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

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Transgender healthcare and people	21 October 2025

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	18 October 2025
Amendment request: Lightbreather	none	(orig. case)	3 November 2025
Amendment request: Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope	none	none	4 November 2025
Clarification request: Yasuke	none	(orig. case)	5 November 2025

Arbitrator motions

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

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

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131	132	133

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

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131	132	133

Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing

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

Case or decision affected: Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

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

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

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

Information about amendment request

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

Statement by Johnpacklambert

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

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

Statement by GoodDay

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

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

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

Statement by HouseBlaster

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

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

Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pppery

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

Statement by Smasongarrison

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

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

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

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

Statement by FOARP

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

S Marshall

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

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

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

The obvious corollary to my first comment, of course, is that I would oppose this if not rate-limited in some fashion. JPL can be very prolific indeed, and CFD is not all that well-attended, so he could have a significant impact on how our category system works. Simply put: we need it to be JPL that adapts to our category structure and not the other way around.—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

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

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

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

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

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

I'm reasonably receptive to this request but XfD is not my area of expertise. HouseBlaster should I take your comment as opposition to the request? Besides the ambiguity of whether the restriction applies to CfD, have JPL's contributions there been disruptive or unhelpful? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was some discussion of whether merge discussions are incorporated into this sanction at that AE thread, but I think the controlling factor was really the nature of his participation and the question wasn't fully dissected. I would hold that participating directly in a merge discussion almost certainly violates the restriction. They involve whether a standalone page should exist or not, which gives them a lot of the same personal-philosophy baggage as AfD.
As for amending the sanction to allow weighing in on categories, I'm hesitant. As I understand it, the category area combines a lot of procedural rigor with a tendency for controversy disproportionate to the weight of the matter a la ARBCAPS. If we were to do something that allows him to show he's here to contribute constructively, I'd say an unban that allows for a maximum of 3 CfD comments per day – limited to 1 comment per thread, 500 words per comment, and no nominations – would be my starting place. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
happy for it to be 250 as well :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think leek's idea for cats is a reasonable way to proceed, maybe with a 6 month wait before review. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I'm generally in favor of simple restrictions when possible, I'm open to a suggestion along these lines. - Aoidh (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- 250 is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with leeky's proposed modification. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above, but tend to also agree with S Marshall's comment that 500 feels quite long. Reckon 250-300 is the sweet spot - this comment, for reference, is 42. Twelve times the length of this, is a very long CfD comment. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a 2022 clarification request and 2023 amendment request on the possibility of a categories exemption to the topic ban. Based on community input here, I think that we can loosen this, especially since some of the cited misconduct is quite old.
I don't like overly-complicated restrictions: enforcement eats into time and energy that is better spent elsewhere. Of the options so far (word limits, nomination ban, CfD rate limit) I think that having all would be too much: from the case's findings, the main issue is the speed at which Johnpacklambert works, so I would have only the CfD limit that automatically expires. If we want to give someone the ability to show that they have changed, having an extremely short leash is not always helpful. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a suspended removal over rate-limiting participation; if we really are willing to give them slack to demonstrate their changed ways, we might as well just do it rather than kick the can down the road and have to revisit this (again) six months down the line. Primefac (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Lightbreather

Initiated by Lightbreather at 23:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Lightbreather arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

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

Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Karanacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mike Searson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Scalhotrod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[2] diff of notification of Karanacs
[3] diff of notification of Mike Searson
[4] diff of notification of Sitush
[diff of notification of Scalhotrod] (not possible)

Information about amendment request

Gun control topic ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Gun_control_topic-ban
- I respectfully ask to have the ban lifted
Restricted to one account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Restricted_to_one_account
- I respectfully ask to have the restriction lifted
1RR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_1RR
- I respectfully ask to have the restriction lifted
Reverse topic ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Reverse_topic_ban
- I respectfully ask to have the restriction lifted
Interaction bans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Interaction_bans_taken_over_(alternate)
- I respectfully ask to have the bans lifted

Statement by Lightbreather

I successfully appealed my site ban in September 2022. Although I would have liked to have all restrictions removed, I only requested lifting the site ban. I stated at the time that I would wait at least 12 months before asking to remove the other restrictions. The appeal can be seen here: [5], including my "Dear community" promises.

Ultimately, I waited until March of this year to ask that the remaining restrictions be lifted. In those two-and-one-half years between Sept. 2022 and March 2025, I made hundreds of edits to dozens of articles, including the creation of two biographies (P. B. Young and Amy Kelly). I abided by my restrictions and behaved as promised, but the request was declined mostly, I believe, because I had not made enough edits: [6]

It was suggested that I edit more and try again in a few months. So here I am. I recently put a lot of work into improving Mexico–United States border wall, which had been the destination page for an unconventional "merge" from Trump wall. This work had the potential for conflict, but there was none. I also recently worked to improve Ed McCurdy.

I respectfully ask once again to have the rest of my restrictions removed. And I thank you once again for your consideration.

In anticipation of some of the questions that you might ask (assuming they'll be the same or similar to my last request):

Re: recent inactivity: As I said previously, that will probably be a pattern for me: Edit for some length of time (days, weeks, or months) and then, out of choice or necessity, be inactive when my energy is directed elsewhere. (For instance, my dog died last May and I just adopted a young dog from the pound. She is going to need lots of supervision and training as she came in off the street.)
There is one other website that I have volunteered at for over 14 years, without incident. If the committee wishes to know my identity there, I will be happy to email the link.
Someone suggested at my last request that I am unable to join a project, contribute, and seek review, but that is untrue. In Jan. 2015 I set a goal to bring "Gun show loophole" to good article status, I invited others to join me, and we did it. Links: [7], [8], [9]
Rather than focus on the quantity of my edits since being unbanned, could I get some feedback on the quality of my work? Consider perhaps what user wbm1058 said [10] re my article on Amy Kelly.
In a nutshell, I would like to put the past - 10 years past - behind me and further prove myself. I promise I will not let the community down.

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks for the notification and consideration.

Statement by Karanacs

Statement by Mike Searson

Statement by Sitush

Statement by Scalhotrod

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.

Lightbreather: Clerk notes

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

Lightbreather: Arbitrator views and discussion

As with the previous request, I am recusing. - Aoidh (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the big issues raised in the last appeal was lack of activity. This appeal follows about a month of activity following 5 months of inactivity after the last appeal. There's no explanation of why they want or need the ibans, one account restriction, or 1RR lifted. There was some discussion in the last appeal about the reverse topic ban being onerous, and I'm most amenable to lifting that. Giving this more thought, but I didn't want this to sit here with LB not knowing that it's being considered. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope

Initiated by L235 at 23:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Noticeboard_scope_2

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.

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

L235 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.
- Expand the scope to a broader set of communtiy-imposed general sanctions

Statement by L235

In 2022, as part of WP:CT2022, ArbCom authorized AE to hear requests or appeals relating to community-designated contentious topics, so long as the community wanted AE to hear those requests or appeals. A recent RfC has taken ArbCom up on this offer and now allows community-designated contentious topics (CCTOPs) to be enforced at AE.

In the process of writing the documentation at AE to implement this RfC, I have noticed that the current language has the potential to create its own confusion, because AE can only hear requests and appeals that arise from CCTOP enforcement and not enforcement of other community remedies like 1RR or ECR. To clarify what I mean, there are currently four buckets of community-authorized general sanctions:

Plain CCTOP designations without 1RR or ECR (WP:GS/UKU, WP:GS/PW, WP:GS/MJ, WP:GS/UYGHUR, WP:GS/ACAS);
CCTOP designations plus 1RR (WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and WP:GS/Crypto);
ECR to supplement an existing ArbCom CTOP (WP:RUSUKR, which imposes community ECR within the broader WP:CT/EE; WP:GS/AA, which imposes community ECR to supplement WP:CT/A-A; WP:GS/KURD, which imposes community ECR to supplement WP:CT/KURD); and
Plain non-CCTOP restrictions (WP:GS/PAGEANT, which authorizes indefinite semiprotections).

Now that the community has authorized enforcement of CCTOPs at AE, bucket #1 works great. But because the authorization for AE to hear community-imposed sanctions only applies to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure (emphasis added), buckets #2-4 face some confusion. In bucket #2, AE can hear enforcement requests and appeals for contentious topics in general but not 1RR violations. In bucket #3, the ArbCom CT portion can be heard at AE, but not the community ECR portions. And bucket #4 is wholly unaffected by the new RfC.

This state of affairs is quite confusing because some restrictions within a topic can be enforced (and some enforcement actions can be appealed) at AE, but not all of them. I can't think of a principled reason for this difference in treatment. I would therefore ask that ArbCom permit the community to designate AE as a place to hear enforcement requests and appeals for a broader set of topicwide restrictions.

Below I've included some suggested motion text, but the exact way this is done is of course up to ArbCom.

Extended content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope 2 is amended by striking the last list item and inserting in its place the following: enforcement requests and appeals from enforcement actions arising from community-imposed general sanctions (including community-designated contentious topics), if the community has assigned those requests and appeals to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

After such a motion is enacted, the community would then need to allow the use of the AE noticeboard in those cases, which it could do by RfC. Speaking personally, based on the results of the last RfC, I think such an RfC would pass fairly quickly.

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

For editors who spend most of their wikitime in mainspace rather on the noticeboards and arbitration pages, the distinction between ArbCom-based contentious topics and community-based general sanctions, and the existence of different procedures for invoking or appealing them, takes time to learn about and can be a distraction. Anything that makes the procedures more parallel, and therefore easier to understand and implement, warrants serious consideration. The proposal would seem to fit into that category. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2025 (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.

Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope: Clerk notes

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

Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope: Arbitrator views and discussion

Yeah, that's fine. It's all called contentious topics, so I don't think it's that big a deal, but if people want to adjust language that's fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Yasuke

Initiated by JHD0919 at 17:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Yasuke arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

JHD0919 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by JHD0919

In regards to Remedy 1a, specifically this portion:

Starting in 2026 and checked yearly afterwards, this designation expires on 1 January if no sanctions have been logged in the preceding 2 years.

When it comes time for the expiration, does it expire automatically, or is a motion required? The remedy text doesn't say, which has left me confused. JHD0919 (talk) 17:11, 5 November 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.

Yasuke: Clerk notes

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

Yasuke: Arbitrator views and discussion

Looks automatic to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1, we could intervene if we didn't want it to expire but the application does seem automatic. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks automatic to me too. Daniel (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2025 (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.

Abstention for non-votes procedure

Motion adopted EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abstention for non-votes procedure: Clerk notes

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

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

The Committee resolves by motion:

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

Abstention for non-votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator views and discussions

Community discussion

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

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

Statement by isaacl

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

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

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

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

Statement by Tryptofish

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

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

Statement by {other-editor}

Requests for enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests, 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.

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:

Aesurias

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

Request concerning Aesurias

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TheNewMinistry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:AC/CT

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

Discussion concerning Aesurias

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

Statement by Aesurias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm requesting that I be allowed to go over the 500 word limit, to explain each edit. I don't feel that these accusations have validity and would like to discuss each point! Thank you. Aesurias (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations against me are flawed -- I have a 200word limit but some examples: Accusation #6 falsely claims I removed info about Israeli-Americans from an article about American Jewish politics - the edit history would show that it was actually a poll of Israelis living in Israel who can't actually vote (therefore shouldn't have been in the article). #8 is about an AfD (irrelevant), #9 was an approved edit from AfD discussion, #11 and #17 were just me creating articles (one of the points of Wikipedia...?), #18 was me removing a tag placed without explanation in talk page as part of their harassment campaign they were indef blocked for. Only of my only genuine errors in these accusations is #1 -- I had just begun editing and wasn't aware. The other editor in the convo kindly explained contentious topics rules but because my writing had no issues, it wasn't reverted and there was no issue. Aesurias (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheNewMinistry

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

As for Aesurias, if you have npov concerns regarding Israel-Palestine, the place to raise those is at en:WP:AE. [13]

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

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

The following line caught my eye.

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

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

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

Result concerning Aesurias

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

Disclosure: I was the administrator who warned TNM about hounding Aesurias ([14]), having earlier blocked TNM for harassment regarding the same. I have also responded to Aesurias's questions about where to take various disputes, and about the word limit in AE proceedings. I do not feel that either of these prejudice me unfairly in this case, but am more than willing to move my comments up if other admins think I ought to. Regarding the evidence against Aesurias, I have not fully investigated but it looks at least good enough that we should investigate, not reject this filing out of hand for being retaliatory. However, the filing is quite clearly the most recent salvo in a pattern of harassment that I warned TNM over just yesterday. Clearly, some sanction for harassment on the part of TNM is required, regardless of the ultimate outcome regarding Aesurias. -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @TheNewMinistry, I told you to raise complaints at AE. A week ago. In the intervening time, instead of raising concerns at AE, you continued to harass Aesurias, and I then gave you a final warning, as I stated. As I have said, if other admins think I should move my comments up, I am happy to. I have, however, only been involved here in an administrative capacity. -- asilvering (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Aesurias's assertion that TNM has been cherrypicking, I'm not sure that can possibly be true, given that, unless I am much mistaken, TNM's evidence does not contain anything about Talk:Pallywood, Aesurias's most-edited talk page. That discussion has also spilled out to WP:NPOVN#'Pallywood' (though, note also the personal attack on them here [15]). Their position appears to be that Pallywood is "real". Pallywood is both a slur and a conspiracy theory. Someone who cannot distinguish between Pallywood and Misinformation in the Gaza war should not be editing in WP:CT/PIA. -- asilvering (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aesurias, you can have another 200 words. -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think asilvering is fine to participate. I also think that Aesurias deserves a topic ban at minimum from PIA. TNM should get an interaction ban with Aesurias for the harassment at this point. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked TNM indefinitely for their comment above in which they acknowledge that they used the "thank" button in response to an edit by Aesurias that they characterize as part of a conspiracy to "retaliate against me offsite"—obviously not sincere thanks, but a continuation of the same harassment Asilvering warned them for. I might have gone with a p-block from thanking, or a longer tempblock, but their complete lack of self-awareness that this is harassment suggests a problem broader than this one issue, and so for now at least an indef siteblock is the least restrictive remedy that addresses the disruption. This is not an AE action, and should not lead to an early closure of this thread. For now I have no opinion on TBANning Aesurias, but support an IBAN on TNM, blocked or not. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin, if you agree with a PIA tban for Aesurias, that leaves us at unanimous consensus and you're clear to close the thread. -- asilvering (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: I think I remain neutral on a TBAN. Not neutral in the sense of having a long analysis at the ready of the pros and cons, but neutral in the sense that the evidence doesn't quite click for me and, if not for the overlapping matter of TNM's conduct, I would have just not commented here. Please don't delay a close on my account, though. 3 support to 1 neutral is still a rough consensus. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also support a TBAN for Aesurias from PIA and an IBAN for TNM with Aesurias. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, Tamzin, Callanecc, and Sennecaster: How do you feel after reading Aesurias's latest post? I see consensus for a TBAN here, but given that an extension was granted the material in it should be considered. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remain the most concerned about the AN thread they started about the userbox, which is what ultimately persuaded me. I'd be fine with a warning, informal or formal, but I don't think this is a close without action situation because of that thread. Unrelated to this AE, Aesurias, you should probably start using more precise draftify reasons than the one you used in diff 16 (Identical to other page). Sennecaster (Chat) 17:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issues raised in the recent post are irrelevant to my own reasoning. -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lumbering in thought

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

Request concerning Lumbering in thought

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Longhornsg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:PIA

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

[16] [17] Adding OR and info not supported by RS or in the article body to the lede of Jewish lobby
[18] Readded OR and wrong information after reversion asking for sources
Refusal to provide an RS for additions to lede on talk [19]
[20] Continued to add OR to the page and not engage with RS on talk

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, [21]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[22]

Discussion concerning Lumbering in thought

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

Statement by Lumbering in thought

I take issue with 1-3 to the point of belief that the plaintiff has committed WP:BLUD, as for 4 [[23]] you can see the plaintiff didn't revert my revert when I started the request to get consensus. My revert being allowed to stay when we entered the talk was confusing. Thus arguably, the plaintiff's established pattern of behavior is worse than mine as per Special:Diff/1318135022. Lumbering in thought (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the plaintiff's latest, recognizing that I never broke the 1RR per WP:PIA, I should have replied to their message on my Talk page, an attempt to establish a pattern of behavior which didn't have an invitation to the article Talk page done in coordination with their first edit summary revert reason [[24]] implying satisfaction with edit summaries, with an invitation to the article Talk page and a reminder that they should be discussing the article substance.

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

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

A couple of comments for what it's worth.

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Lumbering in thought

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

I think this just barely falls into PIA, in that LIT is talking about diaspora Jews at the deliberate exclusion of Israeli Jews, and then on talk drawing a distinction between the Jewish lobby and Israel lobby. With jurisdiction established, I'm pretty concerned here about what reads as a basic failure to understand WP:V. LHSG has repeatedly asked LIT for sources for their edits, and they've blown right past that while leaping to claims of bludgeoning. I'll stress that, while citations are generally not needed in a lede, the lede is expected to follow the body, and the body has nothing to back up LIT's edits, so LHSG's request for sources is valid. Furthermore, I'm pretty squeamish about seeing the word "predisposed" anywhere around ethnicity. Maybe that was just poor wording, but combined with the rest decreases my confidence. I'm not sure whether or what level of sanctions are necessary here, but something needs to be addressed in some way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tamzin that the additions are problematic. WP:LEAD offers no exception to [[WP:|the policy on verifiability]]; it only allows for providing citations in the body of the article. Lumbering's conduct is only marginally mitigated by the lead as it stood also being unsupported by the body. For a first offence I would suggest a logged warning. If they continue to miss the point, a TBAN is inevitable, although I would also consider a block as an ordinary admin action for adding unsourced content. As an aside, this is an excellent example for my oft-repeated position that contentious articles should not only allow but encourage citations in the lead. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chronos.Zx

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

Request concerning Chronos.Zx

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: No previous sanctions that I can see.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Just noting that Chronos.Zx continues to portray people he disagrees with as claiming the practice of Sati has ceased, which is not a position I or anyone else has taken. The failure to understand the nuance in "largely historical" is the heart of the matter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [25]

Discussion concerning Chronos.Zx

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

Statement by Chronos.Zx

Addressing all the mentioned diffs:

I said "no stonewalling" here because removal of sourced content by UnpetitproleX was backed with the "get consensus first for your WP:BOLD changes to longstanding WP:STABLE version of lead" instead of justifying their removal of the content. This is frowned upon by WP:STONEWALLING which says "Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion." Similarly, this is not "assumptions of bad faith" because UnpetitproleX was indeed removing reliably sourced content by falsely asserting "source misrepresentation".
This is outright misleading. You are describing a partial revert by wrongly terming it as "more edit-warring" and falsely asserting "claiming source misrepresentation without evidencing this on the talk page," when the evidence of misrepresentation was already provided on talk page in lengths.[26][27] It was only after that I made this partial revert. The editor who was actually edit warring has been page blocked for 2 weeks.
This is also misleading because UnpetitproleX was indeed removing reliably sourced content by falsely asserting "source misrepresentation". UnpetitproleX failed to justify their false assertion after another editor got on the point before switching their opposition to claiming "it fails WP:LEAD" instead of "source misrepresentation" anymore. UnpetitproleX was wrong about that as well because the article body covers the content at Sati (practice)#Opposition to the ban. Vanamonde93 removed the concerning sentence without ever discussing it,[28] however, the content was re-added to lead by another editor with almost same wording.[29]
There is no source misrepresentation there. This is my whole response. Where is the misrepresentation? Both sources confirm Sati practice has not faded away.
This is purely content dispute. Nothing to do with conduct.
I linked to this version because this is the last version that required page protection.
This is no "assumptions of bad faith" here. As for this, I am sure that the charge of "second time you have tried to misrepresent this particular source" is wrong, and so is how UnpetitproleX trying to treat the word "may" to be indicative of a false claim.[30]

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

Talking about "misrepresentation of source", Vanamonde93 clearly added an inaccurate summary of the source on the main article,[31] and failed to justify their edit on the talk page by completely evading the point.[32] Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill and Sennecaster: I acknowledge the issues, and promise to do better.

I would like to inform about two things that have came to community's attention only after this report was filed. It is that the long-standing version said "is a practice, a chiefly historical", not "largely historical". See past versions such as this, this, this and it is easily more accurate in comparison. These revelations can be found here. If these facts were known earlier, then I think that things would be far better as I would have simply supported this wording over the options that were available so far.

It is not like I am not amenable. For example, you should see my edit here which was reverted for being against the basic standards of editing in this subject.[33] I did not justify myself. I opened a talk page discussion to acknowledge the problem with my edit and for helping others become aware, in case their edits are having a similar problem.

Getting back to the report, I note that this is a single page issue as of current. I can confirm that there has been significant improvement in my editing across Wikipedia. I ensure the highlighted issues wont resurface. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I said "the long-standing version said "is a practice, a chiefly historical", not "largely historical"." This is different from comparing just "largely historical" with "chiefly historical". The difference between "is a practice, a chiefly historical" and "is largely historical" is that the former is first ensuring that there is a practice before talking about its extent while the latter is directly talking about its extent. There is a subtle difference between "Chiefly" and "Largely" here because "Chiefly" means mainly, while "Largely" means to a great degree in terms of relative frequency. Therefore the argument I made would have been more valid in favor of "chiefly".

It is not just me who is seeing the importance of the difference between these two words but multiple users have on talk page,[34][35] well before I made my comment right above. Chronos.Zx (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Chronos.Zx

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

I am unimpressed by the amount of WP:ABF shown in the diffs and extremely unimpressed by the retaliation diffs provided. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Reviewing the diffs here:

1. is indeed edit warring by Chronos.Zx (and also Unpetitprole). I'm particularly, unimpressed by Chronos.Zx's repeated assertion here that Unpetitprole's edit falsely assert[ed] "source misrepresentation". It is indeed fair and due for Unpetitprole to cry foul when a source, which in its totality casts doubt on the prevalence of sati and its prominence in British accounts, is used solely to support a claim that in the Wikipedia article's context suggests that sati was prominent and popular among Hindus.

2. Here I don't see edit warring--there's one revert, and there's explanations on the talk page from other editors. That having been said, at least some parts of the explanation given by the explanations that Chronos.Zx highlights seem inaccurate: India before Europe does in fact emphasize the Rajput vs. Muslim divide, contra Orientls's claims in diff 19.

3. This is essentially part 2 of the repeat assertion I noted in point #1. A bad look to baldly double down on the assertion by saying :That said, you should refrain from engaging in whitewashing with misleading excuses..

4. I'm inclined to agree with Vanamonde93's assessment on this point, and Chronos.Zx's responses here seem to be crossing into IDHT territory. A source that states Whatever the reason, sati has not disappeared completely. While relatively few in numbers... very much supports the framing that it is a largely historical practice; the use of the word "largely" directly accounts for the fact that the practice continues, albeit sporadically. Chronos.Zx would have a valid point if their discursive counterparts were asserting that the article should just say Sati was a historical practice. Other sources regarding the prevalence of the practice could be brought to bear (read: I am not making a content judgment of what the article should say), but it is disingenuous to present Ahmad 2009 as a source that categorically disagrees with the description "largely historical".

5. I don't think that this diff in itself is a violation, nor does it present any new perspectives not already addressed above, although it is consistent with the IDHT perspective.

6 Mu -- Vanamonde93 appears to be correct about the overall history of the page's status quo, and Chronos.Zx's methodology in highlighting the revision they chose is a little odd, but it's not totally unreasonable and I think it's jumping to conclusions to conclude that this had to have been a bad faith assertion.

7. The first diff here doesn't seem to have any issues; the second repeats the POV-pushing accusation

In light of the above, there's a clear failure to assume good-faith, and a pattern of reading into sources what they evidently want to see to support their arguments rather than what the sources say in their totality. Charitably, if we assume that the rest of the bibliography that Chronos.Zx and other editors on their side of the dispute cite is decisive, this is still a failure to collegially engage with editors' discussion of RS coverage of the topic (n.b. the ongoing RfC participation does not currently suggest that the broader community finds the outcome to be one-sided). The evidence brought to bear does not suggest that Unpetitprole is misrepresenting sources or falsely accusing others of the same, and thus Chronos.Zx appears to beg the question of Unpetitprole's misconduct to justify their own terseness. All of that taken into account, I'm currently waffling between a logged warning and a topic ban. In reviewing AE and ANI logs, I note that Chronos.Zx under their prior aliases has been an avid participant at the drama boards, mostly raising cases against others, but in the process I do see that about 9 months ago they were sharply, if informally, admonished by Black Kite for edits to Bangladesh that leave very little room for assumption of good faith. With that in mind, I'm leaning towards a topic ban from CT/SA, as the battleground attitude appears to have occurred across the topic area. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Chronos.Zx's reply, I don't think that there is a meaningful difference between "chiefly historical" and "largely historical", and this grasping at straws to justify their position does not inspire confidence. Unless there is additional input from other administrators, I think we can move towards a close here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the following rejoinder insisting on "chiefly" persuasive in the context of the discussion on the relevant talk page. N.b., Vanamonde93 identified that the status quo ante version included "chiefly" on October 27. Chronos.Zx proceeded to !vote "no" and present several follow up arguments on November 1st in a section titled RfC: Chiefly historical or not?--granted, the actual question in the RfC says Should...describe sati...through a descriptor such as "a largely historical practice", but nowhere in their responses do they indicate any qualification to their "no" suggesting that they might support another near-synonym in the lead sentence. That they're now changing their tune while under cross-examination does not change my opinion of their conduct in the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Chronos.Zx, you've exceeded the 500 word limit for your responses here. Please do not respond further unless specifically requested to by an administrator. You are allowed to request extensions, although I don't really see much reason to grant one at this time (but perhaps in response to another admin's participation it could become relevant). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, to cap off what I’m realizing became a bit of a tangent: the crux of the issue here at AE is not whether Chronos.Zx was correct/incorrect to argue against the inclusion of “largely”. The issue is the disingenuous argumentation and lack of AGF demonstrated in their responses to those who were advocating for “largely”, given that these arguments were not baseless. It may well be that “chiefly” is better suited due to the numerical connotations of “largely”, but that doesn’t explain the insistence that editors arguing for “largely” were engaged in source misrepresentation, nor does it explain Chronos.Zx’s arguments regarding Ahmad 2009 and its use in the article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 5 November 2025 (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]