Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives (index)

Quick enforcement requests

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

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

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

Example request

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

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

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

Iskandar323 (quick request)

National Iranian American Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Banned editor making Israel/Palestine edit: This editor is banned from the topic yet they made edits to this article: [1]. At the time, the top news item on the organization's website was this statement on Israel-Palestine which clearly indicates their motivation given their shared position: [2] jwtmsqeh (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, the content of the edit does not touch upon the conflict, even when broadly construed. Also noting that Iskandar323 is currently already serving a short block for a different edit that did violate their sanction, and which post-dates the edit to the NIAC article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum for general discussion --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, you made 221 revisions using the IABot over a period of about a week just prior to acquiring the extendedconfirmed grant. You then became active in the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Iranian politics topic area (which is not under extendedconfirmed restrictions). Did you employ the IABot to speed up your acquisition of the extendedconfirmed grant? If so, are you planning to edit in a topic area that requires the grant, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weaponization of antisemitism

Weaponization of antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Revert inappropriately restored material: CT in question is Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Material was added, removed in contention, and then restored. Talk discussion initiated; editor who added and restored the material has ignored repeated requests to self-rv. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: there is talk page discussion, which doesn't seem to be going your way. An experienced editor said, on the talk page, "This topic area gets too ugly and noticeboard-happy"--and yet here we are. No, I see no violations of the agreed-upon set of behavioral and editorial practices; that the editor does not wish to self-revert is not a violation. I do, however, appreciate this, but I urge you to take that wise editor's words to heart. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I brought this request to the quick ER section (unless I'm forgetting something, my first time coming to AE) because I was not seeking sanctions against any editor; when I referred darkly to noticeboards I was talking about where people go to get others blocked. I have no aversion to boards seeking uninvolved third parties to make procedural content edits. WP:ONUS is an agreed-upon editorial policy, and I would be surprised to learn that immediately restoring one's boldly-introduced new material after it is contested is standard editorial practice, let alone in a contentious topic area. Moot now, but I wanted to clear that up. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what were you asking for then, on this board? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A revert. It's bolded at the beginning of my request. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drmies, was this a misunderstanding? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary, can you give us diff of the added/removed/restored content you're talking about? Valereee (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s now moot, thanks. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-Confirmed Enforcement at Herzog Park RfC

RfC: Herb Keinon's comparison to Nazi Germany

Enforce ECR: I'm not sure how extended-confirmed enforcement is supposed to work, but there are a couple of IP editors who have taken part in the RfC, and I assume that their contributions should be struck? The RfC plainly involves Israel-Palestine issues. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 18:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~2025-41257-91

User talk:~2025-41257-91 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested action: Attack page targeting pro-Palestinian activists, user should be blocked immediately. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverLocust: Looks like you got here first, but the user clearly deserves zero tolerance and the creation log entry still needs RD2. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, there's no need to RD here. -- asilvering (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is meant to exclude requests for blocks (though I can understand that not being a high concern when dealing with a current issue). I deleted the page, but instead of blocking have just been watching for further disruption from this person. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SilverLocust Have a look at the underlying IPs block log, though ... I've posted at VPT about this. Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

إيان

Closing without action. – bradv 18:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request concerning إيان

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nehushtani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA5

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

Edit warring during consensus building efforts on Jerusalem Day: this editor is edit warring "In recent years, there have been anti-Palestinian chants of "death to Arabs" and "May Your Village Burn" in these parades." into the lead. They first added it on 16 November 2025. On 17 November 2025 I reverted them saying to seek consensus, after which on 21 November 2025 another user added it back in, on 23 November 2025 I again removed it per WP:ONUS, on 23 November 2025 they again edit warred it in and on 23 November 2025 were reverted by another user telling them to stop edit warring. On 25 November 2025 they edit warred it back in, falsely claiming "Per current talk page consensus", when taking a look at the talk page will indicate that there is an ongoing discussion and no consensus, and this the user is clearly violating WP:ONUS, for which they have been previously been cautioned throughout this whole discussion.
Uncivil behavior and violations of WP:AGF on Talk:Jerusalem Day: On 23 November 2025 they inaccurately described what had happened, because the previous discussion had been only about including the contested material in the body of the article (to which I acquiesced) and they had never until that point discussed it in the lead. On 24 November 2025 they claimed that those disagreeing with them and saying something is WP:UNDUE is "not policy based" and then later on 24 November 2025 doubling down on these claims. This seems to violate WP:SATISFY. On 24 November 2025 BlookyNapsta told them to start an WP:RFC to include the contested material, but on 24 November 2025 they insisted that "I don’t think we need to go to an RfC to establish consensus". On 24 November 2025 they wrote that those who disagree with them are WP:Status quo stonewalling.
WP:BLUDGEONING: On Talk:Six-Day War#Requested move 16 November 2025, this user has been WP:BLUDGEONING and repeating the same claims over and over again, 19 November 2025, 19 November 2025, 20 November 2025 and 23 November 2025.
WP:BLUDGEONING: In the Talk:Six-Day War#Requested move 13 November 2025 previous RfD (now replaced by the previous one) they were similarly involved in WP:BLUDGEONING, asking every editor who rejected their proposal based on WP:COMMONNAME "by what metrics" they call it the common name. 13 November 2025, 14 November 2025, 14 November 2025 and 15 November 2025. A few months ago, at Talk:Gaza Genocide, the user was also WP:BLUDGEONING, questioning any user he disagreed with "based on what sources?" or a similar reaction. 4 August 2025, 18 August 2025 and 24 August 2025.
WP:SYNTH: On 23 November 2025, the user was warned on their talk page that they had violated WP:SYNTH, in one case on a WP:BLP page. On 23 November 2025 they insisted that these edits "seems like useful context for the reader". (Although on 23 November 2025 the user did eventually say that they will be more diligent on the matter, implicitly admitting that they had made a mistake.)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Logged warning on 25 October 2025 "to remain civil, assume good faith of other editors, and avoid inflammatory remarks".

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

24 January 2025 received the standard CTOP warning on their talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Butterscotch Beluga - The claim that "They asked you to come to talk to discuss & but you didn't respond until other editors got involved" is inaccurate. The discussion started on the talk page was open 08:01, 16 November 2025 about whether it was due in the body of the article. Their arguments convinced me that it is widely enough covered to be due in the body of the article so I did not respond. Later that day, on 10:09, 16 November 2025, they began edit warring the contentious content into the lead with no discussion whatsoever. Nehushtani (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinaroot's claim that I did not participate in the talk page discussion is once again inaccurate, as there was no discussion about the inclusion in the lead, as I explained above. Also, although they were uninvolved in this specific discussion, it does not seem to be a coincidence that they posted this commont shortly after I have informed them of a 1RR violation. Nehushtani (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee - I fixed the diff you asked about; something went wrong with the formatting, but it should be ok now. Also, should I respond to Drmies's comments? They are an admin, but I'm unsure if I should respond because they wrote their comments outside of the admin section. Nehushtani (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies - I don't understand your argument that "this isn't edit warring". WP:ONUS states that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Since إيان was trying to add disputed content, it was their responsibility to achieve consensus, and trying to add the contested content multiple times before achieving consensus is edit warring, not the other way around. Regarding the discussion on the talk page - My main argument is that mentioning the chants is undue for the lead as it is only tangentially related to the holiday. I said early on in the discussion on 11:29, 23 November 2025 "I have consistently insisted (and still believe) that it is undue for the lead." We did digress briefly into a discussion about another page, but that was never my main contention. Whether or not something is a false equivalence is a content dispute and is not what it is being discussed at AE. Nehushtani (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning إيان

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 إيان

إيان's statement contains 959 words and is within 10% of the 925-word limit.

Extension granted to 925 words. — Newslinger talk 16:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The disagreement appears to be about the content of my edits rather than my conduct, as evident in these contrived, shoehorned, and misrepresentative accusations:

The first accusation of edit warring is ABSURD, especially coming from the accuser who, reverted by two editors, refused to discuss in the talk page discussion on the matter after being pinged, and was the one engaged in edit warring. There is a summary of this here.
The accusation of uncivil behavior is also contrived. I followed WP:BRD and I was magnanimous with the two out of five involved editors that disagreed and did not offer any proof beyond a vague gesture to UNDUE. To accuse me of edit warring without bothering to discuss for a week is disingenuous to say the least. The accuser alleges they wrote that those who disagree with them are WP:Status quo stonewalling, which I did not. I placed the link to the explanatory essay there for the benefit of all without making any accusation about anyone doing it.
~~The accusations of bludgeoning are again contrived, appearing to exploit a shoehorned accusation of conduct violations because the accuser disagreed with the substance of the edits. Also,~~ the two RMs are the same discussion. When the likelihood of approaching the word limit was brought to my attention, I made my final points and stopped.
The SYNTH accusation is again content-based and not conduct-based and was already addressed and resolved. The accuser was not involved at all, and I'm curious why the accuser brings it up again here.

Per WP:Dispute resolution: If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request arbitration. It would have been appreciated if the accuser had, for example, discussed their grievances with me at any point directly on my talk page before bothering everyone here with these flagrantly frivolous and vexatious accusations and this unnecessary bureaucracy. I take the Wikipedia policies very seriously, and it is inappropriate to try to weaponize Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to silence editors contributing in good faith with whom we might disagree on content. إيان (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Originalcola, if you thought that I was clearly engaging in bludgeoning, why didn't you say so? I admittedly engaged a lot, but I thought I was engaging politely and in good faith, and there was good discussion happening in response to my arguments and questions. It didn't seem to me from the way the conversation was going that I had been doing something wrong. And as I said in my statement, when it was brought to my attention, I stopped. Regarding the false claim regarding case-sensitive searches, I did indeed make a mistake in seeing the "case-insensitive" tab as "case-sensitive" which I later realized and fixed from then-on.إيان (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QuicoleJR's accusations also appear to be rooted in a disagreement on content rather than conduct. The claim The editor in question, after the content was removed from Jerusalem Day, added it to anti-Palestinian racism is wrong and deceptive. The thoroughly sourced content—perfectly WP:DUE where I placed it per sourcing—is based on this understanding, not the information removed from the lede.

That I should be penalized for contributions such as translating "May Your Village Burn" from Hebrew is absurd. Improving articles and getting the encyclopedia closer to WP:NPOV with high-quality contributions introducing drastically underrepresented voices and citing the highest quality scholarly sources, while being engaged and responsive on talk pages, is not WP:disruptive editing, whereas reverting without discussing to maintain a POV status quo is disruptive behavior. As for expanding on controversies and negative coverage of Israel and their supporters, WP:Wikipedia is not censored and—though I apologize for where I have made honest mistakes—it is unfair and inappropriate to attempt sanction me on contrived accusations here in an attempt to censor me and my contributions. إيان (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe BlookyNapsta’s most recent comment helps clarify what this really seems to be about—content and not conduct. I have responded to their questions on their talk page. إيان (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

:::I think I'm over my word limit. Could I have permission to say a few more words in response to Samuelshraga? إيان (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuelshraga, thanks for your statement here and thank you for acknowledging that I was engaging politely and in good faith. It means a lot to me. I appreciate your input here as I appreciated it at the RM.

I have acknowledged that I engaged more than I should have in the RM. Part of it was a substantial irregularity caused it to become a second RM, which Nehushtani framed into a doubled bludgeoning accusation. Anyway, I won’t engage in that way again.

I have no problem acknowledging my mistakes when I make them. I wasn’t sure how to take if you're not familiar with how to interpret or use this kind of search tools for specific topics like this then you can ask for help from other editors—it looked like a possible taunt. ~~If Originalcola would like a formal apology for it, I'm happy to do so, as I have for my misunderstanding the ngram case-sensitivity.~~ I have apologized for comment taken as an insinuation of bad faith. 08:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC) I would have apologized at the time if they had made it known then that they took offense. (I now realize that it was genuine, but it is hard to tell through text sometimes.) I thought responding with this appears to be condescension, which is inappropriate and I remind you to maintain WP:Civility was an appropriate, diplomatic way to both address that possibility and maintain the assumption of good faith. Same for Talk:Jerusalem Day, where I—then aware of the need to economize my words—was more terse than would be ideal, and I see how it could be misconstrued, and I can apologize there too. إيان (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhornsg, my heart is indeed in the right place—thank you—and I emphatically disagree with your characterizations and conclusion. My contributions in the topic area, for example, are of immense value to the encyclopedia. إيان (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is not resorted to accusing me of WP:BADFAITH.

I explained my thought process and defended my opinion on content on the talk page. إيان (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BlookyNapsta

Per WP:ANI § BlookyNapsta and AFD participation, this account was compromised at the time these comments were posted — Newslinger talk 02:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm afraid Ayan's response goes to show exactly the problem Nehushtani complains about: a total failure to understand Wikipedia rules when it comes to this extremely sensitive topic. As someone involved in the same discussion, I saw the same issue: Ayan is trying to promote a very controversial piece of information to the lead of an article about a public holiday in Israel, but when the conversation doesn't go the way they wanted, they seem to have decided to force their version despite clear opposition. Wikipedia has enough bias issues and this kind of behavior just makes it worse. Ayan's denial of the issues that appear here, which I learn they are not doing for the first time, having already been warned by this very forum, require a good answer. ~~BlookyNapsta (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

@QuicoleJR's comments about POV pushing are really disturbing. If Ayan's behavior includes not only edit warring and bludgeoning but also activist-style edits meant to distort our coverage of ARBPIA topics, that should be remedied asap. I saw more examples of this happening just yesterday on 30 November 2025 to Talk:Six-Day War. After two failed attempts to change the article's name because of alleged "POV title", Ayan now claims that "the occupations and displacements" are "the most prominent features of the war". The very suggestion that "displacements" were "the most prominent" feature of the war goes directly against any serious coverage of the topic in scholarship.

Another article - Zionism in Morocco - written from scratch by Ayan also shows clear bias. "Zionism ... the 19th century ethnocultural nationalist movement to establish a Jewish state through the colonization of Palestine" - Calling Zionism "colonization" reflects a specific political framing which is not agreed about in academic literature. Similarly, the article refers several times to Zionist activities as "propaganda", but does not use this phrase for other political actors. The article also states that "Initially, Mossad Le'Aliyah agents exploited poverty to motivate Jews to leave"; using the word "exploited" is clearly POV and judgmental.

These actions around the articles on the Six-Day War and on Zionism in Morocco, which seem to try to rewrite historical events to serve a clear agenda, seem to be just a few examples of a wider attempt to expand the bias that is ruining Wikipedia's credibility (which are not noticed only by me, but also by Wikipedia's founders). ~~BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

@إيان - I don't see this as an issue of content. The possible violation at hand is POV pushing, which is an issue of conduct. ~~BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

I keep seeing more of this happening. Yesterday, on 3 December 2025, at 1948 Palestine war, they reverted a constructive edit without even attempting to explain why they were reverting. This constructive edit did justice with the article, and seems to have fixed the very activistic "Zionist forces... established Israel" - as if it was established by a militia - with the facts: "The Jewish Yishuv... established Israel", and added a mention of atrocities against Jews in the war to improve NPOV since the lead did not mention these. According to WP:REVERT: "Rather than reverting entirely, consider improving the edit to enhance the article's quality. .. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." That may suggest that Ayan is not interested in the improvement of the encyclopedia, as constructive editing is not in their head. In itself, this wouldn't require a severe sanction, but this clear stonewalling, alongside the other examples provided here of POV pushing, edit warring, bludgeoning, synth and BLP violations, all connected to the promotion of a certain POV on Wikipedia, point to an editor who is WP:NOTHERE (see "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia") and should be driven out of this topic area. ~~BlookyNapsta (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Valereee - I find the suggestion that a page ban for Ayan would solve the much broader issues reported here, including bludgeoning, edit warring, synth BLP violations, and possibly also POV pushing, not helpful. This would not improve the situation in ARBPIA at all. An editor that acts this way consistently, as the diffs here clearly show, should be held accountable. This editor already received a logged warning here, on WP:AE, asking them "to remain civil, assume good faith of other editors, and avoid inflammatory remarks". This kind of recurring behavior is clearly not something we can solve with a page ban. That behavior would continue everywhere else. ~~13:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC) BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)~~ (edit: I've just noticed Valereee's comment regarding participation, my bad, sorry. though my thoughts still stand). ~~BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

Your description of "Uncivil behavior and violations of WP:AGF" seems rather inaccurate. They asked you to come to talk to discuss & but you didn't respond until other editors got involved.

The comment you're quoting for "not policy based" actually read "Not a source or policy-based argument." The comment they were replying to was in response to my comment saying it was WP:DUE & backed by sources, so saying you disagree without supplying your own sources is unhelpful.

I don't believe asking for someone to explain their reasoning or cite a source for their !vote is WP:BLUDGEONING as long as they don't badger them further.

The issue regarding WP:SYNTH is both settled & not a conduct-issue. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cinaroot

(un-involved)

If there was edit warring in this situation, the sequence of events indicates that it is Nehushtani who have engaged in edit warring. إيان opened a talk-page thread on 16 November immediately after the first revert, but Nehushtani did not participate in that discussion. When another editor reverted the Nehushtani on 21st, Nehushtani edit warred with them. إيان then reverted Nehushtani and requested to engage on the talk page. Nehushtani engaged after this.

Rather than using the existing talk-page discussion to seek consensus, Nehushtani continued reverting. It is not appropriate to revert repeatedly without participating in discussion, and then characterize the other party as the one edit-warring. Editors are expected to collaborate and engage in talk page discussions in a timely manner, in line with WP:CONSENSUS.

The evidence does not substantiate the claim that إيان was the party engaged in edit warring. Accordingly, I ask that the enforcement request be dismissed. Cinaroot (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Originalcola

I cannot speak to any of the other claims made, but with regard to the 3rd and 4th charges إيان was clearly engaging in bludgeoning. They replied directly to the majority of editors who had cast oppose votes, and repeatedly insinuated that editors, including myself, were either acting in bad faith, arguing in bad faith or that editors that opposed the proposed name change were ignoring his arguments deliberately. They also made a false claim regarding case-sensitive searches in an argument to try and sway an editor by convincing them that they had made a misatake that they then repeated multiple times, although I did initially think it is more likely than not due to a lack of familiarity with using ngrams.Originalcola (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding @إيان's response to my statement, I just chose to disengage as I didn't think it was productive to continue. I had pointed out the mistake you made regarding case-sensitive searches and issues with some of the metrics you had been using in a reply to you somewhat early in the conversation, and I didn't want to continue that line of discussion at the time given the lack of acknowledgement and the aforementioned incivility accusation. Honestly I expected that either you would withdraw your request or someone else would close the discussion early given that there seemed to be a clear-cut consensus. Originalcola (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QuicoleJR

The editor in question, after the content was removed from Jerusalem Day, added it to anti-Palestinian racism. They have also added the chant to the See Also section of globalize the intifada, and are the creator of the May Your Village Burn article which they are trying to add content about to other articles. Furthermore, upon reviewing their recent contributions, it would appear that most of their recent editing consists of expanding on controversies and negative coverage of Israel and their supporters, as can be seen here (see also this related POV edit), here, here (which was another insertion of content related to an article they created), and here. Nehushtani's conduct has also been subpar in this topic area, but adding this to the OP's report shows that the user in question is a clear POV pusher, which the topic area certainly needs less of. IMO a topic ban is unfortunately warranted to avoid further POV pushing, although I could also see a balanced editing restriction being passed as a lighter sanction. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I wasn't trying to imply that we shouldn't cover negative information about Israel, just that you seemed to be expanding on it as much as possible in as many places as possible, and that it seemed to be your primary purpose on Wikipedia. I also don't think there's anything wrong with you writing that article, but it was helpful context to you adding mentions of it to three other pages. I think your invocation of Wikipedia:Systemic bias shows the issue here; pro-Palestine POVs are not systematically underrepresented on Wikipedia, and trying to remedy that non-existent bias by adding a pro-Palestine bias is POV pushing, which is a conduct issue. For the record, I was not involved with any of this before finding this AE report. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Samuelshraga

I participated in the Six-Day War RM. I think إيان probably did enter bludgeoning territory (there was a lot of repetition the same arguments). The bludgeoning was about WP:COMMONNAME [3][4][5][6], then about the article naming policies of WP:CRITERIA and WP:POVTITLE [7][8][9][10]. I think there was also a certain measure of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - إيان was corrected on both issues repeatedly by multiple editors over the course of weeks. That said, إيان did (finally) accept that their case about WP:COMMONNAME was flawed[11], and did ultimately stop engaging when told they were approaching a word limit.

In isolation, I wouldn't consider the conduct in the Six-Day War RMs worthy of sanction, especially not if إيان understands where they went amiss. Based on the statement above that the accusations of bludgeoning are contrived, we're not quite there. @إيان, you said above on this issue: I thought I was engaging politely and in good faith. You were! But that doesn't mean you didn't bludgeon, and when OriginalCola pointed out where you went wrong, you accused them of being uncivil.[12] I think you should reconsider doubling down on this - making a mistake like this is not the end of the world, especially not if you can recognise it.

No comment either way on the rest of the evidence, other than the response to 2: I placed the link to the explanatory essay there for the benefit of all without making any accusation about anyone doing it. Erm... no, that's not how anyone would have read this, it's clearly an accusation - more an explicit than an implied one. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Longhornsg

Their heart is in the right place, but I've had a number of interactions with this user in PIA that do not give me great confidence that they can contribute ~~productively~~ constructively to this topic area without the exertion of a substantial amount of community time to rectify policy violations.

My experiences aren't content disputes. WP:SYNTH is a violation of policy. SYNTH on a BLP is worse. See the examples and conversation at Talk:Jordana_Cutler#SYNTH-y mess as an example, with the editor as the offender. This came after I had to warn the user for additional SYNTH violations in PIA. Concerningly, while the editor perfunctorily acknowledged the issue, they defended their use of SYNTH and resorted to accusing me of WP:BADFAITH. This is exactly what the user was warned not to do by AE consensus just over a month ago. Longhornsg (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And a bit of WP:CIR. This edit mispresented the source and just made up the responsible cyber unit. And this edit represented a source as being from 2025, when its clearly written in 2023, and would make no sense to be written in 2025. All told. I've had to remove more than 5,300 characters, one-third of the total article, from a BLP because of SYNTH violations. This is not acceptable in this topic area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

I'm moving my comments to the section below, since I'm an uninvolved administrator and we need resolution here. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning إيان

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

@إيان: In response to your request, your word limit has been extended to 850 words. I have removed the subheading "Additional comments by editor against whom the complaint is being filed" to fix the edit counter for your section. — Newslinger talk 18:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @إيان: Per your talk page message, your word limit has been extended to 925 words, which grants you 200 words for your response. — Newslinger talk 16:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there any reason we haven't restricted participation here? I feel like seven commenters, causing the subject to feel like they have to address every comment, and then the commenters are responding to their responses...I feel like it's exactly what the participation restriction was created to prevent. I haven't been working at AE since that was put in place, though, maybe this doesn't feel like too much to others here? Valereee (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No more from anyone except the subject and filer per this. إيان and Nehushtani, no more responding to anyone but admins working here who ask you a question. No further additional words will be granted except to answer questions from admins. Any uninvolved admin should feel free to adjust this. Valereee (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who wants to ask a question about this, do it at talk and ping me. Valereee (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All right, as best I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't need either of these editors at Jerusalem Day. I propose an indef p-block of both from that article, allowing them to continue to discuss at the article talk. I will wait for other admins to chime in. Valereee (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlookyNapsta, this discussion is participation restricted, please see my statement above with link. Valereee (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies, إيان is not restricted, nor is Nehushtani, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people#AE_participation_may_be_restricted_by_an_administrator. Filer and subject aren't restricted.

Is there any reason you commented in your own section rather than in the results section? Do you feel you're involved here? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies, oh, sorry, I thought (and another editor asked me about it my talk) you were saying you objected to the participation restriction, not the proposed pblock! Valereee (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to other admins working here: see above that Drmies is commenting as an uninvolved admin objecting to the pblock for إيان. I'm assuming comments outside of the results section by uninvolved admins aren't excluded by the participation restriction. Valereee (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nehushtani, I am confused by diff 7 in point 1. It wants to go to Marshall Plan and Jerusalem Day, which isn't an article, and clicking to the article history takes me to Marshall Plan, which إيان doesn't seem to have edited? Not sure how you're making your diffs, but maybe check out User:Enterprisey/diff-permalink. Valereee (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nehushtani, yes, you can reply to Drmies, as they're an uninvolved admin who mentioned you (and thanks for asking first, this exact situation wasn't something I'd thought of. In future I'd make it "uninvolved admins" rather than "admins working here".) Valereee (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[I've moved my comments from the "other editors" section to the "uninvolved administrators" section: I am uninvolved, after all, and AE matters need resolution. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)][reply]

I'm only looking at items 1 and 2 now. The charge of edit warring on Jerusalem Day is--well it's not even weak. Nehushtani has "edit warred" as much as the other editor has, meaning, meh, this isn't edit warring. The charge in 2. is more exciting, because Nehushtani argues that the editor has been disrupting the regular process--yet when I look at the discussion I see inane comments like "According to this logic, we should mention antisemitic chants in the leads of articles about pro-Palestinian eve...". But the "logic" was that it was well covered, extensively covered, in this article. So إيان says "UNDUE"--and this is predictably followed by "you're UNDUE". "False equivalence" says Butterscotch Beluga, and they are correct, but Nehushtani pushes this argument for Land Day as well, as if all those things are equal. If anyone is stonewalling, it's them, and that's what this AE request seems to be about as well: tying up editors with vexatious procedures. I may still have a look at the other items but if 1 and 2 are the strongest ones, then it's clear to me that if anything, Nehushtani might well deserve a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I hate disagreeing with you, but I'm sorry--I do. I see no reason to restrict إيان . Drmies (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, you proposed p-blocking them from Jerusalem Day, didn't you? I disagree with that. As to your other question--no, I'm not INVOLVED in any sense, it's an area in which I rarely edit (I wish I knew more languages), but since my ArbCom period I've sort of lost track of how all these arbitration procedures work, so I prefer to be on this side of the fence in many cases, unless they're pretty straightforward. (Honestly I don't know how so many people are able to navigate these arbitration waters--my ship has sailed.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nehushtani, in my opinion the other editor's action in that article did not amount to edit warring in any meaningful sense, and if a hammer is to be brought down on those edits, that applies to yours just as much. Edit warring is a two-way street. The false equivalence I and others signaled on the talk page is a bit more than, what did you call it--a side step? A brief digression--but such digressions easily become disruptive, and that's what happened here: you were in fact using another example as an argument for this article, and so other editors had to go look at that, respond to it, etc. You said it was about content: no, it was derailing and stonewalling, and this AE request, it's hard not to see it as a means to get an editor out of the way. Yes, I think the project would benefit from a partial block on Jerusalem Day and its talk page for you, with a warning to not extend such lines of arguing elsewhere. And one more note for User:إيان : I chastised your opponent for saying "you're UNDUE", but I urge you to use more words, to respond/criticize in complete sentences with a bit more decorum, as unnecessary as this may seem to you. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Newslinger, you asked about SYNTH--what I see is indeed a case of synthesis for which إيان was rapped on the fingers and apologized. To me, that's enough. It rather seems like the filer was pulling in as many complaints as they could. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nehushtani: In the future, would you please list the diffs one by one, with each diff in a separate list item? It would be easier for all participants to refer to the number of the list item than to link to the diff itself. — Newslinger talk 00:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The activity on the Jerusalem Day article does constitute edit warring, but I count three reverts from Nehushtani (07:05, 16 November 2025; 07:18, 17 November 2025; and 06:34, 23 November 2025) and two reverts from إيان (‎09:00, 23 November 2025; 04:13, 25 November 2025). Nehushtani's first revert is not considered edit warring, but that leaves two instances of edit warring for each editor, which means that any sanction tied specifically to the edit warring should be applied evenly to both editors. In my opinion, Valereee's proposed partial block for both editors and Drmies's decision to disregard the edit warring are both reasonable outcomes for the edit warring. Please remember that revert rules are "not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times".
I do not believe the diffs of the discussion on Talk:Jerusalem Day are actionable. إيان's activity on Talk:Six-Day War does constitute bludgeoning, and warrants a reminder or warning; although "Editors [are] limited to 1,000 words per formal discussion" within this contentious topic, this word limit is also not an entitlement and you could have raised the same points with far fewer comments. The claimed violations of WP:SYNTH may be actionable, but the first comment in Talk:Jordana Cutler § SYNTH-y mess also invokes WP:BIASED ("reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective"), which makes the argument unclear. — Newslinger talk 00:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have had a chance to take a closer look at Talk:Jordana Cutler § SYNTH-y mess. (~~Regarding Arcticocean's comment below, I did not say that it was out of scope, but~~ I had not fully examined it at the time of my previous comment.) Longhornsg's comment in the article talk page discussion objects to three sentences that were in the Jordana Cutler article. After reviewing the nine sources cited for these sentences, I can confirm that the first two sentences contained improper synthesis. The third sentence could be considered extraneous detail about a different subject (WP:COATRACK), despite being adjacent to content directly related to Cutler that cited the same source.
  Addressing Nehushtani's point #5, the first diff labeled "23 November 2025" mistakenly links to [13], but refers to the user talk page discussion at Special:Permalink/1323804486 § November 2025. At Special:Diff/1306408783/1323583115, إيان inserted content about Canary Mission on the Jewish Federations of North America article, which is a second instance of WP:COATRACK. As Arcticocean mentioned below, إيان's 09:43, 31 October 2025, edit to the Jordana Cutler article failed verification, as there is a distinction between the Ministry of Strategic Affairs receiving intelligence briefs based on surveillance and the ministry conducting surveillance. When considered in addition to the edit warring and the prior logged warning in the topic area, these incidents form a persistent pattern of issues that lead me to support an indefinite topic ban of إيان from the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic. Alternatively, because 40.48% of إيان's edits in the past year (in tracked namespaces) were within WP:CT/A-I, I would also support the balanced editing restriction as a lesser restriction, if there is consensus that إيان "has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive". — Newslinger talk 01:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Arcticocean: My apologies for the misreading. I have corrected my comment. — Newslinger talk 15:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Longhornsg: Your claim "I've had to remove more than 5,300 characters, one-third of the total article, from a BLP because of SYNTH violations" is misleading because 2,101 of those characters were a citation template for an academic publication that did not need to be removed from the Jordana Cutler article. — Newslinger talk 00:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is actionable misconduct in this request for enforcement. Dealing with the allegations in turn: 1.) The chant-related edits amounted to edit warring. These breaches were particularly serious in view of the attempts at discussion ongoing on the talk page. 2.) I agree with the filer's characterisation: the talk page comments were significantly inaccurate as descriptions of Nehushtani's earlier comments. While that may have been a legitimate misunderstanding, the user doubled down when corrected. WP:DR#Discuss with the other party is Wikipedia policy and is incompatible with this sort of approach to discussions. 3.) If this crosses into the territory of bludgeoning, it does so only briefly and I don't consider it actionable. 4.) There are two allegations here, neither actionable. The comments at the RM do not cross into bludgeoning. The Gaza genocide talk page comments do not do so either, not even remotely. 5.) Contrary to what the user said above, the Jordana Cutler edits are within the scope of this complaint. WP:OR is a content policy but there is also a conduct expectation that users make proper use of reliable sources. Responding to this allegation's inclusion in this complaint (the relevant paragraph begins with The SYNTH accusation), the user demonstrated a concerning tendency towards WP:IDHT. As the user has admitted that the edit violated policy, I do not think we require to look behind the allegation. For completeness, I did review the Nation source and found it lacked any support for the article's assertion that the MSA itself surveils overseas protesters.
In view of all this, while I support at minimum the p-block proposal above, I would go further and support a topic ban of the user, based upon allegations 1, 2 and 5. I do not think that the proposed WP:BOOMERANG sanction for the filing user is necessary, but I would not oppose should others feel it appropriate. Arcticocean ■ 12:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger: "Contrary to what the user said above" refers to إيان (and their comment linked in the sentence immediately after), not you. You may wish to reword "I did not say". Arcticocean ■ 12:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Newslinger! Arcticocean ■ 19:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this portion of my comment, as I don't think it quite fits the situation, given the talk discussion (though it wasn't concluded during the reverts). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An initial bold addition and then revert are, obviously, not violative of WP:EW or WP:ONUS. But once you summarily reinstate your bold edit, you are (as a general matter in circumstances like these) shrugging off your onus and indicating that you would like to resolve the dispute not by discussion but by force of will: let's see who will give up first. Then by repeating their revert of the bold edit, the other editor is accepting that challenge (that is, the edit war).

That is especially so in a highly contentious topic like this, especially where 1RR has been imposed. In a contentious topic, editors "must edit carefully ... and ... comply with all applicable policies" (including EW and ONUS) or they can be sanctioned at the discretion of an admin.

To make the sanction fit the offense, I would impose revert restrictions on both editors: Do not reinstate your bold additions without consensus and do not repeat your reverts without consensus (both applicable to PIA and subject to the usual exceptions). As an initial matter I would impose this restriction for, say, 90 days.

If there is a need to remove them from Jerusalem Day, I would strongly prefer a page ban to a pblock (especially an indefinite one that could only be lifted via CT-restricted appeals), since a block is much more of a scarlet letter (due to, e.g., fairly common use of the markblocked gadget by prolific/extended-confirmed editors) and since there isn't reason to believe these editors wouldn't comply with a page ban. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a bespoke page ban rather than a pblock. Valereee (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has stalled after being open for over three weeks. From the comments, it appears that not everyone in this section has addressed the claims about WP:SYNTH. Valereee, Drmies, and SilverLocust, would you like to take a look at this to help reach a consensus here? — Newslinger talk 13:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger, sorry, I've had limited time this week. The SYNTH to me seems like something إيان does in fact need to learn, and that by 13K edits they should have learned. I'm not sure it's something that needs to be dealt with here and now other than to let them know that this is a competence issue. Valereee (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closing without action. The complaints about edit warring are tainted by virtue of one of the participants being a compromised account. The complaint about SYNTH has been resolved with إيان committing to do better, and since there has been no report of continued violations we can take them at their word. As this thread has been open for over a month with no administrator taking action, it is appropriate to close this and deal with future issues as they arise. إيان, please review the feedback presented here and make the appropriate adjustments to your editing habits. – bradv 18:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ShoBDin

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

Request concerning ShoBDin

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

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA5

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

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

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

Some diffs/edit summaries:

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

Conduct issues

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

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

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

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

Additional notes

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of AE discussion

Discussion concerning ShoBDin

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

Statement by ShoBDin

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

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

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

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

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

Statement by Smallangryplanet

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

Though unrelated to WP:PIA, they've continued to promote their newly created articles, in this case, Barry J. Brock sexual misconduct allegations, in the "See also" sections of questionably related/appropriate articles [14][15][16][17] - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ShoBDin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hogshine

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

Request concerning Hogshine

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

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Sanctions on ACAS topics.

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

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

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

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

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

6/12 tag-teaming for consensus’'

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

11/10-25 Warned by admin Asilvering

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

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

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

On Michael the Syrian talkpage he mentions ACAS several times.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1

Discussion concerning Hogshine

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

Statement by Hogshine

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

This is the third complaint by Historynerd361 against me. It's sounding more and more personal. [19][20] Almost all was addressed in 2nd ANI.

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

HN was found "Possible" in two SPIs to a now-banned sock/meat network.[21]. Canvassed twice by the main puppetmaster [22] [23]. Substantial contribution to puppetmaster's draft which brought on this whole ordeal (Draft:Aramean people), only second to Wlaak. HN voted in accordance with other now-banned puppets in this Redirect discussion [24]. Same type of edits as puppets i.e. changing/removing any mention of "Assyrians", including wikilinks to Assyrian people, plus edited a number of similar pages that involve ACAS topics, the same pages at times. [truncated 47 diffs]
777network displays similar if not more meatpuppet-esque behavior; I can provide diffs if requested.

Accusing user:777network of: ″using ChatGPT to write articles which they demonstrably did, hence the false citations (other evidence aside).
closed ANI case and your past edits So did a LLM also write this for you, or was it a different person?
contributions... are minimal If you spend as much time building this encyclopedia as posting complaints & removing thousands of my bits [25], I wouldn't say it.
response was to argue semantics This accusation has been thoroughly addressed but you keep bringing it up. It is abundantly clear, from the links you posted, that the accusation was baseless. On that same page/discussion, 777network was repeatedly told to undo their contentious edit &‌ establish consensus in talk pages, to which they ignored.
backhanded uncollegial remarks Same user threatened me and called me a shit talker. [26]
An ANI‌ was posted against HN by a different user (to which he ignored, despite being reminded twice [27][28]) about his gaming-like edits to his Draft:Beth Aramaye. Please see the draft's history.

HN is unable to point to where I violated my warning despite mentioning it several times. In fact, he himself violated his own [29]

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

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

@777network, I will not stop the allegations until you stop committing them. You've been informed of this before [30]. I stand by everything I said about your disruptive behavior, and I'm under no obligation to stop no matter how many times you order me to as long a you're continuously doing it.
No, I did not call you a shit talker. I said I was tired of this shit talking I'll let that absurd statement speak for itself.
You even implied that the admin @Asilvering gave me permission to threaten you No, I pointed out that you called me a shit-talker and Asilvering said nothing about it in their reply to you. Please don't make things up just to make me look bad.

In that same discussion you keep quoting, you were repeatedly told to undo your edits & make talk page discussions [31]. You did not, and in fact reverted me [32]. ~ Hogshine (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Newslinger Please further note that 777network edited & published Draft:Aramaization of Assyria by User:Devi van velden, a banned meatpuppet (article was deleted once before for copyvio). How could they possibly have found it?
Additionally, they reinserted nearly identical edits from DVV and DavidKaf in Michael the Syrian: [33][34][35][36][37]. Sorry for going over limit. ~ Hogshine (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 777network

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[@Hogshine:] Just like you did on the ANI, here too you are proving the points we have presented ([38][39]). You do not stop the allegations. If there is a genuine concern that we are sockpuppets, file an SPI. If you genuinely think I have threatened you, file a complaint. If you genuinely think we have tag teamed to manufacture consensus, file a complaint. Do not run around numerous talk pages and topics accusing us of these things.

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

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

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

Reply to Newslinger, moved to correct section

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

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

Thank you for extending my word limit, @Newslinger.

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

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

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

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hogshine

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

Hogshine, there is a max of 20 diffs. You've provided 57. Please trim that down to the 20 that will be most helpful to responding admins. -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hogshine: A "possible" SPI result does not justify making allegations of sockpuppetry in content discussions. Since there was insufficient evidence to take action against 777network in the SPI, please do not continue accusing 777network of sockpuppetry unless you are doing so in a new case at WP:SPI with new compelling evidence. If you have evidence that 777network is engaging in other types of misconduct in the WP:GS/ACAS contentious topic, you can file a new enforcement request on this noticeboard. (777network's conduct is out of scope in this request, except to the extent necessary to determine whether Hogshine's comments were appropriate.) — Newslinger talk 13:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, it may be easier to waive the two-editor scope requirement and expand the scope of this AE request to also include 777network. asilvering, what do you think? — Newslinger talk 13:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Newslinger, I think that's probably fair and I don't think it would result in a filing much more complicated than what is already here. -- asilvering (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hogshine's primary reply's avoided addressing the new allegations of personal attacks and incivility, instead spending significant effort re-litigating a prior, closed ANI case and your past edits, which demonstrates a failure to constructively engage with the dispute resolution process. reads like LLM output, especially as it's referring to Historynerd's edits as "your edits". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Historynerd361, Hogshine, and 777network: As all of you have exhausted your word limits, and the continued discussion has been unhelpful for evaluating this enforcement request, please do not make any further comments here except to answer a direct question from an uninvolved administrator in this section. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was approached by an editor about an article 777network had expanded that I eventually deleted at copyright problems (Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2025 November 2), but I believe I'm uninvolved here. At this point everyone needs a break from the topic area; the sheer amount of arguing and accusations I saw on Asilvering's talk page was more than enough when I was reviewing the copyright matter. Enough is enough. I recommend topic bans at this point. Sennecaster (Chat) 07:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish that Historynerd361 appears to be posting LLM-generated comments in talk page discussions without disclosure. The most obvious example is Historynerd361's comment at 13:07, 27 November 2025, in Talk:Jacob of Edessa § New edits, which not only has signs of being copied-and-pasted, but also included the hallucinated claim: "According to WP:P and WP:PROD, well sourced content should not be removed without a policy-based reason." WP:P redirects to Wikipedia:Portal, and WP:PROD redirects to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, neither of which are remotely relevant to the discussion. After Hogshine noted the error, Historynerd361 deleted "and WP:PROD" from their comment at 22:57, 29 November 2025, without disclosing the deletion as required by WP:REDACT. "According to WP:P" still remains in the comment as of now.
Historynerd361's first piece of evidence is a link to Hogshine's comment at 06:07, 30 November 2025; Historynerd361 pointed out a number of accusations Hogshine made about Historynerd361 (which I intend to take a closer look at later), but omitted that Hogshine said to Historynerd361 in the same comment, "This is what happens when LLM writes your articles for you". The LLM accusation was in response to Historynerd361's comment at 22:56, 29 November 2025, which stated that the content in the Jacob of Edessa article that was deleted in Hogshine's revert at 06:42, 27 November 2025, was supported by excerpts from the source "Syriac and Syrians in the Later Roman Empire: Questions of Identity" (specifically, pages 157–158), as published in The Syriac World by Daniel King. However, the actual citation in the article at the time was pages 157–158 of The Syriac World: In Search of a Forgotten Christianity by Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet and Muriel Debié. The incorrect citation was originally added by 777network at 13:45, 1 November 2025. It is strange that Historynerd361 did not notice the erroneous citation that 777network had added, and instead made an argument referring to the source that 777network had intended to cite. Historynerd361 and 777network provided their reasons for the mistake at 12:33 and 14:56 on 1 December 2025, respectively, but this irregularity warrants further examination.
Based solely on Historynerd361's undisclosed use of LLM-generated comments to advance a point of view in the contentious topic, I support an indefinite topic ban of Historynerd361 from WP:GS/ACAS. Alternatively, I also support an indefinite block for Historynerd361, with Historynerd361 being advised that a credible unblock request from Historynerd361 would be more likely to be accepted if Historynerd361 agrees to the following unblock conditions: an indefinite topic ban from WP:GS/ACAS, and a prohibition on using large language models to edit Wikipedia.
I intend to share comments focused on Hogshine and 777network after some additional review. — Newslinger talk 22:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hogshine frequently fails to focus on content during content disputes on talk pages such as Talk:Michael the Syrian and Talk:Jacob of Edessa, and often makes conduct accusations without adequate substantiation in the discussion, which constitutes casting aspersions. Even if the conduct accusations were true, they must be properly supported by evidence, and they should ideally be presented in a venue that is specifically intended for resolving conduct disputes. It is a violation of the civility policy to tell another editor "Your contributions to this project are minimal" in a content dispute, as Hogshine said to Historynerd361 at 06:07, 30 November 2025, or "If you're going to get emotional with every single disagreement, maybe this place isn't for you", as Hogshine said to 777network at 10:11, 14 November 2025.
  It was also unconstructive for Hogshine to argue that Historynerd36 and 777network were "gaming the system to rack up edit counts" in content disputes at 06:07, 30 November 2025, and 05:15–05:17, 12 November 2025, respectively, because the conduct complaints were unrelated to the article talk page discussions they were posted in, despite being plausible or true. Historynerd361 did make 26 unconstructive edits in rapid succession to Draft:Beth Aramaye after being warned for violating the extended confirmed restriction (ECR) in WP:GS/KURD (with their deletion of links to the Assyrian people article from 32 articles about Turkish areas), although Historynerd36 claimed in the ANI discussion that they were trying to add a WikiProject template to Draft:Beth Aramaye. A week before that, 777network did make approximately 70 unconstructive date format changes (e.g. to "December 31th, 2011") after being warned for violating ECR in WP:GS/KURD for removing a link to the Assyrian people article (and other instances of the word "Assyrian"/"Assyrians") from the article Dereiçi, Savur (another Turkish area) at ~~23:24, 10 November 2025~~ 16:17, 30 October 2025.
  I am going to pause right here because, at this point, I have seen enough behavioral evidence to believe that Historynerd361 and 777network are engaging in off-wiki coordination (i.e. meatpuppetry). Considering the findings here alongside the behavioral evidence in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wlaak/Archive, as well as 777network's unsuccessful attempt on Wikimedia Commons to restore the version of the File:Flag of the Syriac-Aramaic People.svg image that had previously been reinstated by DavidKaf (talk · contribs), who Wlaak (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of, I would group Historynerd361 and 777network with DavidKaf/Wlaak. While Hogshine should receive some type of sanction to curtail his uncivil comments, I support an indefinite block for both Historynerd361 and 777network. — Newslinger talk 19:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC); edited 22:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @777network: Your word limit has been extended to 1,014 words, which provides you with 400 words to address my comments. If you would like to request a larger word limit, please say so. — Newslinger talk 20:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Corrected diff in comment. Courtesy ping to 777network. — Newslinger talk 22:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - @777network: Could you please post the most essential parts of your response (up to 400 words), and then post the remainder in a collapsed format by surrounding it with {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} tags? — Newslinger talk 18:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Newslinger, just reminding you that the collapse was done as asked. -- asilvering (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that 777network's edit to the Dereiçi, Savur, article at 16:17, 30 October 2025, is not within the scope of WP:GS/KURD, but that is not central to my point. Here, the similarity between 777network and Historynerd361 is how both users made mass edits after they were warned about violating WP:ECR in WP:GS/KURD, regardless of whether the warning was correct. 777network's edits appeared to be made in a hurry: 777network demonstrated knowledge of the correct forms of ordinal numbers in English by using "July 31st", "21st August", "23rd March", and "December 23rd", yet still made other edits with the incorrect forms "December 23th" and "December 31th".
    In his collapsed comment, Hogshine notes that 777network added a paragraph to the Michael the Syrian article beginning with "Michael the Syrian states that he belongs to the race or nation (umṭo) of the Arameans [...] the preservation of this language demonstrated the historical continuity of the Syrians." at 12:29, 1 November 2025, with the edit summary "Added more information / sources". The same paragraph with identical citation templates had previously been added to the article by DavidKaf (17 September) and added twice by DavidKaf's sockpuppet Devi van velden (12 September, 22 September). Note that DavidKaf's block for sockpuppetry (via Wlaak) expired on 20 December, but DavidKaf is still subject to the indefinite topic ban issued to Wlaak on 14 May. — Newslinger talk 18:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In summary, my recommendations:
  - Historynerd361
    - For undisclosed LLM use to advance a point of view in WP:GS/ACAS, an indefinite sitewide block (for which an appeal would be more likely to be accepted with two unblock conditions: a prohibition on using an LLM to edit Wikipedia, and an indefinite topic ban from WP:GS/ACAS)
    - For apparent off-wiki coordination, an indefinite sitewide block or an indefinite topic ban from WP:GS/ACAS
  - Hogshine
    - For making irrelevant or inadequately substantiated negative comments about the conduct of other editors on article talk pages, one of the following: a logged warning, a one-week sitewide block, or an indefinite topic ban from posting comments on article talk pages within the scope of WP:GS/ACAS about the conduct of other editors
  - 777network
    - For apparent off-wiki coordination, an indefinite sitewide block or an indefinite topic ban from WP:GS/ACAS
- This is a panel discussion, so I would like to hear from other reviewing administrators, especially on whether all of the information here is sufficient to establish a finding of off-wiki coordination involving Historynerd361 and 777network. Another option to consider is expanding asilvering's warnings of Hogshine, Historynerd361, and 777network logged in WP:GS/ACAS § Individual sanctions to topic bans from changing and/or discussing changes to identity words under the scope of WP:GS/ACAS, such as "Assyrian", "Chaldean", "Aramean" and "Syriac". — Newslinger talk 18:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Sennecaster, your previous comment was supportive of tbans for all, but Newslinger has some more granular sanctions suggested here, what do you think? @ScottishFinnishRadish, any thoughts?
  
  As for myself, for the past while I've been encouraging these editors to file at AE so they can have someone other than me handling this, so I'd prefer to just stick to an advisory role here. With that in mind, I would warn against changing those logged warnings about changes to identity words to tbans from doing so. From my experience following up on those warnings, I still think they were a useful first step, but I think the tban would be messy to enforce with these editors in particular and would come close to being a tban from the entire topic anyway. For what it's worth, I previously gave a warning that was in effect a time-limited topic ban of this nature to Wlaak and Surayeproject3, and both editors handled it well. Regarding off-wiki co-ordination, it's been my position since the first Wlaak SPI that there is obviously canvassing going on in consensus discussions like AfDs. No comment on whether these two editors, specifically, are improperly co-ordinating their efforts. -- asilvering (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Indef Historynerd361 for the LLM usage (I don't know if that can be an AE action, but I think that could probably be done as an individual admin action with the unblock condition being set by the Unblocks admins? If they commit to not using LLMs I think they could definitely be a productive editor outside of ACAS). Give 777network and Historynerd361 topic bans from WP:GS/ACAS.
  
  Hogshine's incivility has been an ongoing issue for longer than these diffs show - they are fundamentally unable to talk about issues other editors have without serious unsubstantiated claims, incivility, or repeatedly trying to persuade asilvering that something was a violation of the logged warning that they handed out earlier. (Edit: also, like every other one I've come across, this edit is wholly AI-generated. [40]) (You have twice already broken the rule to which you tried framing me for, [41]) (everything at User talk:Asilvering/Archive 27#Another vio). I'm not sure what the right solution is here between the ones you've proposed, Newslinger, but at the very least, I don't think Hogshine is capable of interacting with anyone that isn't on "their side", whatever it may be, in a productive manner. They were told almost two months ago to change their approach to ACAS, and they haven't. The chances of them acting like they have in what Newslinger has found and what I have seen on asilvering's talk page to someone fresh coming into ACAS is pretty high it seems. At the very least, if they're not topic banned here, at the next instance of incivility they're either getting a block or a topic ban to go see if they can be collaborative in less heated topic areas. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:46, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I didn't look into this in much detail, I just wanted to provide my weather eye on the LLM issue ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323

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

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

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

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

Request concerning Iskandar323

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA5

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

2 September 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Iskandar323

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

Statement by Iskandar323

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Cdjp1

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

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

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

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

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

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

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

Statement by TarnishedPath

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

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

Statement by Nehushtani

Dome of the Rock has the ARBPIA template. I don't know why the talk page does not, but if the article is restricted, so is the talk page. I would have expected the editor to more diligent in checking that considering that they had just finished a site block for similar violations.
Regarding 2025 Bondi Beach shooting, British police announced following the shooting that they will arrest protestors who chant "globalise the intifada", a chant against Israel used at pro-Palestinian rallies [42]. The connection is not only only that Jews and Israeli were tageted by Islamists, but governments around the world recognise the connection between the attack and pro-Palestinian protests. How could this be interpreted as being unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict?
In addition to the above violations, on 15 December 2025 they removed a phrase that appears in 1988 Hamas charter (to quote from that article "The 1988 Hamas charter proclaims that jihad against Jews is required until Judgement Day."). In their edit summary, they cited "marginal sourcing" from Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust museum.
17 December 2025 - They violated WP:CIVIL.
They wrote to me in an edit summary on 4 December 2025 "please consider yourself disinvited from my talk page". This violates WP:CIVIL and/or WP:BATTLE.
Iskandar323 says above in their statement that "I'm also not sure why they have posted a litany of items from before my latest block, which obviously were known about and factored in at the time of that block." But the pattern shown here is very disturbing. The user had multiple TBAN violations, and following a block for those violations, they continue with the same behavior. Multiple warnings and a temporary site block have not detered them from violating their TBAN over and over again. I see no alternative to an indef CBAN. Nehushtani (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

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

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

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

Statement by The Kip

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

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

Statement by Levivich

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Iskandar323

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

No comment on the actual issue (I will do so when I have time to study it) but I am going to make the observation that a scan of this page appears to suggest a number of editors with relatively low edit-count are still trying to weaponise AE as a tool against their ideological opponents; there are now three sections with the same people doing this over and over again, and the filing editor here (1,074 edits) appears to be one of those. And call it ABF, but I can't help thinking that there may be some sort of off-wiki collaboration occurring here. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kip Yes, I acknowledge that, but I am also always understandably wary when new-ish/low-editcount accounts start peppering AE with requests that their "opponents" be banned, especially when there are multiple editors involved. In such cases I generally start looking to see if those accounts are net positives in the CTOP area; I haven't had a chance to do this yet, but I will when I get a moment (which probably won't be today, unfortunately). Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Black Kite, any chance you've had a moment to look at the reporting accounts yet? -- asilvering (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, I was looking at BlookyNapsta's odd swerve into ARBPIA after a few years of non-contentious gnoming, but that seems to have been answered. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- And, further, I'm always unimpressed with the "TLDR of diffs" approach trying to throw multiple items at the walls and seeing if one of them will stick. The thing I notice straight away is that all but the last four diffs predate Iskandar323's last block for violating their topic ban, so why are they there? I mean, it would actually be easier to leave them out if you wanted admins to analyse the ones that actually matter. Black Kite (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- So - Diff 12 doesn't claim to be a violation, it's just "context". Same with Diff 15. So this boils down to a simple thing with Diffs 13 and 14 - are Dome of the Rock or 2025 Bondi Beach shooting covered by ARBPIA? I think we can discard 2025 Bondi Beach shooting - it's covered by ISIL, but again the talkpage has no mention of ARBPIA, and I think it's a stretch given that the gunmen were of Indian extraction. So that leaves Dome of the Rock - I actually wouldn't have been surprised if it was covered, and the protection says it is, but it's never had a talkpage ARBPIA notice as far as I can see. Further, Iskandar did not edit the article, they left a message on the TP which wasn't even tangentally related to ARBPIA. So I guess this is technically a breach, but I'd say it's the weakest one possible. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I have a few days before I am an arb. Missing from this report is part of the interaction between Iskandar323 and Levivich (talk · contribs) where they both nakedly violate their topic bans the other day. [43] There is also a pattern of editing in the history of Judaism just outside of the topic ban where no one edit is a giant problem, but together they show an Israel-Palestine related POV being pushed ([44][45][46][47][48][49][50]). I recommend sending this packet of issues to ARCA because we can't fully adjudicate everything here. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're 14 comments in, of which only 2 of which are from uninvolved administrators, and I don't think having lots of uninvolved, un-namedropped editors chiming in with opinions will be useful, especially given the sheer size of the other PIA threads that were active recently. I'm invoking AE participation restriction here to hopefully make it go smoother, even if this does ultimately end up at ARCA. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed the CT notice on the talk page of Dome of the Rock - I'm honestly tempted to say close without action on the diffs here. The TBAN violation is plausibly missable, although having wikiproject importance ratings for both Israel and Palestine means that it's not almost definitely missable. Looking at the substance of the comment itself, I concur with Black Kite on their thinking that the comment doesn't talk about ARBPIA. @Guerillero, we're probably fine to kick over the potential TBAN violation you've mentioned to ~~you in a week or so~~ ARCA. I agree with you that AE would struggle to adjudicate everything going on here. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of sending anything to ARCA, I'd suggest that this report be closed since the filer has been globally locked as a compromised account. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing WP:ANI § BlookyNapsta and AFD participation, I concur that this filing should be closed with no action. The account used to submit this filing, which has since been globally locked, was compromised at the time of filing and its illegitimate edits should be disregarded. Any editor with standing may incorporate the information here into a future filing on this noticeboard or at WP:ARCA, with the understanding that any edits that resulted in prior sanctions might be discounted or disregarded in a request for future sanctions. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avidanalyst

Page protected by Firefangledfeathers. – bradv 17:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Avidanalyst

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TryKid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia

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

Edit warring: On the "December 2025 Bangladesh violence" article"; three reverts to add back a tag:
1. 19:07 20 December
2. 19:12 20 December
3. 20:50 20 December
4. They were then warned (21:40 20 December) on their talk page.
5. But on 4:00 21 December, they add the tag back a fourth time.
Edit warring: On the "2025 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence" article:
Misrepresentation of sources: 20:45 21 December, they make a false claim about the sources, and double down when asked about it on talk: 16:08 22 December.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): 2:01 20 December

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Avidanalyst been making edits in the contentious Bangladesh politics subject area right from the very first edit, including controversial 1:37 20 December page moves that lead to the article being move protected. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]; @CoffeeCrumbs: I don't think the whole of CT/SA is under ECR, only Indian military history and caste are. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:34, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]; @Avidanalyst seems unusually familiar with Wikipedia jargon and my talk page history from a year ago for someone who just joined two months ago. It's possible they have had a previous undisclosed account and/or there's some sockpuppetry going on. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notified

Discussion concerning Avidanalyst

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 Avidanalyst

The dispute is concerning the inclusion of an infobox that was inaccurate and contained false information, including false number of deaths and an unsourced list of perpetrators, along with irrelevant content out of the scope of the article. I have explained these concerns multiple times over the article's talk page [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. However, instead of addressing these concerns, TryKid (along with Jībanmṛta) repeatedly reinstated the contentious infobox without any consensus, which also appears to be obvious violations of WP:BLPCRIME, [56], [57], [58]. The accusation of misrepresentation of source in this report is quite visibly false given the lack of any proper evidence or explanation, which makes it a violation of WP:NPA.

While I'm willing to assume good faith and dismiss this report as TryKid's inability to either understand my posts on the talk page or wikipedia's policies in general, I'm more inclined to perceive the report as part of a long pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior as multiple editors have noted before,[59], [60], [61] [62]. However, instead of working on his conducts, TryKid's response has been to ignore the suggestions and continue the same problematic behaviour. An editor has also noted TryKid's inadequate grasp on English language and a reluctance to "check on evidence when presented", which suggests a possible WP:CIR issue. This makes this report a strong case for a WP:BOOMERANG. Avidanalyst (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my above statement has not been adequate enough to explain my edits. I thought the diffs I have shown above of my posts at the article's talkpage were self-explanatory. Furthermore, this report itself lacked proper explanation about the problems in my edits, something that I also notice in Gotitbro's statement as well, which lacks any diffs or mention any specific misconduct. At this point, the only non-minor edit I made to the article after this report's filing, was to add in-line tags to the article, which is something that even TryKid didn't mind. I also couldn't understand Gotitbro's comment on my lack of engagement since I have already shown diffs of my talkpage posts above and continued to engage even after this report, [63]. Avidanalyst (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @TryKid: I did use some temporary accounts before and also after creating this account as I sometimes forgot to log in. I don't remember their serial numbers. I came across your past misconducts by skimming through your talkpage history to see if you have been warned before since your behavior didn't seem to be a random misconduct but a continuation of it. Avidanalyst (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gotitbro

Concerning that Avidanalyst continues to EW at 2025 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence than engage in discussion (even after this AE), further hightened by the fact that the statement above addresses none of their own conduct. Interesting that a recent account can handily cite relatively obscure P&G such as BOOMERANG, CIR, BATTLEGROUND etc. despite barely any edits beyond those related to the July Revolution (Bangladesh) topic. The problem with Bangladesh-related articles amid the recent unrest appears to be much more larger (this AE and the problem was first brought to my attention here) and there is a reason the recent CT/SA sanctions were enacted to cover the country (and South Asia), the conduct/behaviour shown before and after the AE appears to squarely fall under it. Gotitbro (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

This seems an over-complicated filing that could be dealt with rather simply instead of taking a great deal of AE's time. I see this as topic as clearly part of WP:CT/SA which would mean that Avidanalyst has no business editing (except for uncontroversial edit requests) anything related to this topic until they have extended-confirmed rights. As far as I can tell, every single edit made by this editor post-warning is about this topic area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TryKid it was expanded in the arbitration hearing, to include social groups, which explicity includes (and not limited to) castes, and political parties, and broadly construed. I think sectarian political/religious group violence easily fits under this umbrella. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Bushranger

@CoffeeCrumbs: Based on my recent ARCA question on if elections fall under the 'political parties' part of SASG/GSCASTE broadly construed, and the consensus of the arbitrators being 'no', I'd believe that this also does not fall under SASG/GSCASTE broadly construed, but am of course open to being contradicted by the arbs! Note that Avidanalyist has an ANI thread open on this subject. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Avidanalyst

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

I've EC protected the article, added an article editnotice and talk page notice referring to SASG, and dropped a note at the talk page to emphasize that this is covered by ECR in SASG. I think it's clear that there are enough difference between this major dispute between social groups and the routine election pages Bushranger asked ArbCom about. Avidanalyst, you are now technically prevented from editing the article, and you should not discuss this topic further except here (watch your word count) and in uncontroversial edit requests at the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StopRejectingMyUsername

StopRejectingMyUsername is warned to not make any edits regarding restricted topic areas until they have gained sufficient experience in other areas and meet the requirements. (Not logged as this is a standard restriction.) – bradv 16:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning StopRejectingMyUsername

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: StopRejectingMyUsername (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:ARBPIA

WP:ARBECR vios, and not really listening to warnings to stop.

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

25 Nov 2024 Earliest diff of SRMU editing in the PIA topic area without WP:XC permission. this triggers a user to welcome them and put the PIA alert explaining not to edit before 500 edits. Note, this is a year ago, perhaps user forgot.
15 November 2025 14 November 2025 1 December 2025 1 December 2025 14 November 2025 Clear PIA vios, all edits in the topic area before 500 edits, all in articles that were tangentially involved in topic area. SRMU jumps directly into part of article that is covered by the restriction. A few users appear to have placed warnings for SRMU (see below), on their talk page. I gave last.
23 December 2025 A edit about a conspiracy theory around a Palestinian being accused of the 2025 Brown University shooting, and this inserted text One of Neves Valente's victims, MIT professor Nuno Loureiro, was also wrongly identified by Maguire as Jewish and a supporter of Israel.

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)

Multiple users have given warnings not to edit in the topic area at this point:

25 November 2024 Alert/first is given for that first diff a year ago
17 November 2025 Admin explains clearly a restriction that applies to all content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You may make any edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except to make formal edit requests. That includes a prohibition on general talk page conversation.
12 December 2025 I make the last warning. Arguably could have made a full subsection instead of commenting underneath that alert/first. Note that the last diff in evidence is after my warning.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

don't know if Wikipedia:IGNORANCE can be plead, but some of these vios are possibly borderline. the three warnings feels excessive enough anyone would have reported by now, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluethricecreamman (talk • contribs)

In general, statement by SRMU suggests WP:IGNORANCE could be plead. I do still believe the brown university edit is probably gaming towards the ctop area, but acknowledge that one could argue these edits were not in the topic area. a simple admin warning only as an outcome of this report could be an acceptable outcome.
personally, I feel some of these earlier edits before warning are definitely PIA vios, though the one after my warning, on brown university shooting, feels like gray area, after further reflection. would like admin clarification myself if the edits fall into topic area, or if this AE report was overkill. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[64]]

Discussion concerning StopRejectingMyUsername

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 StopRejectingMyUsername

StopRejectingMyUsername's statement contains 770 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

Please note that at no point is the quality or even tone of the editing I did on the Brown University shooting entry questioned. Everything I wrote in the paragraph highlighted by the user above reflects exactly what the numerous sources I cited say happened. A Palestinian student was the target of false accusations possibly over his ethnicity (as his lawyers have argued), and one of the accusers falsely presented one of the Brown University shooter's victims as Jewish and a supporter of Israel. Is writing this enough to drag me here and demand punishment? Neither the article nor the Talk Page gives any indication that they are under ARBPIA. In an arbitration case created a few days before, and which we can still read on this page as of this moment, several users note not even the article about the Bondi Beach shooting is covered by ARBPIA. How could anyone possibly assume that the entry on the Brown University shooting, further removed as it is from the geopolitics of the Middle East, is part of these restrictions?

I don't know if this is enough to defend myself; but I had to get out of bed at 2 AM to respond to the case presented above, and at the moment it's the best I can do. I've already created several pages about violence and fake news originating from the far-right in other countries, such as Brazil and France, and except for one time, when one of my articles cited the first name of an alleged murderer who has not yet been convicted, none of the content I produced was deemed inappropriate by anyone (and that flaw has long since been remedied). My interest in the ordeal of the Palestinian student is a natural continuation of my previous forays into political topics, which never resulted in any warnings. This case doesn't even involve any geopolitical actor, such as the Israeli government, so it seems even more excessive to say that ARBPIA applies here and to want to punish me for what I wrote.

Dear @Asilvering: As an editor who is neither very old nor extremely assiduous in editing here, I had no way of knowing that Christiane Amanpour's page, or part of it, was covered by ARBPIA. For me at first, under ARBPIA were pages directly related to the conflict, and I had no way of knowing that the page of an American journalist who is neither of Palestinian nor Jewish descent, and is not otherwise closely associated with the conflict, would be subject to the restriction. This only became clear to me after Bluethricecreamman first alerted me. After that, I didn't engage in any similar edits. He opened this request over a very different edit, one which has no direct relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since the Palestinian student who was defamed for involvement in the Brown University shooting is a civilian on American soil, and the people who defamed him are also American civilians and do not hold any official position on behalf of Israel or registered groups sympathetic to it. They were American civilians or residents operating on their own initiative and without direct or official involvement in the conflict. After Bluethricecreamman gave me his first warning, I haven't made any more problematic edits in this area, nor, as far as I know, any other. If the Bondi Beach shooting isn't under ARBPIA, neither is the Brown University shooting, at least not as far as a common editor might suspect. StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Valereee: Aware as I am that I am violating response length restrictions, I hope the moderators will show me a little more tolerance so that I can explain myself a bit more. Christiane Amanpour is an American journalist who is neither of Palestinian nor Jewish descent. Furthermore, she is not strongly associated with either side of the conflict, seeing as, as pointed out in the edit summary you draw attention to, she has also made highly publicized comments that have upset Palestinian advocates. And in fact, as a mainstream journalist, she must strive for an image of impartiality that prevents this type of association. It was therefore not obvious to me then that her page, or those of people with this profile, could be covered by ARBPIA. The way things work on Wikipedia is not always obvious to editors who are not very experienced or very assiduous in making changes here. As someone who arrived here in 2024 and has been editing Wikipedia at a rate of less than once a day, it takes some trial and error to understand certain things here. StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Kip

This edit is identical to the one linked below by asilvering, and actually happened before that one, meaning they actually committed multiple XC violations. At least in my view, the edit summary also has a sprinkle of WP:RGW, which needless to say does not generally vibe well with the ARBPIA area. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning StopRejectingMyUsername

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

StopRejectingMyUsername, this one is very obviously a PIA restriction violation, and it doesn't have anything to do with the Brown shooting. Can you comment on this, please? -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@StopRejectingMyUsername, I've reverted your response to The Kip because it took you way over the word limit. It is not necessary that you respond to everyone. If you'd like to respond to The Kip, you're welcome to use parts from the page history, but please keep it within the limit and please respond in your own section. -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@StopRejectingMyUsername, it seems to me that you have misunderstood how CTOPs work, and you think that whether an article is in a CTOP or not is a) a property of the article itself and b) the thing that restricts your participation in the topic. But it's the topic that is a CTOP. You cannot engage with the topic in any way until you are extended-confirmed. For the purposes of your editing and your general talk page participation, the Arab-Israeli conflict does not exist. -- asilvering (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
StopRejectingMyUsername, your edit removed statements about Israeli shooting victims with an edit summary of Where's the controversy about her dismissive attitude towards Palestinian journalists, which earned her criticism even in peer-reviewed academic journals? You had removed the same content the previous day with an edit summary of These were not major events or controversies — they're here because of Wikipedia's tendency to over-record grievances from Israelis and their supporters. I'm having a hard time reconciling that with your statement here that I had no way of knowing [this would be] covered by ARBPIA. I feel like you literally connected it to PIA yourself. Valereee (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@StopRejectingMyUsername, the extra words are generally fine when replying to workers here, but I'll specifically okay them. Okay, I'll take the edits at Amanpour as a misunderstanding on the part of a very new editor. Your restriction against PIA means you can't make edits anywhere, including in PIA-related areas of otherwise-unrelated topics. So, for instance, you can't edit the section of Falafel that is about the political implications. Literally the only place you can approach PIA is in this kind of discussion right here, or on your own talk page with an administrator you're asking for advice. You absolutely can edit at Amanpour (or Falafel), as long as you stay away from PIA-related edits. Valereee (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which leads me to my irregularly scheduled public service announcement: Very new editors and contentious topics are a terrible mix. Go learn policy in places where the experienced editors have patience for helping newbies learn. In contentious topics they just don't have any patience. Valereee (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Har1MAS1415

No action. – bradv 16:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Har1MAS1415

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Har1MAS1415 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons

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

18:34, 15 March 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a random person's video on Youtube as a reference
18:42, 15 March 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a random person's video on Youtube as a reference
00:26, 16 March 2025 Amends content at a BLP using a forum post as a reference
13:48, 16 March 2025 Adds forum posts as references at a BLP
14:33, 17 March 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a random person's video on Youtube as a reference
12:58, 18 March 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a random person's Facebook post as a reference
18:40, 18 March 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a forum post as a reference
18:22, 16 April 2025 Dismisses objections to using forum posts as a reference (see entire thread also)
18:24, 16 April 2025 Dismisses objections to using Youtube videos as a reference (see entire thread also)
21:49, 17 September 2025 Adds a forum post as a reference to a BLP
16:08, 16 September 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a forum post as a reference
15:53, 16 September 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a forum post as a reference
11:45, 10 November 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a forum post as a reference
19:37, 10 November 2025 Adds a forum post as a reference to a BLP, claiming These people wouldn't say these things if they were making it up.
16:01, 27 December 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a random person's Facebook post as a reference
16:20, 27 December 2025 Adds a random person's Youtube video (of them unboxing a plastic model kit!!) as a reference to a BLP
19:36, 27 December 2025 Adds a forum post as a reference to a BLP
19:45, 27 December 2025 Adds a forum post as a reference to a BLP

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

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

Notified at 19:47, 10 November 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I could have added a lot more earlier diffs starting with them originally adding constantly unreferenced content before continuing to add lots and lots of badly referenced content, but figured a few examples would be sufficient especially with the 20 diff limit in mind.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Har1MAS1415

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 Har1MAS1415

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Har1MAS1415

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

While these sources are clearly inappropriate per WP:BLPRS, the claims being cited aren't particularly controversial or damaging, so this is not a matter for AE. I would recommend bringing this to WP:ANI instead, where other editors can help with the cleanup and offer relevant editing advice. Closing without action. – bradv 16:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afus199620

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

Request concerning Afus199620

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: Afus199620 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Final_decision

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

15:47, 3 January 2025 Creates article on German Businesswoman Nicole Junkermann, with a section solely dedicated to highlighting her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, sourced to a conspiracy book (see [65] [66] for details)
22:38, 21 January 2025 Adds content from said conspiracy book that serves as serious BLP-violating innuendo towards the subject.
15:44, 24 December 2025 Restores Epstein-related content to the article despite reasonable objection on BLP grounds
10:55, 30 December 2025 Admits to making the article to highlight the subject's relationship with Epstein, stating that The fact that a person with connections to Jeffrey Epstein (which go deeper than described here) has access to sensitive data in the British healthcare system should be in the public interest.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None that I am aware of.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

16:22, 30 December 2025

Discussion concerning Afus199620

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

Statement by Afus199620

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Afus199620

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

The edit Afus199620 restored was challenged on grounds of being poorly sourced. WP:BLPRESTORE is imperative to follow, and as the material was already challenged once, the revert was improper. I am also not impressed by the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS justification presented here as to why they believe Junkermann should have a section on an alleged connection to Jeffery Epstein. The two articles mentioned have extensive sourcing to reliable sources, which the section in Junkermann did not have. Afus's AFD comment is particularly of relevance for me for this thread, as this occurred after the discussion at BLPN and repeated challenges from multiple other editors on its inclusion. I'll wait for other admins to chime in, as I'm not sure what exactly should be done here, but at minimum I'm seeing multiple parts of the BLP policy being violated with just a few comments (not understanding WP:BLPRS, WP:BLPSPS, WP:BALANCE). Sennecaster (Chat) 21:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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