plausibly missable, although having wikiproject importance ratings for both Israel and Palestine means that it's not almost definitely missable. Looking at the substance of the comment itself, I concur with Black Kite on their thinking that the comment doesn't talk about ARBPIA. @Guerillero, we're probably fine to kick over the potential TBAN violation you've mentioned to ~~you in a week or so~~ ARCA. I agree with you that AE would struggle to adjudicate everything going on here. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of sending anything to ARCA, I'd suggest that this report be closed since the filer has been globally locked as a compromised account. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing WP:ANI § BlookyNapsta and AFD participation, I concur that this filing should be closed with no action. The account used to submit this filing, which has since been globally locked, was compromised at the time of filing and its illegitimate edits should be disregarded. Any editor with standing may incorporate the information here into a future filing on this noticeboard or at WP:ARCA, with the understanding that any edits that resulted in prior sanctions might be discounted or disregarded in a request for future sanctions. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afus199620

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 Afus199620

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Afus199620 (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/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Final_decision

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

15:47, 3 January 2025 Creates article on German Businesswoman Nicole Junkermann, with a section solely dedicated to highlighting her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, sourced to a conspiracy book (see [82] [83] for details)
22:38, 21 January 2025 Adds content from said conspiracy book that serves as serious BLP-violating innuendo towards the subject.
15:44, 24 December 2025 Restores Epstein-related content to the article despite reasonable objection on BLP grounds
10:55, 30 December 2025 Admits to making the article to highlight the subject's relationship with Epstein, stating that The fact that a person with connections to Jeffrey Epstein (which go deeper than described here) has access to sensitive data in the British healthcare system should be in the public interest.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None that I am aware of.

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

BLP CTOP notice given 05:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A discussion at BLPN in December 2025 found that the content related to Epstein in Junkermann's bio was undue, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nicole_Junkermann.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

16:22, 30 December 2025

Discussion concerning Afus199620

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 Afus199620

I clearly made the revert before the BLP discussion. If a source is classified as unreliable, I accept that. At that point, there were differing opinions on this, and we had a minor edit war on the Junkerman page over this topic.

I didn't say that I created the page to highlight the connection between Junkerman and Epstein. I only said that it is relevant and should be included in the article. This also applies to other people; for example, there is a separate article on the relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. The Bill Gates article also has a section about Epstein.--Afus199620 (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zanahary

Uninvolved editor: I’d like to point out that the source in question is a book by a former WP:MINTPRESS writer published by Trine Day, which has catalogue sections on its website for JFK conspiracies and 9/11 conspiracies, among others. I feel that an editor who doesn’t recognize a publication like that to be inappropriate for use on Wikipedia at all, let alone as the sole source for unflattering material in a BLP, should at minimum not be allowed to edit BLPs.꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Afus199620

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

The edit Afus199620 restored was challenged on grounds of being poorly sourced. WP:BLPRESTORE is imperative to follow, and as the material was already challenged once, the revert was improper. I am also not impressed by the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS justification presented here as to why they believe Junkermann should have a section on an alleged connection to Jeffery Epstein. The two articles mentioned have extensive sourcing to reliable sources, which the section in Junkermann did not have. Afus's AFD comment is particularly of relevance for me for this thread, as this occurred after the discussion at BLPN and repeated challenges from multiple other editors on its inclusion. I'll wait for other admins to chime in, as I'm not sure what exactly should be done here, but at minimum I'm seeing multiple parts of the BLP policy being violated with just a few comments (not understanding WP:BLPRS, WP:BLPSPS, WP:BALANCE). Sennecaster (Chat) 21:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you've said Sennecaster. Regarding what should be done, I don't think anything more than a warning is needed, I'm not even sure it needs to be a formal logged warning but rather a warning to reacquant themselves with WP:BLP and WP:BALANCE and to always lean in favour not including content that could be controversial or has been challenged. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc; A user with over 21,000 edits should absolutely know better than to make these kinds of arguments, and I don't think an informal warning is the correct approach here. BoyDannyOh caught a 1 month block and an indefinite topic ban under BLP for content that, even before the BLPN discussion, was already contested in that article. I'm now convinced that placing Afus under a Jeffrey Epstein topic ban is probably the best route of action - the diff on the 24th also contains an assumption of bad faith that I had forgotten about, and the disproportionate response of one editor getting blocked and a tban and one getting an informal warning feels wrong here. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the concern is BLP more generally, which it appears to be from your comment, won't a broader BLP TBAN will be needed? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IOHANNVSVERVS

Warned and closed. Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning IOHANNVSVERVS

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Zanahary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5

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

Edit warring at Weaponization of antisemitism: On December 15, IOHANNVSVERVS BOLDly moved a subsection to a different section: [84]. I reverted him that day: [85]. No Talk page discussion took place after that.

Then, on December 30, he restored his earlier edit, with this edit description: The section "Charges of weaponization by the far-right" is not an example of weaponizing antisemitism. Not sure if it belongs in Responses but please do not restore this to the Examples section: [86]. To my understanding, restoring one's contested BOLD change without even initiating discussion, let alone achieving consensus, is edit-warring. An edit description insisting on no further reversions does not replace consensus. I asked him to self-revert once, in response to which he said Did you read my edit summary? "The section "Charges of weaponization by the far-right" is not an example of weaponizing antisemitism. Not sure if it belongs in Responses but please do not restore this to the Examples section.". I repeated myself, because "see my edit description in which I insist that I am right and no further reversions should be made" is not a replacement for consensus, and he responded asking what section I would like the material to be moved to. Again, I repeated myself, saying that a discussion can take place after he self-reverts, and he replied: Well, if I self-revert it would be putting the content in a section it doesn't belong in. So what would be the point of that?

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

IOHANNVSVERVS knows what edit-warring is and knows that one who wants to make an already-contested change to an article has a responsibility to achieve consensus for that change before restoring it, as he told Boutboul the day before he edit-warred this material: Special:PermanentLink/1330095603#Terminology section

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[87]

Discussion concerning IOHANNVSVERVS

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 IOHANNVSVERVS

This is not a reasonable report. There is no actual issue here and the content dispute is not significant or contentious. If Zanahary engaged in discussion with me we would have already resolved this.

But when I asked Zanahary if they had seen my edit summary which explained its rationale, they said: "Yeah, I did, and you don’t have consensus, so you need to self-revert and seek consensus. Why haven’t you yet?"[88]

When I asked Zanahary "What section would you like to put the content in?" (which is what the content dispute is regarding) they replied: "Stop hijacking the consensus process. You don’t edit-war first and seek input later. Revert yourself and then a discussion can happen."[89]

I generally try to follow BRD but lately with regards to Zanahary's frequent and unreasonable reversions I often just revert them back. In most (all?) cases where they've been reverting me or demanding that I self-revert, consensus has ended up being in support of my position.

Unfortunately, in my opinion this user is very unreasonable in general and difficult to negotiate with, and I believe the majority of the editors who have engaged with Zanahary at the talkpage at the article 'weaponization of antisemitism' would agree that they are a disruptive presence there. I personally believe a 0RR for Zanahary at that article would be the best thing that could happen here for everyone involved. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC) Minorly edited 14:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC) and 14:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my statement that "In most (all?) cases where they've been reverting me or demanding that I self-revert, consensus has ended up being in support of my position." - A good recent example of this can be seen where Zanahary made a quick enforcement request asking for a thoroughly well sourced edit of mine to be reverted.[90] They were told that "there is talk page discussion, which doesn't seem to be going your way. [...] No, I see no violations of the agreed-upon set of behavioral and editorial practices; that the editor does not wish to self-revert is not a violation."

Here too is evidence of Zanahary's unreasonableness; they were told only a few weeks ago at this very noticeboard "that the editor does not wish to self-revert is not a violation", and yet here we are again. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I had violated 1RR as pointed out by Nehushtani and I have self-reverted.[91] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Drmies. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say that I'm fine with this being closed without my accusations against Zanahary being addressed. I'll file a separate report eventually if necessary. Happy new year everyone. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nehushtani

No comment on the merits of the complaint itself, but IOHANNVSVERVS appears to have violated 1RR at the page in question.

First revert 10:07, 30 December 2025 (partial revert of this edit from the day before, in that they removed a catagory that was added in this edit) and 10:21, 30 December 2025 (reverting - as mentioned in the complaint - of the paragraph in question back into the responses section). These two edits are consecutive, so they count as only one.
Second revert 12:24, 30 December 2025 (revert of this). Nehushtani (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

There's obviously a dispute there but it seems to consist of about two or three reverts each, total, and people are now discussing the content in a way that seems likely to reach a consensus of some sort; this is wildly premature. And it is a fact that Zanahary has reverted IOHANNVSVERVS with extremely minimal communication, largely starting with a focus on procedure rather than content - I'm particularly bothered by Zanahary's statement in [92] that Revert yourself and then a discussion can happen - no, that's... not how BRD is supposed to work. BRD is meant to encourage discussion, not to serve as an impediment to it! Like yeah, sure, reverting a revert is not ideal but editors are supposed to be trying to reach a consensus and compromises on disputes, not fixating on procedure, and especially not insisting that procedure be settled before meaningful discussion can even begin.

And Zanahary isn't even correct about the procedure! BRD is good practice but is in fact optional. Enforced BRD was specifically rejected by ArbCom for this topic area - and with good reason, I think, since it can encourage status-quo stonewalling and can derail consensus-building into arguments over process. That certainly doesn't make IOHANNVSVERVS' rush to revert ideal but absent a larger pattern the relatively brief exchange here isn't a matter for AE, especially given that, first, I think Zanahary's own initial responses can reasonably be described as less-than-ideal heel-dragging when it comes to actually substantive discussion; and second, that discussion is now happening and seems likely to be productive. --Aquillion (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning IOHANNVSVERVS

While the content dispute itself is a good faith disagreement concerning the article the manner in how it played out violated the One-Revert Rule. The restoration of the material without reaching consensus on the talk page violates the restrictions on this article. Given that IOHANNVSVERVS realized the error and self-reverted a warning I am going to use discretion and will not issue a block at this time. IOHANNVSVERVS is formally warned that future violations of 1RR or restoring contested material without consensus could result in sanctions. This is more firm than I would have liked but with these topics we have to keep things tight.

I would like to note that Aquillion had a good point that the behavior of Zanahary and refusing to discuss any of the content until IOHANNVSVERVS reverted their edit. This is not how BRD works and can have a negative effect on reaching consensus. This report is about IOHANNVSVERVS and not Zanahary but circumstances and context matter and I felt it should be noted in the close.

I would have preferred to see y’all work this out in meditation than come here to have me handle it. Before today I’ve seen the work both of you have done and it’s both important and impressive. My hope is that you two will be able to work together going forward, maybe if y’all are up to it on a topic that is less contentious that you two have in common. I’m not trying to force you two to be friends but I do believe that a professional and less hostile relationship is possible. I honestly believe that a lot of social cues and context is lost in online spaces which makes topics like this much more volatile. What I’m trying to say is that you both bring a lot of value here and it sucks if y’all are fighting, it won’t make this place better and it won’t build a better encyclopedia. I would encourage both of you to review WP:PILLARS and assume good faith in other editors. Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lucasattitude

Lucasattitude topic banned from Dhurandhar. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Lucasattitude

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Lucasattitude (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:ARBIPA

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

09:31, 26 December 2025 WP:POV, brushing off WP:RS
09:42, 26 December 2025 WP:ASPERSIONs
10:08, 26 December 2025 More WP:ASPERSIONs and personal attacks (including my user name)
15:28, 27 December 2025 cites "personal view" as justification for a previous revert
15:39, 27 December 2025 continues to cite personal opinions even when reminded of WP:V and WP:NPOV.
01:46, 28 December 2025 More WP:ASPERSIONs and personal attacks
02:09, 28 December 2025 WP:ASPERSIONs now taking on the level of campaigning against an editor (me)
04:48, 29 December 2025 claims incorrectly that "dhruv rathee's rant" has been used as a source
01:34, 31 December 2025 WP:POV, shooting down WP:RS
05:45, 31 December 2025 WP:ASPERSION
13:13, 31 December 2025 WP:PA

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)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 02:42 25 December 2025 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor constantly canvasses for the film Dhurandhar, casts WP:ASPERSIONs on me in particular, and enages in personal attacks. They are probably principally responsible for the toxicity on the talk page.

Their first action was to revert my straightforward edit highlighting Pakistan issues in an Indian film called Dhurandhar. When queried on the talk page, the editor had nothing to offer other than personal opinions, which too came after 24 hours had elapsed. They claimed that opinions from The Wire and The Hindu (well-recognised WP:RS) are "irrelevant". They also seem to have an axe to grind on Dhruv Rathee, a political commentator with over 30 million subscribers on YouTube. Next came an aspersion: "maybe [you] want to undermine a film" and "cutting down things and adding your own pov".

The page has an ECP now, and the editor can only comment on the talk page, which continues in the same vein everyday. Their latest contribution was to demand: "Remove propoganda word. and remove that essay subheader 'Factual accuracy and political messaging'". Apparently the majority of critics have "enjoyed" the film, which supposedly rules out propaganda as well as issues of factually accuracy. This is followed by an aspersion and a personal attack. They have not yet cited a single source to justify their views, or any Wikipedia policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Nofified

Discussion concerning Lucasattitude

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 Lucasattitude

Statement by Orientls

Dhurandhar is yet another propaganda movie, that aims to provide a fictional story concerning the conflict between India and Pakistan in order to improve the image of Modi government. This subject concerns Indian military history, where users are required to get WP:ECP before they will even edit the related articles. Lucasattitude has only 205 edits. He should cease editing about this movie. Orientls (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RangersRus

Lucasattitude has been given multiple warnings from removing content to attacking other editors to edit warring. After second edit warring, Lucasattitude was reported that resulted with page protection of Dhurandhar. Lucasattitude does not take warnings seriously by either ignoring it or replying with sarcasm. Talk page discussion on page Dhurandhar, clearly shows that Lucasattitude ignores the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, that has also been notified on user's talk page. RangersRus (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Lucasattitude

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

The article Dhurandhar has seen a massive amount of disruption both on the page, and the talk page where it is bombarded with multiple semi-comprehensible complaints from TAs and from accounts such as this one, that I can only assume it is the target of some type of off-wiki co-ordination (see also: User:SakuraSmart, blocked here a few days ago). I expect that the talk page will have to be protected soon as well because this isn't really sustainable. As for Lucasattitude, I note this edit to the director of Dhurandhar which is not only promotional but also introduces multiple grammar and English errors (which I'm just going to fix now); I don't think they are really competent to write longer pieces in articles. Meanwhile, I see removal of sourced material in a BLP without good reason [93] as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I note User:Lucasattitude's response to the AE notification, and the fact they have continued to edit elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well and truly over the line for a sanction here. There is clear evidence of POV and making personal attacks against other users. Having looking at the editing to Aditya Dhar, Shah Rukh Khan and Salman Khan as well, the issue appears to be related Dhurandhar specifically. I considered just a sitewide block but I don't think we're there yet, so I'm thinking an indefinite topic ban from Dhurandhar would be appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to close this with a TBAN from Dhurandhar for Lucasattitude. Given they've continued to edit the article talk page I'm now assuming they do not intend to respond here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I note that LA has started editing in the area of Dhurandhar again. I have reminded them that they need to reply to this filing. Black Kite (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]