Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Michael Jackson	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	01 Jun 2026	15 Jun 2026

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Maghreb	28 April 2026
SchroCat	4 May 2026

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Indian military history	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2026

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a direct violation report of an editor who has violated a restriction directly imposed by the Arbitration Committee.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget and this report may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Clarification request: Indian military history

Initiated by Jéské Couriano at 19:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Indian military history arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Jéské Couriano

This is a fairly simple request, based on some potential ambiguity: Do Pakistani/Afghani tribes fall under WP:ARBIMH#Caste-related topics in South Asia extended-confirmed restriction? I ask because there is an article at WP:RFPP/D (Sudhan) which was protected before the scope was amended and is about a Pakistani tribe; the requestor isn't XC (though I would not consider this to be, practically speaking, a breach). Given asilvering's comment here, I want to be doubly sure I'm not reading too much into this.

Statement by The Bushranger

• @Izno: I think the question is best framed as "do 'tribes' = 'castes'". I can see arguments either way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Cadddr: At that point, it would basically be right back to the old 'South Asian Social Groups' scope, undoing the recent narrowing, so I would suspect 'keep it narrow' is probably the preferred outcome here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by slakr

So I probably kinda-sorta caused this with this RFPP reduction decline re: Sudhan, but I wanted to note that specifically in this instance it looks like ECP was applied not simply due to it being a south-asian social group but because of disruption/socks. I think everyone involved was eventually blocked, including even the RFPP requester. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 00:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Cadddr

Possibly relevant context: We very recently recently reached a consensus at WP:VPP to semi-protect and PC-protect a whole bunch of articles related to ethnicity in Afghanistan. There's some interesting data and discussion there about the level of disruption that ethnicity-related Afghanistan articles get. (The comment that Izno linked below was a response to an earlier attempt to get ECP on that same set of articles.)

I don't have any particular opinion about whether tribes should be included. But if it were decided that they should, I think it would be best for that to be an explicit amendment to WP:CT/CASTE, not just a clarification. It would also lead to more questions. Would "tribes" in an Indian context (Adivasis or Scheduled Tribes) and a Bangladeshi context (ethnic minorities or Adivasis) count? Would all groups described as "ethnic groups" count? For simplicity, I'm guessing it would be best to either keep it narrow like it is now (just castes) or make it much broader (castes, tribal groups, and ethnic groups). Cadddr (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Yes, as I think about it more, I think keeping it narrow would probably be better. Cadddr (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike: I think Meitei people is actually a good example of why "castes or tribes" would be confusing. The page Meitei people describes them as an "ethnic group" and doesn't contain the word "tribe". Apparently the Indian government considered but decided against designating them a Scheduled Tribe. The page Adivasi says this:

However, not all autonomous northeastern groups are considered tribals; for instance, the Tibeto-Burman-speaking Meitei of Manipur were once tribal but, having been settled for many centuries, are caste Hindus.

("Caste Hindu" means anyone who doesn't fall "outside of the caste system". People of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not generally considered caste Hindus.)

To further complicate things, Meitei people in Bangladesh are considered one of the ethnic minorities in Bangladesh, which are apparently sort of the equivalent of India's "Scheduled Tribes".

It's worth noting that the line between "castes" and "tribes" can be blurry too (see the third paragraph of Adivasi#Issue and politics). Though my guess is that it wouldn't be too much of an issue for Wikipedia's purposes.

In the case of India, the government has enumerated lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, so if we chose to just follow that, it would make it easier to distinguish each of these terms. But I'm concerned about whether we would be able to distinguish between "tribes" and "ethnicities" in Pakistan and Afghanistan. (I know more about India than the other countries.) Cadddr (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, I just thought of another concern with including "tribes." In an Indian context (not sure about the other countries), not everyone is part of a "tribe." Saying "topics related to tribes" in India wouldn't be analogous to "topics related to caste"; it would be more like "topics related to Dalits". It would arguably make articles relating to Adivasi communities harder to edit than articles about other communities. Cadddr (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I asked about this recently. See Wikipedia_talk:Contentious_topics/South_Asia#Scheduled_Tribes_of_India. My interest is limited to being able to easily decide whether a talk page should or should not have a ct talk page template with an sasg decision code so that the page is included in Category:Wikipedia pages subject to the extended confirmed restriction. That categorization is the only way the Gaming Check tool can see whether accounts with newly and rapidly acquired extendedconfirmed grants suddenly leap into a South Asia related ECR zone. Visibility into the SA topic area is very limited compared to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area from an ECR perspective, so I have been trying to template pages. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

You can see the current state in this graph with the Scheduled_Tribes_of_India category selected. Orange circles are templated talk pages, gray are untemplated talk pages. The slightly larger gray circles are talk pages for subcats (and the red/blue things are unprotected/EC protected non-talk pages). If I need to go back and remove the sasg decision codes from the tribes pages that's okay. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Toadspike

The community recently reached consensus (VPP thread, AN thread) to pending changes and semi-protect several hundred pages in this area (exact list in Special:Diff/1351190521), including semi-protection for what appears to be all ethnicities in Afghanistan. This is fairly convincing evidence that there is persistent disruption in this topic area and, speaking for myself, I would appreciate keeping the ECR around. Though Arbs may be tempted to take this consensus for protection as evidence the community is able to handle this issue itself, it is in fact the opposite: Admins and the broader community are ill-placed to respond to disruption in an area most of us are very unfamiliar with and bad changes stay undetected and unreverted for years. Toadspike [Talk] 19:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

While I am no expert on the history writ large, I think wording like Topics related to castes or tribes in South Asia would fit the bill. Somewhat predictably, articles like Meitei people (not protected, but the last several dozen edits are mostly reverts/reverted) and Kuki people (repeatedly protected even before it was ECP'd under GS/CASTE) are contentious despite not being castes. (I originally had "ethnicities" in there as well, but was pleasantly surprised by the lower level of disruption in articles I checked.) Toadspike [Talk] 19:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr Thanks for catching my mistake and clarifying everything. I see no clean solution here... Toadspike [Talk] 22:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by QEDK

Castes and tribes are both social groups but explicitly said, "castes" != "tribes" and in most cases, they may or may not be dissimilar social groups (basically a simple Venn diagram). That said, assuming "castes" to be broadly construed (which they are), I'd say tribes should be implicitly covered to be part of the scope. My two cents. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

Are tribes castes HouseBlaster The Bushranger? No, castes are social groups and tribes are territorial communities. That said, there is considerable overlap; see Adivasi#Issue and politics. Sometimes the question of whether a particular community is a caste or a tribe comes down to perception (self-perception and outside perception). SilverLocust, yes, but most often in Pakistan/Afghanistan-related topics, where the tribe is more important than the caste in the social sphere. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Indian military history: Clerk notes

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

Indian military history: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I mean. Izno (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• I think The Bushranger's comment is correct—the real question is are tribes castes, or at least close enough to be covered by "broadly construed". And I don't think they are inherently covered, though I'd welcome comments from editors more familiar with the history. someone who is more familiar with the history.

  That being said, it looks like the protection which spurred this request was labelled as an arbitration enforcement action, so regardless of what we say here, it would need to go through WP:CTOPAPPEALS to be modified. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
• Are articles in this topic (South Asian tribes, not castes) most often subject to hierarchy-/class-based disruption? That would influence whether I think the topic is covered as "broadly construed" (or should be). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 19:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
• I would say this is in the fuzzy edges, but falls under broadly construed. If that doesn't end up being the consensus view, there's still Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history#Extension of extended-confirmed restriction (limited duration) which would let AE set this as ECR for up to a year. If that happens and it proves constructive then it could be made permanent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• While acknowledging that there are some blurry edges, no, tribes are not castes (though the Scheduled Tribes of India apply, I'd say). So edits about tribes of Afghanistan are not ECR. But that doesn't mean that an admin can't ECP a tribe-related article to counter disruption there. -- asilvering (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement

This page is used to report:

• conduct that violates an Arbitration Committee decision
• misconduct in a contentious topic (CTOP) requiring user or page restrictions (including community-designated contentious topics)
• violations of restrictions imposed under the CTOP procedure or community-imposed general sanctions (GS)

Appeals of user and page restrictions imposed under the CTOP or GS procedures may also be submitted here. Any other problems, including content disagreements, should be directed to other forums in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Before participating here, please note:

• Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests.
• Comments must address only the conduct of the user being reported or the filer. Enforcement against other users must be requested by creating a separate AE report (unless an uninvolved administrator has given permission).
• Statements may be made only in individual sections and are limited to 500 words and 20 diffs. Extensions can be requested on the talk page.
• Administrators have broad discretion in moderating AE threads to enforce behavioral and procedural requirements. They may, among other things, shorten, collapse, or remove comments; restrict participation in a section; and issue blocks to prevent disruptive participation.

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A few reminders:

• Even if behavior described in an enforcement request is not restricted by ArbCom, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Contentious topic restrictions and enforcement measures should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and maintain its efficiency; use administrative discretion where necessary.
• More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure they 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 after at least 24 hours (up to a week).
• If a dispute is too difficult to resolve at AE or the report regards administrator conduct, consider referring the case to ARCA.
• 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 list sanctions in the arbitration enforcement log.

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

• File an enforcement request
• File an appeal
• Quick enforcement requests
• Check your word count
• Request a word extension

Quick enforcement requests

ECP for Bint Jbeil

Protected by The Bushranger. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Bint Jbeil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Because the Battle of Bint Jbeil (2026) is extremely recent (and ongoing, according to the Wikipedia page), most of the recent edits to Bint Jbeil have been related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and fall under WP:CT/A-I's extended confirmed restriction. So I think it should have ECP, at least for the foreseeable future. Cadddr (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Apologies for the "missing ping", I managed to completely miss that this was a request about the village page and not the battle's the first time. More coffee for me, and as reputedly the village was destroyed in the conflict, ECP applied indefinitely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

No worries, thanks! Cadddr (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:LOUTSOCKING by GLORIARUSSIYA

Blocked 2 weeks by The Bushranger. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• GLORIARUSSIYA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• ~2026-16974-91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The TA is currently blocked as an AE action for violating ECR in RUS-UKR topic area. Based on their edits, its obvious that GLORIARUSSIYA has been using the TA to LOUTSOCK, and is now logged back in to bypass the TAs block. See , in which GR swaps between accounts, and see also the replies on behalf of the TA on their talk page . nil ^nz 05:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

And now Special:Diff/1353761089 speaks for itself. nil ^nz 05:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not "bypassing" the block, I am appealing the block if you could read, and an Administrator has already been called to address the issue here. Doing this is only going to add yourself into this discussion. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I hereby petition to ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nil_NZ for 2 weeks as they are now directly interfering with an open investigation as well as accusing me of "LOUTSOCKING" when I have just opened a "SOCKPUPPET" investigation into someone other than me who was using more than 2 accounts maliciously! Maybe you should read before you ASSUME! GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

"This was my revision

“Undid revision 1351977290 by ~2026-16974-91(talk) - NEVER delete other people's comments without giving a reason

This is a phase of the broader Russo-Ukrainian war. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The phase ended in 2022. The war didn't, but this specific phase did. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Then why isn't this page in the Russo-Ukraine war page or vice versa? Almost like that's why I posted a thread. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The article says the conflict is “subsumed” but also that it ended in 2022. Thank you for acknowledging that there is a hypocritical stance on this article! ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I further petition that the reverter of this edit face a similar ban, as I edited my own comment. GLORIARUSSIYA will reply to this comment to confirm the ban of this wiki editor to ensure fairness across the board for all of Wikipedia’s policies. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes I edited my own comment, something needs to be done about the obviously Pro-Ukrainian bias as this violates the "neutral point of view policy". Therefore, I petition further that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:R0paire-wiki be banned for violation of this policy and reverting my own edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_in_Donbas done on my behalf by ~2026-16974-91 without permission or discussion from me. Further, this creates an environment of attack which it says should not be propagated by users.

Further, I suggest that a "Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry" investigation be done into some of the accounts listed above and review their edits; besides this discussion and this edit I have not utilized multiple accounts as it should not be done unless absolutely necessary according to Wikipedia's policies. Nevertheless, an unnecessary ban by rogue moderators or otherwise would certainly fall in this category. However, coordination of edits and suppression of others' ideas by multiple accounts IS a violation of Wikipedia's policies. So, it is my opinion that an investigation needs to be conducted to review possible further potential violations to these aims. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)" GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. GLORIARUSSIYA is also not extended confirmed and is also not allowed to edit the WP:RUSUKR topic area - note that both the named account and the TA have gone well beyond constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area in their talk page comments. User(s) blocked: GLORIARUSSIYA (talk · contribs). for the same time period as the TA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Request word count restriction for AP2 RfC

750-word limit per participant in this discussion placed. Valereee (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• American Communist Party (2024) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An RfC was recently started about high-level descriptions of the party's ideology. A few previously-engaged editors have been dominating the conversation with large walls of text and relevant questions about sources are being missed in the sprawl. This seems like somewhere that a word count would be very helpful for focusing the conversation. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Valereee (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Standard CT/A-I remedies for List of people from Palestine (historical region)

Page protected as a standard remedy. Valereee (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• List of people from Palestine (historical region) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page was just created as the result of a split from List of Palestinians, which has long been a conflict area within WP:CT/A-I. I'm requesting that ECP be applied and a quick thumbs-up for the placement of the talk page template declaring that the page falls within the contentious topic area. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 12:31, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

ECP applied, and . Valereee (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response Valereee. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 13:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing something here that can be accomplished quickly! :D Valereee (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Wish the same could be said for resolving the dispute that led to the split..⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 13:16, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe the split will help resolve it. Valereee (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Haha, take a look at the talk page....⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, my. Well, maybe it'll at least divide up the focus of the arguments. Valereee (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Freekeh

VolantCrow (talk · contribs) has twice deleted material at Freekeh and is ignoring that the section in question probably falls under contentious topics restrictions. He knows about them, but when asked to aelf-revert has refused. Tiamut (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

User warned, page Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. Only part of the article falls under PIA but this is, alas, not its first rodeo. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Manasludamase

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 Manasludamase

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

InfernoHues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Manasludamase (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

1. April 18 "Hey dont talk like uneducated," "Read carefully instead of making your iwn imagination theories."
2. April 18 "its sad when you ignore the reliable source and behave like kids just to forcefully win."
3. April 23 "now we know who really modifying our history. its people like you offcourse," "We know ehat you trying to do ....we know it better."
4. April 23 "Because of hates, you can not modify others history and origin."
5. April 24 "i am not racisist but you cant put this information on kirat page what i think about them....
6. April 24 "You are just making your own views and editing the page," "thats shows your bad faith as a editor."
7. May 7 who you being baised? why you traying to play with our original history and culture?" - added after initial report

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)

• I placed a contentious topics introduction template on their talk page in this diff.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor constantly casts aspersions against me. I'd suggest reading the entire conversation that the diffs above are linked from. They've been consistently trying to get a specific point into the article for a long time, see their edit requests in this archive: Talk:Bahun/Archives/2025/September.

(new comment) I took a look at their earlier edits and they were nearly all just adding the Bahun caste to articles without a source. I don't know if anything can be done as they weren't warned or anything at the time, but I thought it was worth mentioning. InfernoHues (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Manasludamase

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 Manasludamase

  Manasludamase's statement contains 378 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

No i havent edited anything but i have submitted a edit request to editors. just edit request not edit. am i not allowed to submit a edit request for the wrong information? please let me know. Manasludamase (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC) (moved from Results section; please don't comment outside of your section voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC))

• Hello Everyone. First of all i am just a common user who can not edit but apply an edit request to the editors like you guys. I have seen many many pages in the wiki where they are not providing reliable sources and they have information based on nothing. i can understand practically its almost impossible. But by tons of edits articles are improving. all we / i want is - bahun article page in the wiki should be corrected. I have provided many sources. it is very serious because bahun is one of the major community in Nepal. it is about our origin, history and culture. in wiki one page has totally correct infomation and other page has totally diffent infomation about the same community? i have told him about that too. but he says wiki itsself is not reliable source. its okay i found so many others ..he says no. i provided many. but he put some lines based on his personal beliefs. i found that wrong. i appologies for my words as those came from emotion and anger bcz its aboytt whole community not me. i did not know much how wiki works? still foes not know much. all i know as a user is - if there is a wrong info in the page i can request an edit and provide infomation. my purpose is pure. again at the same time wiki noone should be allowed to put personal beliefs in the wiki. please accept it this is very wrong and at the last i apologies for my part of mistakes. Now team please tell us how and when that bahun page should be corrected? what else should i do? i m not a wiki guy just a farmer suoper busy farmer ....thats why i really do not get much time ...lets work on the solution to correct infomation ...thats the only pure purpose of mine thank you everyone for correcting me Manasludamase (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Manasludamase

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

• InfernoHues, first, I'd like to commend you on your near-saintly patience. Second, it looks like Manasludamase may have had some kind of epiphany in their most recent post (may be i need to learn a lot about wiki.), so my initial response is "oh my god, nobody touch anything". But everything that came before is, uh, quite bad, so, standing by... -- asilvering (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe we can close with a logged warning? I agree that they seem to finally be understanding what a reliable source is and that InfernalHues is not out to get them, but it might still be helpful to clearly state that their earlier behavior was unacceptable. Toadspike [Talk] 09:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'd kind of like to get a response from Manasludamase so I know they at least know this is here and/or they're being warned, but I see they haven't edited. Maybe give it a few more days? +1 on your patience and willingness to sincerely engage with a problematic new editor, IH. Valereee (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Manasludamase, I see you've started editing again. Would you please come in here and discuss this? Valereee (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Manasludamase, making an edit request counts as having started editing again. The reason I was saying I wanted to wait to get a response from you is that you'd stopped editing for several days, and I didn't want us to make a decision here if you were busy in real life and hadn't even seen that a case had been filed. Please read this entire section (starting at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Manasludamase and respond to the diffs listed in the subsection that is headed Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy. Please reply in your own section, which is headed Statement by Manasludamase. Please try to be brief, you are restricted to 500 words unless you specifically ask for more. Valereee (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Manasludamase: This is a noticeboard where we are discussing what to do about your problematic attacks against other editors. At this point, my colleagues and I are considering issuing a warning against you. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
• It seems like Manasludamase edits at a fairly infrequent rate - they come on, do a burst of editing, and then log off for at least a week. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm thinking maybe a pblock from article and article talk space to try to get this editor's attention? Valereee (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Asilvering@Sennecaster@Valereee@Voorts Manasludamase has now posted above. They acknowledge that their previous behavior was poor (i appologies for my words as those came from emotion and anger bcz its aboytt whole community not me.; ... and at the last i apologies for my part of mistakes). However, this statement also contains a further aspersion against InfernalHues (he put some lines based on his personal beliefs). Manasludamase's editing since this request was filed has been minimal; the only clear issue is this , but it seems they were unaware of this filing at that point.

  I think at a minimum we leave a logged warning about civility explicitly stating that any further personal attacks will result in a topic ban. The other option is to go straight to a caste tban. I am sympathetic to their perspective as a new editor seeing information about their social group which they believe to be false, and thus favor the lesser sanction (a logged warning), but I'd like at least a second opinion. Toadspike [Talk] 16:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not really sure a logged warning or TBAN will accomplish much. Their response to this seems to indicate that they don't really understand what's happening here. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Warning: Perhaps. TBAN: If violated, would lead to a block. While I'm certain they don't fully understand what this page, with the simple and transparent title of "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement", is for, neither do most editors. My goal is to stop the personal attacks, which does not require them to understand what's happening here. If you would instead prefer a block for personal attacks, you're welcome to propose that, though it would feel odd to do that so long after they occurred. Toadspike [Talk] 20:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Toadspike, I'm with voorts, in that I don't think Manasludamase understands things like "he put some lines based on his personal beliefs" to be aspersions, so a warning won't do much. But at the same time, I think that's the correct outcome here. ECR is keeping mainspace free of disruption now that we've ECP'd the relevant articles. If things continue as they were before, with a warning already logged, the next admin to see it will consider a block, and that's as it should be.

  @Manasludamase, please keep in mind that everyone here is trying to build the best possible encyclopedia. No one is trying to keep errors in articles or censor information or anything like that. People will be happy to accept your changes so long as they come from reliable, published sources, and otherwise will not accept them. That's all. -- asilvering (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

TarnishedPath & Sean.hoyland

Request concerning TarnishedPath & Sean.hoyland

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Samuelshraga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Users against whom enforcement is requested

TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sean.hoyland (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:CT/PIA/WP:CT/GENSEX

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

TarnishedPath and Sean.hoyland have been active in conduct cases involving M.Bitton, defending them and using process against M.Bitton's accusers:

1. 6.3.2025 Sean.hoyland accuses me of "targeting" M.Bitton for filing at ANI.
2. 8.3.2025 When M.Bitton was blocked last year for bludgeoning and personal attacks, TarnishedPath used a purported joe job as a reason to call for a CU of all M.Bitton's perceived enemies.
3. 21.2.2026 Sean.hoyland insinuates without evidence that M.Bitton's accuser at an ANI was coordinating on Reddit. Twice. By coordinate I mean organize, plot, conspire.
4. 26.2.2026 TarnishedPath responded to ANI complaint against M.Bitton's faction by asking for a checkuser against the filer in the ANI thread.
5. 26.6.2026 Sean.hoyland says that the accusation that M.Bitton is a nationalist POV-pusher is the kind of thing people can read on social media written by agenda driven partisan actors whose value systems do not align with Wikipedia's. Arbs cited the same evidence for Pushing a pro-Arab–Algerian point of view.
6. 2.3.2026 TP denies that M.Bitton/Skitash/R3YBOl are a faction and said that the suggestion was WP:ABF. Arbs cited the same evidence and wrote this FoF.
7. 19.4.2026 TarnishedPath responds to AE filing against M.Bitton entirely by attacking the filer and other editors.
8. 22.4.2026 Sean.hoyland: no comment on M.Bitton's behaviour, but makes space to imply a witch-hunt: they are relentlessly targeted and will continue to be targeted until they are either topic banned or blocked.
9. 26.4.26 TP accused someone of WP:GRAVEDANCING for an innocuous good faith question about the implications of M.Bitton's ban.
10. 26.4.26 TarnishedPath reports someone who had given evidence against them at AE and been subject to M.Bitton's pattern of personal attacks, gaslighting and incivility, and has contributed at AE report of M.Bitton. Much of the reported behaviour is in response to or about M.Bitton. TP says it's a violation to imply that M.Bitton is a troll.
11. 10.3.2025 When M.Bitton/their allies were suspected of sockpuppetry, TarnishedPath described all discussion of it as innuendo that shouldn't be discussed outside SPI.
12. 30.4.2026 Sean.hoyland openly WP:ABF because I asked to comment on TarnishedPath's conduct.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

TarnishedPath:

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 18.10.2024 (see the system log linked to above).
• Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 26.04.2026.

Sean.hoyland:

• Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 22.4.2026

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

  Samuelshraga's statement contains 1149 words and complies with the 1150-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 1150 words.

This complaint is about WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, specifically do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process. Enabling M.Bitton, even as they did huge damage to the project, is partly why WP:ARBMAG had to happen.

I think this issue can be resolved with a warning. I'm sure these editors value their participation in the project. If they're warned, they'll know that this behaviour will be scrutinised if it should continue.

Since Sean.hoyland has expressed concern that this filing will be brigaded by enablers of misconduct (diff 12), I'd request AEPR be invoked. Samuelshraga (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Wow, just more of the same from TarnishedPath. It's all about my behaviour, not at about theirs. I didn't even accuse them of conspiracy. Samuelshraga (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see they retracted. My last comment was in reference to . Samuelshraga (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I've just seen "If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each, unless AE admins waive this rule." My apologies admins for missing this. Will you agree to waive? If not I'll separate them but most of the diffs talk about the same behaviour in the same places from both users. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Black Kite: The CTs are related to the editing relationship between these editors and M.Bitton. M.Bitton and TarnishedPath are the two most prolific contributors to Talk:Imane Khelif where they have been aligned on the content. This was brought up after the ARBMAG PD. (e.g. ) Samuelshraga (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@SuperPianoMan9167 thanks, fixed.

@Black Kite I don't know why I should bring evidence of POV alignment? POV alignment is not disruption. And is anyone suggesting that M.Bitton and TarnishedPath have opposing POVs at their pages of greatest overlap?

I'm saying that the editors whom I've reported sought to protect a source of major and longstanding disruption to the project, by denying obvious evidence of it, and by throwing insinuations and aspersions at anyone who had the temerity to point out what they didn't want acknowledged. I think that's forming a faction, whether or not it's done explicitly. It's certainly disruptive if users can't report blatant misconduct without getting backlash from enablers of that misconduct. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, that may have come across as snippy. On POV alignment: at the recent RfC at Talk:Imane Khelif:

• TarnishedPath commented 18 times
• M.Bitton commented 60 times
• They both !voted oppose (the consensus was ultimately a qualified support).

Both have similarly been heavily involved at Talk:Zionism (at least until M.Bitton's ban) in the discussions leading up to and including the current RfC on the "settler-colonial" line, again both supporting the same point of view.

Could the word counter template please be added? I may need to request extensions for further replies. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

To clarify - diff 10 doesn't dispute TarnishedPath's accusation of Wh1pla5h99's incivility (I agreed with that there). It's about defending M.Bitton's behaviour, and about the ARBMAG-esque tactic of reporting users in disputes with M.Bitton, where M.Bitton was no less guilty. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Rosguill, are you saying "organising a faction" requires explicit collusion? I think:

a) it's possible to make a faction without explicitly communicating;

b) the problem is with factional behaviour anyway, rather than any off-wiki communication that we can't know about. Focusing on the latter creates an artificial and bureaucratic barrier to describing an observable problem.

My complaint describes factional behaviour, not factional organisation: editors regularly defending each other's misconduct and attacking people who legitimately raise that misconduct.

On the diffs, each individual diff is not presented as sanctionable misconduct in isolation, but to try and portray the relationship with M.Bitton, as well as the tendentiousness involved (e.g. 2, 4 & 11 together).

I don't understand how you can read diff(s) 3 that way; what do you think Sean.hoyland was doing? Making small talk? I read it as an accusation that Bananakingler was acting out a sub-reddit's anti-M.Bitton/Skitash agenda. If evidence to that effect was submitted to arbcom, I'm sure that they might have mentioned it in their FoF.

On diff 10, you imply that I'm accusing the whole filing of being frivolous - I said the opposite. My report focuses on the filing's relationship to M.Bitton, which has nothing to do with Wh1pla5h99's incivility. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Rosguill On diff 10, the issue is tendentiousness. theleekycauldron wrote of M.Bitton's style of incivility: Enough that the recipient will very much take offense but not enough that an admin would know what he's doing just by looking at that comment in isolation. TarnishedPath looked at the filing against M.Bitton knowing the full context of their Talk:Zionism behaviour and commented to defend them, then reported the recipient of a heavy dose of M.Bitton's invidious style - including for responses in-kind to M.Bitton.

And TarnishedPath wrote: Responds WP:DENY to another editor, thus labelling them a troll. TarnishedPath was trying, same as diffs 9 & 11, to problematise normal responses to M.Bitton misconduct. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill Last time I quibble with you on this, but diffs 3 (invoking reddit out of the blue) is not "bad form". If I were to respond to participation in conduct forums by TarnishedPath and/or Sean.hoyland by saying "What do you know about places pro-Palestine editors co-ordinate, such as discord/Tech4Palestine?", and I had no evidence that either of them were involved in such activity, it would be an aspersion and WP:ABF. Regardless of other evidence I submit about such forums existing. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

asilvering look who was edit warring first and worst. Additionally, . Samuelshraga (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Sean.hoyland
• TarnishedPath

Discussion concerning TarnishedPath & Sean.hoyland

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 TarnishedPath

  TarnishedPath's statement contains 484 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

In their filing Samuelshraga quotes a part of WP:BATTLE: do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process and presumably all of their diffs are presented in support of that allegation. Not a single diff presented shows evidence of Sean or me organising a faction. This filing is demonstrably lacking and one can only arrive at the conclusion that it is retaliatory for my having the gall to report Wh1pla5h99 (Samuelshraga even presents a diff of that filing, so it's not any sort of a leap to draw that conclusion). I'm going to take this discussion off my watchlist. If any administrators have any specific questions about any diffs, please ping me. In the meantime, I plan on getting back to building an encyclopaedia.
Cheers,
TarnishedPath^talk 09:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill, if the proposed user conduct discussion topic ban is based off Riposte97's comments, I believe some clarification is needed. The claim I use this board as a first resort and that my filings concern normal editing disagreements rather than rule violations is inaccurate. The discussions linked by them show that I have generally provided links to user and article talk discussions which occurred prior to filings. In the one or two cases I didn't, a search of the editor and article's talk histories will show such discussions. Additionally my filings have resulted in action being taken in almost all of the cases, with editors often being indeffed, TBAN'd or receiving warnings. TarnishedPath^talk 05:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill, just a quick comment so that you know that I'm not ignoring you. I've got a fairly full day with children's classes (gymnastics, etc). I'll reply later on tonight (it's 8:48am here currently). TarnishedPath^talk 22:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill and other admins, looking back I can see that my conduct could easily be seen as BATTLE, particularly where I joined conduct filings and defended M.Bitton despite not being aware of the full scope of their editing, especially in the Maghreb topic area. I have also at times acted in an accusatory manner towards other editors and made assumptions about their motives. I should not have conducted myself in that manner.

Going forward, I will exercise greater restraint in conduct and article talk discussions, particularly where there may be a perception of POV alignment, and will focus on direct, policy-focused evidence while keeping my comments narrow and free of speculation about motives.

As discussed by SFR, they banned me from the topic area for a period of three months, that was in relation to pointy stonewalling in a discussion. Again, I should not have allowed myself to act in that manner. As I wrote on my talk page after SFR sanctioned me, I allowed myself to get worked up by this filing and article talk discussions, and I made assumptions about the motives of others. I should have turned the computer off for the night rather than editing when I was in a foul mood. I will not act in that manner again. TarnishedPath^talk 09:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

  Sean.hoyland's statement contains 734 words and complies with the 900-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 900 words.

I would like to add the following to Samuelshraga's evidence against me, a post to Mr Wales' page by another concerned citizen.

• "...while another editor, Sean.Hoyland, immediately jumps to the conclusion that every person who do not share his views of the conflict (clearly shared with those of Tiamut) is a sockpuppet of somebody else, and starts filing false SPIs on them. Someone recently had to openly identify himself as a member of an ultraorthodox closed community in Israel just to prove they were not a sock. So I don't think WP:AE is a good choice anymore. Seems like Wikipedia has completely lost its way when it comes to protecting itself from nationalistic-driven editing in IP (I noticed similar patterns from other editors as well). Any suggestions what to do?"

Although spoilsports might point out that this comment was by ADeeperUnderstanding, an account that was checkuserblocked, and it referred to the treatment of an account that was later ArbCom blocked after an SPI that involved a compromised account was closed, I happen to agree with their 'I don't think WP:AE is a good choice anymore' and I don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I see AE is working great as usual. A real force for good. Everyone acting in such good faith and with good standing of course. Not at all like throwing a bag of shivs over a prison wall to help people resolve their disputes over the ramen economy. The notion of an "ideological ally" is interesting, the wiki-version of bad thoughts. I mean, if I have an ideology, it's the belief that many people in the topic area do dopey things for bad reasons over and over again, and while often funny, it's not helpful and should be stopped, or at least discouraged. That is a battle in the PIA battleground worth fighting for. Examples - imagining you can model the mental states of others, imagining you are acting in good faith and others are acting in bad faith, imagining your value system and priorities are aligned and compatible with Wikipedia's, filing AE reports in a pattern that resembles the eating habits of Mrs. S in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, socking, pretending sanctions are enforceable, applying harsh sanctions (aka building a sock factory), ceding agency to partisan off-wiki influencers in the media and social media (see List of Palestinians as a recent example) etc. As for AE, it might be better to try disarming editors, take the AE weapon away because it has become a source of conflict, so that there is no option for editors except figuring things out using the many available tools, dispute resolution, RfCs etc. no matter how long it takes. Admins could actively monitor things rather than passively receive reports constructed using comical sampling methods. Maybe it would work better. It wouldn't be worse. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

EaglesFan37, unfortunately EIA data is quite a weak technique that I think tends to operate as confirmation bias machine e.g. here's you vs sockmaster Plot Spoiler (with some fairly improbable enwiki intersections), or you vs their Green Montanan sock or you vs one of their untagged abandoned socks (in my view). What does this tell me? Nothing useful. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Happy to respond to Samuel's statements if anyone cares. If space is limited, I can try to switch to Mandarin with its substantially higher information density than English, although I don't speak a word of it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to Theleekycauldron for the word extension. To keep it short, my response to Samuel's claims is, boo, down with this sort of thing. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

If the objective of extending TarnishedPath's temporary tban to indefinite is to make the Talk:Zionism page better, a page that has had over 8200 revisions by 615 actors since TarnishedPath made their first comment on 2024-07-08, then it should be possible to tell what kind of difference their absence makes at the end of the 90 day tban. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

There is history that could be instructive on the question of the effectiveness of tbans for that page because 5 out of the top 10 contributors to the Zionism talk page in that time window, since TarnishedPath's first edit there, based on rev count, have already had their ability to participate in consensus forming discussions in PIA removed. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by SuperPianoMan9167

@Samuelshraga: I think you linked the wrong diff for diff #9. The correct diff seems to be Special:Diff/1351119988. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga: It's still linking to the wrong diff. The fix for this is to change "diff=next" to "diff=prev" in the URL. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds: See Goy#In antisemitism. It depends on context. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Here are several diffs of TarnishedPath abusing the consensus required provision for stonewalling on Zionism. These reverts give no explanation beyond "there's no consensus" or "restore longstanding version": This goes back months (see their edits to the page and look at the edit summaries for their reverts). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by EaglesFan37

  EaglesFan37's statement contains 456 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I will note that M.Bitton is not the only user that TarnishedPath and Sean.hoyland have jumped to the defense of a user aligning with their POV when said user is accused of incivility. When Nishidani was taken to AE for using “Dumb goyim” ('goyim' is frequently used online in an antisemitic context ), both TarnishedPath and Sean.hoyland downplayed Nishidani’s conduct and attacked the filer.

TP: SH: SH:

TarnishedPath casted aspersions about how other editors dissatisfied with the lead to the Zionism article were External parties will continue to encourage their audiences to edit this article in a way that benefits Israel’s image. . However, TarnishedPath also opposed restructuring the lead to moveas few Arabs as possible elsewhere in the lead because It's best up front given Nakba's ongoing impact, most obviously on the ongoing conflict. .

During the recent WP:AE case against M.Bitton for his incivility and stonewalling on the Talk:Zionism page, , TarnishedPath criticized the filer and handwaved M.Bitton’s incivility. . TarnishedPath did not use M.Bitton’s talkpage to address M.Bitton’s incivility or his conduct, but instead used his talkpage to vent about their frustrations with other editors on the page. .

However, shortly afterwards, TarnishedPath filed an WP:AE against another user on the same page for incivility .

May be worth looking into the EIA between M.Bitton, TarnishedPath, and Sean.hoyland: . EaglesFan37 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill, , . This is how I found that case. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill Your comment came up in my notices. I also received a similar talk page message from another user. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds "Goyim" has become used as a dogwhistle in certain circles recently. It essentially consists of non-Jews saying that Jews view non-Jews as "goyim", and thus as "inferior" or "cattle", and thus non-Jews referring to themselves or other non-Jews as "goyim" as a way to mock Jews. Whether that's how it was being used in the AE in question is up for interpretation, but it was clearly inflammatory (and apparently was found to be such at the time).

The reason I shared the diffs from that AE was to show that even when language that WP:UNCIVIL and definitely could be seen as offensive to certain groups is used, the users in question defended their ideological ally and made accusations against the filer, and that this behavior goes beyond M.Bitton and has been going on for years.

And to further explain how I found the AE in question, I went through the AE archives last week, because the Maghreb proposed decision talk page seemed to be inquiring about further AE/arbcom actions, so I decided to take a look myself to see how prevalent the trends discussed in this request were. I can clarify further if any admin has any further questions. EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering To clarify, Riposte's comment was referring to what are now diffs 86 and 87 (more recent comments from SamuelShraga and Sean.hoyland pushed the diffs numbers back). EaglesFan37 (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by NorthernWinds

  NorthernWinds's statement contains 173 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I have not read this gigantic report and TarnishedPath has already been sanctioned for behaviour at Talk:Zionism but I am pretty sure these were not taken into account (@ScottisFinnishRadish:?). On several occasions TarnishedPath has stated falsehoods which made it look as if I am engaging in bad faith/applying double standards . I don't know if he lied knowingly or if it was accidental. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Meant to ping @ScottishFinnishRadish to ask whether he took these into account in his topic ban بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37 I am not a frequent user of social media (other than the Wikipedia Discord sometimes and Youtube) but I fail to see how the term "Goyim" can be interpreted as antisemitic given that it is a Hebrew word which means "nations". See this example. I wouldn't call Meir Dizengoff an antisemite. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@SuperPianoMan9167 This is new to me. It seems like antisemites have a special sense of humor with GoyFundMe and Goyim riders. @Asilvering Fair. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering what are you expecting editors to "hunt"? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Riposte97

I haven't interacted much with Sean.hoyland, so I won't comment on their behaviour.

I have significant history with TarnishedPath, and so my comments should be taken with that in mind. I will restrict myself to the observation that TarnishedPath seems to utilise this board extremely frequently, often as a first resort. A cursory search of the archives turns up the following filings:
- 16 January 2024
- 1 June 2024
- 13 June 2024
- 6 December 2024
- 19 February 2025
- 15 March 2025
- 23 June 2025
- 7 February 2026
- 7 February 2026 (2)
- 26 April 2026

Some (though in fairness, not all) of those filings appear to really be extensions of normal editing disagreements, which TarnishedPath has escalated on thin justification.

In my view, that conduct is consistent with a pattern of BATTLEGROUND behaviour, albeit executed more tactfully than many other editors who get sanctioned for the same. Unfortunately, this kind of pattern is really difficult to detect, and often clouded by mutual antagonism, and so has seemed to become an effective tactic for TarnishedPath. However, it is ultimately corrosive, as it systematically erodes the role of this board, turning it into a tool to 'win' content disputes. Riposte97 (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

As a side note, I have to respectfully disagree with EaglesFan37 that diffs 80 and 81 are sanctionable on their own (unless I have misinterpreted their intention, in which case I apologise). However, the other diffs posted in that statement are serious, and merit serious consideration. Riposte97 (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

This contribution is a case in point. A back-door attempt to win a battle. Riposte97 (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vice regent

Rosguill regarding "I don't see any acknowledgment of the BATTLEGROUND concerns" please see this comment. Most users who get tban in the I-P area tend to get defensive or try to appeal/shorten it or get demotivated from wikipedia, and TP did none of that.VR 18:36, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

SuperPianoMan9167, regarding this comment: Every single one of those edits that TP reverted related in some way to content that had been previously discussed on the talk page (and in every single case TP took part in some of those discussions) and had proven contentious there:

• TP restores language relating to "colonization", which has been discussed ad nauseum on the talk page (eg most of Talk:Zionism/Archive 24 and TP takes part in some of that discussion too) in what appears to be a blanket revert (which is not constructive and goes against WP:BABY).
• TP restores "ethnocultural", which has been discussed here (among other places)
• TP restores "settlers" language, debated here (among other places)
• These TP reverts related to the "outweighed" language, which had been previously discussed here (among other places).VR 01:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning TarnishedPath & Sean.hoyland

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

Discusson about GENSEX relevance The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Comment Unless I'm missing something obvious, can I ask how this is relevant to GENSEX? Black Kite (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• So your evidence that they have been "aligned on content" is some data saying that they were the biggest contributors to the talk page? That's not evidence of anything. And even if they were "aligned on content", it would be incredible if some editors weren't aligned on content on contentious issues. And then you'd still have to show evidence that they were somehow co-ordinating their actions, which I can't see that you have. I would expect far better evidence than this for such a serious accusation. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, have you read the recent arbitration case concerning M.Bitton? -- asilvering (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• I did, and I note I could have been doing far more interesting things. When I saw this filing I did wonder if it was another "chuck everything at the wall and see if anything sticks" type filing and whilst it's not quite as bad as some that I've seen, I'm still not seeing consistent evidence of the accusations (which always makes me think it's the same old ideologically-based "let's try to get rid of our foes" type filing). The claim that this involved GENSEX is frankly not credible, for example. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Aren't you recused from admin matters dealing with GENSEX? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Where did you get that idea from? I did comment on some AE cases as involved rather than in the uninvolved admin section, basically because even if I was micro-tangentially involved (or had previously acted in an admin role only) someone would still make a big fuss about it. I'm not involved with this one though (even if GENSEX is involved, which I'm unconvinced that it is). Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  I got the idea because you have edited the topic area and say you still do and express strong opinions on the topic's coverage on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• I do have those opinions on the very narrow topic of Wikipedia's inability to cope with transphobic speech and so I don't tend to edit those areas, or comment at AE where an editor is accused of that. As I say, I don't believe this AE filing is relevant to GENSEX at all, though, other than one of the articles on which editors are accused of tag-teaming being in that area. Hope this helps. Black Kite (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Black Kite, this involves Imane Khelif, which is, very obviously, controversial for GENSEX-related reasons. -- asilvering (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@asilvering Indeed, but my point was that the issue being brought by the OP is of alleged factional and uncivil behaviour at that article (and many others), rather than its content. Black Kite (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. At AE, we handle reports of factional and uncivil behaviour. This is a report of factional and uncivil behaviour at articles under PIA and GENSEX. I do not understand how you can say that this is not relevant to GENSEX. -- asilvering (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

*sigh* Whatever. This is ridiculous, but it's distracting from the main issue, so I'll step away and let someone else deal with it. Ironic though that this started with an arb challenging me on recusal who shouldn't really be one to challenge others on recusals, given previous cases. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Just noting that I have topic banned TarnishedPath from the the Arab/Israel conflict for 90 days independent of and not having reviewed this report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• I haven't got the time to go through this right now, but I do plan to. Sean.hoyland, I am indeed going to be one of those spoilsports. That particular highly banned editor doesn't think AE is a good place to report anymore for the obvious reason that he's very easy to catch if he does that. -- asilvering (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  @NorthernWinds, with respect, if you tend to avoid social media you are likely to be missing quite a lot of alt-right/antisemitic/nazi dogwhistles, and quite a lot has happened in the 90 intervening years since Dizengoff's death. -- asilvering (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Riposte97, I can't believe this. You're linking to an edit asking about a topic ban, calling it a back-door attempt to win a battle, while you yourself are topic-banned from that topic? And, now that I'm looking more closely, I see that I have to respectfully disagree with EaglesFan37 that diffs 80 and 81 are sanctionable on their own is also clearly and directly referring to a GENSEX dispute? For Pete's sake. -- asilvering (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  Alright, I've looked through the talk page archives at Talk:Imane Khelif, back through Archive 5, and I'm not seeing anything that I find terribly concerning from a "backs up M.Bitton beyond all reason" standpoint. At times, TP is a bit snippy. Given the absolutely unending grind of the argument on the talk page, despite a passed moratorium on discussion... well, frankly, TP is doing pretty well if their worst is "a bit snippy". I'm not impressed by their arguments at Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 5#RfC: SRY gene, namely and and the ensuing discussions, but if that's all we've got for GENSEX, I don't think there's much of a case for sanctions in that topic area. -- asilvering (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've now gone through these diffs and the past few archive pages of Talk:Zionism. It's evident that M.Bitton and TarnishedPath share a similar, strongly anti-Zionist point of view, but I wouldn't characterize anything I saw on that talk page as colluding, forming a faction with M.Bitton, etc. However, I do see very strong evidence of battleground editing. As, evidently, did ScottishFinnishRadish, since he already sanctioned for it. This one in particular really got me, but I found it harder to find examples of neutral or collaborative behaviour (eg ) than behaviour of the battleground variety. We can read TP's defense of M.Bitton in that light, and sanction for it, regardless. Rosguill, I think it would be appropriate to extend the tban to indefinite. Thoughts? -- asilvering (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not yet opposed, but I would want to get clarification from ScottishFinnishRadish of the specific edits/evidence that motivated the 90 day TBAN so as to avoid potentially sanctioning twice for the same infraction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  I topic banned based primarily on their pointy stonewalling at Talk:Zionism#RfC on the Basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  That seems to be very similar motivation to what asilvering is highlighting. Now, going straight to an indefinite tban is something that is generally within our purview, so I guess I'm still neutral on modifying the sanction, but I don't immediately see the reasoning for thinking that the 90 day tban is insufficient. The one thing pushing me in that direction would be the lack of reflection in their engagement here--while it's far from the most shameless defense I've seen at AE, I don't see any acknowledgment of the BATTLEGROUND concerns (in particular, diff #7, the combination of diffs #2-#4-#11, and both the broader pattern and the specific diffs highlighted by asilvering). TarnishedPath, your topic ban restrictions are waived for engagement in this discussion if you have anything you'd like to add. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  The two diffs asilvering highlighted on the Zionism talk page weren't part of my consideration. My action was based on their behavior in the thread I linked where they had no issue with the RFC at hand other than an earlier RFC was closed early, which amounted to pointy stonewalling and treating the discussion as a battleground for an earlier conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  And I do think the defence of "aligned" editors like M.Bitton is a significant factor here. Showing up at AE/ARCA/etc often isn't a problem in itself, in my opinion. But reliably showing up in defence of editors that prompt arbs to say things like This is some of the most egregious tendentious editing I've ever seen in an editor with tens of thousands of edits (), well. -- asilvering (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  asilvering, having received TP's reflection, I think I'd maintain my neutral position on expanding the sanction; it's not clear that further sanction is needed rather than punitive, although it would have been within SFR's or this board's rights to have gone straight to an indefinite tban from the start. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Samuelshraga, thanks for the links, but those are so long ago, I don't think they'd change anyone's minds here in any event. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• The evidence presented here does raise concern of a BATTLEGROUND approach to defending editors perceived to be on the same side across disputes. However, I'm also concerned by EaglesFan37's presentation of evidence relating to the Nishidani AE case that long predates their own presence on Wikipedia, and have concerns that this board is being made a fool by them--indeed, even as someone who remembers and participated in that case (and I would note that EaglesFan37's invocation of the phrase's ostensibly inherent antisemitism is at odds with the views of a sizable majority of admins responding to that case), it takes me a non-trivial amount of effort to identify it in the archives even when I'm specifically looking for it. I'm thus uncertain how they could have found it in good faith, and uncertain how to proceed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don't find the speed with which EaglesFan37 responded to my comment (7 min after my comment, despite lack of ping) particularly reassuring. It is certainly remarkable to see this level of archive sleuthing from an editor who hasn't even been here 6 months, but has commented in 5 different AE cases relating to PIA, as well as actively participating in an ARBCOM case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  Ok, finally reviewing the evidence more closely like I said I would, apologies for the delay.

  1. I think that this comment pushes on the boundaries of good faith, but particularly given Dw31415's comments immediately up-thread equally diverging from Samuelshraga's accusations against M.Bitton, I don't think it's sanctionable.
  2. It appears that in this diff, TP is asking an admin for input and did not file an actual SPI. Even if they had filed an SPI, the nature of joe-job investigations is such that the possibility of falsely confirming an innocent editor for sockpuppetry in such a situation is near-zero. I don't find cause for concern here.
  3. I don't see any insinuation here, and my understanding is that Sean.hoyland has in fact presented this off-wiki evidence to ARBCOM, so it's not really accurate to say it's without evidence either. Invoking Reddit out of the blue is bad form; it is still my understanding that they submitted evidence of the off-wiki organizing to ARBCOM so it's not entirely accurate to say it's without evidence.
  4. I think that the use of {{checkuser needed}} is a little POINTy.
  5. I'm not really sure what to make of this diff, as my understanding is that in a sense, both sides are right. M.Bitton was found to have been engaging in pro-Arab-Algerian POV-pushing. They were also subject to off-wiki campaigns that cared little for Wikipedia policy and procedure.
  6. Again, this is a case where neither side is really wrong. The FoF states M.Bitton, R3YBOl, and Skitash have engaged in tag-team edit warring...Whether or not these actions are coordinated.... There is evidence that their collaboration crossed a line. But there isn't evidence that they consciously organised a faction.
  7. This does seem to cross the line into bad faith collaboration between TP and M.Bitton
  8. Right or wrong, Sean.hoyland has frequently made similar comments virtually any time that an editor on any side of PIA is accused based on levels of participation in PIA. There's even a similar comment here in this thread. Unless more diffs are provided to suggest that Sean is disproportionately trotting out data-based arguments to only defend certain editors, I can't find fault here.
  9. It comes off as unnecessarily active and wounded, but I'm not sure this crosses a line unless there's further indication that they're misrepresenting SuperPianoMan here
  10. Given that admin consensus in that case seems to be cohering around a logged warning, it's hard to find fault here
  11. Not a great look for TP given their other sockpuppetry comments vis-a-vis Bananakingler
  12. While Samuelshraga using the report to file a report against the filer is just so predictable I think does push past AGF, the broader context of the rest of the comment is highly consistent with Sean.hoyland's long-established positions on CTOP/PIA governance, and explicitly includes calling for no sanctions against Wh1plash. I think it would be absurd to consider this a basis for sanction

  So, having gone through all this evidence, I think there would be a case for collusion between TP and M.Bitton. I don't see any solid evidence of collusion between Sean.hoyland and TP as asserted by the case filing, nor between Sean.hoyland and M.Bitton. Which rather makes this report seem like a waste of everyone's time. I'll admit that my initial indication that I would be interested in reviewing this was purely prejudicial based on the existing evidence of collusion between TP and M.Bitton exhibited at ARBCOM; on review, there's not much here that merits admin attention beyond the sanctions already put in place by ARBCOM.

  Finally, regarding EaglesFan37--I think they've adequately explained their speed of reply and I don't think that should be considered evidence of untoward conduct. I'm still nonplussed by the extremely high degree of activity in interest in not just editing CTOPs but in litigating them from such a new account, and that they have shown excessive familiarity with Wikipedia processes very early in their tenure. Setting that aside and taking up their evidence from the Nishidani case, though, I don't think their presentation of the evidence is basis for any sanction given the near-unanimous response from admins (disclosure: including myself) that the filing's assertion that the invocation of goyim must betray antisemitic intent is uncharitable to the point of being tendentious (or in Yiddish, I would say: סיז טאקע א שאנדע פאר די גויים). The further wikilawyering from TP in EaglesFan37's evidence reiterates some of what was already covered in the initial filing, and has some new evidence, but ultimately all of that is evidence of TP aligning with M.Bitton, with Sean.hoyland absent. So taking that all together...perhaps a warning for TP to avoid BATTLEGROUND behavior in user conduct discussions (both on "offense" and "defense" as it were). Perhaps this rises to the level that a TBAN from conduct discussions? I'd honestly want to kick that last suggestion back to ARBCOM, given that they had no shortage of TP's participation in the recent case and would be more cognizant of whether their engagement there was a net positive or negative. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  Samuelshraga, regarding "factions", I think your assessments about our/ARBCOM's/etc. ability to identify and sanction factionalism are correct, but it's also within TP's rights to assert that there is no evidence that they organized a faction; the factional behavior is sanctionable, the disavowal that there is evidence of them having organized a faction is not (in the absence of such a standard of evidence, which I believe is accurate). Regarding #3, I initially misread the discussion and thought that the invocation of Reddit was a response to something that Bananakingler had actually said or highlighted; absent that it is considerably poorer form on Sean Hoyland's part. Regarding the combination of 2, 4, and 11, I believe I came to a similar conclusion already in my comments on 11, and it is largely on the basis of that that I recommended a sanction: to be perfectly clear, I write the evidence review as I read through it, so patterns of combination across multiple lines are only addressed in the latter instance(s). Regarding #10, I don't understand what your objection is--my understanding at this point is that the report is found by both you and responding admins to have merit; what then is to be considered as evidence against TP? 150 additional words granted to respond to that last part. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Samuelshraga, ok, that explains better what from that report you found objectionable. I think it's borderline in terms of contentiousness--on the one hand, it's again "technically correct" that they hadn't yet been banned by ARBCOM (and WP:DENY is arguably inappropriate/irrelevant in context regardless); on the other hand it's tendentious to ignore the context that M.Bitton's ban was all but established and had that been the one piece of evidence at hand it would have been laughed off of the board. I think overall I'm still in the same position of hedging between a logged warning and a topic ban from user conduct discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Samuelshraga, perhaps I'm just being too understated, "bad form" is indeed bad and potentially sanctionable; reviewing the report as a whole I think that may warrant a logged warning. Sean.hoyland, would you care to respond regarding diff #3 from the initial report? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:07, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  TarnishedPath, I don't believe I've referred to Riposte97's evidence here at all. I'm a bit hazy on their standing and procedure at this point, given that there was a TBAN violation block in response to their participation here (which has now expired). My sense is that an AE worker should likely strike that portion but I'm not sure if I'm missing something. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not sure most of the diffs talk about the same behaviour in the same places from both users. is a good enough reason to waive the two-parties restriction. Valereee (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• I've bannered for AEPR. If any uninvolved admin disagrees we need that, feel free to revert me and we can discuss. Valereee (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  I would really prefer for other editors to do the diff-hunting for me, so I'll remove it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• I'll note we've received a request that Admins could actively monitor things rather than passively receive reports. SFR, can you monitor GENSEX today? If you can, I can monitor PIA. Black Kite, it's your turn on AP again. Asilvering, we really need you to step up, last time you monitored infoboxes it was a mess. May the Force be with you! Valereee (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, and Rosguill, I know that leaves you on night shift again. Sorry, but if someone else would occasionally offer to schedule, this wouldn't happen so often. Hint. Valereee (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  I was under the impression I was already on perennial SA and AA duty _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:36, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  but if I take infoboxes, who will block all these socks?! -- asilvering (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  Whoops, my bad. I'd only intended to do clerky things in this case so hadn't looked into the diffs much, and after recent comments I realize I'm involved. I don't really work in GENSEX, but I'm involved at Khelif. I'll not be contributing further here, my apologies. Valereee (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Qualiesin

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.

NOTING: Nonparties are explicitly invited to create a section and offer relevant diffs without editorialization. If workers need clarification about these diffs, they'll ask. Valereee (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

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 Qualiesin

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Paprikaiser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Qualiesin (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

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

Qualiesin has demonstrated a persistent pattern of disruptive editing within the PIA topic area, characterized by misleading edit summaries, NPOV violations, and a failure to engage in policy-based discussions. They have been warned multiple times regarding drive-by tagging, personal attacks, multiple NPOV violations, misleading edit summaries and original research. Despite these warnings, similar conduct has continued across multiple articles within the PIA conflict topic area.

• The New York War Crimes: Added POV qualifiers under a misleading summary; restored content without justification after being reverted, engaging in an edit war.
• Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: Added an WP:EASTEREGG link and POV categories. When challenged, they relied on personal opinion rather than policy.
• Francesca Albanese: Used a misleading summary ("cleanup") to introduce significant wording changes and qualifiers raising MOS:DOUBT concerns. They restored the change after multiple reverts and being warned, failing WP:1RR.
• Rachel Kushner: Introduced editorializing by adding POV content not supported by the source, with the edit summary only addressing a link addition.
• Bearing Witness to the October 7th Massacre: Multiple violations of WP:TERRORIST.
• Antisemitism during the Gaza war: Removed sourced content (with the edit summary "Not relevant"), later justified by personal opinion on the talk page.
• Yinon Plan: Removed attribution to use WP:WIKIVOICE for a controversial claim, with a misleading edit summary ("added see also").
• Hamas: Injected qualifiers not supported by the cited sources, with a misleading edit summary ("added links").
• German support for Israel in the Gaza war: Introduced WP:DOUBT changing "ongoing Gaza genocide" to "alleged Gaza genocide", with the edit summary only addressing a link change. This addition of the "alleged" qualifier has happened multiple times across different articles.
• Turkish support for Hamas. Added a POV category unsupported by the article. When reverted, restored the addition citing a personal opinion as justification.
• Germany–Israel relations: Added a contested claim in WP:WIKIVOICE. Restored it after reversion. Qualiesin then took it to the talk page, where they argued that It would be bad practice to not clarify to readers that false claims are, in fact, false, but you seem determined to keep this information off the page; once again, treating their personal position as a settled fact that should be reflected in wikivoice regardless of policy.
• Taring Padi: Replaced an attributed statement with WP:WIKIVOICE with the summary "cleanup".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None that I can find.

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 December 2024 by Valereee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Notified by Cambial Yellowing about WP:1RR and edit warring regarding the Francisca Albanese article, on 16 February 2026
• Alerted about incorrect categorization in the topic on 17 April 2026 by Smasongarrison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

  Paprikaiser's statement contains 884 words and complies with the 884-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 884 words.

Qualiesin's behavior indicates an inability or unwillingness to follow the expectations for the PIA topic area. I could have included more examples, but I tried to be mindful of the diff and word limit. The repeated use of misleading edit summaries makes their violations difficult to track, and their talk page engagement consistently prioritizes personal views and grievances over policy-based discussion. Despite prior warnings, this pattern has continued across multiple articles. I therefore request a topic ban from the PIA topic area to prevent further disruption and to limit the continued introduction of non-neutral content in this topic area.

@Ealdgyth: Thank you for the feedback. Here three diffs from the past seven days showing the pattern remains active:

• Xaviaer DuRousseau: Continued use of biased pipe-linking to label the Gaza government as a "terrorist regime".
• Political parties whose policies involve antisemitism: Further editorializing via links by piping "condemnation of Zionists" to Zionist as a pejorative, which is WP:OR.
• Killing of Abdel Fattah al-Sharif: Violation of MOS:CLAIM and MOS:DOUBT.

The last edit was reverted by Butterscotch Beluga, who has cleaned up and corrected multiple violations by Qualiesin. I want to emphasize that Qualiesin has already received multiple warnings and reverts from both editors and admins throughout the year. This demonstrates that they are fully aware their editing style violates policies, and yet the behavior remains unchanged. There is no reason to believe another warning will be effective. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Regarding the diff in the Killing of Abdel Fattah al-Sharif article, I cannot link directly to the archived source since it is hosted in archive.today; but the location is archive. ph/UnS4c (without a space; Wayback doesn't seem to bypass Haaretz filters). The text confirms that the family's statement regarding sentencing disparities is based on fact: the Israeli security cabinet had set a 4-year minimum sentence for stone-throwing, which is significantly higher than the 18-month sentence Azaria received.

Regarding the MOS:DOUBT violation, I would think that substituting a factive verb with one that implies inaccuracy is effectively discrediting the assertion and introducing doubt in the reader. Even if my interpretation is wrong, MOS:CLAIM still applies here.

Lastly, many of the violations I listed were discussed on article talk pages or Qualiesin's own talk page. In those instances, Qualiesin justified their edits with personal opinions, doubled down, and consistently declined to accept criticism. I was involved in some of these discussions myself and found them to be pointless. I brought this to AE precisely because it became clear that talk page threads were not going to correct their behavior. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee: Am I allowed to reply to Qualiesin's defense or am I out of words? Also one small correction: the diff for Antisemitism during the Gaza war should be this one. Paprikaiser (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Qualiesin's defense confirms they view this CTOP as a battleground to RGW and demonstrates zero reflection or intent to change. They openly admit to bypassing NPOV attribution based on personal convictions, violating project-wide consensus (WP:RFC/G). When someone states they're editing to fight "manipulation of Wikipedia", dismisses criticism as "drama", resorts to WP:PA, and refuses to participate in consensus-building discussions, a warning cannot work. Paprikaiser (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

AE notification

Discussion concerning Qualiesin

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 Qualiesin

  Qualiesin's statement contains 801 words and complies with the 820-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 820 words.

Main Statement

I try not to get involved in Wikipedia drama, not responding to those I know won't listen, but it seems the drama has found me, and I must make an effort to defend myself.

Let's go through your complaints.

• The New York War Crimes: How is changing "Zionist" to "Israeli" and mentioning who controls the Gaza health ministry a "POV qualifier"? My summary was "removed unreliable sources" because that was the main thing I did, comprising the bulk of that edit.
• Yinon Plan: I changed "a phenomenon he believed was accompanied by an upsurge in anti-Semitism" to remove "believed", as that wording cast doubt on the verified historical fact of antisemitism across the world in the 20th century. I also happened to add something to the "see also" section.
• Germany-Israel relations: Paprikaiser claims that I am treating their personal position as a settled fact that should be reflected in wikivoice regardless of policy, when the people reverting my edit are doing this exact thing, claiming that the IHRA definition does something it does not.
• My edit here is adding the Houthis to the list of antisemitic political parties, with reasons included in the article, and adding Zionist as a pejorative to the section on Hamas. Objecting to mentioning the currently most prevalent form of antisemitism is close to claiming it isn't actually antisemitism. We all know who Hamas is talking about when they say "Zionists".
• In the edit to Hamas, I added qualifiers to their supposed "removal" of antisemitic language. Anyone who takes their statements that they don't hate Jews at face value is either willfully ignorant, malicious, or doesn't know enough about the conflict to be worth listening to. See also my comment above about including Zionist as a pejorative. The content downplaying or outright denying sexual violence on October 7 is abhorrent and should be removed or heavily edited, and I added a template indicating that (maybe it wasn't clear enough).
• Re:Turkish support for Hamas, do you deny that Hamas is antisemitic? You certainly seem to think it's an opinion, not a fact.
• Re:Antisemitism during the Gaza war, what in the content I removed has any relevance to the article? It's not about an instance of antisemitism.
• Re:German support for Israel in the Gaza war, the railroading of Wikipedia to conform to the narrative that it is genocide is one of the worst instances of manipulation of Wikipedia, and has had tangible negative results in the real world.
• Re:Taring Padi, "imagery critics claimed to be anti-Semitic" is casting doubt on the fact that it is in fact antisemitic. The first citation on that paragraph is in German, which I can't read, but the second one does state that it was antisemitic, and includes an image.
• I will admit the Rachel Kushner edit was, although not untrue, not encyclopedic language, and I apologize for the wording on that one.

--Qualiesin (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm still working on my statement. Qualiesin (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Moved to correct section Valereee (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  He's Palestinian-American, not Palestinian by nationality. Does he have Palestinian citizenship? The article says his parents are Palestinian and Lebanese, but he's an American citizen, and his education, career, and most of his life have been in America. Qualiesin (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Moved to correct section Valereee (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Regarding that article, Beluga edited it less than an hour later, changing all examples of "claimed" to "said" or "stated", which I agree are more neutral and make the article better. I may disagree with many of Beluga's edits, but I am willing to recognize when they make a good contribution, even if it's changing something I made. Qualiesin (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Moved to correct section Valereee (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Valereee, how will moving my comments here provide context as to what I was replying to? Could you at least provide links to the parent comments? Qualiesin (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

BTW, I thought my statement was under 500, I think it might have counted all the words in wikitext rather than just the plaintext. Let me know if it's a problem. It shouldn't be, given that Paprikaiser's statement was over 800 words. Qualiesin (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, regarding the "misleading edit summaries", when I edit on my computer (I don't use my account on mobile), it saves any new edit summary in the cookies/cache/saved form info (not sure of the terminology; the suggestions shown the next time I click "publish" on any page and show the edit summary). I have tried clearing my cookies, cache, saved form info, everything, but it doesn't do anything. I prefer to not have overly specific edit summaries saved there, instead I generally prefer to use pre-saved things like "added see also" or something. Sometimes I am also not sure how much detail to put in, especially if I changed many different things. But reading your concerns, I understand why you felt they were misleading. I will try to do better on that front and be more clear. Qualiesin (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

Fails WP:AEPR #5, which allows diffs to be presented without editorialization. This contains no diffs. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Is it notionally sanctionable to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization? The U. S. Department of State says it. The Council for Foreign Relations is slightly weasel-y, but not much. Wikipedia says that "Hamas has attacked Israeli civilians, including through suicide bombings as well as launching rockets at Israeli cities"; see also this list The Office of the US Director of National Intelligence has a Hamas page in its directory of terrorist groups. The Organization of American States. The Home Office of the United Kingdom. I understand why WP:TERRORIST urges caution, but it’s not difficult to see why an editor who was not memorized every jot and tittle of the guidelines might think this reasonable.

It may not be relevant here, but it does seem that PIA is proceeding through a process of attrition en route to PIA6. Is that likely to restore collegiality and collaboration to the area? WP:CONSENSUS is seldom if ever to be found and is, in some cases, almost inconceivable. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

@Valereee

• Regarding Judea and Samaria Division: The category "1988 establishments in Israel" is inaccurate as, while the division is Israeli, they specifically operate in the West Bank, which is not "in Israel".
• Regarding Ussama Makdisi: The removal of the category "21st-century Palestinian historians" with the reasoning that it was "not in article" was unwarranted. Both because Ussama Makdisi is a Palestinian American historian & that their focus is specifically in Palestinian and Arab Studies. This was already apparent by the article's content when the category was removed, but I sought to make this more clear alongside my reedition of the category - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by IOHANNSVERVS

I've warned Qualiesin before about misleading edit summaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qualiesin#Edit_summaries

And here is another instance of someone talking to them about an edit which made changes to almost every section of this article, and in total, added 4,206 bytes, but had the inaccurate edit summary “added links, templates, citations, cleanup”. This edit made significant POV changes (e.g., changing "Palestinian" to "Arab", changing "colonization" to "settlement")

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Qualiesin

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

• Slowly going through diffs I certainly am dismayed with the Albanese edit here, with an edit summary of "cleanup". The Amnesty International piece being discussed uses the exact term "deliberately truncated video" and Qualiesin changed that wording to "allegedly truncated". This is a compelling example of both a misleading edit summary and a misrepresentation of the source which can only be interpreted as deliberate. Qualiesin, if you'd put quotes around that term to indicate those were the words AI was using, that would be one thing. But taken with the other changes made in that edit and the edit summary, it does seem like evidence of POV pushing combined with an attempt to mislead. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  This diff from April 8 provided by BB is still five weeks ago, and while the edit summary ("Should not be in wikivoice") isn't exactly misleading (although I question the characterization of the original as being in wikivoice), the edit introduces uncertainty the source did not contain. The source says The highly respected Jerusalem-based group concluded that Israel’s prisons should now be labelled “torture camps”. The edit changed It further found that abuse of detainees is so institutionalized that the prisons should be called 'torture camps' to It further found that abuse of detainees is so institutionalized that it claimed the prisons should be called 'torture camps', an insertion of language that questions credibility. If the change had been an insertion of 'it concluded', it would have been supported by the source. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Butterscotch Beluga, what are you seeing as the issues with the two category diffs? Valereee (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Paprikaiser, you are out of words (you can see your count at the top of your section) but you can have 100 more. Don't reply to Q, clarify to workers. You only need to clarify if you think we appear to be misunderstanding something. Valereee (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Qualiesin, I see you've made hundreds of edits since this case was filed. Are you intending to come in here? Valereee (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Qualiesin, you can add those links if you think they're necessary, just link the word 'moved' and people can follow if they need clarification. Valereee (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• So... the 1RR violation is from February. The edit to Antisemitism in the Gaza war is from last September, and most of the rest of the diffs are from January through early April. I can't say they are the greatest examples of editing, but I'm not seeing anything within the last few weeks besides one warning on the talk page here about OR, which hasn't been used as an example in the filing, but I've already spent almost an hour digging through diffs/etc here, so I'm not going to dig into something that wasn't presented. I could see a warning to Qualiesin that continued behavior in this line will probably result in a topic ban from the area, but at the moment, that's about all I can support. Frankly, the pulling up of older diffs, while helpful if you're trying to show a pattern of behavior, does need to actually tie into recent (within the last two weeks or so) behavior so that it is clear that the behavior is continuing. What I'm seeing is that Qualiesin has a point of view and it shows up in their editing, but this is hardly a new phenomenon in this topic area and the filing does not show recent sub-par conduct. The warning for personal attacks is from May 2025 and there are no recent diffs of this. Likewise, the OR warning is without any supporting diffs. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  This edit is not good, but I gotta say this, just as an a matter of common sense, I would think that in general, Palestinians (especially after the Gaza War's start, and with good reason) do not use the term Zionist except as a pejorative. Still, it's not a great thing to do. Here I see a possible violation of MOS:CLAIM, but I can't access the Haaretz article used as a source to see what the wording of the source is, so I can't be positive on it. I'm not seeing the violation of MOS:DOUBT, though in this diff? This diff, however, is not good, as it does link the article Gaza strip under Hamas to "terrorist regime", which isn't good because it's linking within quotes of something you can't be sure the original speaker meant by their words. While I get that having someone seemingly editing in a not good manner is annoying - I also note that the edits still (mostly) remain in the various articles and that all three article's talk pages do not discuss these edits. I'm not saying Qualiesin's a paragon of non-biased editing, but I'm not seeing any wildly outstanding conduct issues ... if the edits are bad, I'm not seeing other editors disputing them BEFORE bringing them to the heightened dispute steps of AE. I'm not a big fan of a topic ban for the first time someone's brought to AE for below-par-editing. (I didn't see any blocks at all in their block log either.) I do think we're into warning territory, and I'd like to see Qualiesin's response to this filing also. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  The Haaretz article says the family's statement was "The sentence he received is less than a Palestinian child gets for throwing stones." Haaretz wrote of that, "To put the family's comments in context, in September, 2015, Israel's security cabinet set a 4-year minimum sentence for stone and firebomb throwers, an order the prime minister's bureau said would remain in effect for three years."

  I think "pointed out" is actually probably correct, but I can see how it may feel non-neutral and needed to be reworded. Changing it to "claimed," though, calls into question the credibility of Haaretz's explanation. I think this is a problematic edit. Valereee (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Based on Qualiesin's changing all examples of "claimed" to "said" or "stated", which I agree are more neutral and make the article better, I could support a warning. I think it needs to call out misleading edit summaries, which I find difficult to overlook, and also misrepresenting sources and introducing POV language. I'm willing to consider just an informal warning, but misleading edit summaries in a CTOP makes me favor logged. Valereee (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• I would favor a logged warning here, largely per Valereee. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with a logged warning. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Kautilya3

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 Kautilya3

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EarthDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Kautilya3 (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

1. Removal of reliably sourced content without explanation and falsely claiming they themselves are reverting such action. Dismissed subsequent requests for clarification while being WP:UNCIVIL.
2. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:PERSONALATTACK: You have even declared on your talk page that you are aware of WP:CT/SA. So you need to start acting like a grown-up. No more gaslighting.
3. False accusation of WP:CANVASSING against an editor and then assuming that a country-based noticeboard is more likely to attract editors biased towards said country.
4. In summary, a generally WP:UNCIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Placed on a 'casting aspersions' sanction.

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

Alerted another editor of WP:CT/SA.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Kautilya3 has responded with a retributive comment, trawling through months of my edit history in an attempt to find anything to nail here, and their response is deeply misleading and often simply false. For instance, they claim that I "received a logged warning", when that was already overturned by the same admin just a few minutes later. Such issues are present across Kautilya3's retributive response. — EarthDude (Talk) 14:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Kautilya3

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 Kautilya3

All right, let us look at EarthDude's conduct. He had received a logged warning for edit-warring under WP:CT/SA within the last 12 months.

In this instance, at 17:21, he wrote a talk page message stating he didn't understand why his edits were reverted. Three minutes later, he reinstated his edits, claiming "explained at talk" (which is obviously false). Reinstating disputed edits without achieving consensus is obviously the beginning of an edit-warring cycle. Next morning (in UTC), he gave me a warning message saying that my edit summaries were misleading, And, after I wrote detailed messages explaining what my edit summaries meant, he still didn't get it, but saw it fit to reinstate his edit for a second time. For an editor who routinely uses Special/Diff, it should be a simple matter to look at his own diffs and figure out what he had deleted? This is by no means mature conduct from an editor that exudes such confidence.

We have had long term edit-warring and POV pushing issues with this editor. As a recent example, check 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. He had himself requrested WP:3O on the issue of calling Sangh Parivar "Fascist", and a volunteer editor from 3O pointed out that plurality of reliable sources was lacking. EarthDude still maintains that categorising it as "Fasicist" satisfies WP:CATDEF.

His POV slant is exemplified by huge discussions at numerous pages: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Sangh Parivar, Hindutva (1) Hindutva (2), Jammu Praja Parishad etc. Early on my interaction with EarthDude, I had asked him how he applies the WP:NPOV policy to the kind of issues he is discussing. He refused to engage. I believe every editor in a contentious topic should strive to be an NPOV-editor. If they believe their only job is to push a POV and everybody else's job is to fight them, it is not sustainable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the suspected canvassed tagging, the RfC itself had a template asking us to tag them. There were good reasons to suspect the concerned editor of having been canvassed, since they never participated at WP:RSN earlier, and did not discuss the particular news source elsewhere either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Longewal

Disclosure: I am an uninvolved editor who's has had differences with Kautilya3 myself. However, I don't see any diff in this request for arbitration that comes close to a sanction against Kautilya3. Waste of admin-time.

On the other hand, Earthdude's pattern of edits on Wikipedia show a clear POV-pushing stance. While I get their hate for "Hindutva," Wikipedia shouldn't be a playground for hammering one's hate-boner in every article. Their category tagging spree is a great example of that. In fact, Kautilya3 has rightly called out Earthdude's edits that violate WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:DUE, but Earthdude's hell-bent on WP:IDHT.

After, reviewing the evidence posted against Earthdude, I am seeing a case for boomerang. Propose TBAN from WP:CT/SA for Earthdude.

— Longewal (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Joshua Jonathan

Two reverts from 18 and 19 april, with clear explanations ("unexplained deletion of sourced content"; the irony). The two dismissals of "subsequent requests for clarification" read like clear further clarifications. So, what's the real issue here? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

Earthdude and Kautilya, you are among a relatively small group of editors who work on incorporating scholarly sources into our coverage of South Asian politics. At the risk of annoying everyone involved, might I point out that a feud between you is hurting goals you share, and allowing that the other may have a point worth considering would go a long way. Earthdude, you are being aggressive with your reverts and your labels in a way that hurts your case. Please recalibrate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Gotitbro

Just realized that an AE had been filed for what appears to be content disputes between the editors (likely this, where I follow this from). This is surprising and unbecoming. Disclosure: Have interacted with ED at many a core India-related articles before, the general sense is of WP:RGW/WP:BATTLEGROUND regarding Hindutva and a lack of commitment to NPOV (particularly WP:LABEL as mentioned by Vanamonde above) in that contentious area (including me facing self-confessed PAs/general abrasiveness), running into disputes on every third of one's edits should already encourage self-reflection. There is also a poor (or deliberate) misunderstanding of P&G and consensus (CIR), one can point this even in the latest edits: at RSP, ED adds this for Firstpost "it cannot be used for coverage of controversial topics, especially those related to politics and social media stories, from an RfC (which they started) closure which says none of it . Of course there have been serious issues with their understanding of RfC closures previously as well . I would recommend this request be withdrawn, lest ED's own conduct be under the lens. Gotitbro (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Cadddr

I was involved in the dispute at Talk:Essentials of Hindutva and have interacted with both editors in other places too. I generally have found the conduct of both Kautilya3 and EarthDude to be lacking, but I also think they both made points that brought a lot of value to the conversation. I agree with Vanamonde93's statement: it's quite unfortunate that these two editors, who both bring value to Wikipedia, are having a feud. I think it might be good for both Kautilya3 and EarthDude to get warnings, but I hope neither one is topic banned. I agree with Gotitbro's recommendation that the request be withdrawn.

• On EarthDude: EarthDude seems to constantly use Wikipedia as a battleground, doesn't seem to have a good understanding of WP:NPOV, and makes aspersions against people who disagree with them. As someone who is personally strongly opposed to Hindutva, I tend to be biased in favor of EarthDude's views, but it's very clear to me that EarthDude is POV-pushing and often greatly exaggerates things to that end. The incident at WP:RSP, brought up by Gotitbro, is a good example, and I independently expressed concern about it elsewhere. EarthDude, as someone who agrees with your general point of view, I would strongly urge you to try harder to be neutral and resist the temptation to try to right great wrongs.
• On Kautilya3: When I first read the following comment at Talk:Essentials of Hindutva, I figured Kautilya was probably right, and EarthDude was probably greatly misrepresenting the source:

  And this paragraph that you reproduced here is also WP:OR. You cite pages 43-44 of Goodrick-Clarke to claim "it was in reaction to these social-political events that Essentials of Hindutva was written". But there is nothing remotely like such an explanation in the source. This was completely made up by you and constitutes serious source misrepresentaiton.

  Moreover, this source is about a completely different subject, and has nothing to do with the book Essentials of Hindutva. ...
  — User:Kautilya3 11:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  But when I looked at the source, I found that Goodrick-Clarke does discuss Essentials of Hindutva and describes these events as the context in which it was written. Technically, EarthDude's wording was slightly stronger than the wording used by Goodrick-Clarke, who doesn't explicitly say Essentials was written "in reaction to" these events (though he does heavily imply it). But to say that it was completely made up by [EarthDude] is a gross exaggeration and, in my view, constitutes an aspersion and a failure to assume good faith.

Cadddr (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Kautilya3

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

• All the diffs are from April except for one from 5 May. While "start acting like a grown-up" is not exactly collegial, it is the only diff that approaches being uncivil, and it's at best a marginal violation of civility. The canvassing accusation diff is, again, not the most congenial, but not blatantly uncivil. I'm not seeing a whole lot here to base any sanction on. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

NorthernWinds

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 NorthernWinds

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

NorthernWinds (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

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

1. 9 Apr 2026 NorthernWinds showed awareness of CRP by citing it to press another editor for self-reversion.
2. 4 May 2026 NorthernWinds opened an RfC at Talk:Zionism to discuss stable content.
3. 6 May 2026 NorthernWinds removed the RfC tag and procedurally closed the RfC.
4. 6 May 2026 Less than two hours later, NorthernWinds removes the stable content the RfC was about despite lack of affirmative consensus.
5. 18 Mar 2026 Note that the sentence had previously been restored with an edit summary explicitly invoking CRP.

When challenged, NorthernWinds did not self-revert. Instead, they asserted there was affirmative consensus and relied on another editor’s supposed support, which that editor rejected:

1. 6 May 2026 NorthernWinds challenged for changing the status quo after starting the RfC.
2. 6 May 2026 The same editor asked Northernwinds to not misrepresent their position to justify the CRP violation.
3. 6 May 2026 The same editor raised the CRP issue at AE in relation to another case.
4. 6 May 2026 I raised this issue as well.
5. 6 May 2026 NorthernWinds again defended the conduct rather than acknowledging fault.
6. 7 May 2026 Valereee noted: I do think it looks like a violation.

Despite this, NorthernWinds again violated CRP on the same article only days later:

1. 19 Apr 2026 A separate edit was explicitly challenged under CRP: There is no consensus for this ... Do not reinstate this again without consensus per WP:CRP.
2. 10 May 2026 NorthernWinds altered the meaning of that challenged content without affirmative consensus.

Canvassing:

1. 19 Apr 2026 NorthernWinds canvassed Wh1pla5h99 to an AE report.
2. 26 Apr 2026 Wh1pla5h99 canvassed NorthernWinds to an AE case.
3. 26 Apr 2026 NorthernWinds cites WP:CANVASS, says they were previously banned for it, and they will err on the side of caution and not participate.
4. 28 Apr 2026 NorthernWinds participates in the AE case.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. May 2025 NorthernWinds’ site ban was vacated and replaced with an indefinite topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.
2. Jan 2026 ArbCom appeal concerning NorthernWinds' PIA topic ban.

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

NorthernWinds was formally alerted to contentious topics on 10 March 2025. As mentioned above, they were later subject to an ArbCom-imposed indefinite topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, when their site ban was vacated and replaced with that restriction in May 2025. NorthernWinds then appealed that PIA topic ban, and ArbCom lifted it in January 2026. NorthernWinds also demonstrated specific awareness of the WP:CRP restriction on Zionism by invoking it against another editor before the conduct at issue here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

  Smallangryplanet's statement contains 585 words and complies with the 650-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 650 words. asilvering (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

NorthernWinds recently appealed a PIA topic ban after previously being site-banned (pre-username change) in relation to off-wiki canvassing/coordination. ArbCom lifted the topic ban in January 2026. During that appeal, HJ Mitchell supported giving NorthernWinds another chance, saying: Let’s give them some rope and see what they do with it.

Since returning, NorthernWinds has edited heavily in ARBPIA. In the last 90 days, approximately 87% of their article-space edits have been in the ARBPIA topic area. In the same period, they have become the most significant contributor to Talk:Zionism by added content, and the fifth most prolific contributor by edit count.

At the same time they have repeatedly failed to follow the Zionism article’s consensus required provision despite warnings from multiple editors, refused to acknowledge having done so and defended their actions, and doubled down by violating CRP again. Per the CRP provision: Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page, and as explained by Valereee: Content X was added four weeks ago and has remained since, with or without minor changes that do not affect meaning in any significant way. Editor A removes it/changes it in some way that changes meaning. Editor B objects to the removal, citing consensus required. The onus is on Editor A to find consensus; content should revert to the previous version while discussion occurs. Lack of other objection does not satisfy affirmative consensus required.

I include the canvassing diffs because NorthernWinds’ previous sanction history involved off-wiki canvassing/coordination concerns. The appeal record is relevant because concerns about post-sanction conduct and cross-project AIC-related disruption and repeating claims after correction were already raised before the topic ban was lifted. Related Wikiquote disruption regarding PIA content was also raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallangryplanet (talk • contribs) 09:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@asilvering, @Theleeklycauldron, on CRP misuse/WP:STONEWALLING: NW's own conduct demonstrates that they invoked CRP strictly against a source-only edit, then violated it twice. On the violations, VR provided context.

Regarding canvassing to AE, @The Bushranger cited WP:CANVASS as applying to AE, saying it's notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, then adding point #4 says On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior) (emphasis added), which would imply it applies to all discussions, not just editorial ones. (In fairness, Daniel Case disagreed).

@Theleekycauldron: should I understand that it's acceptable to canvass POV-aligned editors to AE cases because it's not technically consensus-forming? If this sort of activity is not sanctionable, it would be good to have official guidance from ArbCom.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified on 16 May 2026

Discussion concerning NorthernWinds

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 NorthernWinds

  NorthernWinds's statement contains 465 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

The diffs in order:

1. N/A
2. N/A
3. This was done due to several editors complaining that the RfC was unclear and misunderstandings regarding what the options mean
4. I assessed the consensus wrongly. This was later highlighted by VR
5. N/A (not my diff)

---

1. I am honestly not sure why this is brought up. I very clearly misunderstood VR so I thought I had consensus. After VR clarified himself and exposed the gap between my understanding and his intention, I also went and asked Katzrockso (whom I also thought supported that removal) to make sure I understand everyone correctly.
2. Already addressed (in this #1 and 1.4)
3. N/A
4. N/A
5. defended the conduct I gave my two cents and struck when I turned out to be wrong.
6. Valereee said so after being given new info which I did not know when I made my comment. When I received that info I also struck anything that could be seen as "defensive", so you are misrepresenting me here.

---

1. I honestly had no idea about this and no one (including you!) has brought it to my attention so far. You are very dishonestly dropping the fact that I was simply reacting to a talk thread . Looking back this revert was linked in the beginning of the thread but I did not press these links (I assumed they were old)
2. See this #1

---

1. Explained here. I do think that I should've thought twice before linking it and I do regret that comment but at the same time, in a discussion where a user is being disruptive it is appropriate to suggest reporting them.
2. N/A
3. N/A
4. I came to express concerns about TarnishedPath's behavior. His behavior in a later iteration of the same discussion ended up in a topic ban. Also, I actually supplied more evidence against Wh1 so I don't think that my participation can be seen as cooperation with canvassing.

Arbs have went over my behaviour in the other (2) projects and have found it to be a misunderstanding in one case and in another they said I don't think "causing disruption" is a fair summary of that dispute

This is not Smallangryplanet's first time assuming bad faith and distorting the truth when it comes to me. Unsurprisingly, they also do this to others. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding my edit volume in Zionism article: I almost the exclusively filled this quote list and am the sole creator of this list. The quotes were often added one by one and each had several edits dedicated to them (to improve citation, add the original language etc). Just in the first linked list I added ~30 quotes out of 35. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

For the last paragraph and edit 2.6 & 3.1 see WP:SANCTIONGAME. @Kowal2701 Can you elaborate? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Related request NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron Regarding I don't see a reason not to AGF I am noting that Smallangryplanet has been previously warned to assume good faith and not treat Wikipedia as a battleground by AE admins. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Kowal2701

Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed this'd be quickly AEPR'd. Every single time SAP has participated at this noticeboard, it has been to defend others they're aligned with and attack others they aren't. Imo they're the epitome of WP:CPUSH, interactions at Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks#Reportedly in lead stick with me. See among other comments, where they uncompromisingly argue for attributing something no sources dispute (violation of Avoid stating facts as opinions), and pushed the specious point that "reportedly" doesn't cast doubt. Re uncompromisingly, see their response to Valereee's valiant attempt at consensus building Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by SuperPianoMan9167

  SuperPianoMan9167's statement contains 326 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

The consensus required provision at Zionism seems to be causing much more heat than light. Frequently, edits to the article are reverted with no justification beyond "per CRP, get consensus for this change" (there are some examples given above). This leads to RfCs being extremely common, and each new RfC almost always draws procedural objections like "the options are bad" or "there's not been enough workshopping". A demonstrative example of the issue is the workshop for the currently open RFC: Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism; the workshop can be found at Talk:Zionism/Archive 39#Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism - RfC workshop. Katzrockso called this RfC perhaps the most workshopped RfC on Wikipedia, and they'd likely be right: the workshop section as archived is 154,932 bytes long (including signatures and timestamps). I participated in that workshop, and this observation by me sums it up pretty well: Are we seriously voting on options for an RfC? Why not just start an RfC that says "how should this sentence be worded"?

As for the RfC itself, M.Bitton's stonewalling was presumably the primary motivation for requesting a temporary injunction against them in PIA before the Maghreb case closed.

I started a discussion about the problem of having too many RfCs at Talk:Zionism#RfC overload. The issues here and on the Zionism article in general line up with the observations in ScottishFinnishRadish's evidence from ARBPIA5: The community has limited energy to continuously engage with dispute resolution in this topic area, so frequent RFCs tend to draw diminishing returns until only invested editors remain.

Would it be feasible to replace the consensus required provision with enforced BRD or remove it entirely? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering:

The editor who appears to have been abusing CRP the most is @TarnishedPath, with a number of reverts giving no explanation beyond "there's no consensus" or "restore longstanding version": TarnishedPath has already been topic banned from PIA for 90 days, but this stonewalling behavior, which goes back months (see their edits to the page and look at the edit summaries for their reverts), is strong evidence for making that topic ban permanent.

The other main editor who has been doing this (M.Bitton) has been banned from the project entirely. But for completeness, here's some diffs of M.Bitton's stonewalling: SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by EaglesFan37

@SuperPianoMan9167 mentioned my injunction request against M.Bitton. I requested the injection because there had already been enough votes for him to be indeffed, SFR said that M.Bitton would have been topic banned if there wasn't the ongoing Maghreb case, and M.Bitton had been actively stonewalling the Talk:Zionism page.

Not sure why this ARBCOM case was exactly filed. Most of these edits had already been hashed out elsewhere and involve Vice Regent. Northern Winds and Vice Regent appear to have already made amends and have continued working in a collaborative manner in sandboxes.

Also worth noting that two Wikipedia's who would not be considered as sharing NorthernWind's POV have stated since the filing that they haven't viewed NorthernWind's conduct on the Talk:Zionism page as concerning.

To be frank, this AE case feels like it could be retaliation for the other ongoing AE case involved TP and SH. EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Paprikaiser

NorthernWinds performed an improper procedural intervention in a CTOP dispute, by closing a merge discussion with the rationale Closing discussion to allow for RfD as requested. NorthernWinds then told an involved editor: I closed the merge request on Holocaust survivor Palestine advocacy despite merge concensus in order to allow for an RfD as you requested. Do you plan to initiate it or should I? The editor replied that an RfD would put pressure to get this resolved quicker, and NorthernWinds then stated: The outcome would've been to merge if not for the RfD request. NorthernWinds repeated this to another involved editor. This was not a proper close neutrally assessing consensus among the options, but an improper one to enable their preferred procedural outcome despite acknowledging the lack of WP:CONSENSUS.

Regarding the CRP violations, the chronology is missing some context. On March 18 TP invoked CRP. Shortly after, TP participated in the talk page discussion and other editors agreed with them. On 2 April IOHANNVSVERVS asks NorthernWinds explicitly to please make proposals for edits which are likely to be disputed rather than implementing them unilaterally, and NorthernWinds agreed. On 15 April NorthernWinds opens NORN, acknowledging the existing opposition, and receiving more opposition. On 4 May NorthernWinds opens an RfC, and receives more objections. Despite this consistent lack of consensus across multiple discussions, with one ongoing, after TP is t-banned on 5 May, NorthernWinds unilaterally alters the content again on 6 May.

For the cited 10 May violation, TP's challenge in April didn't only cite CRP; it explicitly referenced the talk cited for the edit that had no replies: There is no consensus for this. Linking a talk discussion in which no one else participated indicates a lack of interest, not consensus for any proposed change, not that one was put. Do not reinstate this again without consensus per WP:CRP. NorthernWinds's edit summary on 10 May cited a newly-opened talk by Absolutiva (a now blocked sock) which said TarnishedPath reverted two times [24], [25], even notifying me for self-reverting. For now, the user has been topic banned from Arab-Israeli conflict area for 90 days. This linked the April diff. So NorthernWinds knew the latest revert was because the talk discussion had no replies, and still made the edit.

I don't want to get into the merits of CRP as policy, but on its being over/misused and leading to alleged RfC inflation exculpatory of NorthernWinds's behavior, I want to point out that Zionism saw only 5 RfCs in 16 months, all since March 31. NorthernWinds started 2 (19 April, 4 May) and precipitated 2 (21 February talk leading to 16 April and 24 April). The RfC on 31 March was related to recently expired moratorium content. Of these, 3 were procedurally closed. CRP did not cause the marginal RfC uptick beginning on March 31, and has no bearing on NorthernWinds's violations of it. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning NorthernWinds

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

enforced BRD implemented asilvering (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• SuperPianoMan9167, any editors who are reverting changes solely because they don't have prior affirmative consensus are being disruptive. "Consensus required" says that an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. It doesn't give license to editors to revert for no reason other than a lack of discussion; it says that once objections have been raised, consensus needs to occur. Please report anyone who is doing that so we can evict them from the topic area for stonewalling. That said, I personally don't see any reason not to change it to enforced BRD. ScottishFinnishRadish, you've been handling this talk page recently, what do you think? -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Enforced BRD slows edit warring, consensus required stops it but enables stonewalling. I'm fine dropping down to enforced BRD and just topic banning anyone who edit wars. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• I'm fine with enforced BRD. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Re the 2nd CRP incident (diffs 3.1 and 3.2): There seems to be some weird circularity going on where TP is reverting for "no consensus" in order to lock in use of a restriction that prevents edits from being made without consensus. IDONTLIKEIT/OWN as a revert reason isn't enough to invoke CRP/BRD on the next edit. Was there an edit before Absolutiva's that would have justified TarnishedPath's revert? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Theleekycauldron, TP has since been temp-tbanned for stonewalling at Zionism. You may want to weigh in at the thread on them, above, since we're currently in a state of "consensus it's not good, no consensus as to remedy". -- asilvering (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  I did see that SFR dropped that temporary topic ban; given that TarnishedPath and I have a history of working together at DYK, I wouldn't feel right weighing in on a sanction for them for PIA conduct (although I don't have a problem scrutinizing their edits for other purposes, since that's a lot of what the DYK work is). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, I don't really see a case for action here. CRP is not in and of itself carte blanche to object to an edit unless that edit is itself a violation of CRP. You can't just revert an edit so that CRP locks in, so unless I'm misreading the situation, TP's revert was spurious at best and I'm not gonna sanction NW for overlooking it. I don't see a reason not to AGF on NW having made a mistake on the other wrt whether affirmative consensus existed. Canvassing to AE threads isn't great but also AE threads aren't consensus based, so the letter of that guideline doesn't really apply here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Smallangryplanet: I don't, strictly speaking, think the canvassing guidelines apply to AE. Plenty of canvassing-like behavior is also battleground editing and I will still be in favor of sanctioning that accordingly. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)