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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Arbitration motions regarding ARBPIA5 topic bans review	Motions	24 January 2026	2/5/0

[edit]

Open cases

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Indian military history	none	(orig. case)	13 February 2026

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Cleanup of old remedies	17 February 2026

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration motions regarding ARBPIA5 topic bans review

Initiated by CoconutOctopus talk at 17:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

CoconutOctopus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Special:Diff/1334283996/1334391769

Statement by CoconutOctopus

CoconutOctopus's statement contains 274 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

This is not a typical caserequest ; it is also the first time I have ever filed one so apologies if I have done anything incorrectly or missed anyone who is techincally involved - I have listed the two users who were directly impacted by the original motions but I suppose "all of ARBCOM" could be considered a party. I believe there is a community consensus to seek a full arbitration case regarding the series of motions including (but not limited to) the ban of Iskandar323. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration_motions_regarding_ARBPIA5_topic_bans shows that a large number of editors, including many admins and experienced users, are confused by or disagree with the outcome of the motions and believe that a full case would be beneficial. I don't want to simply list everything brought up at the above link (nor do I have the words to do so), but multiple users state concerns around the evidence and the fact that numerous arbs switched their votes after discussion (with some feeling that more arbs would have switched their votes too given more time). There are concerns around the fact much of the evidence leading to the ban was submitted by bad faith sockpuppet accounts who themselves are now blocked. I believe it important that someone lists this as a case request to allow for a public vote by arbitrators on whether they agree they motion is not perfect and should be settled in a full case. I make no statement about my personal feelings as to which outcomes should be achieved as I don't think they matter in this case, but I do believe this should be a full case.

Statement by Iskandar323

Extension granted to 1000 words. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323's statement contains 1001 words and is within 10% of the 1000-word limit.

Community sentiment has already given voice to the various ways in which this trial by motion has been questionable – both procedurally and behaviourally – in ways that loom larger than the specifics of the case itself. It would be interesting to know if Arbcom plans to address this. I have a motion: "Does arbcom believe it handled this matter well and to the standards expected by the community?" If the answer is: "it wasn't great", then it begs the further question of: what is arbcom going to do about it? As for the actual key issues ...

First: has arbcom even followed its own policy? – namely WP:ARBPOL, which provides for procedures by motion only on limited circumstances: "Summary proceedings: Where the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed, the Committee may resolve the dispute by motion." I think it is more than safe to say at this point that the facts of the matter are not "substantially undisputed". They were close at the 11-0 point, but at 7-5, I would say arbcom had a substantial dispute on its hands, not to mention the disputation coming from the community. That would appear to render the end result of the motions unfit for summary proceedings.

Then there is the matter of recusal or lack therein. I was unaware – not being a avid policy reader, and likely being too trusting – of the need to individually petition arbs in order to garner their WP:RECUSAL. Even setting aside the obvious involvement of SFR as the most recent sanctioning admin, as well as ignoring their electoral promise to recuse from ARBPIA5 (of which these motions were a direct review) based on their having "too much administrative involvement", etc., there is Guerillero, who .... joined the sock-led AE case as a diff-bearing prosecutor, referred it to arbcom (with only a single non-commital nod from Sennecaster), joined the committee, supported their own referral, apparently after discussed it a bit over the holidays when half of the committee was barely online, and then with barely even an arbcom consensus for that, stepped up to re-prosecute the matter with exactly the same seven diffs from AE (so presumably 'discussion' didn't involve a re-assessment of the diffs or re-drafting). Sennecaster then recused themselves from even being a clerk due to their involvement at AE. Guerillero didn't. That alone is an almost mind-boggling variation in interpretation as to what constitutes 'involvement' regarding recusal. So second motion for arbcom: tighten up the recusal process. But long story short, Guerillero proceeded as both prosecutor and judge, which is conceptually egregious even if the Byzantine dysfunctionality of the recusal process didn't technically prevent it.

Next question: just why? - to any of this! If the ill-advised joke was a "naked violation" as Guerillero named it, why not just block me? For a longer duration than SFR had. Any admin could have done that. The community time that could have been saved is inordinate!

Finally: behaviour – possibly the aspect that has gotten the most community members the most riled up: the lack of effective communication (key elements of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:ARBCOND) from some committee members. And again, why? Personal disdain for me and my pings? Maybe. But it's not about me. It's about the process, and the community, and engendering trust in the community by means of transparency. Not responding to community input, questions and counter-evidence isn't just a recipe for a half-baked outcome, it's disingenuous and disrespectful to the community. And once the evidence was dissected by the community and a minority of arbs, it was incumbent on the remaining arbs to engage constructively with that. To their credit, the two arbs who likely should have recused at least responded – even if their responses did not support the motion based on the actual evidence so much as handwaves at absent and seemingly misplaced evidence. However, I must thank HJ Mitchell for belatedly providing their statement on the noticeboard talk, as it provides a further glimpse at the rationales that the community were not priorly privy to. HJM did not reaffirm the POV-pushing claim, but instead waved at the more generalist "tendentious editing". I suspect this is a problem that several arbs had: they didn't like something, but they couldn't quite pin down what, so they just went along with the motion that was on offer. But if TE generally was the accusation, that should have been the motion; not the specific POV-pushing motion that was presented – the evidence for which was tested and found wanting. And the end result is an unsatisfactory outcome for all involved.

As for whether I want a new case: not really. Why? Because I'm not a disruptive editor and I dislike wasting community time. At the same time, the "finding of fact" is grossly offensive and should not have been allowed to pass, having been shown to be utterly fallacious based on the evidence provided. The committee can have its ban for all I care, as it could have had at any point without any motions. Ban + violation = block. But if Arbcom wants to level serious accusations at editors it should do so in the form of a proper case, not in a summary proceeding – and definitely not with such a sorry effort of a motion as its vehicle. If the choice is between letting that stand and having a case, I'd choose a case – not for a want of a case, but out of principle.

But I'd like to hope arbcom is collectively capable of looking at alternatives, such as vacating their unsupported FoF motion, while taking or leaving their ban as they see fit, but based on honest reasoning, not trumped up and degrading charges. And for any potential case or review of this motion or any other, I would suggest that the arbs that almost certainly should recuse actually think about recusing. And yes, this is almost certainly overlength, but if Arbcom is going to devote entire procedures to me then they should let me sing and dance. Lastly, a thank you to the arbs that did take the time to properly inspect the evidence and actually assess the motion based on the facts. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Levivich's statement contains 192 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

From the WP:ARM:

2) Since their topic ban in WP:ARBPIA5, Iskandar323 has been engaged in consistently non-neutral editing around the history of Judaism ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7]). This is a continuation of the misconduct that led to the original topic ban.

Iskandar is TBANed from Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed, not history of Judaism.
No articles mention PIA or have CTOP notice.
No edits violate NPOV or other policy.

1. The edits are obviously a continuation of PIA-related editing just outside of the topic area. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
My vote is based on a similar set of observations as SFR from looking over Iskandar323's editing over the past 6 months --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

No explanation of PIA-related editing.
Second comment is WP:ASPERSION.

2. A topic ban doesn't mean find something only partially covered by your topic ban (as demonstrated by the warning and block) and continue POV pushing. As to what Parabolist said below, WP:NPOV is policy and non-neutral editing is disruptive. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVOCACY and not a WP:BATTLEGROUND to further disputes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
In response to the questions, the diffs presented are not the entirety of what I considered, they were some of the diffs from Iskandar323's recent editing that came up in discussions. I've spent a lot of time looking at Iskandar323's edits as I've fielded several reports of topic ban violations and I watch a lot of ARBPIA and adjacent articles. In some of the cases the edits were, as has been pointed out, correct and worth making, but when looking at the totality of their editing, especially with the ARBPIA FoF, engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including consistently non-neutral editing in mind, there is a pattern of minimizing or removing mentions of Israel, Judea, and Jewish history without similar edits made when dealing with other religions or peoples. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

No explanation of partially covered, non-neutral, or disruptive.
Second comment is WP:ASPERSION.

3. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT says unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Unexplained arb votes have the same effect.

4. Per HB. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

HB wrote they're not TBAN violations and later struck pushing a point of view, so how does Per HB explain this vote?

5. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
6. Aoidh (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
7. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the oppose/discussion sections were 8,600 words of rebuttal. Harry can't see anything ArbCom could do that would make people any happier. Addressing the rebuttals and explaining your votes would make people happier. Whether you do that at a full case or reopen the ARM or wait for an ARCA, please do it. Explanation is not relitigation. Levivich (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: ...and upon responding, the first thing the fire department should do is determine whether or not the house is actually on fire :-) (And thanks to you and the others for volunteering your time to do exactly that here.) Levivich (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: 1. Where were the informally discussions held and who participated? 2. Were the 7 diffs the clearest/most-egregious examples you found?

@Aoidh: Continuing to violate the topic ban less than a week after their block...: Can you explain why you view those edits as part of PIA broadly construed? Levivich (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: that wasn't less than a week after their block. Levivich (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Black Kite's statement contains 589 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

Just a quick point - Iskandar323 is a party to this, but can't make a statement even on their talkpage because ArbCom blocked them with TPA turned off (why?). It would be useful to give them their TP access back so that they can do this if they wish.

HJ Mitchell People are - mostly - not yelling at you because of the decision you made per se. They are yelling at you because members of ArbCom failed to properly apply themselves to this case and justify the decision that they made, when it appears to many people to not be based on the available evidence.
asilvering You will not like our opinions any more than you already do if we open a full case. No, actually that's the whole point - if people understand why decisions were made rather than a hastily tossed-off "Support" followed by disappearing completely, then they're far more likely to support your decision. I'm unsure why this is a difficult concept for people to grasp.
I can see that this is unsurprisingly going to be declined. However, I hope it will have the effect that in future cases Arbs will actually (a) keep up to date with evolving evidence, and (b) ensure that their rationales for voting on any contentious motion are a little bit more than "Support" or "Oppose".
asilvering You're missing the point. This motion to ban I323 came directly from an AE case raised by an account which was unsurprisingly found to be a sock, and closed as no action. During that, Guerillero said I guess I have a few days before I am an arb. Missing from this report is part of the interaction between Iskandar323 and Levivich where they both nakedly violate their topic bans the other day. There is also a pattern of editing in the history of Judaism just outside of the topic ban where no one edit is a giant problem, but together they show an Israel-Palestine related POV being pushed. (followed by the list of diffs later used by ArbCom). In other words, this motion wouldn't even have happened if it wasn't for that; thus, ArbCom has (possibly unwittingly) done the sockpuppeteer's job for them. A second point; why didn't Guerillero recuse from this?

Sorry, Guerillero, I meant to ping you in that comment. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero OK. But if they were discussing it long before that, I would not have expected the diffs being used to justify their decision being exactly the ones you posted at AE in late December (as you'd have expected other previous evidence to have sparked that discussion). Other (non-brand-new) Arbs, are you able to shed light on how the earlier discussion came about and why/how that particular evidence came to be used?

HouseBlaster Whilst I totally respect that you have started the motion below, what difference is it actually going to make to the decision that was actually made? We've seen the wagon-circling by some members of ArbCom that has already occurred, and the fact that some Arbs will/have come well out of this and some definitely won't. My concern is that we're only just into February, and we're expected, for at least a year, to rely on some people that can't get their facts straight even when the issues with their "facts" are explained to them in simple terms. Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HouseBlaster Thank you for that. I note that SFR has now grudgingly provided some analysis of some diffs. We will see if we get an equivalent from Guerillero; as you alluded to I am sure that a number of people have issues about their behaviour around this case, especially given the fact that it was they who came up with "the diffs" in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering I hate to do this because you were astute enough to reject the nonsense FoF originally and vote accordingly, but since you put your head above the parapet, do you think Iskandar is banned because the Committee believes Iskandar ought to be banned. works as a rationale? I'm sorry to say I think Parabolist is quite correct here.

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

Note: The only thing short of a full case I would support is a full outline, endorsed by all seven supporting arbs, of the allegedly clear pattern of POV-pushing that the seven highlighted diffs are valid and relevant examples of. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders if the procedural objection to motion 2, based on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Forms of proceeding ([w]here the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed, the Committee may resolve the dispute by motion), goes for the the following motion too. And if not, why not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yngvadottir

In response to HJ Mitchell: ArbCom can sometimes get it wrong, wouldn't you agree? In addition to the possibility of different people yelling at the Arbs, a fresh examination might redress an injustice (and thereby benefit the project by allowing further participation by a valuable editor), or demonstrate more thoroughly the correctness of the decision (thereby reaffirming that the editor was disruptive). ArbCom's actions are supposed to be in service of the project (that boilerplate you folks unanimously vote "aye" on at the top of every case decision page) and is not supposed to be imposed overriding our consensus-driven decision-making processes, but to be the highest-level expression of them (or something; IANAL).

Arbs: Respond to the widespread disagreement with this decision and to the indications of doubt that were evident in several Arbs' changing their votes on Iskandar323 as community members raised points in discussion about the evidence. I would prefer that Iskandar323's ban be simply vacated as a flawed close to an unresolved ArbCom process (SashiRolls' "hung jury" analogy, or a "no consensus" AfD close analogy). Since that's apparently not possible, you should accept this case despite the time and effort involved. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In response to ScottishFinnishRadish. asilvering has averred that what we see is what we have. You assert a pattern of topic ban violations and refer to HouseBlaster explaining that the evidence presented wasn't the sole basis for banning Iskandar. There's a tension here. Moreover, several Arbs changed their votes after re-examining the evidence that was actually presented. In other words, the publically discussed evidence was not decisive for you and other Arbs who voted for a ban. That sounds to me awfully like prejudgement. It's counterproductive when apparently some Arbs decide based on evidence presented and can be persuaded by informed arguments about the subject matter, while others largely ignore the validity of that evidence. It makes it a popularity contest: how many Arbs are inclined to ban someone when they are once again the subject of a complaint, vs. how many weigh the evidence. Vacate the decision and have a full case so that the decision has to be based on evidence submitted. And narrowly focused, please. There is no justification for the threat of widening the scope. All it does is make people fear interaction with the Arbs. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

IOHANNVSVERVS's statement contains 457 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

A lot of people are talking about this like it's simply a difference of opinions. But it's not. The "Iskandar further POV pushing" motion isn't just "unpopular", it's unacceptable, and I don't see how it isn't misconduct at this point by the arbitrators who forced it through and who still to this day refuse to give an explanation or a response to the community.

As laid out clearly at WP:ARBCOND, "Arbitrators are expected to: Respond promptly and appropriately to questions from other arbitrators, or from the community, about conduct which appears to conflict with their trusted roles." Yet the members of the committee who passed the motion have been completely ignoring the community, despite repeated pleas for them to respond.

We should not allow ArbCom to become a dictatorship able to ban anyone they want without even the semblance of reason or due process. As another editor has phrased it: "Any regular editor in any contentious topic could be banned on "evidence" as weighty as this. Nobody is safe."

~~Also, it needs to be asked whether or not ArbCom has been acting in this way in order to comply with some sort of pro-Israel external pressures or influences.~~ Striking for being the wrong place for this question and to avoid causing any unnecessary controversy/distraction. 00:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what mechanisms/procedures are in place to deal with this, but this is the problem as I see it. It is not Iskandar who is disrupting the encyclopedia, it is certain members of the current Arbitration Committee. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish, if you're referring to the infamous seven diffs, I don't believe it's accurate that they were "first presented by a bad-faith sock". See my comment here. Please let me know if you're referring to something else or if any of the seven diffs were brought up prior to Guerillero doing so on Dec 19. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Paprikaiser, see my above comment about your statement that the evidence/diffs were "originally compiled by the now-blocked sock Nehushtani". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000, regarding: "the only proper way to handle this situation is an independent review", is there any sort of mechanism for such a thing? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Scharb, I would assume that just because a user is banned it doesn't become permissible to cast aspersions against them. You've given zero explanation as to how the edits "were destructive [...] and clearly intended to erase and minimize the history of the Jewish people". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, the problem is not so much the banning of Iskandar as it is the "further POV pushing" finding of fact. What was your support for that motion based on if not the diffs presented? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, could you clarify which of the edits are the ones you described as "correct and worth making"?[8] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also @ScottishFinnishRadish, could you clarify what map you are referring to when you say leaves non-English map without any sourcing that does not contain Israel or Judah. Article mentions Israel, Judah, and Ammon which are not in the map left in the article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Giraffer

Much has been said on WT:ACN about how the decision to ban Iskandar is unfair, harsh, or contrived. Everyone is well within their rights to give an opinion on rulings and their merits, and I think it's healthy for people to speak up when they see something they think is wrong.

That said, I'm not sure what this case request is trying to achieve. Relitigating the situation with the same people on a different page/venue isn't going to change their conclusions or votes. I should hope that the context of a case vs an ARM section would not make a difference to the outcome of a decision.

If there are calls for certain arbitrators to be more forthcoming with their vote rationales then that can be done elsewhere, but opening a case, whether to force a hand or try for a do-over, does not seem like the way forward. Giraffer (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

I endorse what Giraffer said. I think the unusual piece here is that post-FRAM ArbCom has been pretty reliably able to come to agreement and often consensus about what the facts are. There might then be a split among the committee about how to respond, but basically the only time I can think of a major split on a crucial FoF leading to a "major" public decision (which I'm defining here as a block/site ban or desyop/resysop) was the 6 in favor, 4 opposed, 3 abstain for Stephen. But there the remedy landed at 9-3 so the FoF split didn't end up mattering as much. So given what Giraffer has said, if ArbCom is going to do something here beyond provide greater insight into its thinking, I would encourage it to think about what an FoF that would pass 9-3 or better would look like and then if a majority of the Arbs, based on that factual record, remain convinced there is sufficient evidence to ban. In working on that they would probably fufill Giraffer's suggestion of the productive thing being "more insight". Ultimately ArbCom is WP:CONEXEMPT for really good reasons which includes the ability to make calls that large segments of the community disagree with it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPOL states Decisions are reached by a majority vote of active, non-recused arbitrators. So Harry's point that this is how ArbCom works is backed up by policy and Sashi is misunderstanding what WP:CONEXEMPT means here (ArbCom is unique in a lot of respects so it's not unusual for Wikipedians to not understand elements of that uniqueness). That said, the lack of something approaching consensus as we traditionally use it for the FoFs is unusual when it's used as the base for a site ban at least in the post-FRAM era. Because of ArbPol's embrace of voting, when I was an arb I embraced that ethos as well for a lot of things. However, being on the U4C has shown me the value that can be reached in trying to achieve consensus where possible because that body has operated far more through that method than ArbCom does. Part of that is because it's easier with 8 people than 11 but part of that is also genuine attempts to try and see where there is common ground. Hence my suggestion that if ArbCom could find an FoF that got more support, would that still be sufficient for a majority to feel justified in voting to site ban someone based on my belief (and direct knowledge while on ArbCom) that Arbs are basing their votes for remedies on the facts agreed to rather than starting with a sense of the right remedy and voting for facts to support that outcome. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

I think I agree with Giraffer's assessment of the situation, but would suggest being a little more sympathetic to the filing editor for not immediately hitting on the right process for a very complicated arena of Wikipedia. Opening what is essentially ARBPIA6 with a broader scope of evidence to hold other editors to a similar standard (or consider if exonerating evidence was missed) would necessarily take up the question of Iskandar323's ban. However, I agree with Black Kite that the FoF and related votes on sanctions in this most recent case would definitely benefit from arbs giving clearer explanations of which diffs they felt do/don't demonstrate patterns, since there's demonstrable disagreement within the committee and community on the fact of the matter. An elaboration or reconsideration on that would address what appear to be the most pressing concerns, as I don't envy the task of drawing up a scope and collecting evidence that would make an ARBPIA6 worthwhile at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Kip

Two points here:

I effectively agree with Giraffer’s statement above.
Can someone explain how Levivich’s statement above is a valid BANEX from their tban? It’s one thing to defend themselves at ARBM (which was a valid BANEX imo), it’s another to defend another editor in a separate forum. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Thanks for the clarification, hadn’t noticed that. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I take no issue with the new motion, but as noted by Leeky, I caution any arbs voting in support of it to clarify they’re doing so on the first (there were procedural errors) or second (motion solves no disruption and created more issues) grounds - grounds #3 (it was simply the wrong decision/outcome) effectively communicates that Arbcom decisions can immediately be re-litigated by pressure from groups of editors and/or arbs that opposed said decision, and that’s a problematic precedent to set in the long-term given the subsequent implications for both WP:CONEXEMPT and Arbcom's status as the de facto "court of final appeal" for enwiki. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I appreciate the acknowledgement, but the incorrect-ness of an FoF on merits (rather than on procedure) is inherently such a subjective matter that I disagree with your conclusion; contesting a decision on procedural grounds is bringing new info/genuine problems, but contesting it because one feels it was the wrong conclusion is effectively a WP:JDL re-litigation of the original decision. I hope I'm wrong, but I really do not look forward to the future effects it'll have on "unpopular" arb decisions in hot-button topic areas. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

1) I was and am appalled at the two comments by arbitrators that suggested the ban was based on other evidence not identified. That is gross unfairness.

2) I was and am upset that the other arbitrators did not come back and explain their unjustified conclusion when the community pretty unanimously and the opposing members of the committee shot down any reason for the NPOV finding. So explanation, Harry is what would make me happier, and it is something that WP:ADMINACCT expects.

3) I'll adopt Levivich's statement if it means you will consider it -- it would be especially galling that the committee considers banned or LTA editors statements like it did to start off the motions, but would not consider Levivich's statement, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

4) I'll also adopt Black Kite's response to aslivering. For many of you, it's not what you did, it's what you did not do that's the problem. Unless, it was considering evidence not identified by diffs (which again, is grossly unfair). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

5) I agree with just "vacate the [site] ban" as own goal and move on, if it ever is or was truly needed, there is plenty of time for it. Also, just to be clear, I am from the uninvolved part of the community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

6) Responding to JClemens: What does not seem "objectively reasonable" is for "Arbitration" to operate on a no consideration of the arguments model. Not considering and not addressing the committee opposition and the community objections is not objectively reasonable. Saying there is other unidentified evidence is not objectively reasonable. Not responding and not explaining is also contrary to policy, so not objectively reasonable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

7. I have done my fair share over the years supporting Arbcom's prerogatives, and citing WP:CONEXCEPT (Please Note: the proper shortcut). So, I know it's well within Arbcom's prerogatives to revisit its prior statements at any time. I am also sure, it's not within Arbcom's province to substitute WP:ASPERSION for diff evidence and to not explain. At any rate, it's good that at least one motion to revisit or correct the record has come out of this. Arbcom needs solid ground for CONEXCEPT to really work. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One thing a case might clear up is the apparent gulf in the committee between, on the one hand, any violation of the topic ban is a hanging offense, and on the other, the idea that context matters. More importantly, on the one hand, that escalating blocks is the fair and useful response, vs. and the seeming sea-change: your gone, if your toe touches the line. Why turn away from escalating blocks, as balancing the various equities? True, at some point the escalating blocks may become infinite, but rush to infinite seems wrong for several reasons, and at least worthy of sustained thought in a case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JHD0919

Honestly, looking at this as well as the discussion over at WT:ACN, it's pretty clear to me that some of the ppl objecting to the decision to ban Iskandar are, for lack of a better term, passionate about their stance on this whole ordeal. Should the arbs decide to decline the case, I'd recommend they go over the various reactions and see if there's anyone among them who needs to be disciplined (whether it be by TBAN, siteban, or some other remedy). JHD0919 (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChildrenWillListen

@IOHANNVSVERVS: I don't think external pro-Israel forces were involved in getting Iskander banned, since it would be a waste of their time; they're topic banned from A-I after all. The sockpuppets that started the whole thing looked like they were seeking revenge, which we know people like Icewhiz love to do, both onwiki and off. I don't necessarily disagree with the ban, but I would highly suggest a full case since whatever happened in the motion felt rushed and sloppy. I also urge the functionaries to develop better policies when it comes to sockpuppetry in contentious topics, since it's clear bans don't really work against bad actors.

Additionally, it is disappointing when arbs simply sign a vote to ban users without commenting on why they want to do so. Banning someone is certainly no small decision, and we need transparency to ensure it simply isn't "I don't like them," or worse, "My colleagues want to ban this person, so I'm going to as well". Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You may report these editors at WP:AE if you wish. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I think ArbCom's decision about whether or not to open this case should center on how the Arbs, currently, feel about the votes that were not changed after some Arbs did change their views about Iskandar. I would not automatically conclude that the discussion at the ACN talk page is also representative of the editing community as a whole: this is a hot-button topic area, and editors who have strong opinions disliking the recent decision may see things very differently than do those of us who looked at that talk page, and decided that we did not want to touch it without fire-resistant gloves. I went back and looked at the Iskandar diffs, and they convinced me that I'm not a subject matter expert. I think there are limits to what we can expect of ArbCom, in terms of determining the nuance of POV in this topic area, and the nuance of the boundaries of "broadly construed". But what strikes me as substantive is that evidence ~~was first presented by a bad-faith sock, then~~ got some incompletely explained supports from some Arbs, after which some other Arbs looked at further evidence and decided against sanctioning – and now we have some of the early-supporting Arbs reaffirming their votes and others not yet saying publicly. I obviously don't know whether ArbCom would now change the outcome of that decision, but that's what should decide whether or not to reopen the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Correction made: thanks IOHANNVSVERVS. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion to ArbCom for the future is to consider carefully when something (1) is likely to be hotly contested by some members of the community, and (2) has a split opinion among the Committee members. When that happens, Arbs may save themselves some future headaches by being more proactive about "showing your work". In this case, it would have helped a lot if the members who were early supporters of the Iskandar ban had come back after some of their colleagues had changed their minds, and said in public that they were reaffirming their original votes, and why. (Angry editors dissatisfied with a decision abhor a vacuum, and tend to fill it by assuming the worst.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion. In the GMO case, the practice of having diffs in the final FoFs became a more general expectation (for odd reasons). But diffs shouldn't be used just to tick a box on a checklist. If Arbs sign on to something, they should justify how the diffs that are included belong there, or remove those diffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JClemens

Since I, as an editor with relevant graduate-level studies who avoids the PIA area and is previously unfamiliar with Iskandar323's editing or position in the conflict, can, upon reviewing the seven edits listed in the FOF, readily determine which faction the non-neutrality is alleged to have favored, that strongly suggests that the arbitrators finding such a pattern of non-neutrality are not objectively unreasonable in doing so. The subsequent election is the traditional time to take up issues with arbitrators' interpretations. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiamut

Tiamut's statement contains 505 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

The decision to fully ban Iskander is unjustified, both in evidence presented and arguments made by those in favor, who largely ignored community feedback exposing the diffs presented as innocuous.

This case was unnecessary and mostly prompted (like Iskander's original topic ban) by filings made by sockpuppets who do not like legitimate content being produced by honest editors. Sockpuppets make the requisite 500 minor edits on random articles outside the topic area (often continuing to do so to avoid scrutiny) but drop in to push a singular POV and file reports.

Article development in PIA suffers. So many knowledgeable editors are now topic banned, and newcomers are discouraged by the obstacles to editing. Fifteen years ago when I was very actively editing here, articles were regularly vandalized, with POV warriors often blanking material they did not like, sparking edit wars. Since my recent return, I have noticed this thankfully cannot happen because of the many restrictions since enacted, but articles are in desperate need of motivated, knowledgeable editors, and most of them are being topic banned, one by one, by reports filed by socks! Tiamut (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most admins at Arbcomm seem blind to sockpuppet disruption. Two here co-nominated a user for adminship who was revealed by User:Nableezy to be a sockpuppet! Admins microscopically examine content in the edits of established editors open about their POVs, while being duped by people posing as neutral, gaming the system, and running sockpuppet accounts. Tiamut (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: In nearly two decades (on and off) editing here, I have seen dozens of socks file reports and tarnish the logs of many decent editors. Go look at User:Nableezy's page "a trip down memory lane". More than half the blocks are sock reported. My first three blocks more than 15 years ago are from reports filed by User:Isarig who probably still socks here somewhere. Admins look at block logs and escalate sanctions. Iskander was targeted, like many of us who produce a lot of content under one account are. The hyper scrutiny we receive compounds while the socks disappear. We bring up sockpuppets at every Arb case, but no real motions address it while editors targeted by them are instead punished. Tiamut (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: We need real acknowledgement that socking is repeatedly targeting editors to ban them. Its hard to remain patient, civil, AGF with this incessant gaming. HJMitchell says he is at his "wits end" from this topic area's disruption but much is generated by the actions and reports filed by socks making mountains out of molehills insisting you adjudicate content and tone, and you oblige them! SilverLocust cites Iskander's long log of sanctions as proof of incorrigibility, ignoring he collaborates well and produces fine content in a challenging editing environment needing editors. Arbs see the targets of these reports as the problem, rather than the throwaway accounts kicking up mud. They have nothing to lose and reincarnate, while we suffer editor attrition and community corrosion.Tiamut (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate the ban per @User:Paprikaiser et al. Tiamut (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

I don't think a new case with the same arbs will be useful as it will be essentially asking the committee to investigate themselves and the COI is obvious. The only proper way to handle this situation is an independent review. Zero^talk 05:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS: The committee can arrange such a review with or without an established procedure. Zero^talk 06:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely obvious that there would have been no chance of the ban motion passing, in fact little chance of it even existing, if it wasn't for the POV motion. Please finish the job. Zero^talk 11:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Femke

I will add to the chorus that I'm concerned with the outcome here. A new case with the same arbitrators may not be that useful, but I would like a better justification of the outcome.

There is a difference of having a certain POV which comes out in your edits and WP:POV pushing which is disruptive and can be associated with e.g. double standards, cherry-picking and wearing down 'opponents' on talk. To me, it is not clear that the interpretation of POVPUSH/CPUSH the committee used this time around, corresponds closely to the texts of WP:POVPUSH and WP:CPUSH (both explanatory essays), as the diffs mostly just seem to show Iskander's POV without showing misconduct associated with it. Is it a question of cementing this better in actual PAGs? Arbcom is not meant to judge content, it is meant to judge conduct. In these kinds of cases, the line between the two can be blurry, but I'm not sufficiently convinced the committee was on the right side of that distinction. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

Kingsindian's statement contains 550 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

Topic ban violations are handled all the time at AE, so why was this case needed? The key is in the unusual FoF that Iskandar323 engaged in "POV-pushing" outside the technical limits of the topic ban. I submit that this is an absurd FoF, arrived at in an absurd way.

Let's recall the facts. Guerillero, in the AE request which led to this case, posted a bunch of diffs making this accusation. He did not tell anybody what procedure he used to collect these diffs, how these are violations, or why he went out to find the diffs in the first place. In the ARCA case, ScottishFinnishRadish also claimed to have seen evidence of non-neutral editing, again without any elaboration. None of the other Arbs gave even a semblance of any reason. The argument boiled down to: "trust me bro".

Why would anyone trust the judgement of members on ArbCom on this issue? Do they know anything about the topic? People elected you to administer Wikipedia, not to find out whether Asherah was the consort of Yahweh.

For the FoF to make sense, the NPOV violation must be blatant and easily observable by outsiders with no special knowledge of the topic. For instance: if there was an explicit consensus on a page, and Iskandar323 violated the consensus and edited in a disruptive or edit-warring way. Did anything like this happen? No.

It is way beyond the competence of ArbCom to determine the nuances of the POV of an edit. That's because every edit has a POV implication. And there are many subtle ways in which POV can be manipulated. These things are impossible to know without detailed knowledge of the topic. Unless they're blatant NPOV violations, which is clearly not the case here.

ArbCom should either get some sort of outside expert input, or stop trying to fix things which it has no competence to fix. Not every ill in the world can be fixed by ArbCom.

I have no opinion about what exactly should be done to fix this travesty. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish's comment is not credible. Topic ban violations are handled all the time at AE. Without the "POV-pushing" FoF, there would be no motion here, and no ban. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's scandalous but unsurprising that Guerillero studiously refuses to provide any explanation of how he came up with the diffs. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial to show that the "non-neutral editing" FoF is absurd.

Consider a table with two columns: "Pro-Palestine arguments" and "Pro-Israel arguments". I fill the table one entry at a time, till I have 10 rows. Now pick 10 diffs from one column to "prove" that I'm "POV-pushing". QED. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple arbs say that the "PoV-pushing" FoF isn't "central"; so imagine a world where the only FoF was topic bans vios. The cited diffs are a violation 1 yr ago, a diff for which Iskandar323 was already blocked, and a trivial user talk page comment.

Without the PoV-pushing FoF, there wouldn't even be a motion, let alone a site ban. And what of all the other motions like "admins are allowed to ban from a wider area" etc.? Admins at AE are allowed to expand topic bans on the basis of one diff? ArbCom is not only acting recklessly, it's expanding WP:BURO. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Sean.hoyland's statement contains 455 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Was Iskandar323's proposal here seen and rejected? Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scharb, without an evidentiary basis for your claims, I think you would agree that there is a risk of "just railroading a user with a different perspective" as you said at ANI about someone who has likely committed a crime by stealing an account and using it to target people on Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: what would taking the issue of sockpuppet disruption seriously look like, to you? Taking it less seriously and messing with socks is also an option since our options are limited in practice. Maybe there are ways to disincentivize the weaponization of reporting systems by socks. An issue is that there are no consequences. There's no downside to socking. This creates an enforcement asymmetry. There might be things that restore something closer to a symmetric state, more balanced payoffs for honest vs dishonest actors. One fun way might be to try linking topic ban length to ban evasion across the pro-A vs pro-B divide. So, pro-A user X gets up to some socking/editor-targeting shenanigans and gets caught. Ta-da! Perceived opponent topic banned Pro-B user Y gets their topic ban length reduced or even lifted. You get the idea, karma. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ...making reports with evidence of POV pushing is nigh-on impossible from Kowal2701. I think this case (and ARBPIA5) shows that it is easy to compile a small set of samples from a much larger set, say that it represents a pattern e.g. POV pushing, and many people will agree. People in the media/social media do it routinely about the topic area and many people accept their conclusions. I don't think there is much reason to believe that we, Wikipedians, are significantly less error prone than the general population. I think we should try to keep things simple. If reasonable people can disagree whether something broke a rule, forget it. Also, socks unambiguously broke the rules thousands of times since the ARBPIA5 topic bans were enacted. Nehushtani, who said "The pattern shown with Iskandar323 is especially disturbing.", violated policy 3,512 times in just over a year. Seems quite a lot worse than this case if the concern is the amount of rule breaking. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sir Joseph's it's a numbers game, it's something like a numbers game, but I'm not sure people grasp the scale and complexity when they form views. Using a broad definition of the topic area, you can say - since the beginning of 2025, 20,389 distinct actors have made 263,526 revisions, with the top 3 percentages being 3.87%, 2.89% and 1.16%. Only 5 accounts have each contributed more than 1% of the revisions. The way people think and talk about the topic area, enforcement etc. seems detached from this complicated reality. That same set of 20k actors made over 16 million revisions altogether in the same period. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Super Goku V

Super Goku V's statement contains 473 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Ignoring the outcome for a bit, I feel like some of what I am hearing here isn't necessarily asking for a case to be opened, but for the prior case to be re-opened for members of the Committee to explain their actions. @Theleekycauldron and HJ Mitchell:, as the only members to have voted decline so far, would either of you be willing to express your thoughts on this?

Regardless of what happens, I will point out what Administrators' role and expectations are according to the Contentious topics. As noted by point three, administrators are expected to explain when they take an enforcement action. This portion links to WP:ADMINACCT, which contains the relevant portions:
Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. (...) Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested. (...)
Failure to communicate – this can be either with editors (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to address concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought) There were a significant number of times where members of the committee signed onto an action without explaining why during the ARM. For one member in particular, the two longest comments made were 65 and 63 words, which were respectively used to disagree with a motion regarding emails sent to the committee and disagree with the usage of the word "standing" in the motion. Said member otherwise signed 3 times without explanation and signed 12 further times with a total of 69 words and a rounded average of 6 words. (And a decent portion of that was still concerns regarding committee emails.) That member was not alone in signing without explaining during the deliberations. I will say again that some of the statements here sound more that they want committee members to explain their actions and reasons, rather than have a full case.

Additionally, given that Iskandar323 cannot make any comments regarding this, shouldn't the "Statement by Iskandar323" section be removed or otherwise suppressed? After all, they cannot participate in this appeal since they are block here and at their talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: @Theleekycauldron: I agree that this shouldn't need a new case and thank you for fixing my mistake on motions and cases.

Question: @SashiRolls: Is it correct to assume that your position is that the banning motion should have potentially been 6-6 with Girth Summit's statement added and Guerillero's statement excluded for violating a COI or their pledge to recuse? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: @SashiRolls: That is an interesting position. I am not sure though that recusal is enforceable for statements made for an election. (It might be disappointing, but that is a separate matter.) Guerillero response to this might similarly be disappointing, but I also don't see where recusal was enforceable.

Comment: @Wafflefrites and LokiTheLiar: Less me pointing out or discussing irregularities and more curious about someone else's position. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Sir Joseph: The ends justifying the means to me feels like it would be a violation of what Arbitrators are expected to do. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts: I think there is more to this than just the motion that passed; Happy that some members better explained their positions; Disappointed with how proof/evidence was handled; and convinced that at least one member should have recused that didn't. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SashiRolls

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

A few observations:

The final bot tally of the Iskandar banning motion was 7-5-0 in part because Girth Summit (did not / chose not to) copy his statement of opposition into the appropriate section. Had he done so, the vote tally would have been 7-6-0.
It seems that nobody has ever been site-banned before with such a slim "consensus". (searches were conducted for previous 7-5, 6-5, or 7-6 decisions)
Guerillero both presented the disputed evidence of POV-pushing and voted as a judge/juror on the basis of this and other unspecified evidence. This non-recusal is a confusion of roles.
In his 2024 campaign statement, SFR pledged that he would be turbo-recused (see question 3) from ARBPIA 5, yet he voted on this ARBPIA 5 motion based on unspecified evidence not presented in the case.
Consensus is not a vote-count but an assessment of the quality of the arguments. Barkeep49 mentioned the policy WP:CONEXEMPT, which does not state (or otherwise imply) that ArbCom decisions are determined exclusively by bot-count.
The claim that this comment on a user talk page is a concerning topic-ban violation, when it mentions neither Israel nor Palestine, requires such open-mindedness (in broadly construing) that I'm afraid there is a risk of my brain bouncing on the pavement.

Conclusion: No new case is needed, the motion should be re-closed as no consensus concerning Iskandar's banning given the problem of recusals, quality of arguments, and the uncounted vote. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:33, 25 January 2026

@Super Goku V:, Loki has my tally exactly right below.
I must say Sean Hoyland's suggestion of penalizing socks by compensating their targets is an interesting one. Those who game the system should be gamed in return. All ArbCom would need is a Billing Mamba to keep track of the expenses in a big spreadsheet! :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONEXEMPT says that ArbCom has a noticeboard for requests that binding decisions be amended, and that ArbCom "may amend such decisions at any time." Far from being a dangerous precedent, the procedure followed here is anticipated by, and compliant with, policy. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SFR says below that The article on the conference looks pretty well referenced and notable. FWIW, the text Iskandar removed concerning the conference was exclusively sourced to Firstpost, which due diligence shows to be mentioned on RS/perennial as a publisher of paid content and whose en.wp page says has posted misinformation on multiple occasions. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, SFR, your claim would seem to be that while Iskandar was most likely correct to remove the text of the section due to poor sourcing, they should have left the stranded hatnote (despite thinking it was not due / was a coatrack). Am I summarizing your position correctly? nb: there remained two links to the conference entry in the infobox after the edit. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

I don't see how a reconsideration of the same evidence by the same people will lead to a materially different outcome. As such I see limited utility to a case. But I was surprised by the severity of the remedy vis-a-vis the evidence in the FoF. I would appreciate if the arbitrators supporting that remedy took this opportunity to comment on that, and in particular to clarify whether the ban vote was a consequence of that evidence alone or Iskandar's previous history in the topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SnowFire

As an outsider comment, largely in reply to SilverLocust's comments below. I didn't follow ARBPIA5 and if the arbs say that Iskander behaved poorly, I believe them. I also understand that sometimes behavior that could be trivial from a random editor can be a "straw that broke the camel's back" for an editor on their last piece of WP:ROPE. However, the topic of ancient Israel and Judah is one where valid, sourced edits can be read in sectarian ways, and there's no avoiding it. The odds are 100% that Iskander or any editor in the area will make edits that can be construed as some sort of sectarian dog-whistle, regardless of whether or not that was the intent. The supplied edits look like perfectly standard editing in the field - contestable and revertable perhaps, but not unusual or problematic.

If the arbs want to revise the outcome of ARBPIA5 as insufficient in its remedies for Iskander, fine. Ban Iskander for his actions then (rather than these diffs), or apply a topic ban to "anything involving territory in what will become Israel, broadly construed" to avoid any doubt on scope. But the provided recent diffs are just... normal editing in this space. They shouldn't be used as proof of misconduct, lest any edits at all in the field be seen as misconduct. SnowFire (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

I agree with Zero0000, asking the present arb.com to investigate the present arb.com is a waste of time. I suggest a group, of let's say, former arb.com members, reviewing the case, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:SilverLocust, There are several editors who consistently favor use of "massacre" for attacks on Israelis and "attack" for Palestinians when participating in requested moves. (eks FortunateSons, Alaexis, GidiD, Coretheapple, Wafflefrites; links can be given if required). Why single out Iskandar? In the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_FOARP, they only concentrated on the "pro-Palestinian" editors, and ignored the "pro-Israeli" editors, Huldra (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:ChildrenWillListen, no use in this connection, as ArbCom decided in WP:ARBPIA5 -for some reason- mainly to investigate "pro-Palestinian" editors. That whole brouhaha was skewed from the start. Huldra (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used much time on "taking out the opposition", not my interest. Huldra (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By request from User:Guerillero, I have added links to his talk-page,Huldra (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't understand that the "Bad math"-comments count as topic ban-violations for Iskandar and L. Yes, I have read WP:BANEX, but last time this was discussed, at WP:ARBPIA4, it was the consensus that "Definition of the "area of conflict""[9] was "with the exception of userspace". Nobody argued against it. So WP:BANEX contradicts that. Huldra (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

I understand that to be about ECR, not about topic bans
Even if it was about topic bans, the exception for userspace was repealed in October

Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, but I still don't understand why? Nobody had asked for it, AFAIK? At the present, enforcing that rule has caused far more disruption in the area, than the comments themselves. This is madness, IMO, I though ArbCom was there to lessen problems in the IP area, not to increase them, Huldra (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scharb

All of the edits were destructive, not constructive, and clearly intended to erase and minimize the history of the Jewish people, especially within the land of Israel; thus, relevant to Israel/Palestine "broadly construed," as Jewish history in the land is highly relevant to that topic. (Personal attack removed) This is a user who should not be part of the Wikipedia community.

As for the origin of the complaint coming from a compromised account–– I, myself, had noticed this pattern from Iskandar for a while but not said anything because gathering diffs and creating an ARBCOM motion can be time-consuming. I don't think Iskandar should get off scot-free just because honest users like myself were beat to the punch by a troll account. Scharb (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wafflefrites

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

Just wanted to point out regarding SashiRoll's observation "The claim that this comment on a user talk page is a concerning topic-ban violation, when it mentions neither Israel nor Palestine, requires such open-mindedness (in broadly construing) that I'm afraid there is a risk of my brain bouncing on the pavement." ... I believe the comment Iskandar323 made when he mentions "one of the PW pieces", he is referring to piratewires articles, such as this one. So technically, it is topic ban violation. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC) This violation occurred in Dec 2025, after I323's block in Nov. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please confirm if what Loki/Sashi/Goku are saying about the recuse thing is correct? If what Loki said about the tie is correct, can we please close this thing and not waste any more of our time? Wafflefrites (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra, yes I remember this topic favoring massacres over attacks for the Oct 7 attacks/massacres. This is because American vs British English definitions for massacres is slightly different. For the Palestinans, the sources I was reading called them attacks, you can provide the diffs. A separate ArbCom can be opened for me, if you'd like. Wafflefrites

Also, if this what to do with Iskandar323 thing can't come to a close, I suggest you all try to compromise on the outcome. Like a month ban, 6 month ban, instead of year. Compromise is a good thing.Wafflefrites (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a log showing SFR protecting Iskandar323 from vandals: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User+talk%3AIskandar323. And SFR even protected others and Iskandar323 from some account saying bad things about Iskandar323 by requesting speedy deletion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MohaHossein. Not sure what they said about I323, but SFR is an admin who has consistently been trying to protect Iskandar323 and others from seeing bad things.Wafflefrites (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a case be opened for I323. There is still clear confusion among admins and the community about "broadly construed" and exactly how many times I323 has violated his ban before the final block. And the policy pages WP:BROADLY and WP:TBAN need to be improved with better wording and more examples on what exactly is broadly construed. My main argument for opening a case is that Arbcom is supposed to prevent disruption to the commmunity. I323 clearly is a well respected and liked member of a large part of the Wikipedia community. If there is not what the community sees as a fair trial, and I323 is blocked for 1 year, I am almost certain there will be more cases sent to AE for 1RR enforcements, POV pushing, etc., so likely more disruption, which I am sure no admin wants more of. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And remember everybody to stay on topic, which is: should there be case y/n? Wafflefrites (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

SashiRolls and Super Goku have pointed out several irregularities that, if taken together, would have changed the outcome of the motion, or if a case is accepted should change the outcome of the case even if no new evidence is presented:

1. Girth Summit changed his statement to a clear statement of opposition, but did not copy it into the oppose area. 2. SFR said they'd recuse from any potential ARBPIA5 because of his extensive involvement in the topic area (which included referring Iskandar's behavior to ArbCom in the first place). This extensive involvement, which he recognized as requiring recusal at the time, suggests he should have recused from this motion and also from any resulting case. 3. Similarly, shortly before his current term Guerillero posted several relevant diffs including some that were used by an ArbCom that now included himself to decide the motions at issue. Obviously this means he should have recused as well.

If all three of these irregularities were resolved it would change the outcome from 7-5 to 5-6. Even if only two were it would change the outcome to a tie (and therefore no consensus). Therefore I agree with SashiRolls that the motion should be overturned as no consensus (and that SFR and Guerillero should at least be trouted for not recusing when they should have.)

(Also, I would like to suggest that ArbCom should formally increase its own threshold to prevent issues like this in the future.) Loki (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find either Guerillero or SFR's responses convincing. Obviously recusing from a case, much less "turbo-recusing", means you are also recusing from motions resulting from the case. (And in fact have to, since the extensive admin involvement leading up to the case doesn't just go away.)

And it doesn't actually matter if those diffs were being talked about privately: Guerillero was still both presenting new evidence and deciding on the same motion.

I would like to hear from the rest of ArbCom on this as well. I know I've seen plenty of other arbs including some of you recuse for much less before. Loki (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I have not edited in the Palestine-Israel area and do not have an opinion on whether the original decision by ArbCom to site-ban Iskandar323 was supported by the evidence. What is clear is that the community is dissatisfied with the decision by ArbCom, and ArbCom was elected by the community, and the purpose of this electronic workplace is to develop the encyclopedia, and the community is the collective author of the encyclopedia. Sometimes it may be necessary for ArbCom to make a decision that displeases the community, but those 'sometimes' occurrences should be very rare. This raises two questions. First, did ArbCom do anything specific or make any identifiable mistakes that contributed to a possible error? Second, what if anything should ArbCom do at this point?

The answer to the first question is that ArbCom handled the ARBPIA5 violations by a series of motions rather than a full case. This may or may not have been a mistake, but is seen by some as having been a mistake.

There are several possible actions that ArbCom can take at this point:

1. Do nothing. Let the decision stand as a case where ArbCom needed to displease the community.
2. Commute Iskandar33's ban to a block of time served, which would acknowledge that punishment was needed, but the ban was too harsh.
3. Open a full case to be heard by the current ArbCom.
4. Open a case to be heard by another board.

The optics of Option 1 are bad. It will look, to a large portion of the community, that ArbCom doesn't care what the community thinks. Option 2 is the simplest option that recognizes that community opinion is important. Option 3 is probably what should have been done and will provide more transparency, and will be WP:ARBPIA6

I have an eccentric question. Can ArbCom ask the U4C to hear a case by admitting that ArbCom may have mishandled enforcement of the UCOC in this particular case? Can ArbCom request that the U4C hear an appeal, or select an appellate panel of its arbitrators, from ArbCom?

I advise ArbCom to ask the UCOC whether this case can be heard by the UCOC. If that is not available, they should open a new full case. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

The actions at WP:ARM originated from a WP:AE report submitted by a sockpuppet.

Any editing performed by a sockpuppet is, by definition, done in bad faith. There is no possible good-faith edit from a sock. Therefore, the WP:AE request itself was initiated in bad faith.

While bad faith does not negate the diffs which were presented in the WP:AE filing—they still exist as a record—the central problem is that the presentation and framing of these diffs by a bad-faith actor may have been given undue credence. A significant number of experienced editors, including many current administrators, have reviewed the evidence and stated that the diffs do not support the claims made about them.

Standard editing consistent with WP:PAG may have been systematically misrepresented in the worst possible light. More critically, the procedural constraints of a motions-based case has limited any analysis needed to assess the original filing's validity.

Given the overwhelming community response challenging the basis of the sanction, I believe the only appropriate path forward is to:

Immediately suspend the sanction against Iskandar323.
Refer this matter to a full arbitration case.

In a full case, each contested diff can be examined in proper context by editors knowledgeable on the subject, to determine whether there has indeed been a continuation of POV editing into new areas. TarnishedPath^talk 09:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FOARP

The entire reason why ARBCOM even exists is because in some circumstances the "community" (as represented by whoever will show up to the discussion, and as such not actually a cross-section of the actual community but instead whoever are the fiercest partisans in that area) cannot be trusted to properly implement our PAGs. I-P is undoubtedly a field where that is an issue.

If ARBCOM are going to overturn their own decision because of concern from the "community", they are negating their very purpose.

If, however ARBCOM intends to open another case in this area, then it should certainly not just be limited to the question of whether it was correct to ban Iskandar323, but also analyse the repeated violations of topic-bans by the people previously TBAN'd at WP:ARBPIA5, and whether it is appropriate to be lenient towards people who repeatedly flout a TBAN, even where individual violations appear minor. FOARP (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kowal2701

Topic bans from Israel, Palestine, and the conflict broadly construed would be much easier for people to follow, and just more honest. The conflict permeates all aspects of society.

If what's happened here is SFR made a judgement call based off of their experience with the editor, and several arbs deferred to that judgement, I'd much rather people just said that. We know making reports with evidence of POV pushing is nigh-on impossible Kowal2701 (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sean.hoyland, agreed, should have specified convincing/merited reports Kowal2701 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ModernDayTrilobite

Some editors raised questions of "what outcome are people seeking from this process," so I wanted to express my view on what I'd personally like to see. Achieving any specific result re: Iskandar isn't my main priority; rather, what I want is for arbs to be "showing their work", as others have put it, to demonstrate that they've reviewed all of the evidence and are making informed decisions. An example to illustrate my point: it was claimed that Iskandar was systematically and disproportionately trying to remove evidence of Israelite/Jewish presence from articles about the ancient Levant. Aquillion provided a counterargument to that claim, showing a number of diffs of Iskandar making analogous edits about other ethnic and religious groups. I have no objection if the arbs reviewed this (or other) evidence and found it unconvincing, but I would like them to at least say so explicitly if they did, and would prefer if they also explained why; when so many arbs make silent votes, even in the face of multiple pings asking them for their detailed opinions, it's hard to know how informed they actually are about the state of the evidence. If the committee is taking extreme steps like sitebans, I want to be confident that such decisions are being made based on the relevant facts in their totality. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I agree to an extent that the process was a bit off. However, I also think that in some cases the ends justify the means. One way to start getting balance in the IP conflict area is to have more balanced editing and editors. We don't have that now because it's a numbers game. The articles are so tilted that people who know a little bit about the area know not to use Wikipedia. Editors also "self-ban" from the IP conflict in order not to get involved. Take a look at the area and you'll see the same people editing the same articles in the same manner. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paprikaiser

Paprikaiser's statement contains 471 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

The committee's endorsement of a site-ban based on the seven diffs presented is indefensible. As multiple editors and even some committee members themselves have shown, these diffs are either irrelevant or clearly good-faith edits. Building a finding of "consistent non-neutral editing" on this debunked set of evidence, originally ~~compiled by the now-blocked sock Nehushtani~~ presented in the AE case and pushed by blocked Galamore socks/meatpuppets BlookyNapsta and Nehushtani, reflects a serious failure of critical scrutiny. The process has been compromised by bad faith and a breakdown in arbitrator responsibility.

The voting record shows a pattern of arbitrators failing to meet their most basic obligation: to examine the evidence and publicly justify their decisions. In several cases, accountability appears entirely absent.

Guerillero referred to a supposed "continuation" of misconduct based on a six-month review, yet provided no diffs and ignored extensive discussion refuting the public evidence.
ScottishFinnishRadish asserted a "pattern of minimizing... Jewish history" without evidence, a claim directly rebutted by other editors with diffs, and offered no counter-argument. ScottishFinnishRadish, backed by other ArbCom members, also cited prior bans for POV pushing by Iskandar, while ignoring the fact that this prior ban had been initiated by an Icewhiz/Galamore sock, as with the most recent case. Multiple editors have already questioned why ScottishFinnishRadish didn't recuse himself despite being involved.
HJ Mitchell supported the POV-pushing motion solely with "Per HB" even though that arb later changed their vote, and did not address the evidence.
Daniel, Aoidh and SilverLocust voted for sanctions without providing justification or engaging with critiques, despite being pinged multiple times.
Girth Summit initially voted for the site ban, then later reversed course citing the failure of the POV-pushing motion (despite affirmatively voting there and the motion passing), but never addressed the substantive concerns about the evidence.
HouseBlaster acknowledged that the diffs showed nothing concrete, yet still claimed clarity based on a "full picture" that was never shared.

The enforcement history cited to justify the severity of the sanction is compromised. To repeat my previous points, ScottishFinnishRadish invoked Iskandar323's 2021 topic ban, which stemmed from an AE case filed by an Icewhiz/Galamore sock, the same sock/meat network responsible for pushing the latest AE case against him. The committee is thus relying on an enforcement record produced by the same network targeting this editor for years, thereby rewarding a long-running harassment campaign.

The fact that this motion advanced at all on such flawed evidence and through such a deficient process reveals a system failing at a fundamental level. The community expects arbitrators to examine evidence, engage with criticism, and justify their votes publicly. In this case, a majority did not, and that failure must be addressed. I second Yngvadottir and Zero0000 in calling for the ban to be vacated and for an independent review to be opened, with decisions grounded in properly presented and evaluated evidence. Paprikaiser (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Clicriffhard

Clicriffhard's statement contains 510 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

As a wholly uninvolved editor, ArbCom's handling of this situation has been extremely disappointing. Specifically:

1) The arguments from Iskandar323, SashiRolls, and LokitheLiar for the recusal of @ScottishFinnishRadish and @Guerillero from the entire process (including retroactively) have been clear and intelligible. The arguments from ScottishFinnishRadish and Guerillero against recusal have, so far, appeared vague and incomplete, and simply have not addressed all of the arguments. I can see no reason whatsoever to think that the reasons ScottishFinnishRadish gave for recusing from ARBPIA5 did not continue to apply to these topic ban reviews, while both arbs have appeared to want more roles in the process than Judge Dredd. I'm also concerned by this comment from 19 December, which Guerillero appeared to acknowledge could not have been made while sitting as an arb, but which he went on to make knowing that he would assume that role in the coming days. Without further explanation, that apparent attempt to circumvent the intended separation of roles raises serious questions about the integrity of Guerillero's actions, which is an explicit requirement of WP:ARBCOND.

2) If the purpose of ArbCom is to resolve problems that the community cannot, then it is implicit that ArbCom should neither be relitigating problems that the community has dealt with, nor involving itself in non-problems. The FoF re Iskandar323's TBAN violations cited only one "violation" that the community had not already dealt with. If the claim that this was a comment on "the Palestine-Israel conflict" stretches broad construal to breaking point, then the idea that it was even de minimis problematic beggars belief. What possible impact could it have had on any editor's ability to work on the encyclopedia, even in the unlikely event that they were aware of its existence and knew which off-wiki article it referred to? In short, this was a non-problem that ArbCom had no business adopting as a factor supporting a site ban. In doing so, it has caused far more disruption to the community than any of us plebs ever could.

3) The cited evidence of Iskandar323's non-neutral editing has been characterised by many editors and arbs as somewhere between weak and non-existent. Both ScottishFinnishRadish ([10], [11]) and Guerillero ([12], [13], [14]) have claimed in response that their vote relied on uncited and unspecified evidence. They have been asked by numerous editors to produce that evidence, and now by two of their fellow arbs. Neither has done so. Arbs are explicitly expected to respond promptly and appropriately to such questions, and to make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, absent confidentiality issues. Again, arbs are also required to act with integrity, which nobody can possibly assess if they conceal the basis for their actions. As such, a simple request to @ScottishFinnishRadish and @Guerillero: could you please either (i) produce the evidence in question, or (ii) resign from the committee.

If they do neither, I hope that other arbs will have the strength of character to press the issue. A community of volunteers giving their time freely deserves better than this. Clicriffhard (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by caeciliusinhorto

I am disappointed by ArbCom's handling of this. If you are going to pass a motion making a finding of fact to justify a sanction, then the diffs referenced in that motion should be the ones which support that finding. At least two arbs have now claimed that the finding was supported by different evidence to that cited in the motion, and yet they have been remarkably unwilling to point to the evidence which actually justified it! I don't think "the diffs cited in a motion should be the ones which justify that motion" should be a controversial principle!

If there is compelling evidence for the motions (and several arbs seem to accept that the diffs currently cited are not compelling!) then all ArbCom needs to do is to actually tell us what it is. If, on the other hand, as asilvering says there is no more evidence, then those like SFR who are saying that the diffs presented were not the primary reason for the ban should not have voted for it. Frankly I don't think it matters which it is – ArbCom just needs to pick a position. Either the current diffs do support the motions, or there are other diffs which support the motions and you should tell the community what they are, or the motions are flawed and you should rescind them. The current state where people are voting in support of motions yet saying that the diffs cited don't support them and refusing to say what evidence does support them is simply not tenable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

ArbCom should have a full case for this (as they should have at the start). Yes, it may reach the same conclusion; yes, people who are unhappy with the current result will still be unhappy with that result; and yes, a potentially monthlong case just to affirm an existing result will be frustrating for everyone involved.

You still have to do it. That's what we have ArbCom for - not to make sweeping WP:CONEXEMPT decisions from the bench (we could still just have Jimbo throwing thunderbolts from on high if that's all we wanted), not to judge people in a mysterious star chamber, but to do the actual deep-dive into the evidence in a public, transparent manner.

SFR is saying that the presented diffs are not the sole or primary reason for a ban - but ArbCom is supposed to consider, and rule on, the evidence presented before it; that's what gives us the transparency that Wikipedia, including ArbCom, is supposed to operate on. Pointing vaguely to your own gestalt understanding of the situation or someone's entire history might be sufficient for a motion on something clear-cut or uncontroversial, but it should be glaringly clear at this point that this is not that - this is one of the most controversial decisions ArbCom has made in years. Maybe it is a necessary one; making controversial decisions is what ArbCom is for, after all. But the other thing ArbCom is for is actually going through that full process for those decisions, even when it won't make everyone happy, even when it won't convince them, so at least people can go back and say "this was rough and I might not agree, but it was decided based on this and this and this." ArbCom has made plenty of decisions I disagree with over the years, but this is the first time where I've been concerned about the level of diligence behind that decision.

On talk, people (including me) are talking about how the precise lines of ArbCom elections could influence how long bans like these run for, and while that situation an inevitability to an extent due to the human element and the fact that ArbCom has to rule on controversial things, it's also clearly undesirable. That situation is mitigated by laying out all the evidence, clearly and completely, so a future ArbCom can go over it in the case of appeals, or for the purpose of precedent and consistency, or for future cases influenced by this one. ArbCom aren't just Super Admins, empowered to hand down WP:CONEXEMPT Super Admin decisions from on-high; giving our most controversial conduct issues the weight and detailed attention of a full case is, to a great extent, the entire point. --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FortunateSons

FortunateSons's statement contains 257 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Two things can be true at the same time: the remedy for the misconduct being a ban can be (and in my opinion is) right, and the supporting Arbs should have made the effort to elaborate on what specifically led them to the conclusion that the editor is unable or unwilling to stay outside the boundaries of their tban and other topics outside of it without disruption. However, that ship has sailed.

In my opinion, the best options are the following, in order:

The ban-supporting arbs elaborate on why specifically this ban is better than a more tailored sanction.
Find a FoF with the same outcome and a clearer result. Additionally focussing on the conduct in adjacent topic areas, such as Iran, might be beneficial here.
Mutually agree on a larger topic ban so broad that disruption becomes highly unlikely: “Ethnicity + Religion + Middle East + Iran + AMPOL + Armed Conflict, appealable only to ArbCom“ might do the trick. I doubt editing about weather, fish, and car engines will lead to any disruption, and this remains harsh enough to discourage others with a tban from “nibbling around the edge” while still giving the chance to prove oneself as a productive contributor.
Re-run this case. FortunateSons (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that this be moved along? If the Arbs want to unban him, it’s cruel to leave him banned for an extra month, and if they don’t, it’s cruel to give him hope. There is no right to a speedy trial here, but the principle shouldn’t be ignored FortunateSons (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

some additional words are necessary on why we are penalizing one user who stayed with their account, when sockpuppets from some banned users about 1.5 PIA cases ago are able to essentially overwhelm the system with weaponized AE reports. As someone who originally welcomed ARBCOM review,[15] and personally was alarmed by Iskandar's potential tban vios, i now find myself convinced more by what zero0000 is saying, as well as arguments sean hoyland made.[16] Fiat justitia ruat caelum simply may not apply in a world where justice is done only to those who allow themselves to be open enough to attract controversy.User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parabolist

So with this motion passing, but with no motion to vacate the ban, the idea is now that everyone who voted in support of Iskandar's ban did so SOLELY based on the talkpage 'violation', and definitely not on the false FoF that they all voted for? The talkpage violation where he was referencing the false statements of a hitpiece about himself and his editing? Everyone just politely voted for the other evidence. This is farcial. If you have to throw out half of the evidence, you shouldn't get to post facto declare "well, I would've made the same decision without it, even though I specifically called out the false evidence as my reason to support the ban." Leaving an editor indefinitely banned just to save face is, plainly, malfeasance. Parabolist (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC) asilvering Same caveat as BK, of course, huge respect for being reasonable, and I doubt you disagree with too much here. But that's the thing. Arbcom is not the "ends justify the means" venue. The arbitration process is the place on-wiki where the process matters the most. Arbitration cases are weeks long byzantine trials, where editors have to conform to very specific rules, exhaustively document everything, and spend hours defending themselves. The social contract here is that the Arbs have always been rigid and process-minded, without any cowboy shit. To have this upended here, and to learn that suddenly the rules don't matter, arbs can submit faulty evidence, not recuse when provided reasonable doubt, do their own research (something previous arbs have been very specific they don't do) and then not even share with the accused or their fellow arbs... it's a detonation of trust. The point of the committee is we trust you to be ironclad in your decisions, through rigorous and exhausting process. Parabolist (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Metallurgist

I dont really know much of Iskandar other than this rude response to my suggestion not to test the line of their topic ban. I also defended their right to an exception to that topic ban in order to participate in an AFD I initiated against a page they created. In any case, whether the process was followed correctly is a fair point, but whether a redo would result in a different result (it seems not), is also a fair point. This looks like it is just going to waste arb time for what is a foregone conclusion, and just reflects discontent in the result. I think the arbs did the best they could at the time.

Furthermore, the view that the "community" is upset with the decision is mistaken at best, disingenuous at worst. Its pretty clear that Palestine-sympathizing editors have come out to support Iskandar, which frankly might also indicate the alleged POV pushing. Denying this fact is silly: its plainly obvious regarding the vast majority of PIA editors that they favor one side or the other. Restricting them all would solve little, but restricting the most egregious would be an improvement. These cases arent readily advertises, so unless one is paying attention, its not likely to be found by the average community member. Not to mention the issue of some editors feeling hounded off or bullied away from the topic. Wikipedia is accused of bias because of this persistent issue.

Giraffer, Kowal, and Sir Joseph in particular have also expressed points that make sense. Thanks again to the arbs for doing what they could to resolve the dispute(s). ← Metallurgist (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motions regarding ARBPIA5 topic bans review: Clerk notes

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

Arbitration motions regarding ARBPIA5 topic bans review: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/5/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

I think this is ultimately a question of whether the arbs who supported the motion to ban Iskandar would want to reconsider in light of the somewhat-late-breaking opposition. If they do, we can have a case; if they don't, well, arbitrators can make unpopular decisions. Guerillero, SFR, Aoidh, and House, and Harry reaffirmed their votes; I think it's up to Daniel and SilverLocust (who supported and didn't reaffirm), plus Girth Summit (who struck their vote and didn't re-vote) whether they want to see a full case. If enough of them vote to accept that (when combined with the five opposers) a motion to overturn the ban could pass, I'd go with them. Otherwise, I think we'd just be relitigating the exact same issue to probably the same result. (Katie and Sdrqaz could also vote to overturn, but I'm more queasy about accepting based on that because that also pushes this towards relitigation territory.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of Daniel and SilverLocust's comments, all seven arbs in favor of the ban have more or less reaffirmed, so I'm a decline for now. There's talk of opening a case for a much broader review; I'm not closed to that, but I want to see a lot more about who and what exactly we'd be looking into, first. Maybe that should be a new case request. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- The other rationale for a case here is to get a full accounting of how each cited diff in Iskandar's FoF contributes to the overall pattern being alleged. As someone who pushed hard for the expanded FoFs at WP:ARBTRANS, I would encourage the arbitrators in support to offer that accounting, but a case is a wholeee lot of bureaucracy just to arrive at that. I think it could be done a bit more informally if it were to happen – and the goal would only be to meet obligations of transparency, not to convince the community that the sanction was necessary. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Super Goku V: Like I said above, I'd encourage arbitrators to go more in-depth about their reasoning; I'm not sure a whole case is needed just for that, though. It wouldn't be reopening a prior case because proceedings at ARM aren't cases. (And if we were to revisit it at ARM, we should open a new thread, because the old one is quite clogged.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe the outcomes were the right decision of the sanction proposals presented, based on the totality of editor behaviour. That being said and noting the feedback in particular from uninvolved editors, I will fully respect if a majority of my colleagues want to run this through a more exhaustive process, approaching with a totally open mind. If that does happen, I think there is some directly-related misconduct by other editors that could be scoped in, as well as potentially some issues with AE that would benefit from further examination. But that's a whole another ball game and we might not want to complicate A with B, given A is already complicated enough. Daniel (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline based on the passing motion below. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am only interested in exploring the PIA topic area for the next 2-3 months if we look at the conduct of people beyond those that were parties of PIA5 since c. 2016 or the last time they were a party to a case (call it either PIA5.5 or PIA6 depending on your mood). --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I offered arbs a much more formal way of exploring issues around PIA5 (dusting off the rarely used Review that would have included an evidence phase) before the motions were posted, and nobody else seemed interested in investing the time. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The committee was already discussing Iskandar's conduct, both on-list and informally, before I posted at AE. I do not see a reason to retroactively recuse. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an Ango-American court where decision makers only consider the evidence and arguments presented to them by the parties. In nearly every decision, from cases to motions, arbs look beyond the submitted evidence at edit histories and logs to contextualize and expand upon it. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: No, we aren't strictly limited to what is presented by parties, but shouldn't there be an expectation that when we make a decision, it is clear what evidence and arguments we are relying on? There's a difference between "we won't use evidence outside of this circle" and "we'll use evidence outside of this circle, we just won't tell you what it is". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to the idea that I should recuse. Not about the evidence. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Show me evidence similar to that from pia5 at AE or on my talk page and I am more than happy to do CT actions -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was a discussion among several arbs in a forum that all arbs have access to and can access what is said. The 7 diffs were pulled from that conversation as 7 diffs that were pointed out in a row, but are probably not the clearest examples possible -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When I ran for ArbCom, I told myself that if the community wishes to have a case (on any subject), we should hold a case. Based on the discussion at WT:ACN, it seems the community wishes to have a case. I am therefore inclined towards having a case—including both Iskandar and the topic area as a whole. Speaking for myself, I would be willing to vote against a ban, and if we have a case, the ban should be lifted in the meantime.
Black Kite, revoking TPA is standard practice for ArbCom bans. WP:BAN says that for site bans talk page access may be allowed to appeal the ban; because we only take site ban appeals via arbcom-en, we normally revoke TPA. I definitely want to hear from Iskandar about whether they would like a case, so I support restoring TPA as an interim measure. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbs: would you support restoring TPA for Iskandar to allow them to comment on this case request? Regardless of one's thoughts on the underlying ban, I agree with the sentiment expressed above that they should be permitted to comment on a case request which is primarily about them. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Daniel (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gently ask Guerillero and ScottishFinnishRadish to please provide the diffs you referenced at the motion and which have caused concerns with large segments of the community (and admittedly, I am part of that segment). With respect, if it's just vibes: we wouldn't accept that as an /Evidence submission, so we shouldn't accept it from an arb. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not satisfied with Guerillero's answer to my above question, if I am being honest. We are not an Anglo-American court of law—no argument there. But ArbCom wouldn't let a party give vibes-based /Evidence, so we shouldn't accept vibes-based evidence from arbitrators. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Paprikaiser: I ended in the oppose section of the POV motion. The timestamp of my full picture comment was before I switched my vote; I was referring to the evidence from PIA5 + the infamous seven diffs. We have different views about what to do if bad-faith actors report real problems, and I know we won't convince one another of our views, so I won't try. But I generally agree with this memorable quote from Levivich (of all people). Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: It won't affect the ban on its own, though as Izno alludes to, this might cause some supporters of the ban to re-evaluate their position). I opposed the POV motion but supported a ban due to the history of topic ban violations, and I maintain that is a reasonable position (I also can see why someone would oppose a ban). Regardless, there is great value in ArbCom removing a counter-factual, procedurally-incorrect motion from the books. I don't think I would support removing the ban without some safeguards (and I think a case is a great time to workshop what that would look like).
To address your main concern: I have serious concerns with the behavior of some arbs. I really want them to supply the diffs they used to support the POV motion or retract their claims of broader issues. But the tools I can see to deal with that, short of voting to suspend or remove them from office, are limited to asking them to do so, with varying levels of politeness and formality.
I'll reiterate my request that ScottishFinnishRadish and Guerillero to do so, in the spirit of User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned. People are upset, not because you cast an unpopular vote, but because they don't know what edits you looked at to arrive at that unpopular vote. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accept with reluctance. I think we should look at three related things:
1. Of course, Iskandar. As I alluded to in my above comment, I am cautiously optimistic that we (Iskandar, ArbCom, interested community members) could find a way, other than a site ban, to ensure there are not further topic ban violations.
2. What more can we do about socking in the topic area? We can consider ideas both on the enforcement level and the technical level. Furthering the collaboration on anti-abuse tools that asilvering mentions is one step, but are there any tools which would be particularly effective against PIA socks?
3. How can we ensure we don't have a repeat of this, to put it lightly, mess? Which of our processes and procedures need to change?
To address points 2 and 3, I am particularly interested in the workshop phase of the case. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. People are unhappy with this decision but I can't see anything ArbCom could do that would make people any happier. If we uphold our original decision (as is likely and, in my view, correct), the same people will still be yelling at us; if we reverse ourselves, a different group of people will yell at us. Nothing good will come of this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see myself moving off this position. First, because asking a group of people who just spent nearly a month making a decision to revisit that decision hours after it was finalised based on all the same circumstances is unlikely to change the outcome. Second, and more importantly, because I believe the decision was correct. ArbCom exists not to make popular decisions but to do what is necessary to keep a lid on disruption in topics that the community is unable to handle. We (both ArbCom and the community) are at our wits' end with this topic area and extraordinary measures are needed to contain the disruption. Iskandar was topic-banned in the last case because they "engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including consistently non-neutral editing". Since then, they have been blocked for violating the topic ban and—in my assessment—have continued to engage in "consistently non-neutral editing" and shown that they are not here to participate in good faith. A site ban is the only remedy we have for that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SashiRolls ArbCom does not make decisions by consensus; a motion passes if it is supported by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the response at WT:ACN appears based on a misconception that a case about Iskandar would be handled in a different way. It will not be. This misconception is in turn founded, I believe, on another misconception, one I held before becoming an arb: that there must be something more behind the curtain. So let me explain. There is no private evidence in this case. There is no private communication involved that we have failed to note. You have seen the opinions of the arbitrators and you have not liked them. Perhaps you believe there is more discussion happening behind the scenes. There has been some - less, I think, than you'd expect - but I assure you it is the same opinions, simply stated more candidly. The only thing you have not seen, and cannot see, is the full extent and nature of the sockpuppetry evidence against Nehushtani etc.
You will not like our opinions any more than you already do if we open a full case. If anything, you will dislike them more - because a full case allows for the net to be cast wider. My read of the community response to these motions is that some editors want this decision reversed, and basically everyone responding wants to have more confidence in arbcom. I sympathize. But I do not believe a case would fix either of these things for you. What you see is what you have got. -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite, you've seen the reasons. That's all there is. I know you believe there is more. There is not more. I know you are not happy about that. I cannot make you happier about it. A case won't either. -- asilvering (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip, Levivich has been named as a party to this case. -- asilvering (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiamut, what would taking the issue of sockpuppet disruption seriously look like, to you? -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiamut, I can readily understand your frustration but that doesn't really answer my question. When we have the evidence required to block someone as a sockpuppet, we block them. I don't know how sockpuppetry can be taken more seriously than "block on sight". We've already got ECR in the topic area. I can tell you that the WMF has been working with the functs team on developing additional anti-abuse tools and that they've been very useful so far - but not, so far anyway, terribly useful against PIA socks, who are smarter than the average ban evader. -- asilvering (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra, take them to AE, then. That's what it's for. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wafflefrites, the purpose of this page is to discuss whether or not the arbitration committee should accept this case. Please don't post anything else. -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Parabolist (and everyone else making the same conclusion): I am not sure where you are getting the idea that leaving Iskandar banned is being done to "save face". Do you really think this makes arbcom look better than any of the possible alternatives? Iskandar is banned because the Committee believes Iskandar ought to be banned. Whether members' reasoning has evolved or not over the course of this whole business, the conclusion is the same. -- asilvering (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite, it's not a rationale. It's a statement of fact. A majority of active, non-recused arbs voted for the ban and, to my knowledge, have not changed their minds. I do not believe they are not changing their minds because they feel that doing so would constitute a loss of face. I believe they are not changing their minds because they believe this is the correct outcome - that it is better for the encyclopedia for Iskandar to not be part of this community at this time, whether or not this process was flawed, irregular, or whatever else. It is in my power to vote against it and yours to speak against it, but it is within no one's power to change someone else's belief. -- asilvering (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following this discussion but I want to fully consider it before making any sort of decision. @Yngvadottir: ArbCom can and does get things wrong; there are a few decisions I would have liked to have seen go a different direction for any number of reasons, but what isn't immediately clear to me is whether a case is likely to address the (valid) concerns of uninvolved editors here. We're expecting a winter storm here with the very real possibility of lengthy power outages (this is my second time writing this due to a brief outage), so I wanted to go ahead and comment now so that it doesn't seem like this isn't being taken seriously, and I'm going to comment further as soon as I can. - Aoidh (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline - I cited the Enough is enough principle in my vote because the editing of Iskandar323 (among others) show a pattern of treating topic bans as surmountable barriers to their editing in this topic area and that resulting blocks are just the cost of editing in the topic area, rather than as a mechanism that is meant to prevent them from editing in or about the topic area. Iskandar323 was warned about violating their topic ban, and continued to do so. They were blocked for violating their topic ban, and continued to do so. Iskandar323 further POV pushing was not the central issue and I would not have supported a ban if that were the case. This isn't their first topic ban, nor is it their first instance of violating a topic ban. Continuing to violate the topic ban less than a week after their block (for violating the topic ban) is further evidence that a topic ban is not going to prevent disruption, which is why I supported the ban.

I know that reasonable people can agree or disagree with this conclusion, and I should have communicated this rationale when making my vote, and for that I apologize and I will make sure to elaborate on such things moving forward. However, opening a case immediately after a motion passed so that the exact same arbitrators can review the exact same information while expecting a different conclusion is not going to bring the desired outcome. - Aoidh (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Discussing a publication's analysis of PIA is well within PIA. - Aoidh (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: This edit on 16 December occurred less than a week after the two week block expired on 10 December. - Aoidh (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned at the ARCA, I am inclined towards holding a full case here (and unban Iskandar pending the case outcome). However, if such a case is held, it should extend beyond simply their participation in the PIA topic area. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by the ban. One year ago the Committee concluded that Iskandar is a "consistently non-neutral edit[or]" with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, pointing to evidence of consistently favoring use of "massacre" for attacks on Arabs and "attack" for Israelis when participating in requested moves. Since then, Iskandar has violated the topic ban at least 4 times, per the evidence in our first finding. (The first three diffs plus the violation noted in Tamzin's warning, where Iskandar nominated an article for deletion just after the subject had endorsed Trump's Gaza takeover proposal, which was one of the few things noted in the article at the time.)
This was Iskandar's second PIA topic ban, and the first one had also resulted in a block for violations. I believe that record (the non-neutral editing, two topic bans, four violations of this one and at least one violation of the previous one) is sufficient for a site ban, as I explained in not supporting a lesser sanction (as I said "I am more open to broadening a PIA topic ban to Palestine/Israel, but I think multiple violations of multiple topic bans over time tend to justify a sitewide ban or block.").
(As to the second finding of fact, given the record of Iskandar being unable to remain neutral as to the conflict and to remain away from the topic while banned, I am more readily willing (relative to an editor without that record) to find an additional pattern of editing to diminish "Israel"/"Judah" terminology in prose/images/titles as motivated by its implications for the modern conflict. I consider the second finding supplemental to the repeated straightforward topic ban violations, not as the main focus.)
Since I think that evidence is sufficient to ban Iskandar, I don't currently see the need for a case to seek more evidence. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: If you can show patterns similar to the FOARP evidence for other editors, that should have a good chance of leading to topic bans. As an initial matter, it would be best to present that at AE, as Asilvering says. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'll formalize my tentative "I don't currently see the need for a case" into a decline. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this was factually and procedurally irregular. I argued from the get-go that this should have been a full case, not a sort of semi-case done via motion. This has reflected poorly on ArbCom. With that said, I also am not sure what a full case would achieve. More evidence with which to ban Iskander? I don't see the Committee exactly changing its mind and deciding to unban him; I think it would just make the ban stick harder. This however may be one of the few situations where a future committee should, in an unban request, actually entertain that the initial action was incorrect. I don't suggest that relitigating bans should be something that happens frequently, but something to think about should Iskander appeal this next year. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address a couple points while I have some time. First, I recused from ARBPIA5 specifically, not the entire topic area. In the year leading up to the case I was heavily involved administratively in the topic area, I placed a large majority of user sanctions, was involved in the AE discussion that led to the case, and was told that evidence about my administrative actions would be raised at the case. Since the case I've taken part in many public Arbitration discussions and motions about the topic with no objections or calls for recusal, and many more privately. So no, I do not plan on recusing, nor had there been any expectation of recusal as demonstrated by my Arbitration involvement post-case.
There also seems to be a misunderstanding that the motion to ban was explicitly because of the diffs presented. I think HouseBlaster has explained fairly clearly that those diffs are not the sole or primary reason for a ban. There is a long history of topic ban violations, including after warnings and blocks. The violations under discussion were not caused by a sock and they were not baited into making them. This history, with continuing violations, is why I found extending the topic ban untenable and one of the reasons I thought a ban was appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to have exceedingly little time right now, but everyone deserves explanation so I stole a little time from something else I should be doing.
Diffs in FoF

[17] - removed mention of Israelite religion from the infobox, no summary. This is mentioned explicitly in Asherah and obliquely in the lead of Yahweh.
[18] - Removed mention of later Jewish texts as failed verification/unreliable source. Source published by Kehot Publication Society republished by Chabad.org, only related RSN discussion I found was Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 82#Mibeis HaGenozim - Treasures From The Chabad Library. Also supported by Encyclopedia of Religion already used in the article, Judaism has generally regarded him as wicked, although repentance is also ascribed to him. Article describes him as an important prophet of Islam. Passes WP:V, supported by RS.
[19] - removed mention of Jerusalem as the capital of Judah, changed inhabited Canaan during the Iron Age to who emerged in Canaan during the Iron Age but the source places them emerging as a separate people in the late 14th century, late Bronze Age. The other possibility listed in the source is semi-nomadic people in central Palestine in the late Bronze Age.
[20] - Removes map showing Judah and Israel as OR, map partially sourced to [21] per Commons, leaves non-English map without any sourcing that does not contain Israel or Judah. Article mentions Israel, Judah, and Ammon which are not in the map left in the article.
[22] - Removes a map that contains Judah as OR. Map doesn't have clear sourcing outside of the Book of Joshua. Not a big deal on its own.
[23] - Removes Jewish province and state from the infobox. Both are discussed extensively in the article. Summary is Page is about a cultural epoch for the region, not a specific polity within the historical continuum of other polities, article discusses specific polities at length. This is after removing Hellenistic Judea from the article.
[24] - Brings up removing Judea from article title with discussion on talk page. Not a big deal on its own.

Aquillion's diffs

Fine, fine, bad sourcing, fine, removing puff.
[25] - removes information about Muslims seeking refuge with Nizaris. Removed as Nope – way better source needed, source is published by Institute of Ismaili Studies^{looks like some COI editing on this article}. No discussion of source on RSN. Covered a bit in Nasir al-Din al-Tusi.
Fine, fine, all primary not in article, not familiar enough with Salafi reformists to notice any red flags.
[26] Removed 2016 international conference on Sunni Islam in Grozny - Removing negative information about Wahhabism, summary Removing undue reference to tangential event, itself with questionable notability. The article on the conference looks pretty well referenced and notable.
Ran out of time to check the rest, but two examples of removing information that may portray Muslims in a less than ideal light.

I hope to have more time in the future to engage, but I can't make any promises right now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls, they also removed the link to the main article which contains many more sources, including a book by Oxford University press, a bunch of think tanks and journals, and other press sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will vote to accept a case here. I do not know if it will do anything meaningful besides getting actual votes out of the remainder of arbs who haven't voted yet on the meaningful non-motion we have currently, but there it is. I think the prior ARM was clearly bungled at best. Izno (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Rescinding the POV pushing motion

The motion entitled Iskandar323 further POV pushing is rescinded.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 3 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

I'm proposing and strongly supporting this motion for three reasons:
1. The original motion was procedurally flawed; as Iskandar points out, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Forms of proceeding says that [w]here the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed, the Committee may resolve the dispute by motion. Clearly not the case here.
2. Sometimes ArbCom has to issue unpopular sanctions, but this is not that. The earlier motion is not restricting anyone, so it is necessarily not preventing any disruption. On the other hand, plenty of editors (including many uninvolved with the topic area) are quite concerned about it, making it a clear net-negative.
3. The earlier motion is wrong on the merits.
I believe that agreeing with any one of those points is sufficient to support rescinding the earlier motion. For whatever reason you support this motion, it is an easy step to making things better than they are currently. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 07:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per my vote on the original motion. asilvering (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And for clarity, that means per reasons i and iii. I see The Kip's objection to iii and share those concerns in general. But I don't think that arbcom should be bound to maintain an incorrect FoF simply because arbcom made an incorrect FoF. Nor do I think this "opens the door" to challenging CONEXEMPT decisions in general - no more than any of arbcom's previous motions to amend or rescind previous motions have done. -- asilvering (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to abstain) Whether a decision is wrong on the merits is a bit of subjective call and I wouldn't vote to overturn just on that basis; opening the door to that kind of relitigation is a dangerous precedent, and we are CONEXEMPT for a reason. That being said, like others above, I've been very disappointed that the Committee has not been able to explain how the evidence it has cited supports its conclusions – or even fully enumerate the evidence, apparently. We owe the community transparency, and if we can't provide it on a case where everything is public, that at the very least looks arbitrary. That's not something I can stand by. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The procedural objection is well taken and reason enough to rescind. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per my prior opposition, but HB is compelling in their additional reasons. Regarding "does this change anything", I think being correct is a good thing to be. NB if this passes then it will be as if the prior majority to ban was decided on the merit solely on the basis of the single FOF of prior ban failures, which I should hope should cause the members of that majority to reconsider whether there should be another motion to strike that one as well. Izno (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SilverLocust above me, and with HouseBlaster's first point. Daniel (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am persuaded on the procedural point. This should be rescinded. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To correct an error that wouldn't have happened if we just heard a case in the first instance. See also my vote on the original motion. I hate to be relitigating this sort of thing but it was a very close vote and quite irregular. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

I stand by my vote, but I think that moving past this FoF, which is not necessary to support the remedy, is best for everyone. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
moving here in acknowledgement of SFR's analysis posted above; i'm not quite sure I agree with the procedural point but agree that moving on is best the choice. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the argument for the procedural point and therefore will not oppose. Nonetheless, I believe the ban decision was correct on the totality of the evidence, and that Iskandar is here to advance a cause rather than contribute neutrally to the encyclopaedia, so I do not support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:43, 3 February 2026 (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!)

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

Clarification and Amendment archives

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

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

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

Clarification request: Indian military history

Initiated by EarthDude at 18:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Indian military history arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Statement by EarthDude

In the Indian military history case, WP:GS/CASTE was rescinded into WP:CT/SASG. Before that, in 2023, a discussion at AN had led to GSCASTE's application being updated to "pages related to South Asian social groups, broadly construed". However, the official wording of SASG uses the old application of GSCASTE, that being "social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal". Looking through the Indian military history case, I couldn't find any reason as to why the old GSCASTE application was used instead of the newer one. In the December 2025 ACRA request regarding SASG, there appeared to be some confusion as to whether SASG is applied as "broadly construed". I have noticed SASG being applied as if it were broadly construed in places such as WP:RFPP (I have also seen the opposite, with some of these requests being declined on the basis that SASG is not applied as broadly construed). This inconsistent application extends beyond just RFPP. It is all very confusing.

This clarification request basically boils down to:
1) Is SASG applied as "related to" and "broadly construed"?
2) If not, then why?

Statement by Rosguill

Responding to the ping, and to the second half of the request, I agree that the decision to make SASG not be broadly construed (or more precisely, to exclude political parties, which would otherwise be well within the range of its broad construction) is confusing and will continue to be confusing. No opinion on the first part of the request regarding the use of an old framing vs. the current one. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

Thanks for the ping. I'll link my previous comment on the matter for anyone who is interested. Briefly, I think it is desirable to remove the wording about political parties. Non-EC editors make a very large proportion of the constructive contributions to election-related pages; it is the caste-adjacent material that needs to be ECR. I would argue that "caste, broadly construed" is closest to the intended meaning of the original sanctions regime.

If you do stick with "social groups", I repeat my request that you clarify whether that encompasses religion. We should not be in the habit of making a broad ruling intended to be narrowly enforced; that opens the door to gatekeeping behavior that is already rife in this topic. That is, if religion is included, I ask that you make it explicit, such that the ECR may be uniformly enforced. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2026 (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.

Indian military history: Clerk notes

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

Indian military history: Arbitrator views and discussion

The former GSCASTE was a CT authorization, but the new WP:CT/SA designation covers everything related to South Asia broadly construed. The only two remedies applicable only to caste issues are ECR and optional preemptive protection. I don't know if this was a conscious choice, but the text of those remedies does not include the words broadly construed, so I would say it is not broadly construed. In any event, admins can still ECP pages under CT/SA that fall outside of SASG. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ECR "applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed", so any ECR is broadly construed.
The preemptive protection remedy is a tougher question, but it is there to be a rule about the ECR topic, as an implementation of it, so I'd say it also incorporates its broad construction. This remedy is still limited by a reasonable belief that the page will be disrupted. If the page fully relates to the ECR broadly construed, then the countervailing concern for the protection is just that it prevents non-EC users from violating the EC restriction, which ECR is supposed to prevent anyways. (See also ECR's "If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.") ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with what my clerkly-inclined colleagues have said above, but I think this reaction misses the forest for the trees. This ambiguity in the GS/CASTE takeover were present in the original decision, commented on editors and admins then, and will continue to cause us problems until we fix them. Tagging in Vanamonde93 and Rosguill as I recall they both had things to say about this back when the original PD came down. If either of you think of anyone else to tag in, please do. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Shortcuts

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

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

Make a motion (arbitrators only)

All editors are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension on this page below (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended comments or submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.

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

Cleanup of old remedies

Cleanup of old remedies: Clerk notes

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

Israel-Lebanon

Remedy 1 of Israel-Lebanon ("Use of blogs") is rescinded.

Remedy 3.1 of Israel-Lebanon is also rescinded. Any restrictions issued under this provision remain in force, and are governed by the contentious topic designation for the Arab–Israeli conflict.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Johnski

Remedy 1 of Johnski ("Dominion of Melchizedek semi-protected") is rescinded. Johnski (talk · contribs) may appeal their block using the regular block appeals process.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Lyndon LaRouche

Remedies 1 and 4 and enforcement provisions 1 and 3 of Lyndon LaRouche are rescinded. Actions previously taken in accordance with the remedy or enforcement provisions remain in force.

The post-decision motion passed from Lyndon LaRouche 2 is rescinded. Any blocks issued under that provision remain in force, and remain governed by the applicable appeals process as if this motion did not pass.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Midnight Syndicate

Following a long-running trial, remedies 1 and 2 of Midnight Syndicate are fully rescinded. All topic bans issued in accordance with remedy are also rescinded. Additionally, the two bespoke enforcement provisions are rescinded.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Race and intelligence special appeals procedure

Special enforcement 3 of the Race and intelligence case ("Review of topic-bans") is rescinded. Bans from the may be appealed in the usual way at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Regarding The Bogdanov Affair

Remedy 1 of Regarding The Bogdanov Affair ("Ban on editing Bogdanov Affair") is amended to read:

1) CatherineV (talk · contribs), EE Guy (talk · contribs), Laurence67 (talk · contribs), Luis A. (talk · contribs), ProfesseurYIN (talk · contribs), XAL (talk · contribs), and YBM (talk · contribs) are prohibited from editing Bogdanov affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page.

Remedy 2 and enforcement provision 2 ("Notice" and "Additional combatants") are rescinded. Bans issued in accordance with enforcement provision 2 are also rescinded.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Sathya Sai Baba

Remedies 2 and 3 of Sathya Sai Baba ("Removal of poorly sourced negative information" and "Removal of poorly sourced information", respectively) are rescinded.

Remedy 4 of Sathya Sai Baba 2 ("Prior remedies clarified") is also rescinded.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Scientology

Remedies 5.1 and 8 of Scientology ("Single purpose accounts with agendas" and "Editors instructed", respectively) are rescinded.

Remedy 6 ("Account limitation") is amended to read:

6) Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic from a temporary account. They are to inform the Committee of the account they have selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to begin using a different account.

Special enforcement provision 2 ("Uninvolved administrators") is rescinded. The normal rules of WP:INVOLVED continue to apply to administrators in the topic area.

Any sanctions issued in accordance with the rescinded remedies remain in effect until appealed. Time-bounded sanctions still expire as if this motion never carried.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

The Hunger Project

Remedies 1, 2, 3, and 5 of Hunger ("Material from The Hunger Project itself", "Negative material", "Current editors", and "Continuing jurisdiction"; respectively) are rescinded. Note that the arbitration policy states The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

User:PolishPoliticians

Remedy 2 of User:PolishPoliticians is rescinded.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Yoshiaki Omura

Remedy 1 of Yoshiaki Omura ("Ban for disruption") is amended to read:

1) Richardmalter is indefinitely banned from editing Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page.

Enforcement provision 1 ("Enforcement by block") is amended to read:

1) Richardmalter may be blocked for up to a year if they edit Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page.

Enforcement provision 3 ("Enforcement by reversion") is rescinded. The policy on reverting banned editors continues to apply to Richardmalter's edits to Yoshiaki Omura–related pages.

All enforcement actions taken in accordance with the rescinded remedy and enforcement provisions remain in force and are to be appealed as if this motion did not pass.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Automatic sunset (contentious topics)

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Designation is amended to read:

Contentious topics may be designated either as part of the final decision of an arbitration case or by Arbitration Committee motion.
Every January 1, any contentious topic designations not used in the preceding two years (except for protecting pages) are automatically terminated. Contentious topics designations may not be automatically removed in this manner until they have existed for a full year. Additionally, if it becomes apparent that a particular contentious topic designation is no longer necessary, the Committee may rescind it. Any editor may request that the Committee review a contentious topic designation by submitting a request for amendment ("ARCA").
Unless the Committee specifies otherwise, after rescinding a designation, all restrictions previously issued under that designation remain in force and continue to be governed by the contentious topics procedure.

Remedy 1.2 of Historical elections ("Contentious topic (with sunset)") is retitled Contentious topic and amended by striking the final sentence.

Remedy 1a of Yasuke ("Contentious topic (Yasuke)") is amended by striking the final sentence.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Abortion (contentious topic)

Remedy 4.1 of the Abortion case ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Climate change (contentious topic)

Remedy 1.2 of the Climate change case ("Climate change: contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Climate change (special noticeboard remedy)

Remedy 2 ("Climate change sanctions noticeboard superseded") is rescinded. Restrictions issued in Climate change or via the previous contentious topic designation may be enforced via the arbitration enforcement noticeboard like any other AE restrictions.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Gun control (contentious topic)

Remedy 2 of the Gun control case ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

The Troubles (contentious topic)

Remedy 5 of the The Troubles case ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

The Troubles (1RR)

Remedy 6 of The Troubles case ("One-revert rule") is rescinded.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Arbitrator views and discussions (Cleanup of old remedies)

These motions are designed to take a step towards reducing WP:CREEP by taking old, unused restrictions off the books. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (Cleanup of old remedies)

Requests for enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives (index)

Quick enforcement requests

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

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

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

Example request

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

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

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

Talk:List of Palestinians

This has already been handled. If there are further problems related to a quick request, it's obviously not a "quick request" anymore and should be handled in another manner. asilvering (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Insteadcoffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested action: Could someone please inform this user of the restrictions covering ARBPIA pages? And keep an eye on that page? A canvassing call was made off wiki and there are attempts to mass delete and ignore reliable sources. Thank you. Tiamut (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this. There are now several editors new to English wikipedia at this page, most of them from Hebrew wikipedia. Don't understand why they are being allowed to overrun it in response to an off wiki canvassing call. Imagine Talk:List of Israelis was suddenly a source of interest to Arabic wiki editors all advancing a similar POV due to an off wiki call. Please some action would be appreciated. Tiamut (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lisa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has mass deleted content at List of Palestinians twice now in less than 24 hours. Tiamut (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Content that contradicts the page as it was, and without even an attempt to see consensus. Nor was it in less than 24 hours. Why make a claim that's so easily disproven? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I simply mixed up the times, thinking it was 22 hours, rather 26 hours. Please note this page has been unedited for months before your changes, which are mass deletions, including of well sourced material that was subject to previous talk page discussions. So your claims are false. Tiamut (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain that the hostility evident above and elsewhere is entirely productive. Different editors may have different opinions. What claims are false? And, even if they are, might it be put in a more tactful manner? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, what hostility? I have been accused of several things I have not done, simply for protesting mass deletions that followed off wiki canvassing that no one has addressed For example, see here. I think I am being quit patient all things considered. Tiamut (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've given that editor a CT alert. This is something any editor can do at any time. I've also protected the article for 2 days to encourage discussion rather than reversion. Valereee (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With no consensus, Lisa deleted a very large amount of content, most of which had been in the article for a long time (more than 10 years in some cases). Tiamut put it back. Then Lisa deleted it again, accusing Tiamut of making "an enormous change to the page with zero consensus" (which is exactly what Lisa did, whereas Tiamut had not edited the page since 2012) and demanding that Tiamut is the one who should get consensus. This is text-book edit warring on Lisa's part. Zero^talk 01:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Length of time does not mean it can't change. There were discussions on the talk page pointing out the absurdity of including certain people on the list. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change but there are mechanisms for that. Zero^talk 05:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is in progress on the talk page, so let’s use it. Michael Boutboul (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Til discussions conclude, we shouldn't engage in edit wars, which is what Lisa did by reverting twice — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 07:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This section of AE is for quick requests, not for arguing over whether Lisa was edit warring or not. Let's move on. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Melat Kiros

This is not the place to request CSD. asilvering (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Melat Kiros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested action: Delete the page as a G5 violation, as the creator is not extended-confirmed. The G5 tag was declined because she is also running for Congress, even though, according to the creator, "[she] is most notable for publishing an open letter criticizing big law firms for their silence on the genocide in Gaza." Kelob2678 (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the admin who examined the article for speedy delete. I determined the article was not eligible for speedy delete b/c for multiple reasons, including that it didn't fall within the restrictions at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. This article is about an American lawyer who is also running for the US House of Representatives. While she has spoken out about issues related to Israel, that in itself does not automatically pull the subject under this particular contentious topic, especially when she's running for higher office in the USA. As I told Kelob2678, if there are concerns about the article bring it up for AFD, which Kelob2678 has now done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melat Kiros.SouthernNights (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that in this case, the article is not directly related to the Arab–Israeli conflict per the contentious topics listing because it is instead about an American lawyer and politician who merely protested against Israel in the USA. Saying that anyone who protests against or registers an opinion about the Arab–Israeli conflict should be covered by this contentious topics would pull in tens of thousands of additional articles. Nowhere in the contentious topics enforcement procedure does it say we should apply the topics listing this widely. SouthernNights (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Certain parts of the article are indeed related to PIA, so I went in and indicated this. ECR should be enforced by reverts of edits to these sections. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperPianoMan9167@SouthernNights The user who wrote the article is not ECR confirmed. If the non-ECR content is removed, the article is just about the campaign.

@Edittttor has made other edits that could be considered ECR.

Diff 1: [27]

Diff 2: [28]

Diff 3: [29]

Also has created multiple other articles with sections that may be considered ECR

Example 1: [30]

Example 2: [31] EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Counting those edits as falling under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict is an extremely broad interpretation I don't agree with. To get clarification on if the interpretation should be this broad, I've asked about this on the Arbitration_Committee talk page. That said, I will, of course, follow whatever the consensus ends up being on all this. SouthernNights (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SouthernNights I'm not sure if they would fall under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict or not, but the diffs do show edits involving inserting/removing content relating to allegations of AIPAC donations to candidates the article isn't about, removing a claim that an attack was anti-Israel, and replacing anti-semitism with anti-Israel about how some people view Nida Allam's positions on I/P (the next line and the source in the next line is Allam apologizing for past actions related to statements on I/P that some could view as antisemitic.

@Edittttor's justification in AFDs for the Chevalier and Kiros are specifically related to their activism regarding I/P.

Diff 1: [32]

Diff 2: [33]

@Edittttor created both of those pages, and their justification for the article being an exception to WP:NPOL was the subject's activism in I/P. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an extremely broad application of the contentious topic tag. The subject of this article lives in the US and simply commented on the conflict 2.5 years ago. There's no evidence that she has personal or professional connections to the topic and she has no influence over the course of events. While her comment and the public response to it made her notable, she has received lots of high quality news coverage for other topics that are not related to the conflict since then. Edittttor (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since certain parts of the article are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, I indicated this with hidden notes. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird L17

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 Thunderbird L17

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Valereee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Thunderbird L17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality

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

Thunderbird L17, arguing that it wasn't necessary to state in Imane Khelif that she is not transgender because no one is saying she is, first asked for a major media outlet saying some public figure had said so at [34], and then asked for a quote at [35], and then argued Trump hadn't said that at [36] and [37], and then that Trump was known for not stating things clearly and asked for another public figure at [38] and also is arguing that Trump saying she "transitioned" isn't the same as Trump saying she is "transgender" here.

Now apparently arguing it's hypocrisy that WP requires different standards for saying Khelif isn't transgender than for saying she "admits to having SRY gene" here.

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)

Removal of CT alert here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This very infrequent editor hadn't edited in over a year. Three days ago a reddit post covered this new story and discussed the WP article, and user came in and has made twice as many edits at Talk:Imane Khelif as at any other article or talk in their 20+years of editing, mostly arguing that no one is saying Khelif is transgender so there's no need for Wikipedia to state she's not transgender. Valereee (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thunderbird L17, this isn't an arbitration request, it's an arbitration enforcement request. Two different processes. We use AE to prevent taking issues that have already been dealt with at ArbCom back to ArbCom when they can be dealt with here with simple enforcement of what ArbCom has already decided.

I've said this before, but contentious topics and inexperienced users are a terrible combination. You received a CT alert. You deleted it, which we take to mean "I know everything I need to know about what this means." We're aware you may not actually know enough to know you don't know everything you need to know. I don't want to see this evolve into an indef, but you may want to consider offering not to edit in contentious topics until you've got a lot more experience. There are any number of experienced users who can put forth the arguments you're making -- some of which do have a valid point -- and do it nondisruptively. Valereee (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I just don't understand why you wouldn't reach out first instead of pushing this to arbitration. We just don't have the bandwidth to go over and above to educate every inexperienced user about contentious topics. We could literally spend all our volunteer time on trying to make sure inexperienced users understand they've stepped into a terrible place. We gave you warnings on your talk: You're in a contentious topic. It contained links to help you learn more. If, for instance, instead of deleting the CT alert you'd asked TA why they'd given that warning to you, you might have gotten an explanation. How much time did you spend investigating any of that anywhere? I don't mean to be unkind, but what exactly were we supposed to do to make sure you didn't end up here? Valereee (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thunderbird L17, no one here is really 'in authority'. If an experienced editor gives you a warning, investigate. Valereee (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://old.reddit.com/r/ImaneKhelif/comments/1qxnyy5/wikipedia_fight/o51rrfl/?context=3 editors from Wikipedia are also commenting on Reddit ~2026-97139-7 (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User_talk:Thunderbird_L17#AE

Discussion concerning Thunderbird L17

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 Thunderbird L17

I rarely edit Wikipedia anymore because it feels like the established narrative on a page and the procedure of allowing edits is more important than just stating the truth. It takes too much effort to effect change, even if the change you're trying to make to a page is factually, provably true.

I had monitored the Imane Khelif page for some time, and observed the unchallenged false statements on it. I knew the entire controversy was about whether or not Khelif had XY chromosomes, an SRY gene, and a DSD. But the Wikipedia pages have always framed the issue with a straw-man argument that Khelif had been falsely accused of being transgender.

When I saw in the news last week that Khelif had made a public statement about the SRY gene I decided to see if the page was going to finally reach a neutral and unbiased state, and acknowledge what the controversy was actually about. As expected, I saw on the talk page that certain editors were working hard to keep the quote off the page. I saw the request for comment and decided to try adding my voice to the conversation. I didn't come from Reddit or anywhere else.

In the discussions I pointed out that the Imane Khelif page and the related 2024 Summer Olympics boxing controversy also make claims that "Several public figures, including then U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and author J. K. Rowling, referenced the incident in political commentary about women in sports, often incorrectly suggesting Khelif was transgender."

That claim is false. There are no quotes from any public figures that I can find accusing Khelif of being "transgender", certainly not from J. K. Rowling. The closest I can find is a quote from Donald Trump about people "in the boxing" who "transitioned". That quote is unclear, but is also from a single public figure who is well known for being unclear.

So I wondered if I could actually make a small difference in the conversation by pointing out that fact. In a discussion about how what exactly Khelif said was just so important, maybe I could respectfully point out that what exactly people like J. K. Rowling said was important too, and that they were being misrepresented on the same page.

The results have been unsurprising to me. No engagement with the actual fact that those claims are false. Just personal attacks against me for going against the established narrative on the page. And now this. I have no idea what exactly I'm supposed to defend here, and honestly at this point I really don't care. It's all taken up too much of my time and I'll probably give up on Wikipedia again for another few years.

But facts are facts. If you want them to be on Wikipedia, then put them there. But if you want to drag me through arbitration to preserve the provably false narrative that multiple public figures are accusing Khelif of being transgender, then do that. I've said my peace. Thunderbird L17 (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why this arbitration was even started by User:Valereee in the first place? According to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom, "All conduct issues should first be discussed at the talk page of the users involved." If this is a conduct issue that Valereee took issue with, then why did they not bring it up on my talk page first and resolve it that way? What are we even doing here? Thunderbird L17 (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally speaking, this isn't arbitration; it's arbitration enforcement, i.e. enforcement of already existing ArbCom decisions. These can be handled by any uninvolved administrator or set of uninvolved administrators, and don't have to follow the processes and procedures of ArbCom itself; ArbCom set up this space to be separate and it has its own procedures. publeek (house • service • theleekycauldron • she/her) 01:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then is there an ArbCom decision that I have violated? All of the discussions that have been taken issue with were under an RfC. I read the RfC instructions before joining the discussion, and have tried to follow them and be civil and respectful through the conversations. This all seems very abrupt and outside the spirit of arbitration. Thunderbird L17 (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee I received one complaint by a user for using "they" instead of "she". I amended my comment as a result and was more carful with my pronouns going forward. I thought that would be the end of it. Like I said, this entire experience has soured me on ever answering a "Request for Comment" on Wikipedia again. I just don't understand why you wouldn't reach out first instead of pushing this to arbitration. Thunderbird L17 (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee There was a single warning on my talk page, and no indication it was official or from anyone in authority. There was no reason to ask them why they'd given that warning to me, because they already specified the reason within the warning. They said it was there because I used "they" instead of "she". It was a mistake I corrected and didn't make again. Thunderbird L17 (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

There's a discussion between myself and Thunderbird L17 at Talk:Imane_Khelif#Responses underneath my !vote. Some of diffs provided by Valereee make up part of that discussion. In that discussion, Thunderbird L17 repeatedly attempts to WP:GASLIGHT me, telling me that Trump didn't say what he clearly said. I've taken the page of my watchlist and unsubscribed from the threads in very large part because of Thunderbird L17's conduct. Looking at Thunderbird L17's comments at Talk:Imane_Khelif it is harder to find comments which aren't problematic than it is to find ones which are. Two diffs which stand out are Special:Diff/1337356009 where they state that the issue has always been about "a male DSD" and then Special:Diff/1337380747 where they state that @Katzrockso has engaged in a "dishonest misrepresentation" for quoting what they wrote. TarnishedPath^talk 23:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-97139-7, so? TarnishedPath^talk 21:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil NZ

Just to clear up some confusion: it appears Thunderbird is confusing the CTOP alert that's being discussed above with a warning they received here from DanielRigal. The difference is rather moot, however, as both the alert and warning should have been heeded when he removed them from his talk page.

In response to DanielRigal's warning, Thunderbird calls our MOS:GENDERID guidelines "compelled speech rules" because they'd require him to use she/her pronouns for Khelif[39]. Any editor who believes that not misgendering BLPs on wikipedia is a freedom of expression issue should not be editing within this CTOP. Nil🥝 04:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I have commented at Talk:Imane Khelif about the significant number of reactivated accounts all sharing the same POV. Whether off-wiki co-ordination, compromised accounts or meatpuppetry it is still significantly suboptimal. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I have a question/comment about MOS:GENDERID about the pronoun "they".

Suppose someone self-identifies as a woman. Doesn't matter for this question whether they're cis or trans. Am I not allowed to use the singular "they" as a pronoun for them in talk page discussions? Where does MOS:GENDERID prohibit this practice?

As far as I can see, the only sentence at all dealing with "they" in the MOS is this: Singular they/them/their pronouns are appropriate to use in reference to any person who goes by them. As I read the sentence, it is dealing with people who wish to be called by the pronoun "they" -- so Wikipedia editors should respect their wishes. This sentence does not prohibit Wikipedia editors from using "they" for anyone else, say a man or woman.

I understand completely that it's a problem if someone uses "she" for a person who self-identifies as a man (or vice versa). That problem arises because "she" or "he" are not gender-neutral. But the singular they is a gender-neutral pronoun, and useful precisely because of it is so. I use the singular they all the time in my normal conversation.

I mostly stay away from this topic, so please excuse my ignorance. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I participated a bit in the talk-page discussion; I’m commenting here on process and the evidentiary premise for sanctions, not to advocate for any editor.

theleekycauldron: your comment treats "male" language by J. K. Rowling as saying that it's "tooootally unrelated to accusing her of being transgender" (sarcasm), or else any attempt to distinguish "male" (as used in sport eligibility disputes) from gender identity is "[in] fact code for a claim of a DSD," which you then dismiss ("no one would describe [that] as truly being male"). The issue is that treating the eligibility-rule reading as basically off the table is doing a lot of work here.

On the merits of the reading: the relevant eligibility materials from World Athletics (as summarized in its press release) and World Boxing use "sex"/"biological sex" terminology. World Athletics defines "biological male" by Y-chromosome status, "irrespective of their legal sex and/or gender identity" (section C3.5A). This journal article makes this argument explicitly.

To be clear, I am not arguing for Wikipedia to adopt these standards; I have no trouble with MOS:GENDERID. I am saying it is not safe to treat "male" language here as necessarily about transgender identity (or "code") when these regimes define "biological sex" categories this way.

Given the page is under full protection specifically to channel disputes into talk-page discussion, some protracted back-and-forth is going to be normal. I’d be cautious about labeling that "sealioning" absent clear diffs showing repetitive badgering (same questions after answers) or refusal to engage what's already been presented. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Thanks for conceding the evidentiary point -- that's an important correction. I'm not denying the editor has been persistent, maybe even tedious. But this page is fully protected precisely so the dispute plays out on the talk page, and people can always disengage. Long back-and-forth is common here; e.g. this is also protracted. I'm not asking for sanctions there either, but what makes this case different such that sanctions -- rather than disengagement -- are warranted? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanielRigal

Thunderbird L17 claims confusion but I'm not sure that I buy it. I think the use of "they" was almost certainly intentional and gratuitous and that the response to my warning was only feigned ignorance. I think that some other diffs support this suspicion. Here we have Thunderbird L17 trying to put the nonsense phrase "male DSD" on Khelif. (That's on Talk, so it's not as egregious as it would be in the article itself but it's definitely not good.) When Thunderbird L17 rephrased that comment after I reverted it it was accompanied by a snippy edit summary. Then there is the old "why are you assuming what my pronouns are?" shtick which is a bit of a tell.

Of course, I have no way to be absolutely sure about what Thunderbird L17's intentions are but I think subtle but intentional trolling is the simplest and most plausible explanation for what has gone on here. I think a topic ban from GENSEX would put a stop to this without preventing Thunderbird L17 from contributing constructively in other areas if desired. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Thunderbird L17

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

Basically all of this is sealioning hinged on a silly contention that accusing a woman in sports of being secretly male is tooootally unrelated to accusing her of being transgender, and is fact code for a claim of a DSD (which no one would describe as truly being male, much less using he/him pronouns). That as the fuel for goalpost-shifting and pure OR adds up to well more than a tban for NOTHERE and POVPUSH. I'm tempted to do that unilaterally and just get this closed – and honestly, I'd be fine indeffing, too, since Thunderbird hasn't shown that they're useful anywhere else – but I'll wait to see what others think. publeek (house • service • theleekycauldron • she/her) 23:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thunderbird L17: You're well over the 500-word limit; please request an extension if you have anything new to add. publeek (house • service • theleekycauldron • she/her) 02:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kingsindian: Presuming the journal article is reliable, sure, I'll concede that some people do indeed make the argument (although clearly if we're in the "we put it forward that ..." stage it's nowhere near consensus) that a person with, say, 5αR2D is male. But still, as you point out, this still necessarily implicates at least the conversation around being transgender, which is what RSes echoed here in characterizing Trump's comments on Khelif being "male" (which, if you read the talk discussion, T17 simply refused to accept because it didn't comport with their beliefs). Speaking of that discussion and the conversation Senne pointed out, the one T17 and Val are currently having on their talk pages (1 2), that is exactly what I would call asking the same question multiple times even after being answered and splitting increasingly smaller hairs to continue debating. (And accusing Valereee of bad-faith misinterpretation, ironically enough.)
  On that note, if there aren't any objections in 24 hours, I'm going to close this with a topic ban from transgender and intersex topics, broadly construed (pinging Sennecaster and Arcticocean to see if they have thoughts on scope). publeek (service • theleekycauldron • she/her) 15:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Kingsindian: Protracted engagement can be productive, but that's not what this sanction is about. @Arcticocean: I like to fashion smaller topic bans when I can, but I'm also okay with GENSEX. publeek (service • theleekycauldron • she/her) 01:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement with leeky after reading User talk:Valereee#The whole arbitration thing. Maybe Thunderbird can be more productive, but they can learn to be productive away from CTOPs. A TBAN sounds great. Sennecaster (Chat) 06:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing everything here and in the talk threads, the GENSEX definition would be the most unambiguous to follow and would possibly prevent a thread on expanding the TBAN scope because of behavior in a related page not under the TBAN. @Kingsindian; I see leeky has already responded to you, but I would like to point out that Thunderbird has not shown the ability to disengage meaningfully over the course of this thread; they went well over the 500 word limit, and have continued asking very similar questions to Valereee over the course of a few days. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page comments appear to be consistently incompatible with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. There is also a tendency towards WP:IDHT, even in this very enforcement request, where TL17 has posted a statement that breached the word count restriction and doubled down on describing the disputed main space content as "factually, provably true". A topic ban is required. Arcticocean ■ 22:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Responding to theleekycauldron/publeek) Not objecting to your proposed scope, but I think the whole area of conflict would be the best delineation, i.e. gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. It's perhaps neater to adopt that tried-and-tested wording and it wouldn't unduly broaden the scope. It also would perhaps reduce future dispute over the scope of sanction. Arcticocean ■ 16:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alaexis

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 Alaexis

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

3 Feb 2026 - Alaexis adds to the BLP article of Hussam Abu Safiya (a Gazan doctor who was has been detained without charge by the Israeli military since Dec 2024) that "Abu Safiya holds the rank of colonel in the Directorate of Military Medical Services. The directorate is part of Hamas but is separate from its military wing." This was sourced only to two Arabic language sources of unestablished (and seemingly dubious) reliability,^[1]^[2] and to a Times of Israel article.^[3] Alaexis' edit summary was simply: "position".

Their edit was reverted per edit summary of "This is WP:SYNTH, combining unrelated reporting from weak Arab language sources to an unverified Israeli military claim in ToI [Times of Israel]. It also fails WP:DUE and WP:BLP. Seek consensus".[40]

Alaexis' edit was made immediately after an edit adding similar content was removed per "JP [Jerusalem Post] cannot be cited for controversial claims, and ToI [Times of Israel] cites it back to an Israel lobby outfit NGO Monitor. Needs stronger source base for inclusion in a BLP".[41]

I believe this is a clear BLP violation and very similar to the edit Alaexis was previously warned over. The sources cited are not sufficient to establish this information is DUE, and the statement that "the directorate is part of Hamas" is disputed by Al Jazeera[42] and Drop Site News[43] and implies "serious accusations of involvement in a designated terrorist organization. As such, WP:BLPCRIME considerations apply."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2 Oct 2025 Given a balanced editing restriction by @Vanamonde93.

31 Aug 2025 Warned "to be more careful when interacting with primary sources, especially regarding living or recently deceased people" by @SilverLocust.

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

See "Notice of a logged contentious topic warning" above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Not only was this edit made by Alaexis but they continue to argue for it's restoration in the talk page discussion,[44] putting forth more poor sourcing to justify their edit, citing the Times of India (a problematic source per WP:TIMESOFINDIA), the Jerusalem Post (which "should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict"), and two sources of unestablished reliability (Misbar (Arabic) and The Media Line).

The Misbar source is titled (per machine translation) "The title "Colonel"... How did the occupation turn an administrative title into a terrorism charge against Dr. Abu Safiya?", and one user's analysis of it states that the article "provides effective reasoning for opposing inclusion of the "colonel" information absent the necessary context it provides, for doing so legitimizes the Israeli campaign to justify his detention and abuse. It explains that titles like "colonel" and "military medical services" are civilian administrative designations with no operational military meaning, and that deploying them outside their specific administrative and legal context produces a misleading perception (تصور مضلل) of military affiliation where none actually exists."[45]

Replying to Alaexis' statement: That the Military Medical Services in Gaza is "overseen by the Hamas-run health ministry" is not "basically what I [Alaexis] wrote", which is that it is "part of Hamas". The Military Medical Services was established by the Palestinian Authority prior to Hamas' takeover of Gaza and also operates in the West Bank. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't really know what the 2 Arabic sources Alaexis cited are. One user said they are "a Hamas website" and "a Fatah website". Alaexis doesn't seem to know exactly what they are either: [46] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "استهدفت العاملين بمجمع"عدوان" الطبي قسم الإسعاف والطوارئ يختتم دورة اسعافات" (in Arabic). Al Watan Voice. 10 May 2017. Retrieved 3 February 2026.
^ "الخدمات الطبية تفتتح "قسم حضـانة الأطفال" بمجمع كمال عدوان الطبي" (in Arabic). Alray. 2 July 2021. Retrieved 3 February 2026.
^ "Resurfaced photo shows detained Gaza hospital director wearing Hamas uniform". The Times of Israel. 1 February 2026. Retrieved 3 February 2026.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[47]

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Alaexis

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 Alaexis

This is yet another example of removing sourced information which without any policy basis which has happened a lot in this topic area.

There are no sources that dispute the key facts (the rank and affiliation with the Directorate of Military Medical Services). Whether it's due is now discussed at the talk page, this is exactly what is supposed to happen when there is a disagreement. Several other editors also believe it's due.

When there is a disagreement in RS on whether the said directorate is part of Hamas goverment or not we should present all main viewpoints rather than censoring one of them.

This statement by IOHANNVSVERVS is misleading the statement that "the directorate is part of Hamas" is disputed by ... Drop Site News[48]. The Drop Site tweet says that The article itself inadvertently admits this, writing that “Safiya’s photo appeared on the Gaza Medical Services’ Facebook page — a group overseen by the Hamas-run health ministry,” an admission that Abu Safiya belonged to a government health institution, not an armed faction which is basically what I wrote in my single edit of the article in question citing the ToI The directorate is part of Hamas but is separate from its military wing [49]

The edit summary of the revert shows the fundamental misunderstanding of the WP:RS policy. RS are allowed to use non-reliable information sources and do this all the time. Editors cannot use Youtube videos as a source but RS are allowed to do it because we assume that they do the due diligence. So using a source we deem unreliable is not a valid reason to remove a RS.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Alaexis

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

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

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

[3] "استهدفت العاملين بمجمع"عدوان" الطبي قسم الإسعاف والطوارئ يختتم دورة اسعافات" (in Arabic). Al Watan Voice. 10 May 2017. Retrieved 3 February 2026.

[4] "الخدمات الطبية تفتتح "قسم حضـانة الأطفال" بمجمع كمال عدوان الطبي" (in Arabic). Alray. 2 July 2021. Retrieved 3 February 2026.

[5] "Resurfaced photo shows detained Gaza hospital director wearing Hamas uniform". The Times of Israel. 1 February 2026. Retrieved 3 February 2026.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4