Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

< Wikipedia:Arbitration
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Example)

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Pbsouthwood Motions 11 December 2025 1/0/2
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log none none 22 November 2025
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 none (orig. case) 18 December 2025

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Pbsouthwood

Initiated by theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) at 15:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Theleekycauldron

 
 Y Extension granted to 600 words.
 
     Theleekycauldron's statement contains 587 words and complies with the 600-word limit.

Two years ago, Pbsouthwood's autopatrolled rights were revoked by Moneytrees for persistent copyright violations in technical articles. He had received multiple warnings prior (1 2 3), and editors at the first AN thread noted his poor response to the people trying to help him improve his work – he essentially dismissed the concerns and told the copyright team to fix his work themselves (4 5). The thread was never closed, but I would say the rough consensus was that Pbsouthwood should be given a chance to improve before a block was imposed, and that the AP revocation and the opening of a CCI were enough for the time being.

Fast forward to last month, and it is apparent that no improvements were made. Dclemens1971 stopped a DYK nomination of an article written by Pbsouthwood because he spotted extensive close paraphrasing in the article; Pbsouthwood was again dismissive of the criticism, telling Dclemens to fix it himself if he wanted, and the nomination stalled. I brought the issue to AN, which Pbsouthwood (to take the AGF explanation) failed to notice, continuing to edit until forced to the table with a block. Editors found still more instances of close paraphrasing in Pbsouthwood's recent work at AN, as well as text–source integrity issues, that most agreed were substantial; still, as Dennis Brown said, the community was not able to decide on a satisfactory remedy for the issues presented.

Further community discussion, whether at AN or recall, is not going to fix this; the community has trouble dealing with issues involving admins that largely do not implicate tool use directly. Recall has so far been limited to more straightforward cases that don't need ArbCom's capacity to process a complex fact pattern, and even if Pbsouthwood were recalled, that wouldn't be enough on its own solve the copyvio problem – ArbCom is better-suited to come up with a well-tailored solution. I also want to stress that Pbsouthwood has given no indication that they intend to significantly change their writing habits or demeanor to meet community standards, not two years ago and not now. This will come back if it is not addressed, and so I urge the Committee to do so. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs who are hoping for Pbsouthwood to promise to do better, or to say anything at all, should note that it's been three days since this case request was filed and Pbsouthwood hasn't edited since December 9, despite having been a quite prolific editor before that (last 50 edits span 2 days). WP:ADMINACCT: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially ... during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Particularly inappropriate in light of the gross breaches of COI that other users have credibly alleged here. The Committee may want to plan for Pbsouthwood ditching these proceedings, or only showing up after a week or two. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree and ScottishFinnishRadish: I think the suspension motion strikes a great balance; I would also suggest looking at how previous Committees have handled situations like this one (see Carlossuarez46, Jonathunder, and Geschichte), which is to accept and suspend in the same motion instead of having everyone come to the table twice. (I doubt many arbs would want to run the case in absentia, or would vote to pblock and desysop someone they don't want to take a case about in the first place.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom Clerks: Ah, shoot. Happy to cut back instead, but could I please have an extension up to here? Many thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pbsouthwood

Statement by Moneytrees

Hey all. I'm neutral towards this going to a case, but I can present evidence if it does. I'll try to work on the CCI in the meantime. For some potentially useful precedent, there's the 2010 case of admin Craigy144, who was blocked indefinitely for copyright violations and desysoped by motion by Arbcom after becoming non-communicative. The copying was much more blatant and wholesale with Craigy, though, and would be unlikely to go for as long as it did now and days. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

 
 Y Extension granted to 617 words.
 
     Dennis Brown's statement contains 617 words and complies with the 617-word limit.

Unusual situation. I think all parties are acting in good faith, but there is a problem here that the community can not fix, demonstrated by two years with no hope of a solution. The last WP:AN highlights this well, and after a few days of review, and many hours of trying to craft a solution, I abandoned the idea of a solution as there isn't a way to read consensus. This all falls within the grey area of plagiarism and good people can disagree which side of the line this falls on. So it isn't a content issue, but a behavioral issue, as there is a long pattern of this style of editing from the editor. One of the reasons that the community can't solve this is the complexity of copyright\plagiarism issues in general, which is also why CCI stayed backlogged for years. It is near impossible to get a sufficient group of people to closely examine these kinds of cases in detail and find consensus. When cases are clear cut, copy/paste infringement, solo admins handle it, so community discussion aren't needed, thus WP:ANI cases are somewhat rare. For me, sanctions are not the goal here (ie: deadminship, as admin status isn't relevant to the core issue), only solutions moving forward. Some kind of clarity. I don't think that Arb can fix all the problems with enforcement, but maybe resolve this one case and the community can use that to create or modify policy in the future. We need intervention, and maybe some fresh ideas, from outside the standard community process. Yes, we are asking a lot, but this is exactly the type of case that Arb was created for. So I would ask Arb accepts this case, which may take an extended period to resolve.

Disclosure: I did procedurally block Pbsouthwood for failing to respond per WP:ADMINACCT, but accept his claim that he just did not check his notifications while continuing to edit, even after multiple notifications. This was a major mistake on his part, but I feel that it is resolved and doesn't require further review, nor make me WP:involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • CaptainEek, the discussion is civil, but the lack of drama indicates that all parties are acting in good faith and shouldn't be used as a reason to deny Arb review. If someone is violating policy, whether they are being civil and doing it in good faith isn't a defense, it is a mitigating factor. The issue is the inability to reach a consensus due to the reasons I outlined in my non-close at WP:AN. If it is violating policy, it is nuanced enough that a solo admin can't unilaterally use the tools under current policy. If Arb refused to hear the case, you have two possible outcomes: 1. It continues in spite of reasonable concerns that it has been violating policy over the last two plus years, or 2. An admin might have to WP:IAR, which is likely to be heavy handed. Individual admin are generally barred from issuing either nuanced (convoluted) sanctions or heavy sanctions (indef block) in seemingly borderline cases, without clear community consensus. Civility will be replaced with drama, as there is no consensus or policy that authorizes such a solution. People could start a punitive RECALL, but that doesn't address the actual problem and only feeds the drama. This is why Arb needs to get involved, as it is well established that the community is unable to resolve this issue, which has legal ramification since it concerns copyright law. The scope is purely behavioral: does the activity violate policy or not? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom Clerks: please extend my limit to cover the above statement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sennecaster

Close paraphrasing is not the primary issue here; it's ADMINACCT. Underneath all of the arguing over close paraphrasing, there are real issues with how Pbsouthwood responds to feedback. GreenLipstickLesbian has raised COI issues, Theleekycauldron has raised issues with poor responses to feedback on Pbsouthwood's edits, especially from non-admins, both AN discussions carried dismissal of issues, and the community has been unable to address those. Template:Did you know nominations/Buddy breathing, WP:Copyright problems/2023 May 30, COI issues raised on his talk page (User talk:Pbsouthwood#Diving related articles), and the response to the block by Dennis Brown to get him to participate in the noticeboard discussion after actively editing multiple articles, have similar tone to each other and all contain what I believe is a failure of ADMINACCT. If I had done it myself, people would be gifting me a RECALL for Christmas. BOZ has my utmost respect for how he has handled his own CCI. I wish Pbsouthwood had a similar response.

These issues go deeper than what the community has been able to produce out of two AN discussions, and so far my read of the 'room' so to speak is that any sanction we, the community, lays out will either be ineffective or too heavy-handed. Please accept this case. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yngvadottir

Statement by GreenLipstickLesbian

 
   GreenLipstickLesbian's statement contains 501 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

The Pbsouthwood CCI is incredibly difficult - many of the books cited are hard to access and viewing them to either verify content or check for close paraphrasing would require purchasing them from Southwood or organizations he is affiliated with.[1][2] It is troubling that the close paraphrasing has continued past 2023, implying that Pbsouthwood has been unable or unwilling to come up with an effective way to stop it from re-occurring. And the community, as McClenon points out, hasn't seemed to be able to stop it.

Given that issues of source-text integrity and general PAG adherence have already been brought up, I feel is is fair to ask how an apparent COI may have exacerbated these issues, or, at least, the perception of them. Arbcom could be a calmer venue to discuss that in, given the community does not necessarily appreciate admins citing self-published SNS posts[3] to add[4] mainspace content, possibly viewed as self-aggrandizing, or add content about non-notable organizations they founded cited only to said organization's webpage.[5][6]

As established, Pbsouthwood cites and has closely paraphrased from DAN SA web publications.[7] He discloses a connection to DAN SA on his userpage, describing it as akin to a client on friendly terms with a few staff. Now, DAN SA has explicitly told people to view Wikimedia Wikitravel content written by Pbsouthwood [8] and published a poorly-disclosed advertisement of Peter Southwood's book [9] with seemingly misleading information in the author field.[10]

It is important to note that DAN SA is a financial competitor of PADI[11] - and a few months after they published that advertisement, Pbsouthwood published[12] Death of Linnea Mills, with viewer-facing, Wikivoice statements such as "Allegations of attempted cover-up by PADI" and "Failure of PADI to release Mills' dive computer to the investigators", and implying a living person lied to a coroner during an investigation into the death of a young woman [13], sourced to Youtube video[14] where a pair of podcasters interview the deceased woman's family and attorney. This is a clear WP:BLPSPS issue, but was it one influenced by the apparent conflict of interest? Have his COI disclosures been in line with community expectations? Are these questions that you, as an arbitrator, feel the community can handle, especially taking into account Southwood's status as an admin?

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 03:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC) (Corrected Wikimedia to Wikitravel at 22:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Contact Legal iff you're very confident they won't do anything, incl. about past issues because they reserve the right to terminate his account. They also won't weigh in on plagiarism, a local guideline. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl Communicating with your fellow editors when they raise good-faith concerns about your editing is not optional; ARBCOM needs no further justification for a block than that. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl To address your worries, Southwood was blocked last week for failure to communication concerns[15], the article was deleted w/ support at AN for BLP issues (validated), and yes, communication blocks are common against non-admins. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 00:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fear CaptainEek missed the point; the issue has, ultimately, always been the very lack of communication collaboration you're seeing now. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 00:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dclemens1971

My involvement in the Buddy breathing nom was in considering the hook(s) for promotion to the homepage. In doing the required checks, I came across copy (diff) that was not identical to the source material but had a similar ring, and I began looking at it more closely. I am convinced that several passages crossed the line of inappropriate WP:CLOP, and for that reason I asked Pbsouthwood to rewrite these sections to avoid a pull later on should the hook have been promoted and/or queued. It's still a bit of a grey area, however, so I didn't take a more extensive look beyond that article. I was unaware that Pbsouthwood was an administrator or that there was an open CCI. Given the surrounding context and the fact that there is not a robust consensus that Pbsouthwood's paraphrasing crosses the line of copyvio or whether his behaviour warrants desysop, I believe the case would benefit from Arbcom's review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

I think there's a bit more nuance than leeky's summary provides but am confident the Arbs will get that when they read the conversation. The piece I'm wondering about - and was wondering about at AN - is what outcome people are looking for here. The obvious answer is for PBS to take on board the feedback and substantively change his process for writing articles in response to the criticisms. Short of that happening what outcome are people seeking? I feel like the lack of proposals there is, more than anything, why we're here. If something had been put forward there it seems to me like maybe this gets resolved by the community. I'm not suggesting a decline now that we're here - we are here because the community at least didn't and perhaps couldn't come up with an answer - but am am noting the ways that removing sysop (the obvious answer) don't actually do anything to substantively address what the community couldn't solve even if ArbCom decides it's still appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't get as much attention at AN as the close paraphrasing, but I think PBS method of writing the article and then finding sources is at least as troubling and certainly responsible for some of the issues identified in that thread. I would urge the Arbs not to lose sight of that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoySmith

@ArbCom Clerks: WP:CLOP is one of my areas of expertise, so I undertook a closer examination of the example given above in the Buddy Breathing DYK. It's looking like it'll end up at about 8-900 words, so before posting it, I request an extension to 1000 words. RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Daniel's note below, leaving out the technical analysis, yes, the example in Buddy breathing clearly qualifies as WP:CLOP. If this was a new author, it would be excusable, as long as they accepted it as a learning experience and undertook to improve their writing skills. But based on what I can see, this has been a long-festering problem; one of the examples cited goes back to 2016, and Pbsouthwood just keeps digging in his heels insisting he's right and everybody else is wrong. This needs to be addressed.

It is unclear to me that this is something that needs to be addressed by arbcom. I don't see why the community can't address this on their own. Perhaps something akin to a WP:0RR restriction: anybody may remove text written by Pbsouthwood if they believe it violates WP:CLOP and Pbsouthwood may not revert that. Or perhaps there are other creative ways to get through the WP:IDHT wall Pbsouthwood has erected, up to and including a CBAN if no better way can be found.

I also don't see why a desysop would be an appropriate fix; copyright violations are not an admin action. And even if it was something that deserved a desysop, I don't see why the community couldn't address this at WP:RECALL. I disagree in principle that recall should be "limited to more straightforward cases". There is still a place for arbcom in desysop proceedings, but I think that's mostly in cases which hinge on private evidence, CU data, off-wiki activity, or other special situations where the community is unable, by policy, to see all the applicable evidence.

Be that as it may, my main point here is to validate the CLOP issue and to add my voice to the chorus which is already forming that enough is enough and this needs to come to a resolution regardless of the forum.

More apropos to the desysop question, looking at their logs [16], virtually the only thing they ever use the admin tools for is maintaining pages they have written or at least are in their very narrow range of topic interests (i.e. diving). This is troubling, as the tools are entrusted to people so they can provide services to the project as a whole, not make it easier to work on their own stuff. RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jéské Couriano

This strikes me as closer to EYR (admin caught socking), KP (admin intimidating users they were in conversation with) or MLD2 (admin disregarding sanctions). It's a field where there's ample precedent, including relatively recent precedent, for ArbCom to step in despite tool use not being directly implicated. And I foresee that if this case is accepted, the result is going to be much closer to EYR than the other two, especially given the COPYVIO concerns. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sceptical we'll see any sort of response from Pbsouthwood; they seem to have gone on a sabbatical on December 8 and haven't edited since. However, I will call attention to this responce on his user talk, which seems to quite blatantly fly in the face of accounting for his actions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

The Committee should not take this request as it is currently framed unless and until evidence is provided of Pbsouthwood abusing their administrative toolset. Issues of copyright and close paraphrasing are issues of editor conduct, not administrative rights, and easily within the community's powers to resolve without the Committee getting involved. And as the filer themselves notes, removing Pbsouthwood's admin rights would not address the copyright issue. Occasional mistakes are compatible with administrator status, and I am uncomfortable with the growing trend of threatening to remove an advanced user's permissions as a punishment for entirely unrelated conduct.

As several of the admins commenting in the AN thread have already observed: we regularly block editors who do not sufficiently understand and repeatedly violate copyright. There is so far no reason to believe that is not the remedy here, and there has been very little discussion of any appropriate lesser remedy other than dumping it on Arbcom, evidently only because Pbsouthwood is an administrator. Arbitration is meant to be a last resort for conduct issues that the community cannot solve, not an alternative to community processes for stuff that's hard. If Pbsouthwood is continuing to violate copyright and is dismissive of the community's justifiable concerns, the solution is to block them from editing. Being an administrator is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChildrenWillListen

 
     ChildrenWillListen's statement contains 446 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I still think a recall would be a quick drama-free solution to this problem, while acting as a wake-up call to Pbsouthwood, who would think twice before engaging in further WP:CLOP violations. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: I agree, but most recall petitions succeed in under a day while ArbCom proceedings take months, bringing undue stress to the parties involved.
@Thryduulf: A valid case can be made for Pbsouthwood violating WP:ADMINACCT, since they have replied a total of three times (and that only after a block!) in an AN thread discussing their actions. They also have an open WP:CCI against them, and while @Carrite is right that this process is extremely time consuming, and editors shouldn't be obligated to work through all that, they should've at least had a visible reaction and took some time to reflect. Even if they don't use their tools, administrators are supposed to be role models all editors strive to be, and thus should quickly respond if their behavior is called into question.
As for the WP:SUPERMARIO effect, that's exactly why the community can't handle this on their own. The community is extremely reluctant to sanction a current admin, especially if it involves blocks of some sort. Thus, any remedy should involve sanctions to prevent the underlying behavior problems (in this case, WP:CLOP violations) from occurring again, as well as reevaluating the editor's sysop status if needed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenLipstickLesbian: To my knowledge, the WMF has never banned someone over copyright violations, and they probably wouldn't even think of doing that to an admin after the whole WP:FRAMBAN affair. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: Would you consider a block from mainspace as @ScottishFinnishRadish suggested? (to avoid WP:SUPERMARIO?) Perhaps something like Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_14#Jytdog should be considered to ensure they don't evade scrutiny. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done at the same time as the request; a block has the same effect as avoiding scrutiny while sanctioned and block evasion are prohibited. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree, et al.: How about forcing the case to resume instead of being able to appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment after the three-month window? This is what the Jytdog case did and it disincentivizes this kind of response. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, but it has complicated implications such as today's arbitrators being allowed to remain active on that case until its conclusion, even if that is years later. If Pbsouthwood wants a case, which includes an (admittedly low) chance of keeping their adminship, they have enough time to make that decision. There's no need for a 2027 ArbCom to run a full case at Pbsouthwood's beck and call. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I think Pbsouthwood being an admin is a red herring here. The actions they are accused of are unrelated to being an admin and removing his admin bit will do nothing to resolve the actual issues (see also WP:SUPERMARIO) if they are desysopped it needs to be done in conjunction with, and at the same time as, remedies address the copyright issues meaning RECALL is very much the wrong process for this situation.

I am reminded of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) which has similar hallmarks to this one. In that case RAN was (after clarification) indefinitely prohibited from:

  • Creating any articles or draft articles in any namespace.
  • Moving any page into the article namespace from any other namespace.

I don't know if those remedies would work here, but unless they've been suggested and rejected previously (I haven't looked) it seems worthwhile considering them. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: My understanding is the primary reason this is here is that they have, to date, refused to cooperate with CCI and do not agree they need to improve wrt close paraphrasing. If this is correct then any remedies along the lines you suggest would need to be accompanied by some sort of "or else".
@ToBeFree: the final couple of sentences of the motion, If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Pbsouthwood may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship or administrator election. The block can then be appealed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. read as though the block from article space cannot be appealed until after a successful RFA/AELECT, however it is unlikely that they would successfully regain their adminship from the community unless the article space issues were resolved first. I highly doubt that you intended to create a catch-22, so I suggest rephrasing to make it clear that the route of appeal for the article space block is independent of admin status. My first idea for that is to split it into bullet points, perhaps:
If the case is not unsuspended within three months, or Pbsouthwood resigns the administrative tools:
  • They may regain the administrative tools only via a successful request for adminship or administrator election.
  • They may appeal the block from article space at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had removed the word "then" since and hope it's (already) okay now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That does work. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

I said it in the Norton case and I will say it again here: the CCI system of putting an editor's entire edit history under review, edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit DOES NOT SCALE for an editor with 165,000 edits. Yep, they opened him for a case, just like Norton; and yep, the CCI people are pulling out their hair trying to cut down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring; and yep, here we are because of festering frustration about a corrective system that DOES NOT WORK for an editor with a long editing history and because some people are pissed off at his (rational) unwillingness to help use small fish to cut large trees. Decline this case, there isn't one. If he needs to lose tools, Admin recall is THATTAWAY-->. If there is a problem with content, address it on a case-by-case basis. If he is outright copy-pasting sources at this late date, AN/I is <--THATTAWAY. This is not an Arbcom matter, nor was it for Norton, a productive content writer who was destroyed on CCI's Frustration Pyre for nothing. Fix the broken CCI system if you wanna do something useful. It's not Mr. Southwood's fault that the copyright investigation system is malformed and overloaded. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

Whether the ArbCom should accept this case depends on how ArbCom and the community interpret the ArbCom's mandate to resolve disputes that the community cannot resolve. It is my opinion that ArbCom should accept this case, because I respectfully disagree with the editors who say that the community can resolve the dispute. A different English Wikipedia community, with a different mix of editors and with the current guidelines and procedures, might be able to craft an appropriate remedy for an admin with a long history of negligence about copyright. This English Wikipedia community, with the editors that it has and with the current guidelines and procedures, has concluded that this community cannot resolve this dispute.

Maybe the community should be able to resolve this case, but that is a contrary-to-fact assumption.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, even if almost no one else on the Internet does. The English Wikipedia community does not know how to deal with an administrator who does not take copyright seriously. We elected the ArbCom to deal with difficult cases, and this is a difficult case. We don't know how to deal with this problem as a community, and are asking ArbCom to deal with this case because it is difficult. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Thoughts

There have been comments about what will be appropriate remedies, and I have two comments at this time. First, ArbCom is a deliberative body, and has experience in formulating remedies step-by-step with consideration and compromise. The process by which a proposed decision evolves into a decision is a more orderly process than the process by which a complex case evolves at WP:ANI, which typically becomes a great monster with tentacles. ArbCom has shown that they have the tools to dissect the sea monster. Maybe they should snack on calamari while working.

Second, I respectfully disagree with editors who say that desysop should not be considered. There has been a loss of trust. Even if it is not specifically a loss of trust about the use of the admin tools (and it is not), there is a loss of trust in the ability of an editor to follow complex rules effectively, and that should reflect on their overall trust. They are already less trusted than many experienced editors (who are autopatrolled), and administrators should be even more trusted than most experienced editors.

I am not familiar with the copyright contributor investigation process, but I see that it is very seriously backlogged. ArbCom does not make policy and does not resolve content issues, but ArbCom should nonetheless address conduct issues that the community cannot resolve, including conduct issues that are complicated by policy that the community has failed to work on. ArbCom can also explain to the community how severe the copyright investigation problem is, and how it is necessary to fix the problem.

The proposed temporary action is a reasonable interim step while ArbCom waits for PB Southwood's recovery from ArbCom flu. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jclemens

No need for a case; the committee should desysop by motion and return to the community for further discussion. There is no community outcome under which Pbsouthwood retaining the tools will be in the encyclopedia's best interest.

An admin who handles copyright so poorly that the community does not trust that admin to maintain autopatrolled in their capacity as an editor is untenable. I do not understand why, with the case framed as it was, Pbsouthwood was not desysop'ed for cause previously. I'm reminded of the case of BOZ who voluntarily handed in his bit when confronted by Fram that his editing had involved far too much close paraphrasing. In that case, the CCI and a quiet word were enough, and this was ~20 months earlier than the first concerns noted in this case request.

If we as a community think it is acceptable for us to have admins who are so deficient at minding copyright when contributing as editors that a CCI is in order, I suggest we need to involve the Foundation's legal guidance on that. Jclemens (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ I hope it came across that I admired (and still do) your principled stand in the face of unfortunate mistakes. Your reaction should be a model for every admin, including the one being discussed here. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jusdafax

It appears to me that that this case request should be accepted on its merits. While a desysop by motion or community is tempting because of the brevity involved, I find a number of troubling issues make a full case desirable, in order to be scrupulously fair and hopefully set a precedent. Administrators, of course, are among our most trusted editors. Has this issue dragged on because of an excess of leeway based on that implied trust? The reported non-response to repeated requests for corrective acknowledgement is of particular interest. Copyright protections are a core WP value, needless to say, and I submit that ArbCom should clarify the matter in a deliberate manner. Thanks, Jusdafax (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Since people disagree where "the line" is, and it's subjective, one thing Arbcom could do, with or without opening a case, is ask WMF Legal to weigh in on the legality of the examples of Pbsouthwood's alleged close paraphrasing, and of the examples in the WP:PLAGIARISM guideline, and the WP:CLOP essay as a whole. Multiple admins here and at AN have made legal claims (about copyright law), let's vet those claims and confirm our policies/guidelines are calibrated correctly. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the COI/BLP/NPOV issues have ever been raised before, and I think if they were raised at ANI right now (not AN), they'd be resolved a lot faster than at arbcom, and would make the much less important CLOP questions moot. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BOZ

@Jclemens: For what it's worth, I spent... I think about two years going through my CCI case page and editing anything I could find that read too close to the source, and hopefully got it all. That said, if anyone finds anything more there, let me know and I will gladly rewrite further. BOZ (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhododendrites

Since I haven't seen it linked yet, just dropping this WMF Legal write-up on close paraphrasing from back in 2012: meta:Wikilegal/Close Paraphrasing. May not be too helpful here, though.

I agree with those that have expressed that close paraphrasing is a complicated behavioral issue to deal with. It seems like conversations about it tend to include a lot of black-and-white statements about distinctions between ideas and expressions that seem pretty gray. Additional guidance from the foundation would be useful -- not on these or any other real examples, but perhaps on some invented/hypothetical examples that present a range of cases to go by. No opinion on a case, except to say that if it's accepted there may be some opportunities here for outside the box thinking in terms of tools to help resolve such disputes moving forward. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

It seems to me that if GreenLipstickLesbian's evidence above is remotely accurate, the correct thing to do would have been to seek a broad topic-ban from DAN and PADI, and perhaps just from recreational diving as a whole. But that's not, normally, something that would require rushing to ArbCom; even if there are other issues getting that absolute minimum restriction out of the way first seems like it should have been the first step. Has anyone just... pushed for that on ANI, and started an RFC to that end? If someone has both a COI and close-paraphrasing issues in a particular topic area, and neutrality issues in that topic area that seem in line with their COI, and they've constantly failed to adequately adhere to proper conduct or to communicate properly with warnings, the correct thing to do is just to topic-ban them from that topic area immediately, surely? --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Just to note that I have WP:IAR deleted Death of Linnea Mills following the AN discussion here - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Could_someone_please_BLPDELETE_Death_of_Linnea_Mills?. It seems to me as someone previously completely uninvolved - as it did to the OP of the discussion - that this is a hit piece on the PADI organisation but the real problem is that it contains negative statements and claims about living people that are sourced to very flaky sources such as non-RS YouTube discussion pieces. I am seriously concerned that an administrator would believe this to be acceptable, even if they didn't allegedly have a COI. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Bushranger

Having read through this relatively briefly but, I hope, thoroughly enough, my conclusion is that, were it simply up to me, PBS would be blocked and we'd call it a day. But since we're here, I believe Arbcom should accept this case, with possible remedies including: a topic-ban from recreational diving, broadly construed; a requirement for any new article creations to go through the WP:AFC process; and a desysop. While it is true the admin tools have not been misused, adminship carries with it an expectation of a higher standard of conduct from those who carry the mop, and an editor who cannot be trusted with copyvio/WP:CLOP, which PBS clearly cannot be at this time, falls short of that by a significant margin. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

Regarding the motion to keep the editor blocked from mainspace should the case be closed after three months: as I discussed in a previous case, personally I feel it would be better to provide some indication of the concerns that should be addressed in an appeal. Naturally without a case, it would not be detailed as a set of findings. Nonetheless, I think it would be helpful for the arbitration committee to provide its collective view on the issues that an appeal should cover. isaacl (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't! I'd like any future ArbCom dealing with an appeal to read the entire page here instead of relying on a summary. Same for Pbsouthwood, who should be able to identify and address the issues from the content of this page here. Also, trying to find a summary everyone is happy with might make the discussion unnecessarily complicated. To create an accurate and exhaustive list of the issues, we'd have a case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current motion shouldn't provide a summary that future arbitration committees rely upon. Normally when an editor is blocked, though, the blocking admin explains the rationale for the block, so the editor can improve their behaviour in an appropriate manner. In this case, a number of people have raised concerns, but there has been no evaluation of the validity of those concerns with respect to community expectations. I'm personally uneasy with blocking an editor from editing, past case closure, without providing some rationale for the block. isaacl (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the need to communicate with other editors: generally speaking, editors without administrative privileges aren't blocked solely for not responding to raised concerns. Those concerns must still be validated, even if the editor in question doesn't comment. If there is agreement that the behaviour is problematic and is at risk of being repeated, then a block can ensue. isaacl (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the list of examples of blocked editors, other validated concerns accompanied the lack of communication. isaacl (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Pbsouthwood: Clerk notes

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

Pbsouthwood: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Recused, of course. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. I have reviewed various good and featured articles nominated by Pbsouthwood, which have involved conversations back and forth. I think its better when arbs can evaluate behaviour without having previous extensive interactions. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I read through the AN thread and I'm unsure why we've ended up here. The discussion seemed civil and productive (and not yet finished), and Pb's conduct appeared problematic but borderline. Many of the alleged paraphrases were fine imo. The standout issue seem to be that Pb matches paragraph structure of sources, exemplified by his list that echoes the source list very closely. Pb needs to improve his paraphrasing, but I'm not seeing it as a code red issue. If we were to open a case, my proposed remedy would be something like "PB is required to spend five hours working with members of CCI to learn how to improve his paraphrasing." So my bottom line is: we can take this if folks really want, but I'm not seeing how that's more useful than Pb promising to do better and take some instruction. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, User:ChildrenWillListen, I simply can't agree that RECALL is drama free. It's maybe one of the most drama filled places on Wiki. Any attempt to remove admin permissions is drama filled. I also reject that we or the community have to jump to taking away adminship as the first and only remedy for issues with admins. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not something I say very often in ArbCom contexts, but I agree largely with Carrite—at least some of the heat being produced here is frustration at the scale of the task. More is being produced by legitimate disagreement about where the line is on acceptably close paraphrasing, and it's understandable that somebody would not want to go back through tens of thousands of their edits and fix something if they think others are being overly cautious. However, there are community norms around close paraphrasing and expectations around editors' responses to concerns about their edits. Those could be issues for ArbCom but I'm not sure this issue is ripe for that yet. If Peter engages constructively with the concerns, perhaps through education and compromise, he can be helped to see where the line is between verifiability and plagiarism; alternatively, if he was to agree to stop adding to the workload (regardless of whether he agrees that it is a necessary one)—for example by agreeing not to publish any more articles in mainspace until they have been checked for potential copyright problems—the pressure for enforcement action will likely ease. I would appreciate hearing from Peter but I don't think we need a lot of preliminary statements here. For any editors who feel strongly that ArbCom should take this case, I would appreciate (concise) thoughts on what ArbCom could take that addresses the problem and could not be achieved through community processes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. The hesitation above seems to be influenced by thoughts about what a good final result would look like, which I'd like to see determined by a case instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not immediately see a "quick-fix" motion since, as Eek indicates, this is not strictly an admin/tools-related issue, but I do potentially see merit in a case based on long-running issues the community does not appear to be able to solve. I would like to wait for PBS to reply before making any definite choice to accept or decline. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been holding off to see if there would be any response and I'm willing to extend a bit more time before concluding that they're intentionally laying low. If they don't return, a suspended case with a mainspace block and desysop after 3-6 months seems like a reasonable solution. That gives them an opportunity to return and deal with this or it removes the chance for further problematic COI, CLOP, copyvio, and BLP editing and addresses the community trust issue raised by avoiding accountability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pbsouthwood: Motion to suspend

Given Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs)'s absence from editing, the case is accepted and suspended for a period of three months, Pbsouthwood is temporarily blocked from the Article namespace, and is temporarily desysopped.

Should Pbsouthwood return to the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-en wikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Pbsouthwood will remain temporarily blocked and desysopped for the duration of the case.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion, this case shall be automatically closed, and Pbsouthwood shall remain blocked from the Article namespace and desysopped. Pbsouthwood may regain the administrative tools only via a successful request for adminship or administrator election. The block can be appealed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support:
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 17:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Aoidh (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'm hesitant to block from the mainspace but I'd rather that than a full block. At any rate, this seems unfortunately necessary. Southwood has--like many in this situation before him--ceased editing in the face of a case. Should he wish to timely return, I would like to fully investigate the matter, and I hypothesize that we will find his close paraphrasing is not as egregious as alleged (though I fear the COI may be its own issue). But absent his return, this motion leaves us in an acceptable enough place. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I think the admin status is a red herring but the lack of communication is an abdication of accountability requirements so I support the desysop. I would be happy to see the mainspace block lifted if Peter returns and engages with the concerns about his writing—either to discuss whether the concerns are valid or to fix the existing articles. To be clear, that is the preferable outcome and I hope Peter returns, but returning without addressing the concerns is not an option. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

I'd rather see this include a mainspace block to address the other editing issues that were raised. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per leek, @ToBeFree and KrakatoaKatie: any objection to
−
absence from editing, if the case is accepted, it will be suspended
+
absence from editing, the case is accepted and suspended
with any other tense changes that need tense changing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally typed that, then thought letting everyone formally accept and support the motion would be the more proper way of doing it. All good. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming they don't return in time for the case, but eventually want to be unblocked, would this block be appealable to an individual admin, only the community, or only ArbCom? This should be clarified. Personally, I support allowing an individual admin appeal. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the motion it says the block can be appealed at WP:ARCA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, missed that somehow. Thanks. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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:
  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.
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132133134

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-l lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget and this report may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
  • Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132133134

Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log

Initiated by The Bushranger at 01:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log

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

Statement by The Bushranger

So I have a conundrum regarding the requirement to log arbitration enformcement actions, with regard to unregistered IP addresses now that temporary accounts are a thing. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections, must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Now that we have temporary accounts, WP:TAIV notes Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed. I performed a rangeblock of an IPv6 /64 for GENSEX-related disruption; therefore, I need to log this. However that - necessarily - discloses the TAIV-access-provided IP address on this page. How does this circle get squared? (Note, I also blocked the most recent TA used by that range and logged it, for now, to deal with the reporting requirement until the above question is answered). - The Bushranger One ping only 01:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Ahh. Well, I did mark it as 'Arbitration enforcement', before going "and to log - hmmmm", but I'll keep that in mind in the future. The Bushranger One ping only 01:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: Appreciated. So, note it in the log, but without a link to the IP/range's Special:Contributions page then, I presume. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note, after the discussion below, I've logged it per [17]. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Izno

Yes, there are exceptions built into the policy for this kind of case. The issue does come to something like the revision deletion clause, which is clearly prohibitive. I suspect the people who wrote that into the TAIV policy actually just simply don't understand how revision deletion works (and that we'd have to revision delete... a lot... rather than I suspect the imagined "single revision" where the item was introduced). I put something in the ear of the WMF a couple weeks ago about that provision being dumb and needing rethinking, but this would be a good on-wiki use case specifically to reference. I agree that this all is also relevant beyond the "I need to block someone in the area" suggested above as enforcement also needs to consider "I need specifically to block someone using the powers prescribed in an arbitration case or in the contentious topic procedure" (consider as an example the old ban on Scientology IPs). Izno (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

@ToBeFree: I think your analysis is the best way of looking at this. I'll note that I reached out to WMF Legal a few weeks ago about expanding the consecutive-block rule to all admin actions (after finding myself in a gray area on disclosure by unblocking an IP on request from a TA on that IP). Last I heard from Madi Moss (WMF), the plan was to change it to "blocks, unblocks, or performs other administrative actions", although I don't know where that plan stands as of now. Of course it's the current policy that's binding, but even by the current wording I agree there's no issue with consecutive logging at AELOG (and Madi did not seem inclined to de-TAIV me for my consecutive-unblock :P).

All that said, yeah, the "appropriate venues" clause should work here if for some reason consecutive logging isn't enough to get the point across; if someone wants to do that, I'll repeat the suggestion I included in a footnote at TAIVDISCLOSE that they do the disclosure on a transcluded subpage, so that it can later be cleanly revdelled without taking out a bunch of unrelated history. So something like I have also blocked the TA's IP range, {{WP:Arbitration enforcement log/TAIV disclosure/1}} <small>([[WP:TAIVDISCLOSE|intentional disclosure]])</small>, for 180 days. Then at the end of those 180 days (or later if there's continued IP abuse at that point), redact and revdel. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log: Clerk notes

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Hello The Bushranger, the following premise is not factually correct: I performed a rangeblock of an IPv6 /64 for GENSEX-related disruption; therefore, I need to log this. You don't need to. Blocking someone for disruption, no matter in which topic area, is a simple administrative action that doesn't need logging. If you do something you could else not do, or if you don't want the rangeblock to be undoable without an appeal to WP:AN, then you can make it a formal contentious topics action. You can; you are not required to. The simplest practical answer to the question is thus "don't mark it as a GENSEX CTOP action". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all good. To answer the actual question regarding IP addresses and logging, though: To my personal understanding, just as blocking an IP address creates a public log entry, it can't be a problem to log a ban or any kind of sanction on an IP address. Making a connection to specific edits would be a problem, even making a connection to a specific page may be, but simply stating that you are applying sanction X to IP a.b.c.d should be as unproblematic as the existence of a public log entry of a block on a.b.c.d. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Linking to a page that can only be viewed by people with the needed access should be fine too. I assume this is about Special:IPContributions. Linking to it doesn't provide additional information to the wrong people; try opening that link in a private tab. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That won't work because the contribs are gone in 90 days. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now we're mixing whether something is allowed from a privacy perspective and whether something makes sense from our ArbCom logging desires. If the logs are gone after 90 days, the logs are gone after 90 days and reviewing the IP block is tough. This is just one additional reason why applying CTOP sanctions to IP addresses, just as bans, was always an unusual and rarely meaningful thing to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Logging the IP or range allows quicker or escalating sanctions, and that's an issue that comes up with ECR enforcement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ScottishFinnishRadish, there are so many unrealistic assumptions that come with this ... including formal awareness through a CTOP template that had to be sent to the IP address before that IP address can be sanctioned for continuing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor has to be aware, not every IP address or temporary amount they use. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah right. So if someone edits disruptively, we perform a checkuser lookup and log a sanction against their IP address range because that helps with escalating sanctions and they're known to be aware through non-public information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So yeah, even the concept of awareness is broken with IP addresses since the introduction of temporary accounts. Can we ... perhaps just apply sanctions to accounts only, and avoid placing formal CTOP sanctions on IP addresses? Because that's highly impractical? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At a quick glance I see a dozen logged sanctions on IPs and temporary accounts in ARBPIA this year. Seems like it works fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the currently-28 AELOG sanctions placed in November 2025 are against IP addresses. Temporary accounts are treated like accounts, their IP addresses might have been blocked in the background but not as logged formal actions. Which is fine. Beyond bureaucracy, academic privacy discussions and links to information that is now deleted after 90 days, there is no point in formally logging a sanction against an IP address obtained through TAIV, just as noone would have had the idea to do so for IP ranges obtained from checkuser results before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To provide a practical example, let's say temporary account ~2025-F has edited an article about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and similar edits came from ~2025-A, ~2025-B, ~2025-C, ~2025-D and ~2025-E. A quick look reveals that all of these accounts were created from the same /48 IPv6 range. All of the edits were in violation of the extended-confirmed restriction in this topic area and not otherwise problematic. The usual response is protecting the affected pages as a CTOP action. No measures against temporary accounts or IPs are needed. However, if an administrator wants to apply a sanction such as a formal CTOP block, they can do so to the latest account (or all of them, as a symbolic measure).
    The administrator can additionally {{rangeblock}} the /48 IPv6 range: admins are allowed to make blocks that, by their timing, imply a connection between an account and an IP.[WP:TAIVDISCLOSE]
    And if all of that is really not enough and a formal sanction has to be applied to the IP address range, well then, that too can still be done and logged as before. Yes, it will create two log entries directly below each other with the temporary account's name and IP address. Just as the blocks did in the block log. It's completely avoidable and rarely helpful but not formally prohibited as far as I understand. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While in this case it could have been a standard block it can't be for an ECR block, so this is definitely going to come up and now is a good time to stew our noodles on how to handle it. WP:TAIV says And when "reasonably believed to be necessary", exceptions can be made at appropriate policy-enforcement venues. Then it goes on to say However, the disclosure should be revision-deleted as soon as it ceases to be necessary. It's necessary to maintain a log of submission enforcement actions for a number of reasons so maybe we could sneak it in under that? What a clusterfuck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like using AE sanctions against non-accounts either, but wouldn't forbid it  . If the sanction is against an IP, log it with a link to the IP. If it's against a temporary account, log it with a link to the temporary account. That shouldn't result in an "extra" disclosure simply based on the logging action. Let me know if I missed something ... Sdrqaz (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally, just log the sanction on the temporary account. It shouldn't normally be necessary to log a block of an underlying IP/range. The only reason I can think of is that you want to mark it as an AE block to avoid it being overturned without proper consideration, in which case I suppose it has to be logged and the exception applies, but I'm sure an informative summary in the block log would be enough to prevent that in most cases. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We currently have a policy that might infringe upon a global policy. It might make sense, until we get clarification from Legal, to amend our procedures to explicitly keep IP blocks out of the log (e.g. amend the quoted statement above to "All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections and IP blocks, must be...". Primefac (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking a swerve on the AE aspect initially, and unpacking the issue from the other end, what confidentiality do we owe Temporary Accounts? For regular accounts the user is given anonymity which can only be seen through by checkusers (ArbCom appointed, NDA required). Temporary accounts can be seen through by Admins and by viewers, neither group needing to sign the NDA.
    For us to protect TAs to the same extent as user accounts, and to allow the two-handed case handling of CU blocks, in which one CU blocks the user account and another CU blocks the IP, we'd need an NDA-controlled forum for admins and TAIVs to discuss the connections openly. That doesn't exist, nor (AFAIK) has the foundation even hinted that they'd like us to go that route.
    Until/unless Madi (or someone else in Legal) tells us otherwise, we don't need to escalate the privacy of an artificial account generated by the Wiki software to the same level as the privacy of a human-generated account which may contain PII in the username.
    To return to the AE aspect, we're primarily here to build an encyclopedia, a principle that ArbCom has long upheld, and our social policies are not a suicide pact. If it's necessary to log TAs and their IPs at AElog (e.g. an IP user burning through multiple TAs to a disruptive end), and the logging is well considered, I'm not going to criticise or censure. Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Came here to close this, but I don't see a consensus here yet; I agree with ToBeFree's approach. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think that's a reasonable approach. - Aoidh (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also aligned with Tobias' comment here. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

Initiated by Chess enjoyer at 06:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 5 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:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Chess enjoyer

If I were to frame this request as an RFC, I would probably write something like, "When should comments that an editor has struck/hatted count toward the 1000-word limit of WP:CT/A-I, if at all?" This situation is not currently covered, which leaves a potential loophole open, wherein an editor can make comments that cross the limit, strike/hat some of their other comments, and then continue to comment, effectively bypassing the limit. This would appear to go against the spirit of the word limit. I was inspired to make this request by discussion at AN (Starting with this comment by me and ending with This comment by TarnishedPath), and also by this discussion on Springee's talk page. If it were up to me, I would modify the word limit so that struck/hatted comments that an editor has genuinely taken back would not count towards the limit, but comments that an editor struck/hatted upon being made aware that they breached the limit would still count, and that editor would be barred from further participation in the discussion. I'll leave the exact details to the Arbitration Committee. This is my first time making a request for clarification, so I apologize if I have made any procedural errors.

I would also appreciate clarification on what other editors can do when they notice that another editor has breached the limit. Is it appropriate for them to strike/hat that editor's comments to enforce it (as I did with Springee here)? Chess enjoyer (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

TLDR/ In other areas where there is a word count limit, the existence of the limit is clear up front and there is a mechanism for requesting additional words. How does that operate here were not all editors are going to be aware absent someone telling them after the fact and who can grant more words when needed?

As the person who was over the limit I think it would make sense if the rule is 1000 words and you only get words back in limited circumstances. However, editors are likely to post/reply differently if they know there is a word limit upfront. How do people who are unaware of this rule know about it in advance? As an example, at ARE I think it's basically standard practice that editors are made aware of the word limit up front. As someone who wasn't involved in the ARBCOM case in question, how would I know the limit is there? I don't think it's fair to just tell someone after the fact that they are over the limit as knowing there is a limit does change how editors may reply. Also, at ARE discussions extensions are frequently granted by the admins who are running the discussion. What is the mechanism used for requesting extensions here at less formal discussions such as a RfC, close review etc? Springee (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

My understanding of the 1,000 word limit in formal discussions, is that once it is passed, there is no going back. That an editor must cease once they are made aware that they have passed the word limit, and that there are no givesies backsies. Clarification of this is apparently necessary. TarnishedPathtalk 08:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beland

Statement by 45dogs

My involvement was largely to note how at WP:AE, the template that counts words doesn't count struck comments. Like Chess enjoyer says, the issue is gaming the system. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 07:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M.Bitton

Statement by CommunityNotesContributor

I guess I'm party due to this commment, The spirit of the restriction is as important as the letter, also understood more simply as No givesies backsies.[18] It is ultimately the 'bludgeoning, unbludgeoning, and rebluegeoning' cycle that is the concern which the restriction does not explicitly forbid. I otherwise don't see allowing exceptions to this as very productive either, it'd only provide room for gaming. Editors should just try harder to avoid exceeding word count, ideally admins would also do a lot better by providing the word count discussion notice for such discussions (especially on their patch) to prevent such infractions in the first place (prevention is better than cure). Also, will admins consider logged warnings for editors repeatedly exceeding this restriction, for those that are aware but repeatedly 'unintentionally' breach them? As it turns out a bludgeoned discussion isn't any better when half of a conversation has been struck, it just further disrupts the discussion, making it disjointed and unappealing. Striking is thus not a solution here, ideally editors just walk away leaving comments unstruck to avoid further disruption instead, rather than pandering to the notion that such damage can be undone by striking, which isn't the case. CNC (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Star Mississippi

Just noting here since I became involved by thanking Chess enjoyer for their clerking. I feel like this limit was put into place to discourage the bludgeoning that is endemic with CTs. We should not allow HATTING purely to enable more words. Participants should say less/speak more concisely. This discussion is inspiring way too much Hamilton from me Star Mississippi 17:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

What hasn't been mentioned previously is when someone is genuinely unaware that a word limit exists. In that case, in addition to what Daniel says, I would add that in this case striking some of what you wrote so that it is within the limit is acceptable. Striking it all to rewrite it within the limit in the same circumstance can be okay, but only once.

Obviously the onus should be on those imposing a word limit on a discussion (and secondarily on those participating in such a discussion) to make that limit as clear as possible to everyone, especially those who are new to the topic area, so as to maximise the benefits of having the limit and minimise the issues caused when one person is carefully sticking to a limit someone else doesn't know exists (including such things as taking terseness as a sign of rudeness rather than of being careful with word count). Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Striking because you retract what you're saying due to making a statement that is in error? Sure, that can not count towards the word count. Striking to come under the 1,000 limit so you can double-down and post again? A totally unacceptable form of gaming the word limit restriction. The spirit of decisions is important. Consider the principle in the case that this was trying to fix, and ask yourself if striking to game the system, reduce under 1,000 so you can post the same sort of material again is aligned with this principle. (Hint: it is not.) Daniel (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trick is not make off-topic comments that push you over the word count. In the case of genuine errors, I wouldn't expect admin discretion would fall on the side of counting the words, but striking earlier comments to free up space in your word limit is gaming. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Requests for enforcement

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

Arbitration enforcement archives (index)


Quick enforcement requests

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

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

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

Example request

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

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

Iskandar323 (quick request)

Banned editor making Israel/Palestine edit: This editor is banned from the topic yet they made edits to this article: [19]. At the time, the top news item on the organization's website was this statement on Israel-Palestine which clearly indicates their motivation given their shared position: [20] jwtmsqeh (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weaponization of antisemitism

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

  Not done: there is talk page discussion, which doesn't seem to be going your way. An experienced editor said, on the talk page, "This topic area gets too ugly and noticeboard-happy"--and yet here we are. No, I see no violations of the agreed-upon set of behavioral and editorial practices; that the editor does not wish to self-revert is not a violation. I do, however, appreciate this, but I urge you to take that wise editor's words to heart. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I brought this request to the quick ER section (unless I'm forgetting something, my first time coming to AE) because I was not seeking sanctions against any editor; when I referred darkly to noticeboards I was talking about where people go to get others blocked. I have no aversion to boards seeking uninvolved third parties to make procedural content edits. WP:ONUS is an agreed-upon editorial policy, and I would be surprised to learn that immediately restoring one's boldly-introduced new material after it is contested is standard editorial practice, let alone in a contentious topic area. Moot now, but I wanted to clear that up. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what were you asking for then, on this board? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A revert. It's bolded at the beginning of my request. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Drmies, was this a misunderstanding? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary, can you give us diff of the added/removed/restored content you're talking about? Valereee (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s now moot, thanks. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-Confirmed Enforcement at Herzog Park RfC

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

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

~2025-41257-91

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

@SilverLocust: Looks like you got here first, but the user clearly deserves zero tolerance and the creation log entry still needs RD2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done, there's no need to RD here. -- asilvering (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section is meant to exclude requests for blocks (though I can understand that not being a high concern when dealing with a current issue). I deleted the page, but instead of blocking have just been watching for further disruption from this person. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

إيان

 

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

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

Request concerning إيان

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA5
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. Edit warring during consensus building efforts on Jerusalem Day: this editor is edit warring "In recent years, there have been anti-Palestinian chants of "death to Arabs" and "May Your Village Burn" in these parades." into the lead. They first added it on 16 November 2025. On 17 November 2025 I reverted them saying to seek consensus, after which on 21 November 2025 another user added it back in, on 23 November 2025 I again removed it per WP:ONUS, on 23 November 2025 they again edit warred it in and on 23 November 2025 were reverted by another user telling them to stop edit warring. On 25 November 2025 they edit warred it back in, falsely claiming "Per current talk page consensus", when taking a look at the talk page will indicate that there is an ongoing discussion and no consensus, and this the user is clearly violating WP:ONUS, for which they have been previously been cautioned throughout this whole discussion.
  2. Uncivil behavior and violations of WP:AGF on Talk:Jerusalem Day: On 23 November 2025 they inaccurately described what had happened, because the previous discussion had been only about including the contested material in the body of the article (to which I acquiesced) and they had never until that point discussed it in the lead. On 24 November 2025 they claimed that those disagreeing with them and saying something is WP:UNDUE is "not policy based" and then later on 24 November 2025 doubling down on these claims. This seems to violate WP:SATISFY. On 24 November 2025 BlookyNapsta told them to start an WP:RFC to include the contested material, but on 24 November 2025 they insisted that "I don’t think we need to go to an RfC to establish consensus". On 24 November 2025 they wrote that those who disagree with them are WP:Status quo stonewalling.
  3. WP:BLUDGEONING: On Talk:Six-Day War#Requested move 16 November 2025, this user has been WP:BLUDGEONING and repeating the same claims over and over again, 19 November 2025, 19 November 2025, 20 November 2025 and 23 November 2025.
  4. WP:BLUDGEONING: In the Talk:Six-Day War#Requested move 13 November 2025 previous RfD (now replaced by the previous one) they were similarly involved in WP:BLUDGEONING, asking every editor who rejected their proposal based on WP:COMMONNAME "by what metrics" they call it the common name. 13 November 2025, 14 November 2025, 14 November 2025 and 15 November 2025. A few months ago, at Talk:Gaza Genocide, the user was also WP:BLUDGEONING, questioning any user he disagreed with "based on what sources?" or a similar reaction. 4 August 2025, 18 August 2025 and 24 August 2025.
  5. WP:SYNTH: On 23 November 2025, the user was warned on their talk page that they had violated WP:SYNTH, in one case on a WP:BLP page. On 23 November 2025 they insisted that these edits "seems like useful context for the reader". (Although on 23 November 2025 the user did eventually say that they will be more diligent on the matter, implicitly admitting that they had made a mistake.)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Logged warning on 25 October 2025 "to remain civil, assume good faith of other editors, and avoid inflammatory remarks".
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  1. 24 January 2025 received the standard CTOP warning on their talk page.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]


Discussion concerning إيان

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

Statement by إيان

 
   إيان's statement contains 959 words and is within 10% of the 925-word limit.
 
 Y Extension granted to 925 words. — Newslinger talk 16:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Originalcola, if you thought that I was clearly engaging in bludgeoning, why didn't you say so? I admittedly engaged a lot, but I thought I was engaging politely and in good faith, and there was good discussion happening in response to my arguments and questions. It didn't seem to me from the way the conversation was going that I had been doing something wrong. And as I said in my statement, when it was brought to my attention, I stopped. Regarding the false claim regarding case-sensitive searches, I did indeed make a mistake in seeing the "case-insensitive" tab as "case-sensitive" which I later realized and fixed from then-on.إيان (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
QuicoleJR's accusations also appear to be rooted in a disagreement on content rather than conduct. The claim The editor in question, after the content was removed from Jerusalem Day, added it to anti-Palestinian racism is wrong and deceptive. The thoroughly sourced content—perfectly WP:DUE where I placed it per sourcing—is based on this understanding, not the information removed from the lede.
That I should be penalized for contributions such as translating "May Your Village Burn" from Hebrew is absurd. Improving articles and getting the encyclopedia closer to WP:NPOV with high-quality contributions introducing drastically underrepresented voices and citing the highest quality scholarly sources, while being engaged and responsive on talk pages, is not WP:disruptive editing, whereas reverting without discussing to maintain a POV status quo is disruptive behavior. As for expanding on controversies and negative coverage of Israel and their supporters, WP:Wikipedia is not censored and—though I apologize for where I have made honest mistakes—it is unfair and inappropriate to attempt sanction me on contrived accusations here in an attempt to censor me and my contributions. إيان (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe BlookyNapsta’s most recent comment helps clarify what this really seems to be about—content and not conduct. I have responded to their questions on their talk page. إيان (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have acknowledged that I engaged more than I should have in the RM. Part of it was a substantial irregularity caused it to become a second RM, which Nehushtani framed into a doubled bludgeoning accusation. Anyway, I won’t engage in that way again.
I have no problem acknowledging my mistakes when I make them. I wasn’t sure how to take if you're not familiar with how to interpret or use this kind of search tools for specific topics like this then you can ask for help from other editors—it looked like a possible taunt. If Originalcola would like a formal apology for it, I'm happy to do so, as I have for my misunderstanding the ngram case-sensitivity. I have apologized for comment taken as an insinuation of bad faith. 08:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC) I would have apologized at the time if they had made it known then that they took offense. (I now realize that it was genuine, but it is hard to tell through text sometimes.) I thought responding with this appears to be condescension, which is inappropriate and I remind you to maintain WP:Civility was an appropriate, diplomatic way to both address that possibility and maintain the assumption of good faith. Same for Talk:Jerusalem Day, where I—then aware of the need to economize my words—was more terse than would be ideal, and I see how it could be misconstrued, and I can apologize there too. إيان (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Longhornsg, my heart is indeed in the right place—thank you—and I emphatically disagree with your characterizations and conclusion. My contributions in the topic area, for example, are of immense value to the encyclopedia. إيان (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is not resorted to accusing me of WP:BADFAITH.
I explained my thought process and defended my opinion on content on the talk page. إيان (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BlookyNapsta

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

@QuicoleJR's comments about POV pushing are really disturbing. If Ayan's behavior includes not only edit warring and bludgeoning but also activist-style edits meant to distort our coverage of ARBPIA topics, that should be remedied asap. I saw more examples of this happening just yesterday on 30 November 2025 to Talk:Six-Day War. After two failed attempts to change the article's name because of alleged "POV title", Ayan now claims that "the occupations and displacements" are "the most prominent features of the war". The very suggestion that "displacements" were "the most prominent" feature of the war goes directly against any serious coverage of the topic in scholarship.
Another article - Zionism in Morocco - written from scratch by Ayan also shows clear bias. "Zionism ... the 19th century ethnocultural nationalist movement to establish a Jewish state through the colonization of Palestine" - Calling Zionism "colonization" reflects a specific political framing which is not agreed about in academic literature. Similarly, the article refers several times to Zionist activities as "propaganda", but does not use this phrase for other political actors. The article also states that "Initially, Mossad Le'Aliyah agents exploited poverty to motivate Jews to leave"; using the word "exploited" is clearly POV and judgmental.
These actions around the articles on the Six-Day War and on Zionism in Morocco, which seem to try to rewrite historical events to serve a clear agenda, seem to be just a few examples of a wider attempt to expand the bias that is ruining Wikipedia's credibility (which are not noticed only by me, but also by Wikipedia's founders). BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@إيان - I don't see this as an issue of content. The possible violation at hand is POV pushing, which is an issue of conduct. BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I keep seeing more of this happening. Yesterday, on 3 December 2025, at 1948 Palestine war, they reverted a constructive edit without even attempting to explain why they were reverting. This constructive edit did justice with the article, and seems to have fixed the very activistic "Zionist forces... established Israel" - as if it was established by a militia - with the facts: "The Jewish Yishuv... established Israel", and added a mention of atrocities against Jews in the war to improve NPOV since the lead did not mention these. According to WP:REVERT: "Rather than reverting entirely, consider improving the edit to enhance the article's quality. .. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." That may suggest that Ayan is not interested in the improvement of the encyclopedia, as constructive editing is not in their head. In itself, this wouldn't require a severe sanction, but this clear stonewalling, alongside the other examples provided here of POV pushing, edit warring, bludgeoning, synth and BLP violations, all connected to the promotion of a certain POV on Wikipedia, point to an editor who is WP:NOTHERE (see "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia") and should be driven out of this topic area. BlookyNapsta (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee - I find the suggestion that a page ban for Ayan would solve the much broader issues reported here, including bludgeoning, edit warring, synth BLP violations, and possibly also POV pushing, not helpful. This would not improve the situation in ARBPIA at all. An editor that acts this way consistently, as the diffs here clearly show, should be held accountable. This editor already received a logged warning here, on WP:AE, asking them "to remain civil, assume good faith of other editors, and avoid inflammatory remarks". This kind of recurring behavior is clearly not something we can solve with a page ban. That behavior would continue everywhere else. 13:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC) BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC) (edit: I've just noticed Valereee's comment regarding participation, my bad, sorry. though my thoughts still stand). BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

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

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

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

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

Statement by Cinaroot

(un-involved)

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

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

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

Statement by Originalcola

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

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

Statement by QuicoleJR

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

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

Statement by Samuelshraga

I participated in the Six-Day War RM. I think إيان probably did enter bludgeoning territory (there was a lot of repetition the same arguments). The bludgeoning was about WP:COMMONNAME[21][22][23][24], then about the article naming policies of WP:CRITERIA and WP:POVTITLE[25][26][27][28]. I think there was also a certain measure of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - إيان was corrected on both issues repeatedly by multiple editors over the course of weeks. That said, إيان did (finally) accept that their case about WP:COMMONNAME was flawed[29], and did ultimately stop engaging when told they were approaching a word limit.

In isolation, I wouldn't consider the conduct in the Six-Day War RMs worthy of sanction, especially not if إيان understands where they went amiss. Based on the statement above that the accusations of bludgeoning are contrived, we're not quite there. @إيان, you said above on this issue: I thought I was engaging politely and in good faith. You were! But that doesn't mean you didn't bludgeon, and when OriginalCola pointed out where you went wrong, you accused them of being uncivil.[30] I think you should reconsider doubling down on this - making a mistake like this is not the end of the world, especially not if you can recognise it.

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

Statement by Longhornsg

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

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

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

Statement by Drmies

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning إيان

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

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

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

  • Valereee, I hate disagreeing with you, but I'm sorry--I do. I see no reason to restrict إيان . Drmies (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valereee, you proposed p-blocking them from Jerusalem Day, didn't you? I disagree with that. As to your other question--no, I'm not INVOLVED in any sense, it's an area in which I rarely edit (I wish I knew more languages), but since my ArbCom period I've sort of lost track of how all these arbitration procedures work, so I prefer to be on this side of the fence in many cases, unless they're pretty straightforward. (Honestly I don't know how so many people are able to navigate these arbitration waters--my ship has sailed.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nehushtani, in my opinion the other editor's action in that article did not amount to edit warring in any meaningful sense, and if a hammer is to be brought down on those edits, that applies to yours just as much. Edit warring is a two-way street. The false equivalence I and others signaled on the talk page is a bit more than, what did you call it--a side step? A brief digression--but such digressions easily become disruptive, and that's what happened here: you were in fact using another example as an argument for this article, and so other editors had to go look at that, respond to it, etc. You said it was about content: no, it was derailing and stonewalling, and this AE request, it's hard not to see it as a means to get an editor out of the way. Yes, I think the project would benefit from a partial block on Jerusalem Day and its talk page for you, with a warning to not extend such lines of arguing elsewhere. And one more note for User:إيان : I chastised your opponent for saying "you're UNDUE", but I urge you to use more words, to respond/criticize in complete sentences with a bit more decorum, as unnecessary as this may seem to you. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nehushtani: In the future, would you please list the diffs one by one, with each diff in a separate list item? It would be easier for all participants to refer to the number of the list item than to link to the diff itself. — Newslinger talk 00:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The activity on the Jerusalem Day article does constitute edit warring, but I count three reverts from Nehushtani (07:05, 16 November 2025; 07:18, 17 November 2025; and 06:34, 23 November 2025) and two reverts from إيان (‎09:00, 23 November 2025; 04:13, 25 November 2025). Nehushtani's first revert is not considered edit warring, but that leaves two instances of edit warring for each editor, which means that any sanction tied specifically to the edit warring should be applied evenly to both editors. In my opinion, Valereee's proposed partial block for both editors and Drmies's decision to disregard the edit warring are both reasonable outcomes for the edit warring. Please remember that revert rules are "not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times".
    I do not believe the diffs of the discussion on Talk:Jerusalem Day are actionable. إيان's activity on Talk:Six-Day War does constitute bludgeoning, and warrants a reminder or warning; although "Editors [are] limited to 1,000 words per formal discussion" within this contentious topic, this word limit is also not an entitlement and you could have raised the same points with far fewer comments. The claimed violations of WP:SYNTH may be actionable, but the first comment in Talk:Jordana Cutler § SYNTH-y mess also invokes WP:BIASED ("reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective"), which makes the argument unclear. — Newslinger talk 00:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is actionable misconduct in this request for enforcement. Dealing with the allegations in turn: 1.) The chant-related edits amounted to edit warring. These breaches were particularly serious in view of the attempts at discussion ongoing on the talk page. 2.) I agree with the filer's characterisation: the talk page comments were significantly inaccurate as descriptions of Nehushtani's earlier comments. While that may have been a legitimate misunderstanding, the user doubled down when corrected. WP:DR#Discuss with the other party is Wikipedia policy and is incompatible with this sort of approach to discussions. 3.) If this crosses into the territory of bludgeoning, it does so only briefly and I don't consider it actionable. 4.) There are two allegations here, neither actionable. The comments at the RM do not cross into bludgeoning. The Gaza genocide talk page comments do not do so either, not even remotely. 5.) Contrary to what the user said above, the Jordana Cutler edits are within the scope of this complaint. WP:OR is a content policy but there is also a conduct expectation that users make proper use of reliable sources. Responding to this allegation's inclusion in this complaint (the relevant paragraph begins with The SYNTH accusation), the user demonstrated a concerning tendency towards WP:IDHT. As the user has admitted that the edit violated policy, I do not think we require to look behind the allegation. For completeness, I did review the Nation source and found it lacked any support for the article's assertion that the MSA itself surveils overseas protesters.

    In view of all this, while I support at minimum the p-block proposal above, I would go further and support a topic ban of the user, based upon allegations 1, 2 and 5. I do not think that the proposed WP:BOOMERANG sanction for the filing user is necessary, but I would not oppose should others feel it appropriate. Arcticocean ■ 12:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Newslinger: "Contrary to what the user said above" refers to إيان (and their comment linked in the sentence immediately after), not you. You may wish to reword "I did not say". Arcticocean ■ 12:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Newslinger! Arcticocean ■ 19:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

White Spider Shadow

Cinaroot

 

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

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

Request concerning Cinaroot

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Nehushtani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Cinaroot (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:1RR
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 03:24, 22 November 2025 - Edit including removing material, which is considered a revert.
  2. 07:19, 22 November 2025 - 1RR violation
  3. 02:00, 23 November 2025 - 1RR violation
  4. I asked them on their talk page to revert, they insisted that it was not a violation, after I and another user told them that it was indeed a violation, they admitted that the third revert was a violation but still refused to revert. I asked them a third time and said that if they did not revert, I would take it to AE, but they have yet to revert.
  5. 09:24, 29 November 2025 - They wrote a statement against me on a complaint I had filed in AE against another user and claimed to be "un-involved". They were in fact uninvolved in the dispute that they were writing about, but they should have disclosed that we were involved in a dispute in the talk page, and I do not believe this was a coincidence.
  6. 6 November 2025 They tagged only "people they like" on a talk page discussion. I warned them on 6 November 2025 and another user warned them for the same edit on 7 November 2025 for WP:CANVASSING. While it may technically not be a violation since it was an informal discussion, it seems inappropriate to tag only certain users to a followup on a discussion on a contreversial topic.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not applicable.

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

[1]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Newslinger - The first edit from 03:24, 22 November 2025 is a revert of this edit from 00:00, 10 November 2025, where @Cinaroot removed the two paragraphs previously added in the previous edit. Nehushtani (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinaroot - The claim that this filing is retaliatory is incorrect considering that I told you the day before 08:34, 28 November 2025 that "This is the third and last time I will ask you. If you do not revert, I will have no choice but to take it to AE." Your support for إيان was only after this warning. Nehushtani (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger - There is an ongoing talk page discussion about whether to include the phrase in question. As per WP:ONUS, it should not be included in the article until there is consensus. Cinaroot violated 1RR to restore the contested content, violating both 1RR and ONUS, it was removed by Coining at 15:37, 23 November 2025, and then restored by M.Bitton less than an hour later at 16:15, 23 November 2025; this is the version that currently stands. Cinaroot wrote on 06:08, 28 November 2025 that "I do not believe it is appropriate to revert it solely to comply with 1RR, as that would only create further disruption." But on the contrary, the disruptive behavior is that of the editors who were violating WP:ONUS and edit warring contested material despite an ongoing discussion.
Either way, now that we have determined on 01:38, 3 December 2025 that the first edit at 03:24, 22 November 2025 was considered a revert, the second revert at 07:19, 22 November 2025 was only self-reverted at 02:54, 3 December 2025, after I had opened this case. Nehushtani (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger - Can you please clarify where the line is between WP:TITFORTAT and asking somebody to revert their 1RR violation? I simply saw that @Cinaroot had violated 1RR in their original third edit, and I asked them to revert. Does the fact that another pair of editors had reverted and restored the contested version in between mean that it is no longer a 1RR violation that they're supposed to revert? Or does that mean the person restoring the contested content is responsible for edit warring? Thanks in advance for the clarification! Nehushtani (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger - Thank you for your explanation here. I did not realise that and I will be careful about this in the future. Nehushtani (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton - My understanding is that ONUS applies whenever there is an ongoing discussion. And in this case, there was no stable content; it had been edit warred in and out several times over the previous week. As far as I know, restoring disputed content that has been removed multiple times, without achieving consensus is a textbook case of edit warring. Nehushtani (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinaroot - please stop casting aspersions on me. I have had Al Jazeera on my watchlist for a long time, and the fact that I reverted you was totally coincidental and unrelated to this AE case. You then asked me to participate at the talk page, so I added sources in the discussion there. Please assume good faith. Also tagging @Newslinger because they were tagged below on the accusation. Nehushtani (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]


Discussion concerning Cinaroot

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 Cinaroot

 
   Cinaroot's statement contains 705 words and is within 10% of the 650-word limit.
 
 Y Extension granted to 650 words. — Newslinger talk 21:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nehushtani appears to be attempting to weaponize AE and target editor(s) they disapprove. The 1RR issue cited here is between Originalcola and myself, not Nehushtani. Nehushtani was not involved in the discussion on the article talk page — where I clearly stated that Originalcola was free to revert me. Originalcola also explicitly responded with Ideally I’d like you to self-revert, but if you don’t see this that’s fine

After Nehushtani targeted me and inserted themselves into the situation on my talk, I again asked Originalcola on my talk page whether they wished for me to self-revert. Their reply was: I am not entirely sure if you need to self-revert the third revert, right? — which confirms that there was no clear expectation that I revert myself. Another reason I did not revert is that multiple editors had already reverted it [49] [50], and a talk-page discussion was underway. Reverting again would only have led to further disruption and 1RR policy shouldn’t be applied through an overly rigid or literal interpretation without considering the underlying principles and context.

I also do not think my first edit qualifies as a revert. I asked about in admin noticeboard. No one has responded. Edit_or_Revert Removing or relocating content can be a normal part of editing, and in this case the purpose was to create a new section while retaining most of the material from the original one.

Regarding the statement i made in the case against إيان: I am indeed an uninvolved editor, as I was not part of that dispute. I did participated in the RfC today, after submitting my statement. My dispute with Nehushtani does not prohibit me from making a statement on any AE and nor does it relate to AE against إيان. There is no requirement that you must disclose all prior disputes or disagreements with another editor in unrelated discussions. My statements here are in good faith.

The canvassing accusation is baseless. It was an informal discussion that could not result in any change to the Contentious topic article title. I am free to notify or tag any editors I choose, as I have already explained here and here. Please also note that - i tagged 2 editors who opposed and supported from previous discussion. Cinaroot (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BlookyNapsta You were currently involved in the dispute with إيان and engaged in an edit war with them. Yet you submitted a statement about me without disclosing that involvement, while also arguing that I should have disclosed my active dispute with Nehushtani when I commented in support of إيان. Should the same disclosure standard not apply to you as well? Cinaroot (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Originalcola I only formed the view that Nehushtani is weaponizing AE after they filed the request against me — not before. My statement in support of إيان was made prior to the AE request concerning me. Cinaroot (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger In this edit, Nehushtani stated that I “didn’t tag any pro-Israel editors,” which implies that the editors I did notify are “pro-Palestinian.” In another edit, they accused a different editor of “taking the pro-Palestinian side.” Assigning political identities to editors is inappropriate in ARBPIA, constitutes a personal attack, and violates WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS.
Furthermore, they opened an AE request against me immediately after I expressed support for إيان, and 6 days after my 1RR violation and after i agreed to self revert. The timing makes the filing appear retaliatory rather than a neutral enforcement action. Cinaroot (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger Nehushtani is engaged in WP:HOUND - See talk Cinaroot (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger Can I have more words? Nehushtani has now used 800 words. Why are they not respecting the 500-word limit? Cinaroot (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Metallurgist Please do not allege serious conduct issues like POV-pushing without providing solid evidence. Impressions based on my poor choice of words and insinuations are not valid evidence.
Admins are reminded to avoid unwarranted or disproportionate sanctions based on unsupported claims. Cinaroot (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Out of the ~25 people who opposed - at least 10 opposed as per @Cdjp1 So my decision to tag @Cdjp1 is also based on weight. Cinaroot (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1RR violation reverted here Cinaroot (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger I’m taking a break because of increased conflict - it’s time to step back - If not I might make the situation worse. Ty Cinaroot  💬 02:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BlookyNapsta

Violating 1RR is an affront to the community as a whole. It is not averted when the party being reverted agrees for the revert to stand, much less when they say that they would prefer that the offending editor reverts. Similarly, the claim that Nehushtani isn't a party in this dispute is misplaced, since 1RR is a community standard and not a method for resolving disputes between specific editors. Cinaroot should have self-reverted as soon as they were informed of the violation, and that they didn't should be grounds for sanctions.

Regarding "weaponizing AE" - If legitimate CTOP violations brought to AE are labeled as "weaponizing", we are in big trouble.

The other two edits may not have been technical violations of policy, but they add to the evidence that Cinaroot should not be participating in in CTOP if this is reflective of their behavior. Pinging only editors who share similar views on the IP conflict to a follow up discussion is inappropriate, as is writing a note on AE against an editor with whom that they are currently in the middle of a dispute without disclosing that. BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton - @Cinaroot violated 1RR while also adding contested content which is still under discussion. Wikipedia:ONUS states that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." In keeping with the combination of Wikipedia:1RR and Wikipedia:ONUS, I believe that they should revert - as in, remove the content in question, which currently appears in the article - until there is a clear consensus to include it, and your own restoration of this disputed content is in itself edit warring. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee - Can you please explain how a two-week long ban would solve something that a week ban did not? BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This recent discussion on @Cinaroot's talk page from 11 December 2025 may be relevant for this case. Adding as per "Users providing links to relevant past discussions or administrative actions, without any editorialization" as allowed by WP:AEPR. BlookyNapsta (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M.Bitton

@BlookyNapsta: given that Cinaroot was informed of the violation long after their edit was reverted, I don't see how they could have "self-reverted". M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BlookyNapsta: since self-reverting means reverting one's edit and not someone else's, asking them to "self-revert" in this instance is akin to asking them to edit war (a request that should be ignored). As for the stable content: it's there because someone else restored what was removed without a valid reason. M.Bitton (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Originalcola: you only pointed out the violation after their revert had been reverted. M.Bitton (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger and Nehushtani: my understanding of WP:ONUS is that it doesn't apply to sourced stable content (i.e., content that already has implicit consensus). If it did, editors would blank anything they dislike and cite it as a reason. M.Bitton (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehushtani: not only was the content stable, but the reason given for its removal was based on a misunderstanding of an unrelated discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger: that sentence was added before Cinaroot's edit on the 8th of November. While the editors keep fiddling with he wording, more or less the same sentence can be seen in the 7 October 2025 permanent link. M.Bitton (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cdjp1

As I am involved in the claimed canvassing by Cinaroot, having been tagged by them, I have to say, it doesn't seem to be a clear cut case of potential canvassing. The discussion that Cinaroot started on the talk page for the article (Open (Transparency)) was an informal discussion about a future potential RfC. This informal discussion was off the back of a previous RM started by Cinaroot to rename the article, which saw a conclusion that the article would not be moved to Cinaroot's suggested new title. As most people who opposed this specific move were open to and even suggested potential alternate move targets, Cinaroot wanted to explore potential alternatives further before starting any more formal process in the future. In this informal discussion Cinaroot chose to tag four people from the previous RM for potential input. Of these four people, two had supported the move, and two had opposed it (including myself). As can be seen in the archived discussion, I was strongly against the suggested move. So while picking people [you] like may indicate partisanship (Partisan (Audience)), the choice to pick an equal amount of individuals who supported your position and opposed it, suggests the opposite (Nonpartisan (Audience)). The last two categories we have at WP:CANVASSING for an inappropriate notification on Scale and Message I also don't think are inappropriate as it was the single message on the article talk page (Limited posting), and while the message that is the start of the informal discussion details the bias that is Cinaroot's position, Cinaroot is explicit that this is their opinion, and they want input from others as to what potential future formal discussions could be (Neutral (Message)). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Originalcola

I find the assertion that this is an issue between 2 editors to be extremely misleading, given that he had also reverted the edit of @IOHANNVSVERVS in his first WP:1RR violation. The issue involving me specifcally refers to his reversion of a revert that I had made on the page following [a discussion on the Gaza Genocide talk page]. I am still unsure about what the resolution of the discussion was meant to be, or if it was an RfC or not. The mod who had closed the discussion offered to give an explanation but was injured in a car crash and unable to respond to comments as a result, and many editors who were not involved in the original discussion suggested that the conclusion of the discussion differed from what I thought it was which left me confused.

The editor proposed that I could revert their edit in their edit summary and in the talk page. I had not noticed at the time that they had made multiple reverts in a 24 hour time period, so I did not initially insist that they self-revert in the talk page. I was kind of taken aback when they suggested that I should revert their edit and break the WP:1RR myself, which made me think that the request was not sincere. When I was asked again I stated that they should've done so earlier and that I was presently not sure if they needed to revert given that intermediate edits had been made since then. Cinaroot did say that he would revert the edit if I made an explicit request, but this shouldn't have occurred to begin with. I stated that they should have reverted as soon as it was pointed out to them(by both me on the talk page and Nehustani) that they had broken WP:1RR, stating i don't see a point in reverting it just for the sake of 1RR and that While we should follow these rules, it’s equally important to understand why those rules exist. Policies shouldn’t be applied through an overly rigid or literal interpretation without considering the underlying principles. This is also not the only time that this editor has broken the WP:1RR on this page, as they did so around one month prior: [51] [52] [53]. The justification that was given to me when I raised this concern was that the content was removed as part of talk discussions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_20#Are_protest_images_relevant_here?, but this is only not true for all the content removed but also irrelevant to this issue.

I also find it concerning that they claimed to be an uninvolved editor in another AE, which seems to be directly contradicted by the seperate claim that Nehushtani appears to be attempting to weaponize AE and target editor(s) they disapprove. The fact that they held this view after earlier claiming to have accidently violated WP:1RR is weird, since it appears to be an extreme assumption of bad faith towards Nehushtani. Either way they should not have portrayed themselves as uninvolved given that the 2 editors were involved in a dispute. Originalcola (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton - But you then reverted the revert of their revert didn't you? His second edit also wasn't reverted and could've been when I pointed it out. Originalcola (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Metallurgist

Cinaroot has seemed to be POV pushing and trying to force their views onto articles all over PIA, which has been concerning. They seem heavily focused on that area to the point of bordering on WP:SPA. The instance where I felt they were canvassing was not directly canvassing for support, but did give an unsavory appearance. Even tagging for and against, they still mentioned tagging editors they liked, which was selective and entirely unnecessary. I did agree with the discussion proposal, but to not include all involved editors is disingenuous. I would have made it myself, but I knew it would involve tagging a large number of people. In light of that, it would have been best to just tag no one. Im also wondering why they archived the entire talkpage of Palestinian genocide accusation [54] [55] [56]. As it is, that issue is still unresolved. The RFC on Israel also looks like an attempt at POV pushing. In a lot of these cases, what they want is already mentioned, and they are trying to push it further along beyond what is reasonable. I think some sort of PIA restriction for awhile might be in order, at least to see if they are willing to broaden their contributions. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland I had the same thought of looking into edit counts and it is indeed somewhat difficult to evaluate. But I noticed the top edited pages include Gaza genocide, Al Jazeera Media Network, Palestine, Gaza war, al Jazeera English, List of companies involved in the Gaza war. What did you use for those percentages? Feel free to reply on my TP to save words. ← Metallurgist (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

re: They seem heavily focused on that area to the point of bordering on WP:SPA. 'seem' is probably not very reliable. I don't know how to test whether an account qualifies as single purpose, but we can label revisions and count them. If you do that for Cinaroot using the strictest possible model of the topic area, pages where ECR applies to the entire page (and talk page), Cinaroot has made 32.3% of their post-extendedconfirmed edits in the topic area. A few comparisons for interest: Originalcola: 37.4%, Nehushtani: 24.3%, BlookyNapsta: 16.3%, Cdjp1: 7.4%. I am an SPA, as it states on my user page, or at least that is my intent, to only carry out PIA related actions, and my post-extendedconfirmed percentage is 55%. Metallurgist, you are 17.3% for interest. These are all undercounts somewhat in that they don't include edits to pages only partly covered by ECR, but it gives you some idea of the numbers. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iljhgtn

I worked with Cinaroot on Elon Musk and found them to be a thoughtful and helpful editor. Couldn’t just a warning be sufficient here? This seems purely punitive with no clear benefit to the encyclopedia. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cinaroot

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

Easternsahara

RedrickSchu

ShoBDin

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

Request concerning ShoBDin

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA5
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

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

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

Some diffs/edit summaries:

Conduct issues

WP:CANVASSING / WP:POINT
While no explicit notifications were made, the addition of links to multiple pages during an active AfD may constitute indirect or effect-based canvassing. The edits appear likely to increase visibility or perceived notability of the article during the deletion discussion, which is discouraged under canvassing guidance, even if framed neutrally.
WP:NPOV
The editor knows we also have a page on sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians as they also recently linked their newly created article to its See also. The only difference here is that victims and perpetrators are reversed. Yet they did not include a link to this article alongside their newly created one to any of the other pages, which indicates a double standard and editing in violation of NPOV.
WP:SPAM / WP:NOTADVERTISING
Adding links to a newly created article on loosely related pages, particularly during AfD, risks being promotional rather than encyclopedic. Links should be added only where they clearly improve reader understanding of the target page, independent of the linked article's deletion status.
WP:UNDUE / WP:WEIGHT
The insertion of links to a new article across multiple pages may give the subject disproportionate weight relative to its demonstrated coverage. This is especially problematic when the article’s notability is actively being evaluated at AfD.

Additional notes

ShoBDin has engaged in the same behavior with other articles they created, such as Hamas external European operations and Hezbollah's drone smuggling network. Their additions have been reverted by other editors, yet the behavior persists. Some were also immediately promoted to DYK, despite being new and unreviewed. This is not limited to PIA.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 7 July 2025 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of AE discussion

Discussion concerning ShoBDin

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

Statement by ShoBDin

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

If it is the case that one or more editors/admins believe ShoBDin's behavior qualifies as disruptive, and I have nothing useful to say on that, then can I suggest that an alternative approach would be to file an SPI to rule out the possibility of ban evasion and potentially save some time processing an AE report. I have put some information here. Whether it is enough to justify a checkuser, I have no idea. Anyone is welcome to use it if they believe an SPI report is merited and might help. I don't file SPIs anymore because the cost benefit ratio is not good and blocking socks in PIA doesn't appear to have a significant impact as far as I can tell, other than perhaps as a way to extract ~500 pre-extendedconfirmed pay-to-play revisions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Newslinger, I understand. There's a separation of concerns wall. I don't think it is an especially good place to put a wall personally, but I get it. My filing an SPI would be a straight up WP:NOTLAB violation to be honest, but other editors can do whatever they think is for the best. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:asilvering, what's the supposed ban evasion here, it's a good question, and perhaps the phrase was a poor choice. To clarify, there's nothing supposed, there are just numbers. This is the situation from my perspective. There is a set of accounts that have edited in the topic area. They have various properties. They can be represented mathematically in various spaces. Then you can ask - what are the distances between accounts in these spaces using a variety of methods and rank their proximity to each other. For ShoBDin, this produces a nearest neighbor that is, as you say, not blocked and has no restrictions. But it also produces a ranked list of other neighbors, also very close but not quite so close. Most of those are accounts have been blocked for ban evasion, hence my reference to ban evasion, but I have deliberately not named them. If someone wants to file an SPI, I can provide a candidate list, which of limited use because CU results are only retained for 90 days. I should add, for context, that nowadays I think of ban evasion/SOCK violation as a function of disruption. No disruption means no ban evasion/SOCK violation, in the sense that I'm personally not interested in non-disruptive accounts. I think this is a better reflection of the (probably somewhat self-defeating) community norms in the topic area where the community chooses to retain almost all blocked sock revisions + articles created by socks and editors only appear to create SPI reports for accounts with the opposite valence in the A-I conflict. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:asilvering, yes, SPI reports need actual evidence. I'm not in a very different position than you. I have a black box saying, "these 2 accounts might be operated by the same person, but I'm not going to tell you why, and there's a decent chance that I'm wrong for interesting reasons that I'm also not going to tell you about". So, for practical purposes it's an account filter of questionable utility. In this case, I've provided the only evidence I'm able to supply at a near zero cost for me (because I don't want to spend time on detective work) that may or may not be enough to trigger a CU - coincidental registration, timecard resemblance, a couple of somewhat improbable revision comment matches, a number of improbable page intersections at pages with few revisions, few unique accounts, relatively low pageviews and less than 30 watchers. Pretty weak sauce. It's limited to addressing the question - what are the similarities (and differences) between these 2 particular currently active accounts rather than a question about connections to blocked accounts (which is inherently problematic because there is no ground truth - assignment of particular accounts to particular banned sockmasters can be unreliable and there will be no CU data preserved). I can say that for both of the accounts, their nearest neighbor is each other, and their nearest 4 other neighbors out of about 500 accounts are 'Owenglyndur', 'Uppagus', 'EliasAntonakos', 'Rajoub570' (for both accounts). A completely fair response is response is 'so what?'. If anyone wants to look into it, they can. But for me, ShoBDin getting a better understanding of what can look disruptive to other editors and adapting to that probably has more utility. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smallangryplanet

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ShoBDin

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
The above shows that ShoBDin has a pattern of reflexively undoing other editors' reversions of their edits, often with edit summaries such as "Do not remove relevant sourced information, if you want it removed open a discussion on the Talk page" that are inconsistent with the WP:ONUS policy ("The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content").
At a minimum, ShoBDin should receive a logged warning for edit warring, but I would also support a revert restriction. Although this is not in the standard set, I believe an editor-focused variant of the enforced BRD restriction ("an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message") for ShoBDin in the WP:CT/A-I topic area would specifically target the issue here. — Newslinger talk 15:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to support this revert restriction. As an aside, I don't think "revert restrictions" in the WP:STANDARDSET are limited to WP:0RR/ WP:1RR with only the standard exceptions, but could include 0RR with added exceptions (such as for reverts after some wait time, discussion, or consensus), which is what that would be. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable and I'll make that my understanding from now on. — Newslinger talk 18:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hogshine

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

Request concerning Hogshine

 
   Historynerd361's statement contains 546 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Historynerd361 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Hogshine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Sanctions on ACAS topics.

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

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

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

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

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

6/12 tag-teaming for consensus’'

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 11/10-25 Warned by admin Asilvering


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

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

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

On Michael the Syrian talkpage he mentions ACAS several times.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

  • You still continue with your personal attacks... Your reply labels my actions as "WP:DISHONEST," insists 777network "demonstrably" used ChatGPT, and suggests this AE request itself was written by an "LLM" or "different person." These are not good-faith critiques of edits; they are attacks on other editors' character and motives, violating WP;NPA and WP:AGP. Your repeated, serious claims of a coordinated "sock/meat network" are presented without new evidence and serve primarily to discredit complainants rather than address their specific conduct concerns. This AE request is about a pattern of hostile personal interactions that poison collaboration. Hogshine's response attempts to shift the discussion back to content disputes about individual articles and old warnings, which is beyond the scope of this enforcement request.
Please note that this AE was filed on request of Asilvering if the ANI would be archived without any results, which it was, hence my report. Also note that I’m not trying to get you out of Wikipedia, I just want you to know your behavior of editing and replaying is not acceptable. Historynerd361 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[@Newslinger:] I filed this request specifically regarding Hogshine's pattern of personal attacks and incivility, as I believe it is the primary conduct issue disrupting collaboration in ACAS topics. My evidence and focus are on that pattern. While I defer to administrator discretion, I believe keeping the scope focused on Hogshine's conduct would allow for the clearest evaluation of the behavior I reported. If there are separate concerns about 777network's conduct, they could be addressed in a different venue as you suggested. Historynerd361 (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1

Discussion concerning Hogshine

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

Statement by Hogshine

 
   Hogshine's statement contains 771 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

This is the third complaint by Historynerd361 against me. It's sounding more and more personal. [64][65] Almost all was addressed in 2nd ANI.

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

HN was found "Possible" in two SPIs to a now-banned sock/meat network.[66]. Canvassed twice by the main puppetmaster [67] [68]. Substantial contribution to puppetmaster's draft which brought on this whole ordeal (Draft:Aramean people), only second to Wlaak. HN voted in accordance with other now-banned puppets in this Redirect discussion [69]. Same type of edits as puppets i.e. changing/removing any mention of "Assyrians", including wikilinks to Assyrian people, plus edited a number of similar pages that involve ACAS topics, the same pages at times. [truncated 47 diffs]
777network displays similar if not more meatpuppet-esque behavior; I can provide diffs if requested.

Accusing user:777network of: ″using ChatGPT to write articles which they demonstrably did, hence the false citations (other evidence aside).
closed ANI case and your past edits So did a LLM also write this for you, or was it a different person?
contributions... are minimal If you spend as much time building this encyclopedia as posting complaints & removing thousands of my bits [70], I wouldn't say it.
response was to argue semantics This accusation has been thoroughly addressed but you keep bringing it up. It is abundantly clear, from the links you posted, that the accusation was baseless. On that same page/discussion, 777network was repeatedly told to undo their contentious edit &‌ establish consensus in talk pages, to which they ignored.
backhanded uncollegial remarks Same user threatened me and called me a shit talker. [71]
An ANI‌ was posted against HN by a different user (to which he ignored, despite being reminded twice [72][73]) about his gaming-like edits to his Draft:Beth Aramaye. Please see the draft's history.

HN is unable to point to where I violated my warning despite mentioning it several times. In fact, he himself violated his own [74]

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

As I said, critiques of your disruptive behavior are not personal attacks. The mountain of evidence I provided to prove so demonstrates that it is you who's consistently violating rules & warnings. Not using AI that makes mistakes, including this very AE here, would have avoided us days worth of disputes. ~ Hogshine (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just like you did on the ANI, here too you are proving the points we have presented ([75][76]). You do not stop the allegations. If there is a genuine concern that we are sockpuppets, file an SPI. If you genuinely think I have threatened you, file a complaint. If you genuinely think we have tag teamed to manufacture consensus, file a complaint. Do not run around numerous talk pages and topics accusing us of these things.
This must be the third time I am telling you to stop saying that I have threatened you. My comment about this being the last time I am saying this was perfectly fine according to Asilvering. No, I did not call you a shit talker. I said I was tired of this shit talking. There is a difference between the two. I judged content, not the person.
Wikipedia doesn't have unlimited articles covering ACAS topics. It is only natural for different users to have overlapping edits. Stop saying that I am a sockpuppet because of this.
On the ANI you did the exact same thing as you are doing now. You keep deflecting the topic and only prove our points. Everyone seems to be wrong, including admins, except you. You even implied that the admin @Asilvering gave me permission to threaten you. Now that, I'm pretty sure, is an aspiration without excuse. 777network (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by (777network)

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

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

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

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

It’s difficult to summarize everything briefly, so I strongly recommend that any admin read this ANI comment of mine thoroughly.

Result concerning Hogshine

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Hogshine, there is a max of 20 diffs. You've provided 57. Please trim that down to the 20 that will be most helpful to responding admins. -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hogshine: A "possible" SPI result does not justify making allegations of sockpuppetry in content discussions. Since there was insufficient evidence to take action against 777network in the SPI, please do not continue accusing 777network of sockpuppetry unless you are doing so in a new case at WP:SPI with new compelling evidence. If you have evidence that 777network is engaging in other types of misconduct in the WP:GS/ACAS contentious topic, you can file a new enforcement request on this noticeboard. (777network's conduct is out of scope in this request, except to the extent necessary to determine whether Hogshine's comments were appropriate.) — Newslinger talk 13:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hogshine's primary reply's avoided addressing the new allegations of personal attacks and incivility, instead spending significant effort re-litigating a prior, closed ANI case and your past edits, which demonstrates a failure to constructively engage with the dispute resolution process. reads like LLM output, especially as it's referring to Historynerd's edits as "your edits". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323

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

Request concerning Iskandar323

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
BlookyNapsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA5
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 23 January 2025 Iskandar323 is indefinitely topic banned by Arbcom during the ARBPIA5 case ("Disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including consistently non-neutral editing".)
  2. 26 January 2025 Erased a text including a reference to Hamas
  3. 27 January 2025 Warned by a fellow editor on their talk page for the above violation
  4. 24 January 2025, edited Solomon's Temple, an article that the main page clearly says it is included in ARBPIA. 24 January 2025 they self reverted "pending clarification on CT restrictions".
  5. 30 January 2025 an editor asks them to reconsider the topics they edit since receiving their topic ban.
  6. 13 February 2025 - Starting an AfD for a personality related to ARBPIA which came to news in connection with Gaza
  7. 21 February 2025 - Logged warning by an admin (Tamzin) for the violations on the above page
  8. 6 November 2025 - edited El Sayyid Nosair, an article about an Arab who assassinated a controversial Israeli politician.
  9. 6 November 2025 - complaint in Administrators' noticeboard, after which the user reverted the above edit.
  10. 25 November 2025 - Iskandar323 removed Land of Israel and replaced it with historic Palestine
  11. 26 November 2025 - 2 week block for the above violation imposed by an admin and arbcom member (ScottishFinnishRadish)
  12. 3 December 2025 - User asks admin to reconsider, asserting that "wandering into the grey twice in nine months isn't really much an indication of malicious intent for the project". 4 December 2025 - Another editor pointed out that there had been many more than 2 violations. Iskandar323 then erased that comment, saying in their edit summary "Thanks, but no thanks – please consider yourself disinvited from my talk page".
  13. 17 December 2025 - Iskandar323 commented on Talk:Dome of the Rock, an article that the main page clearly says it is included in ARBPIA.
  14. 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, and 16 December 2025 - Iskandar323 participates extensively in discussion on Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting, including a discussion if it should be called a terror attack (where they opposed it). This attack is connected directly to ARBPIA: It was conducted by Islamic-State linked perpetrators, against Jews and Israelis celebrating a Jewish holiday. Jews, including an Israeli Jew, were killed. The authorities say it was motivated by antisemitism. Israel's intelligence believes Iran is behind the attack, which occurred just a short time after Australia expelled Iran's ambassador following intelligence showing the country was involved in hate crimes against Jews. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps blamed Israel of orchestrating the attack as a false-flag operation. The article's very background (following major sources) section connects the event to a rise in antisemitism in Australia in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks and the Gaza War.
  15. 17 December 2025 - I wrote to them on their talk page recommending steering away from these topics. The erased my comment, writing in the edit summary "Erroneous and unwelcome - no thank you!".

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 21 September 2021 logged warning
  2. 25 September 2021 topic banned from ARBPIA for 12 months
  3. 23 January 2025 indefinitely topic banned from ARBPIA on WP:AE
  4. 21 February 2025 - Logged warning for tban violation by ARBCOM in ARBPIA5
  5. 26 November 2025 - 2 week site block for tban violations
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Iskandar323

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

Statement by Iskandar323

I don't know this editor, and aside from in relation to their unsolicited messages on my talk page, I haven't interacted with them in the slightest. Their filing is therefore more than a little bit concerning in its intensity and the time it presumably took to research and compose. I'm also not sure why they have posted a litany of items from before my latest block, which obviously were known about and factored in at the time of that block. There are exactly two items of any bearing on content after that: 13 and 14. Point number 13 involves an incredibly academic dispute about whether the Dome of the Rock is a mosque or a shrine. If there is a political or ARBPIA-related angle to this then its not a dispute I'm familiar with. The page has no ARBPIA template, and presumably if a page as old as this had ever had any bearing on an ARBPIA-related dispute historically, it would have been templated up in a second. As to what the ARBPIA twist could be on the mosque/shrine dispute is, I haven't the foggiest. The dispute was initially instigated in this thread], in which the OP makes fairly clear that they believe it to be a Sunni-Shia variance. Point number 14 involves the mass shooting in Australia that is currently in the top 10 news stories in some form or other on just about every news platform on the planet. It is templated for its relationship to the Syrian war and Isil CTOP(s), nothing else. I have engaged solely on talk on the matters of WP:BLPNAME in relation to naming the intervening bystander and separately on noting the provisions of MOS:TERRORIST in relation to an informal discussion on the title – a discussion where familiarity with the NC appeared woefully lacking. The OP doesn't appear to have pointed to any specific diff that strays into ARBPIA space, so much as engaged in a vague hand wave at the whole un-templated page. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Butterscotch Beluga: Worth noting that all but the last three items of this filing pertain to events before or during my last block, so it's not exactly news, let alone new evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cdjp1

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

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

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

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

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Iskandar323

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=1136596190"