Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[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).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log none none 22 November 2025
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 none (orig. case) 18 December 2025
Clarification request: Consensus of AfD concerning PIA topic article and ArbCom article enforcement none none 22 December 2025
Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 none (orig. case) 31 December 2025
Motion name Date posted
ARBPIA5 topic bans 28 December 2025

Requests for arbitration


Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132133134

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

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

Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

Clarification request: Consensus of AfD concerning PIA topic article and ArbCom article enforcement

Initiated by 11WB at 18:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli_conflict
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by 11WB

I recently closed an AfD as keep (now undone), it turns out many of the participants had WP:CT/PIA topic bans. The article does not have active ArbCom enforcement. A DRV suggested it should. Consensus of the AfD may be affected due to this. Please clarify on whether the AfD consensus is affected and whether the article should be included in PIA. 11WB (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I was unaware @Boutboul's was lifted. I have also not implied that anyone acted maliciously. 11WB (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: @Easternsahara says they "looked at notifications". This seems to contradict their talk page banner, which states they "should not be given alerts for those areas". Is a TBAN editor in violation of that rule should they use WP:PPAL notifications to participate in PIA AfDs? 11WB (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: It's a filter, thank you for the clarification. 11WB (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts: @Iskandar323 created the article before their TBAN. If the article is not included in PIA enforcement, I don't think any sanction is required. I cannot comment on whether @Easternsahara has violated their TBAN by discussing the topic here. The other editors I included either don't have an active PIA TBAN or have a TBAN that isn't relevant. The article seems to be slightly contentious based on the AfD and talk page discussions. My list was not accurate and for this I apologise, I should've been more thorough. 11WB (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Regioncalifornia

Statement by Triggerhippie4

Statement by Easternsahara

  Easternsahara's statement contains 588 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

I didn't think that this was covered by PIA because neither Palestine nor Israel had existed yet. The earliest one can say the start of the Israel-Palestine conflict was with the advent of zionism, although even then no violence had immediately occurred until the settlement of Jewish people in the region of Palestine. The name may be the same as the modern state but names change in various ways all the time (etymological fallacy). OwenX says that since "all these topic-banned editors swarmed to !vote on this AfD" 1 it must be related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but I was just looking at the notifications for WP:PPAL when I saw this and I suspect this is why other editors also voted on this, not because of malicious reasons, as is implied. Simply being tagged for wikiprojects Israel and Palestine is not a strong enough argument by itself, as the region encompasses territory now a part of both modern-day places (so Wikiprojects Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon should also be tagged) User:Easternsahara 20:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I wasn't saying that you were implying that anyone acted maliciously, but that the quoted section could've be interpreted as such User:Easternsahara 21:12, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SFR, I don't think there is any serious scholarly debate about whether or not Jewish people are native to the region of Palestine, that is very obviously yes. Rather, some argue whether the current inhabitants of Israel are descended from the Jews, who lived there thousands of years ago, and whether thousands of years makes their connection to the land invalid enough that they cannot establish their own state there (or whether such states should exist). The Roman Palestine article is not very developed right now, but if it included any data on population, then it would note that Jews are the majority of the inhabitants. So, I don't think that this article is very pertinent to the Palestine-Israel conflict, though it is certainly relevant to Jewish history. User:Easternsahara 03:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@11WB: you seem to misunderstand. I looked at the WP:ARTICLEALERTS section of WP:PPAL. Article alerts are used to inform people of various nominations and discussions relating to a given WikiProject. If you click on the bolded "alert" on the Template:Contentious topics/aware, on my userpage, you will see that it links to Template:Alert, which is used to tell users about a contentious topic that they have edited about. I hope you can understand that "alert" means two different, unrelated things in these contexts. You also assume that I "participate[d] in PIA AfDs", but it had no indication of being related to PIA and this matter is being discussed right now. I implore you to research matters before you implicate that another user has broken the rules in the future. In this case, you could've clicked on the bold "alerts" linked onto the template at the top of my page (which you stated you saw) and then realized that that was a different thing than the WikiProject Article Alerts. Alternatively, you could've viewed the source of my talk page, found Template:DS/aware and read the first sentence, learning that its function is not to be a restriction for the user whose talk page it is placed on, but a notice to other users. User:Easternsahara 03:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boutboul: I am sure that you think that you know what you are doing and that you are acting in good faith. However, I do think that you are wrong because I am only discussing PIA to avoid further sanctions, by clarifying that this page is not related to the PIA (despite the name). User:Easternsahara 06:42, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

To be clear, I enquired in advance with @SFR as to whether participation would be problematic, and the answer was not a yes. I then tagged SFR again for absolute clarity and transparency when I participated in the discussion. My response was based purely on the lack of a deletion rationale. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boutboul

@User:Easternsahara, My purpose is not to put you down, but in my opinion you are skirting the edges of your PIA TBAN too much, several editors already told you that. For example, this kind of sentence: “The earliest one can say the start of the Israel-Palestine conflict was with the advent of zionism, although even then no violence had immediately occurred until the settlement of Jewish people in the region of Palestine.”, clearly falls under the TBAN, since it is broadly construed. I do not think that mentioning Roman Palestine necessarily falls under it, but it is still not a good idea for someone under a TBAN to test the boundaries. I know what I am talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boutboul (talk • contribs) 13:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iljhgtn

The main purpose of the PIA enforcements are to reduce edit warring on contentious pages. Observably, pages of this nature i.e., which are about the history of Israelis and Palestinians does lead to edit wars. Per CNC, the historical association of this page with Palestine makes it quite obvious that it is within the PIA purview. I’m not sure how it could be construed otherwise. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CommunityNotesContributor

Noting that Roman Palestine appears to be a child article of History of Palestine. The latter has been protected under PIA since 2018, the article in question was created in 2024, but seemingly not as a split. CNC (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Bushranger

If I - for instance - came across Roman Palestine at WP:RFPP with a request to ECP it under PIA, I would decline it, as the article is clearly not primarily related to the Palestine-Israeli Conflict. It does seem that there's a popular misconception that PIA covers everything related to Palestine and/or Israel, but it clearly is more limited than that. Now, the fact there are potentially portions of the article that are PIA-related is true; whether or not that would make 'participation in an AfD about the article a violation of a PIA topic ban', I'd have to think about, but my off the cuff reaction would be no - only actively editing those small portions of the article would be. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Metallurgist

I initiated the AFD and didnt expect it to be so contentious, altho perhaps I should have. It looked to me to be an unnecessary duplication of other articles. I do think PIA should at least somewhat apply here as the keep or deletion of this page can be taken by some editors as relevant to the PIA conflict, as SFR has pointed out. That said, I do think Iskandar deserves an exception to the TBAN as creator of the article to robustly defend it. And as for ES, if it is considered PIA, I think it is a good faith error to have participated and they should not face any sanction for this, but the !vote should be discarded in that case. And they made a good point about that it should have included other Wikiprojects. I didnt even think of that and I try to be comprehensive. Finally, given the contentiousness of the ongoing discussion, I think the closer should have left it open for longer than a week regardless. But no harm no foul at the end of the day here. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Consensus of AfD concerning PIA topic article and ArbCom article enforcement: Clerk notes

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

Consensus of AfD concerning PIA topic article and ArbCom article enforcement: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Reviewing this comment, I'm not sure I agree with this list. Regioncalifornia does not have a tban, just a logged warning regarding 1RR (which is very much not the same thing as a tban). Triggerhippie4 is also not topic-banned. Boutboul's topic ban was successfully appealed and lifted. Iljhgtn's topic ban is in my opinion clearly not applicable here ("political living people"). That leaves only Iskandar323 and Easternsahara who are topic-banned from PIA. Currently considering whether this should be in scope of PIA or not, which is the main crux of this issue that's been brought to ARCA. Daniel (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are certainly parts of the article which relate to the conflict, as whether or not the Jewish population in the area is considered indigenous/native is a sticking point in the conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is a bit of a stretch of "broadly", as indicated by others, that an area that existed a substantially significant amount of time before the Arab/Israeli conflict started would be considered under this CTOP. I will note that the article has been edited rather heavily since this request was first brought to us, but as of Special:Permalink/1330343946 the only modern mentions are in the infobox. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, the history of the geographic area comprising the Arab-Israeli conflict is part of this CTOP's jurisdiction as its historical composition is used to justify actions of multiple groups in that area. I do not think editors should wait until the Arab-Israeli conflict is mentioned in the article before the CTOP is applied. I recommend resolving this by putting a notification to affected parties that they should avoid these types of articles while their topic bans are in effect, as we have 7 million articles on Wikipedia that they can choose to edit instead. However, I don't feel particularly strong about this designation so I probably won't be too bothered if the decision goes in a different direction. Z1720 (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88

Initiated by Catflap08 at 13:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88 § Catflap08: Topic ban (I)
  2. Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
    • State the desired modification
  • Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
    • State the desired modification

Statement by Catflap08

Hi, I would like to ask for the editing restrictions in place against me to be lifted. As you can see, I am no longer very active on Wikipedia, whether it concerns the English or German version. Some articles dealing with the subject of [Nichiren Buddhism] are, in my opinion, still very toxic and unbalanced, but I cannot see myself becoming a major contributor to them anymore. The conflicts ten years ago have left their mark. Since its been so long I am not even sure if I am getting this request right.

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

Motions

ARBPIA5 topic bans

The Arbitration Committee has received several complaints without standing regarding violations of topic bans imposed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Following the unsatisfactory conclusion of an enforcement request against Iskandar323 (due to the standing of the filer), the committee invokes its jurisdiction over matters previously heard and will review all topic bans issued during that case. The committee will determine by motion 1) whether violations of a topic ban have occurred, and 2) what sanction, if any, to levy for any edits determined to be violations. Editors with standing are welcome to present diffs of alleged violations for the committee's consideration.

ARBPIA5 topic bans: Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Alleged violations and analysis

  • Iskander323
    • Blocked for a fortnight on 26 November 2025 for topic ban violation.
    • AE request largely focused on Dome on the Rock and edits around history of Judaism.

General discussion

  • I think we either need to do a formal review (PIA5.5) or consider roughly 15 potential motions to tie up some loose ends revealed in the 12 months since PIA5 --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per User:Newyorkbrad below, I am still very much against using standing to describe anything on Wikipedia, as it reads like Standing (law) which is only going to cause problems and confusion and is completely unnecessary. The community soundly rejected codifying "standing" into Arbitration Policy for good reason, and I do not intend to support any motion that encourages or uses this wording. - Aoidh (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had abstained from the discussions behind the scenes and do so here too. I'm not sure if it matters much as this isn't a case and I won't be an arb anymore tomorrow; WP:AC/C/P says something about "motions not related to a case", whatever. It would amuse me if my abstention is struck through. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with the characterization that there was a rough consensus to come here. One Arb, around Christmas, suggested bringing it here, and no one else agreed. I hadn't even read the email as I was away for the holidays (as I suspect many other Arbs were). At any rate, this is far too broad, open ended, and lacking in structure. We're just sending up a call for any diffs about the editors we topic banned a year ago? Without even having a case structure? That is going to create more drama and problems and more work for everyone. We're at ARM and there aren't even any motions. I do hope Guerillero goes and posts his motions though, perhaps in a separate header, as he had some general ideas aimed at tying up loose ends. But I oppose this structureless attempt to fish for further sanctions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from parties

Statement by Iskandar323

One has to marvel at the effort that is being committed to here on behalf of a globally account that was hacked/criminally hijacked by a bad actor. I doubt that even in the bad actor's wildest best-case scenario they imagined their actions could spur ARBCOM to contemplate embarking on a nebulous re-examination of the actions of all participants in a past case. They will surely be, somewhere, raising a champagne glass in toast to a job well done on their part in causing such a ruckus with their throwaway account. What a potential reward for not only disruption, but digital crime within the Wikipedia system in general! What great profit for such a similarly great misdeed! And the principal diff in question that this has been raised over? A comment on a talk page with (then) no CTOP template and with no political bearing and no conflict relevance, but more pertinent to, say, WikiProject Islam, than anything else. A diff that already garnered a collective 'meh' among administrators at the procedurally invalid AE. THAT should be a priority – a diff that disrupted nothing – and not the new-found knowledge that accounts are being hacked and then kept in a sleeper state for up to two years only to brought out for use in CTOPs, and, when and where conducive, to be used to weaponize AE? If this is the direction of travel then I fear the committee has gotten horribly confused somewhere along the lines over its priorities and where its attentions best lie in mitigating disruption. The only disruption that has been meted out here is that by the bad actor, and yet it is precisely this disruption that the motion before the committee proposes to not only oblige, but to amplify. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from uninvolved discussion. EggRoll97 (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nehushtani: being 'uninvolved' is a droll notion. This despite them having taken me to ANI, alongside other CTOP-related posts, on my talk page. All in Archive 8. They were also involved in presenting evidence in the instigating AE thread. All this despite me never interacting with them prior to the ANI filing. Here's to hoping that they (unlike the many Icewhiz and NoCal100 socks and now unknown account hackers that have graced my user page) are acting in good faith, but uninvolved and just coincidentally calling for a CBAN? I think not. If proceedings proceed, I must insist that they join us on this merry goose chase! Iskandar323 (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

Statement by Levivich

Statement by Nableezy

Statement by Selfstudier

Statement by AndreJustAndre

Received this [3] but per [4] there isn't an allegation about me. Confusing. Assuming that this falls under BANEX, let me know if not, I volunteer, in the interest of transparency, that I edit history topics and avoid anything to do with Israeli state and politics, Zionism anti-Zionism, modern Palestinians, pan-Arabism, Hamas, etc, but my understanding is that ancient archeological Israelites/Judeans aren't covered by the ban. If that has changed, let me know. I have not been warned for any violations since returning from the last sanction, or repeated anything that was sanctioned. I was involved in a discussion on the Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world#Jews_as_second-class_citizens where it was getting close to the topic and per this suggestion I have since refrained, even though the discussion was pre-exodus dhimmi status and not post-1948. I don't see that I am flouting the ban with my edits and only received that one nudge as far as I can recall. If there is any concern about my editing I only ask that I be given feedback and a chance to adjust or comply with the guidance.

To elaborate on my thought process of how I observe my topic ban, e.g. part of the Khazar hypothesis page, or changing Palestine to Israel if there isn't a source-based historical reason in that context. Those would violate how I think the ban is broadly construed. If the obvious underlying subtext of an edit is ARBPIA-related, such as a statement in the Khazar article that says "it is used by anti-Zionists," well that's explicit, but now if the edit were e.g. [5], well, that edit doesn't mention Zionism, but it certainly makes oblique reference. So I have not reverted that. Similarly, I would consider Pirate Wires to be off-limits, and have avoided that. Even generally on the reliability of Pirate Wires. Technically, not a violation, since they do other stuff, but if an obvious reference to its coverage, that could be. Similarly, I would consider Dome of the Rock to be too close to the Western Wall and how that interacts with East Jerusalem and its inhabitants, the uneasy tension of sharing etc. It's not something from the middle ages, it's a current-day charged political and religious dispute. So I would avoid that and modern Western Wall topics. But I do not consider it a violation to edit Jerusalem Talmud. The Talmud Yerushalmi happens to also be known as the Palestinian Talmud. That doesn't automatically make it a violation to edit about a guy writing manuscripts analyzing rabbinical literature interested in Jerusalem Talmud.

Edited Andre🚐 23:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Makeandtoss

Statement by Nishidani

I was topic banned in good part for taking issue over how to correctly construe a diff, innocuous but thought damning by enough admins. So, here, I'd once more draw your attention to sloppy and imprecise language.

The Arbitration Committee has received several complaints without standing regarding violations of topic bans imposed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Following the unsatisfactory conclusion of an enforcement request against Iskandar323 (due to the standing of the filer), (a) the committee invokes its jurisdiction over matters previously heard and will review all topic bans issued during that case.(b) The committee will determine by motion 1) whether violations of a topic ban have occurred, and 2) what sanction, if any, to levy for any edits determined to be violations. Editors with standing are welcome to present diffs of alleged violations for the committee's consideration.

In (a) the bolded 'that case' would appear to refer to the action against Iskander, but grammatically its wording suggests that at issue is the antecedant 'Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5' higher up, meaning contextually that the committee will 'review' the original 'topic bans' themselves.

However as (b) shows, there will be no 'review of all topic bans issued during that case', as clumsily asserted. Rather, and contradicting itself, the text then asserts that all the topic bans stand, and the committee will only adjudicate sanctions for any edits since which violate the bans laid down in the Palestine/Israel articles5 case.

If the point of the exercise is to 'tie up a few loose ends', by all means. But as one hanging from a dropped noose, any further measures in my regard at least would be Flogging a dead horse. Cheerio Nishidani (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (uninvolved editors only)

  • consider roughly 15 potential motions to tie up some loose ends revealed in the 12 months since PIA5 are these motions that did not pass from PIA5 or additional motions besides those? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just a wording point at the moment. For the past several years, I have urged that the Committee do its best to keep the rule-set in this area as simple as possible; and there has also been a desire for ArbCom to use less legalistic language. For both of these reasons, if "editors with standing" just means "extended-confirmed editors," then please use the latter wording. If you don't, I foresee that sooner or later, someone will try to wikilawyer some distinction between them. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newyorkbrad, the most obvious example here is of BlookyNapsta, who initiated the Iskander323 AE thread and has since blocked as a compromised account. So "editors with standing" is indeed intended to have a broader meaning than simply "extended-confirmed editors". -- asilvering (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope of the CT refers explicitly to the "Israel-Arab conflict". This "conflict" involves two parties, Israelis and Arabs, and in some cases Jews and Muslims. The recent trend to expand it to anything related to Jews or Arabs separately is a widening that is not supported by Arbcom decisions as far as I know. To take a pertinent example, Iskandar323's recent edit to Talk:Dome of the Rock is about whether the structure is a mosque or a shrine. This is a question which lies entirely within Islamic law and practice. It has nothing to do with either Israel or Jews and therefore nothing to do with the Israel-Arab conflict. I am not aware of any Jewish or Israeli interest in the question. Incidentally, I'll remind the committee that the CT notice was added after Iskandar323's edit. (It is incidentally the wrong notice—it should have the "related content" attribute since only a fraction of the article refers to PIA.) Zerotalk 02:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    isn't Zero an involved editor and should be above as he were a party to the case last year? even if he only got a warning? asking honestly, if the involved editors is only folks who got topic bans, apologies. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the title and the description given by the filer, this is about topic ban violation, and since I don't have a topic ban I can't violate it. If the committee decides to widen it, that might be a different matter. Zerotalk 05:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added |section=yes. It seems clear that most of the page content should be accessible to non-extendedconfirmed editors to edit without having to post an edit request. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it’s somewhat clear that Iskandar doesn’t have any “hard” tban violations in the edits they were reported for by the compromised account (though they’ve been served a warning and tempban for other ones in the past year). The question, as Guerillero framed it, is twofold:
    • whether the naked violation of their topic ban linked by Guerillero is worthy of a more severe sanction, when taken in conjunction with their prior vios, and
    • whether Iskandar’s editing in the tangentially-related areas you describe is a “soft” violation; i.e. not explicitly editing a TBANned page, but a pattern of subtly attempting to push a narrative on related pages (as Guerillero also stated).
    The Kip (contribs) 07:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only comment at this time is that I would encourage the Committee to allow presenting evidence on the various sanctioned editors' behavior in general, not just within PIA. When an editor is sanctioned in an ArbCom case, and then continues to disrupt the project in other ways, it is within ArbCom's jurisidiction to consider evidence regarding their general fitness to edit the project. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Iskandar323's case specifically, this shows revisions by Iskandar323 post-ARBPIA5-close to pages that are templated as being within scope of CT/A-I, either in whole (blue) or in part (orange) because of the presence of '|section=yes' or '|relatedcontent=yes'. Apologies, but posting an image for this kind of data is my only option at the moment. No comment on the accuracy or completeness of topic area related templating. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe don't reward complaints by accounts compromised to stir up trouble by stirring up trouble at their behest. Just a thought.Dan Murphy (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community seems happy with the current faith-based trust-and-don't-verify 'crime does pay' approach to whether an account is in 'good standing'. A 'crime doesn't pay' approach might be a lot of work e.g. CUs for anyone who uses reporting systems, erasure of content created by accounts found to not be in good standing etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The community is happy because of both WP:AGF and because misconduct on the part of the filer shouldn't excuse misconduct on the part of the accused. It's an unwinnable situation where misconduct is being excused either way and, assuming bad filers keep getting caught (as they almost always are), the current approach results in the least long-term damage.
The alternative described is to mandate that any bad-filer reports with merit (read: not frivolous) are re-filed by a non-bad account, either creating more unnecessary work for everyone in re-filing and re-processing the report, or getting the accused off scot-free if nobody re-files the report. The current approach is effectively the community judging that they'd rather just cut out the middleman.
Remember that Arbcom are not paid employees; they're all volunteers. Sometimes the most convenient option is best. The Kip (contribs) 04:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a time-saving exercise? What a world.Dan Murphy (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody but the obvious bad faith account "bothers to refile", how actually disruptive can the behavior that desperately MUST be punished be? Is this about bettering the encyclopedia or simply punishing for the sake of it? Parabolist (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two points: I'm only addressing filings that were judged to potentially contain valid misconduct, i.e. the Iskandar one that sparked this - that filing wasn't dismissed because Iskandar hadn't done anything wrong, but because the filer literally stole another user's account. We're now here because an arb said there was potential legitimacy to the complaint despite the filer's actions. Frivolous filings in bad faith are what they are, and the community is good at shutting those down.
I'm also saying that for cases with valid complaints, there's the potential that no non-bad account could refile, which could happen for various reasons; a desire to avoid conflict, to avoid ARBPIA, to avoid being labeled a partisan within ARBPIA, ideological/personal alignment with the accused, etc. I think the second item applies to a lot of Wikipedians, and the fourth item sums up why many cases in the area are accused (usually justifiably) of weaponization - I can only name one recent ARBPIA filing where someone reported a user that was "on their side." I can dig into more research on that if requested.
All of that could be avoided if you mandate that cases containing legitimate misconduct be re-filed by good-faith editors, which I'd support, but again, that creates more tasks for what's already an over-strained volunteer system. The Kip (contribs) 09:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this doesn't address the systemic issues. If the objective is to improve something, or reduce something, it probably won't do that in any way that matters. That seems to be what history shows. If we can't tell the difference between accounts "in good standing" and accounts created or acquired by people evading a previous sanction, then sanctions related to "legitimate misconduct" can only be imposed on accounts "in good standing". This is perhaps the most important property of the ARBPIA system for me because it breaks the symmetry, it ceases to be a symmetric game, different players have different payoffs, and that changes everything. We know that people who employ ban evasion are effectively unsanctionable and weaponize reporting systems to target editors "in good standing", and so we know that sanctions related to "legitimate misconduct" can only be effectively imposed on people who believe that the rules apply to them and accept the verdict. Under these conditions, what is the objective when we allow people who think the rules don't apply to them to sample the vast number of revisions in the topic area to target opponents and then reward them by pretending that any "good-faith editor" might have done the same thing because it's just about dealing with "legitimate misconduct"? It's not about misconduct. Why would we allow ourselves to be played and pretend that it is? It's about them removing perceived opponents and us rewarding bad actors who employ deception. Many, many people have already learned that it is better to use disposable accounts in the topic area. Some of them keep their heads down, and don't bother anyone, and good for them. Others, like the person who acquired the BlookyNapsta account have a value system that is incompatible with Wikipedia's, and yet we keep reminding them that using disposable/compromised accounts was the right decision. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Iskandar323's case specifically, this shows revisions by Iskandar323 post-ARBPIA5-close to pages that are templated as being within scope of CT/A-I, either in whole (blue) or in part (orange) because of the presence of '|section=yes' or '|relatedcontent=yes'. Apologies, but posting an image for this kind of data is my only option at the moment. No comment on the accuracy or completeness of topic area related templating. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since finishing their 2-week block for TBAN violations, Iskandar323 has edited Talk:Dome of the Rock (as already discussed), while the article was explicitly tagged as ARBPIA. On 18 December 2025 they edited Syria Palaestina which has an ARBPIA template. Additionally, on 15 December 2025 they removed a phrase that appears in 1988 Hamas charter (to quote from that article "The 1988 Hamas charter proclaims that jihad against Jews is required until Judgement Day."). In their edit summary, they cited "marginal sourcing" from Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust museum. On 16 December 2025, they violated their topic ban by discussing the conflict on another TBANed user's talk page. On 17 December 2025 they violated WP:CIVIL.
In addition to the above violations, they have also edited extensively on the history of Judaism just outside of the topic ban. While no particular edit is problematic, the edits together show an ARBPIA related POV being pushed by minimising the historical Jewish presence in ancient Israel. The connection of Jews to Israel or the denial or downplaying of this connection is one of the major issues of the Israeli-Arab conflict (some of these examples are from before the latest block, but this issue was not addressed in that block and continues). 5 November 2025, 5 November 2025, 25 November 2025, 25 November 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, and 17 December 2025.
Other users TBANed in ARBPIA5 have also violated their TBAN. Levivich responded to Iskandar323 above, also violating their TBAN on their talk page on 16 December 2025. On 25 December 2025, they also violated a participation restriction at AE.
On 4 November 2025, Nableezy edited another editor's comments on Talk:Gaza genocide, violating their TBAN. They wrote in their edit summary "worth a block of any length", meaning that they were well aware that this was a violation.
On 28 April 2025, Makeandtoss violated their TBAN with an edit about a sabotage plot related to Israel (see the source cited, and note that in the current version of Islamic Action Front, the section is titled "Reaction to Israel-Palestine war").
Nishidani was blocked on 22 August 2025 for a month for TBAN violations.
In short - several of the users TBANed in ARBPIA5 have not been meticulously observing their TBANs and continue the same behavior as before their TBANs. I think that ARBCOM needs to get involved. The pattern shown with Iskandar323 is especially disturbing. The user had multiple TBAN violations, and following a block for those violations, they continue with the same behavior. Multiple warnings and a temporary site block have not deterred them from violating their TBAN over and over again. I see no alternative to an indef CBAN. I also recommend to ARBCOM to take a look at the behavior of other senior users who have been involved in similar conduct to those who were banned in ARBPIA5. Nehushtani (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Makeandtoss claim feels weak - unless I'm missing something, neither the Reuters source nor the article address anything directly related to ARBPIA, and another Reuters article says the sabotage plot was planned attacks within Jordan. The Kip (contribs) 09:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Reuters source is about the sabotage plot that links to an article from a week earlier that explains the full context at Jordan says it has foiled attacks by Muslim Brotherhood which explains that "Security forces found a rocket manufacturing facility alongside a drone factory, according to a statement by the General Intelligence Department released on state media. "The plot aimed at harming national security, sowing chaos and causing material destruction inside the kingdom," the statement said. ... It said some of the arms were bound for the neighbouring Israeli-occupied West Bank, adding that they have arrested several Jordanians linked to Palestinian militants. ... Jordan has over 3,500 American troops stationed in several bases and, since the war between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza erupted in October 2023, it has been increasingly targeted by Iranian-backed groups operating in neighbouring Syria and Iraq." In other words, the "sabotage plot" was intended to smuggle weapons to Palestinians to use against Israel. Nehushtani (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The underlying question here is "what to do when sockpuppets, compromised accounts, etc. bring an at least potentially valid concern to AE." This is a particular problem in the ARBPIA topic area due to the large number of recurring sockpuppets, who aggressively target ideological opponents, coupled with lots and lots of people with restrictions that they may in fact have violated. On one hand we don't want to ignore potentially valid problems, but on the other hand moving forward based on allegations from sockpuppets encourages them to continue pressuring Wikipedia via those vectors and creates potentially one-sided examinations because the socks can freely harass people, getting banned repeatedly, then report them when their targets react; additionally, normal users would get in trouble if they repeatedly abused AE, whereas sockmasters can keep creating new accounts and throw things at the wall until they find something that sticks. That said, I feel that this shouldn't actually be that hard of a question - we've already answered it, albeit in lower-pressure situations, when it comes to WP:BANREVERT. Specifically: If it's found that someone is a sock or otherwise shouldn't have been bringing things to AE, it can be closed without prejudice until / unless an editor in good standing is willing to vouch for it; but anyone can choose to vouch for it and re-open it (or create a new case based on it), effectively taking over as the filer. This avoids situations where people can use sockpuppets to spam our system with weak accusations, while still making it easy for cases to happen when there's clearly something that needs to be looked into. --Aquillion (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah the iskandar blookynapsta filing situation tban vio is a good initial place to start from. I have no opinion for or against further creep scope at this point User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone filing lots of reports against ideological opponents/participating lots at AE should just be page blocked from it, uninvolved editors in good standing should be using their social capital to clean up these CTs Kowal2701 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed the rapid fire ae reports was not a good look. Nor was the participant restriction not being used earlier and more often. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for enforcement

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

Arbitration enforcement archives (index)


Quick enforcement requests

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

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

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

Example request

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

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

إيان

ShoBDin

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

Request concerning ShoBDin

   Lf8u2's statement contains 468 words and complies with the 500-word limit.
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Lf8u2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
ShoBDin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

Some diffs/edit summaries:

Conduct issues

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

Additional notes

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of AE discussion

Discussion concerning ShoBDin

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

Statement by ShoBDin

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

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

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

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

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

Statement by Smallangryplanet

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

Though unrelated to WP:PIA, they've continued to promote their newly created articles, in this case, Barry J. Brock sexual misconduct allegations, in the "See also" sections of questionably related/appropriate articles [17][18][19][20] - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ShoBDin

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
The above shows that ShoBDin has a pattern of reflexively undoing other editors' reversions of their edits, often with edit summaries such as "Do not remove relevant sourced information, if you want it removed open a discussion on the Talk page" that are inconsistent with the WP:ONUS policy ("The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content").
At a minimum, ShoBDin should receive a logged warning for edit warring, but I would also support a revert restriction. Although this is not in the standard set, I believe an editor-focused variant of the enforced BRD restriction ("an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message") for ShoBDin in the WP:CT/A-I topic area would specifically target the issue here. — Newslinger talk 15:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to support this revert restriction. As an aside, I don't think "revert restrictions" in the WP:STANDARDSET are limited to WP:0RR/ WP:1RR with only the standard exceptions, but could include 0RR with added exceptions (such as for reverts after some wait time, discussion, or consensus), which is what that would be. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable and I'll make that my understanding from now on. — Newslinger talk 18:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Purely in terms of readability: @Lf8u2 and @Sean.hoyland, you respectively have 23 diffs (not counting the required ones) and 745 words, exceeding the limits of 20 diffs and 500 words. Please either request extensions or shorten your respective statements. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:09, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been inactive for over a week. If no other administrators comment in this section within the next 1–2 days, then the proposed enforced BRD restriction should be implemented as a WP:0RR editor restriction with exceptions. — Newslinger talk 18:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hogshine

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

Request concerning Hogshine

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

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Sanctions on ACAS topics.

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

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

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

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

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

6/12 tag-teaming for consensus’'

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

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


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

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

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

On Michael the Syrian talkpage he mentions ACAS several times.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1

Discussion concerning Hogshine

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

Statement by Hogshine

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

This is the third complaint by Historynerd361 against me. It's sounding more and more personal. [22][23] Almost all was addressed in 2nd ANI.

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

HN was found "Possible" in two SPIs to a now-banned sock/meat network.[24]. Canvassed twice by the main puppetmaster [25] [26]. Substantial contribution to puppetmaster's draft which brought on this whole ordeal (Draft:Aramean people), only second to Wlaak. HN voted in accordance with other now-banned puppets in this Redirect discussion [27]. Same type of edits as puppets i.e. changing/removing any mention of "Assyrians", including wikilinks to Assyrian people, plus edited a number of similar pages that involve ACAS topics, the same pages at times. [truncated 47 diffs]
777network displays similar if not more meatpuppet-esque behavior; I can provide diffs if requested.

Accusing user:777network of: ″using ChatGPT to write articles which they demonstrably did, hence the false citations (other evidence aside).
closed ANI case and your past edits So did a LLM also write this for you, or was it a different person?
contributions... are minimal If you spend as much time building this encyclopedia as posting complaints & removing thousands of my bits [28], I wouldn't say it.
response was to argue semantics This accusation has been thoroughly addressed but you keep bringing it up. It is abundantly clear, from the links you posted, that the accusation was baseless. On that same page/discussion, 777network was repeatedly told to undo their contentious edit &‌ establish consensus in talk pages, to which they ignored.
backhanded uncollegial remarks Same user threatened me and called me a shit talker. [29]
An ANI‌ was posted against HN by a different user (to which he ignored, despite being reminded twice [30][31]) about his gaming-like edits to his Draft:Beth Aramaye. Please see the draft's history.

HN is unable to point to where I violated my warning despite mentioning it several times. In fact, he himself violated his own [32]

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

As I said, critiques of your disruptive behavior are not personal attacks. The mountain of evidence I provided to prove so demonstrates that it is you who's consistently violating rules & warnings. Not using AI that makes mistakes, including this very AE here, would have avoided us days worth of disputes. ~ Hogshine (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@777network, I will not stop the allegations until you stop committing them. You've been informed of this before [33]. I stand by everything I said about your disruptive behavior, and I'm under no obligation to stop no matter how many times you order me to as long a you're continuously doing it.
No, I did not call you a shit talker. I said I was tired of this shit talking I'll let that absurd statement speak for itself.
You even implied that the admin @Asilvering gave me permission to threaten you No, I pointed out that you called me a shit-talker and Asilvering said nothing about it in their reply to you. Please don't make things up just to make me look bad.
In that same discussion you keep quoting, you were repeatedly told to undo your edits & make talk page discussions [34]. You did not, and in fact reverted me [35]. ~ Hogshine (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 777network

   777network's statement contains 867 words and complies with the 1037-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 1037 words. — Newslinger talk 18:04, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

[@Hogshine:] Just like you did on the ANI, here too you are proving the points we have presented ([41][42]). You do not stop the allegations. If there is a genuine concern that we are sockpuppets, file an SPI. If you genuinely think I have threatened you, file a complaint. If you genuinely think we have tag teamed to manufacture consensus, file a complaint. Do not run around numerous talk pages and topics accusing us of these things.
This must be the third time I am telling you to stop saying that I have threatened you. My comment about this being the last time I am saying this was perfectly fine according to Asilvering. No, I did not call you a shit talker. I said I was tired of this shit talking. There is a difference between the two. I judged content, not the person.
Wikipedia doesn't have unlimited articles covering ACAS topics. It is only natural for different users to have overlapping edits. Stop saying that I am a sockpuppet because of this.
On the ANI you did the exact same thing as you are doing now. You keep deflecting the topic and only prove our points. Everyone seems to be wrong, including admins, except you. You even implied that the admin @Asilvering gave me permission to threaten you. Now that, I'm pretty sure, is an aspiration without excuse. 777network (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Newslinger, moved to correct section

Can I explain/defend myself? I find this highly speculative and not representing the truth. 777network (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger, my word count would be up to 806, so sorry but is it possible to increase it a bit more? 777network (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for extending my word limit, @Newslinger.
To address the concerns raised, I would like to start by acknowledging my unconstructive edits regarding date formats. I was previously unaware of MOS:DATE, but I realize the amount of cleanup work I created for others and I regret the disruption. As noted in my user contributions, I ceased these edits immediately after I was told about the guideline.
Regarding ECR (WP:GS/KURD), I would like to point out that when I discussed this with the admin Bushranger, it was determined not to be a violation. Consequently, Bushranger removed the ECR protection from the article. While I found the scope of GS/KURD confusing, I did not believe that editing an article merely because it mentioned "Kurds" fell under those restrictions.
I also understand the worries regarding sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but I categorically deny any off-wiki coordination with Historynerd361, and I have no connection to Wlaak/DavidKaf. While disputes regarding Aramean topics go back decades, there is a very limited number of articles involving them, so overlapping edits should be expected among the few editors interested in this topic.
Regarding the flag, anyone searching for the Syriac-Aramean flag would notice that the colors were recently changed, I noticed this and attempted to fix it. I had already been active prior to it, me editing this topic would naturally also come across the flag.
777network (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hogshine

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

Iskandar323

Avidanalyst

StopRejectingMyUsername

Har1MAS1415

Afus199620

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

Request concerning Afus199620

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Afus199620 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Final_decision
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 15:47, 3 January 2025 Creates article on German Businesswoman Nicole Junkermann, with a section solely dedicated to highlighting her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, sourced to a conspiracy book (see [68] [69] for details)
  2. 22:38, 21 January 2025 Adds content from said conspiracy book that serves as serious BLP-violating innuendo towards the subject.
  3. 15:44, 24 December 2025 Restores Epstein-related content to the article despite reasonable objection on BLP grounds
  4. 10:55, 30 December 2025 Admits to making the article to highlight the subject's relationship with Epstein, stating that The fact that a person with connections to Jeffrey Epstein (which go deeper than described here) has access to sensitive data in the British healthcare system should be in the public interest.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None that I am aware of.

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

16:22, 30 December 2025

Discussion concerning Afus199620

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

Statement by Afus199620

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Afus199620

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

IOHANNVSVERVS

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 IOHANNVSVERVS

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Zanahary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
IOHANNVSVERVS (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/Palestine-Israel articles 5
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Edit warring at Weaponization of antisemitism: On December 15, IOHANNVSVERVS BOLDly moved a subsection to a different section: [70]. I reverted him that day: [71]. No Talk page discussion took place after that.

Then, on December 30, he restored his earlier edit, with this edit description: The section "Charges of weaponization by the far-right" is not an example of weaponizing antisemitism. Not sure if it belongs in Responses but please do not restore this to the Examples section: [72]. To my understanding, restoring one's contested BOLD change without even initiating discussion, let alone achieving consensus, is edit-warring. An edit description insisting on no further reversions does not replace consensus. I asked him to self-revert once, in response to which he said Did you read my edit summary? "The section "Charges of weaponization by the far-right" is not an example of weaponizing antisemitism. Not sure if it belongs in Responses but please do not restore this to the Examples section.". I repeated myself, because "see my edit description in which I insist that I am right and no further reversions should be made" is not a replacement for consensus, and he responded asking what section I would like the material to be moved to. Again, I repeated myself, saying that a discussion can take place after he self-reverts, and he replied: Well, if I self-revert it would be putting the content in a section it doesn't belong in. So what would be the point of that?

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

IOHANNVSVERVS knows what edit-warring is and knows that one who wants to make an already-contested change to an article has a responsibility to achieve consensus for that change before restoring it, as he told Boutboul the day before he edit-warred this material: Special:PermanentLink/1330095603#Terminology section

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[73]

Discussion concerning IOHANNVSVERVS

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 IOHANNVSVERVS

This is not a reasonable report. There is no actual issue here and the content dispute is not significant or contentious. If Zanahary engaged in discussion with me we would have already resolved this.

But when I asked Zanahary if they had seen my edit summary which explained its rationale, they said: "Yeah, I did, and you don’t have consensus, so you need to self-revert and seek consensus. Why haven’t you yet?"[74]

When I asked Zanahary "What section would you like to put the content in?" (which is what the content dispute is regarding) they replied: "Stop hijacking the consensus process. You don’t edit-war first and seek input later. Revert yourself and then a discussion can happen."[75]

I generally try to follow BRD but lately with regards to Zanahary's frequent and unreasonable reversions I often just revert them back. In most (all?) cases where they've been reverting me or demanding that I self-revert, consensus has ended up being in support of my position.

Unfortunately, in my opinion this user is very unreasonable in general and difficult to negotiate with, and I believe the majority of the editors who have engaged with Zanahary at the talkpage at the article 'weaponization of antisemitism' would agree that they are a disruptive presence there. I personally believe a 0RR for Zanahary at that article would be the best thing that could happen here for everyone involved. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC) Minorly edited 14:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC) and 14:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my statement that "In most (all?) cases where they've been reverting me or demanding that I self-revert, consensus has ended up being in support of my position." - A good recent example of this can be seen where Zanahary made a quick enforcement request asking for a thoroughly well sourced edit of mine to be reverted.[76] They were told that "there is talk page discussion, which doesn't seem to be going your way. [...] No, I see no violations of the agreed-upon set of behavioral and editorial practices; that the editor does not wish to self-revert is not a violation."
Here too is evidence of Zanahary's unreasonableness; they were told only a few weeks ago at this very noticeboard "that the editor does not wish to self-revert is not a violation", and yet here we are again. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize I had violated 1RR as pointed out by Nehushtani and I have self-reverted.[77] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Drmies. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nehushtani

No comment on the merits of the complaint itself, but IOHANNVSVERVS appears to have violated 1RR at the page in question.

  1. First revert 10:07, 30 December 2025 (partial revert of this edit from the day before, in that they removed a catagory that was added in this edit) and 10:21, 30 December 2025 (reverting - as mentioned in the complaint - of the paragraph in question back into the responses section). These two edits are consecutive, so they count as only one.
  2. Second revert 12:24, 30 December 2025 (revert of this). Nehushtani (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

There's obviously a dispute there but it seems to consist of about two or three reverts each, total, and people are now discussing the content in a way that seems likely to reach a consensus of some sort; this is wildly premature. And it is a fact that Zanahary has reverted IOHANNVSVERVS with extremely minimal communication, largely starting with a focus on procedure rather than content - I'm particularly bothered by Zanahary's statement in [78] that Revert yourself and then a discussion can happen - no, that's... not how BRD is supposed to work. BRD is meant to encourage discussion, not to serve as an impediment to it! Like yeah, sure, reverting a revert is not ideal but editors are supposed to be trying to reach a consensus and compromises on disputes, not fixating on procedure, and especially not insisting that procedure be settled before meaningful discussion can even begin.

And Zanahary isn't even correct about the procedure! BRD is good practice but is in fact optional. Enforced BRD was specifically rejected by ArbCom for this topic area - and with good reason, I think, since it can encourage status-quo stonewalling and can derail consensus-building into arguments over process. That certainly doesn't make IOHANNVSVERVS' rush to revert ideal but absent a larger pattern the relatively brief exchange here isn't a matter for AE, especially given that, first, I think Zanahary's own initial responses can reasonably be described as less-than-ideal heel-dragging when it comes to actually substantive discussion; and second, that discussion is now happening and seems likely to be productive. --Aquillion (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning IOHANNVSVERVS

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