Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:AE" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:AE (disambiguation).
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Important information

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

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

  1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
  2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
  3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
  1. ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
  2. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

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

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives (index)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9


Quick enforcement requests

[edit ]

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

[edit ]

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 ]

ShoBDin

[edit ]
ShoBDin is prohibited from reinstating any of their article edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic that are challenged by reversion until ShoBDin posts a talk page message discussing the edit and waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message. — Newslinger talk 21:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning ShoBDin

[edit ]
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

[edit ]

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

[edit ]
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

[edit ]
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

[edit ]
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? (削除) 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. (削除ここまで) 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

[edit ]

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 [1] [2] [3] [4] - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Statement by (username)

[edit ]

Result concerning ShoBDin

[edit ]
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 ]
In reference to Butterscotch Beluga's statement, I see that ShoBDin's now-deleted article Barry J. Brock sexual misconduct allegations was speedily deleted as an attack page per criterion G10 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry J. Brock sexual misconduct allegations). ShoBDin's additions of the unwarranted "See also" links to this article were particularly inappropriate because they were done while this enforcement request about a similar incident was still open. As a result, I am also applying a topic ban of ShoBDin from adding a "See also" link that leads to any page related to the WP:CT/BLP and WP:CT/A-I contentious topics; this topic ban is performed in my capacity as a single administrator and is not included in the closing summary for this request. — Newslinger talk 21:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hogshine

[edit ]
Indef TBAN from GS/ACAS topic area for 777network and Historynerd361. Hogshine banned from making comments about the conduct of other editors on article talk pages in the WP:GS/ACAS topic area. Additionally, I've indefinitely blocked Historynerd361 as a normal admin action due to LLM. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Hogshine

[edit ]
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

[5] 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

[edit ]

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

[edit ]
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. [6] [7] 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.[8]. Canvassed twice by the main puppetmaster [9] [10]. 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 [11]. 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 [12], 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. [13]
An ANI‌ was posted against HN by a different user (to which he ignored, despite being reminded twice [14] [15]) 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 [16]

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 [17]. 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 [18]. You did not, and in fact reverted me [19]. ~ Hogshine (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Please, no further comments at this time unless asked by a reviewing administrator — Newslinger talk 19:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Newslinger Please further note that 777network edited & published Draft:Aramaization of Assyria by User:Devi van velden, a banned meatpuppet (article was deleted once before for copyvio). How could they possibly have found it?
Additionally, they reinserted nearly identical edits from DVV and DavidKaf in Michael the Syrian: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Sorry for going over limit. ~ Hogshine (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Statement by 777network

[edit ]
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 ([25] [26]). You do not stop the allegations. If there is a genuine concern that we are sockpuppets, file an SPI. If you genuinely think I have threatened you, file a complaint. If you genuinely think we have tag teamed to manufacture consensus, file a complaint. Do not run around numerous talk pages and topics accusing us of these things.
This must be the third time I am telling you to stop saying that I have threatened you. My comment about this being the last time I am saying this was perfectly fine according to Asilvering. No, I did not call you a shit talker. I said I was tired of this shit talking. There is a difference between the two. I judged content, not the person.
Wikipedia doesn't have unlimited articles covering ACAS topics. It is only natural for different users to have overlapping edits. Stop saying that I am a sockpuppet because of this.
On the ANI you did the exact same thing as you are doing now. You keep deflecting the topic and only prove our points. Everyone seems to be wrong, including admins, except you. You even implied that the admin @Asilvering gave me permission to threaten you. Now that, I'm pretty sure, is an aspiration without excuse. 777network (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Reply to Newslinger, moved to correct section

Can I explain/defend myself? I find this highly speculative and not representing the truth. 777network (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@Newslinger, my word count would be up to 806, so sorry but is it possible to increase it a bit more? 777network (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Thank you for extending my word limit, @Newslinger.
To address the concerns raised, I would like to start by acknowledging my unconstructive edits regarding date formats. I was previously unaware of MOS:DATE, but I realize the amount of cleanup work I created for others and I regret the disruption. As noted in my user contributions, I ceased these edits immediately after I was told about the guideline.
Regarding ECR (WP:GS/KURD), I would like to point out that when I discussed this with the admin Bushranger, it was determined not to be a violation. Consequently, Bushranger removed the ECR protection from the article. While I found the scope of GS/KURD confusing, I did not believe that editing an article merely because it mentioned "Kurds" fell under those restrictions.
I also understand the worries regarding sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but I categorically deny any off-wiki coordination with Historynerd361, and I have no connection to Wlaak/DavidKaf. While disputes regarding Aramean topics go back decades, there is a very limited number of articles involving them, so overlapping edits should be expected among the few editors interested in this topic.
Regarding the flag, anyone searching for the Syriac-Aramean flag would notice that the colors were recently changed, I noticed this and attempted to fix it. I had already been active prior to it, me editing this topic would naturally also come across the flag.
Extended content
Me and Historynerd361 seeming to be active during the same periods is because we are both reacting to specific content changes made by Hogshine, Historynerd361 had also edited this specific page before (while Wlaak was still around). I do not deny that we seem to be on the same side of this specific content dispute, but sharing a viewpoint is not evidence of coordination, in my opinion. I would also note that we have not "farmed" consensus nor tag-teamed, in fact, I would like to believe that we adhered to WP:DROPTHESTICK here, which is also evident in Hogshine's version to be standing today. In my honest opinion, Historynerd361 seems to have been active when Wlaak was active, his editorial patterns (such as creating drafts; in the past, while Wlaak was still around, as well as recently) as well as activity level, seems to not deviate from that time, so I do not see how they would be meat/sock puppets, let alone have me linked to him.
In the SPI you had linked, Asilvering, who looks to be the most involved person in this dispute, made a comment not thinking Historynerd361 and Wlaak to sound the like the same person at all, judging by edits/behavioural patterns I assume. I have not gone through all his edits etc., but the few ones I have, I do not see a change in edit pattern nor "speech" from then.
Finally, I have already begun distancing myself from this topic area, and my activity has significantly decreased compared to a few weeks ago. I believe a block/topic-ban would be too extreme considering the reasons. I do admit that I think all involved parties should distance themselves a bit, hence I will see this as a "semi-topic-restriction" until I get further experience. It is way harder trying to clear me from meat/sock puppetry since I have nothing prior to compare to from this topic, I am sorry if there is confusion still.
I do not know what else, except the above, is linking me and Historynerd361, if there are any additional questions you have for me, please do not hesitate to ask me. We can perform a CheckUser to exclude sockpuppetry, but naturally, it can't clear your concerns of meat puppetry.
777network (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Statement by (username)

[edit ]

Result concerning Hogshine

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

Iskandar323

[edit ]
No action — Newslinger talk 03:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

Request concerning Iskandar323

[edit ]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
(削除) BlookyNapsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC) (削除ここまで) (Nota bene Compromised account)[reply ]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 21 September 2021 logged warning
  2. 25 September 2021 topic banned from ARBPIA for 12 months
  3. 23 January 2025 indefinitely topic banned from ARBPIA on WP:AE
  4. 21 February 2025 - Logged warning for tban violation by ARBCOM in ARBPIA5
  5. 26 November 2025 - 2 week site block for tban violations
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  • @Guerillero: can you explain more about the process with ARCA? Does this mean the report should be closed here and then reopened there? and who is responsible to send the issues to ARCA? me, as the filer of this report, or admins? 07:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Iskandar323

[edit ]

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

Statement by Iskandar323

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

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

@Butterscotch Beluga: Again, all but the last three items of this filing date to before or during my last block. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@Nehushtani: As has already been mentioned, the Bondi page CTOPs were discussed and the ARBPIA template was rejected by admins. And asking editors not to post on your own user talk is allowed, per WP:USERTALKSTOP. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@Guerillero: no one edit is a giant problem ... yes! So why even join dots between edits at pages with no templates and push a CTOP link? Four of these edits predate my last block, including one related to it (the one defined problem). At least one edit saw me thanked by an admin, @Doug Weller, presumably because OR and misleading content are still, in principle, bad things. Meanwhile this edit is part of a collegiate effort involving other editors on talk aimed at moving the page away from any one academic POV, nothing else. @AndreJustAndre launched the effort in this thread. The wider edit package just removed one 'parent' that was unsupported on page. If there's a CTOP angle there, I need help to see it. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Statement by Cdjp1

[edit ]

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

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

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

[edit ]

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

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

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

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

Statement by TarnishedPath

[edit ]

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

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

Statement by Nehushtani

[edit ]
  1. Dome of the Rock has the ARBPIA template. I don't know why the talk page does not, but if the article is restricted, so is the talk page. I would have expected the editor to more diligent in checking that considering that they had just finished a site block for similar violations.
  2. Regarding 2025 Bondi Beach shooting, British police announced following the shooting that they will arrest protestors who chant "globalise the intifada", a chant against Israel used at pro-Palestinian rallies [29]. The connection is not only only that Jews and Israeli were tageted by Islamists, but governments around the world recognise the connection between the attack and pro-Palestinian protests. How could this be interpreted as being unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict?
  3. In addition to the above violations, on 15 December 2025 they removed a phrase that appears in 1988 Hamas charter (to quote from that article "The 1988 Hamas charter proclaims that jihad against Jews is required until Judgement Day."). In their edit summary, they cited "marginal sourcing" from Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust museum.
  4. 17 December 2025 - They violated WP:CIVIL.
  5. They wrote to me in an edit summary on 4 December 2025 "please consider yourself disinvited from my talk page". This violates WP:CIVIL and/or WP:BATTLE.
  6. Iskandar323 says above in their statement that "I'm also not sure why they have posted a litany of items from before my latest block, which obviously were known about and factored in at the time of that block." But the pattern shown here is very disturbing. The user had multiple TBAN violations, and following a block for those violations, they continue with the same behavior. Multiple warnings and a temporary site block have not detered them from violating their TBAN over and over again. I see no alternative to an indef CBAN. Nehushtani (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

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

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

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

Statement by The Kip

[edit ]

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

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

Statement by Levivich

[edit ]

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

Statement by (username)

[edit ]

Result concerning Iskandar323

[edit ]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • No comment on the actual issue (I will do so when I have time to study it) but I am going to make the observation that a scan of this page appears to suggest a number of editors with relatively low edit-count are still trying to weaponise AE as a tool against their ideological opponents; there are now three sections with the same people doing this over and over again, and the filing editor here (1,074 edits) appears to be one of those. And call it ABF, but I can't help thinking that there may be some sort of off-wiki collaboration occurring here. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    • The Kip Yes, I acknowledge that, but I am also always understandably wary when new-ish/low-editcount accounts start peppering AE with requests that their "opponents" be banned, especially when there are multiple editors involved. In such cases I generally start looking to see if those accounts are net positives in the CTOP area; I haven't had a chance to do this yet, but I will when I get a moment (which probably won't be today, unfortunately). Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
      @Black Kite, any chance you've had a moment to look at the reporting accounts yet? -- asilvering (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
      Well, I was looking at BlookyNapsta's odd swerve into ARBPIA after a few years of non-contentious gnoming, but that seems to have been answered. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    • And, further, I'm always unimpressed with the "TLDR of diffs" approach trying to throw multiple items at the walls and seeing if one of them will stick. The thing I notice straight away is that all but the last four diffs predate Iskandar323's last block for violating their topic ban, so why are they there? I mean, it would actually be easier to leave them out if you wanted admins to analyse the ones that actually matter. Black Kite (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    • So - Diff 12 doesn't claim to be a violation, it's just "context". Same with Diff 15. So this boils down to a simple thing with Diffs 13 and 14 - are Dome of the Rock or 2025 Bondi Beach shooting covered by ARBPIA? I think we can discard 2025 Bondi Beach shooting - it's covered by ISIL, but again the talkpage has no mention of ARBPIA, and I think it's a stretch given that the gunmen were of Indian extraction. So that leaves Dome of the Rock - I actually wouldn't have been surprised if it was covered, and the protection says it is, but it's never had a talkpage ARBPIA notice as far as I can see. Further, Iskandar did not edit the article, they left a message on the TP which wasn't even tangentally related to ARBPIA. So I guess this is technically a breach, but I'd say it's the weakest one possible. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I guess I have a few days before I am an arb. Missing from this report is part of the interaction between Iskandar323 and Levivich (talk · contribs) where they both nakedly violate their topic bans the other day. [30] There is also a pattern of editing in the history of Judaism just outside of the topic ban where no one edit is a giant problem, but together they show an Israel-Palestine related POV being pushed ([31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]). I recommend sending this packet of issues to ARCA because we can't fully adjudicate everything here. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • We're 14 comments in, of which only 2 of which are from uninvolved administrators, and I don't think having lots of uninvolved, un-namedropped editors chiming in with opinions will be useful, especially given the sheer size of the other PIA threads that were active recently. I'm invoking AE participation restriction here to hopefully make it go smoother, even if this does ultimately end up at ARCA. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    I've placed the CT notice on the talk page of Dome of the Rock - I'm honestly tempted to say close without action on the diffs here. The TBAN violation is plausibly missable, although having wikiproject importance ratings for both Israel and Palestine means that it's not almost definitely missable. Looking at the substance of the comment itself, I concur with Black Kite on their thinking that the comment doesn't talk about ARBPIA. @Guerillero, we're probably fine to kick over the potential TBAN violation you've mentioned to (削除) you in a week or so (削除ここまで) ARCA. I agree with you that AE would struggle to adjudicate everything going on here. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Regardless of sending anything to ARCA, I'd suggest that this report be closed since the filer has been globally locked as a compromised account. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • After reviewing WP:ANI § BlookyNapsta and AFD participation, I concur that this filing should be closed with no action. The account used to submit this filing, which has since been globally locked, was compromised at the time of filing and its illegitimate edits should be disregarded. Any editor with standing may incorporate the information here into a future filing on this noticeboard or at WP:ARCA, with the understanding that any edits that resulted in prior sanctions might be discounted or disregarded in a request for future sanctions. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Afus199620

[edit ]

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

[edit ]
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 [38] [39] 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

[edit ]

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

[edit ]

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 Zanahary

[edit ]

Uninvolved editor: I’d like to point out that the source in question is a book by a former WP:MINTPRESS writer published by Trine Day, which has catalogue sections on its website for JFK conspiracies and 9/11 conspiracies, among others. I feel that an editor who doesn’t recognize a publication like that to be inappropriate for use on Wikipedia at all, let alone as the sole source for unflattering material in a BLP, should at minimum not be allowed to edit BLPs.꧁Zanahary ꧂ 21:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Statement by (username)

[edit ]

Result concerning Afus199620

[edit ]
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 ]
  • I agree with what you've said Sennecaster. Regarding what should be done, I don't think anything more than a warning is needed, I'm not even sure it needs to be a formal logged warning but rather a warning to reacquant themselves with WP:BLP and WP:BALANCE and to always lean in favour not including content that could be controversial or has been challenged. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    @Callanecc; A user with over 21,000 edits should absolutely know better than to make these kinds of arguments, and I don't think an informal warning is the correct approach here. BoyDannyOh caught a 1 month block and an indefinite topic ban under BLP for content that, even before the BLPN discussion, was already contested in that article. I'm now convinced that placing Afus under a Jeffrey Epstein topic ban is probably the best route of action - the diff on the 24th also contains an assumption of bad faith that I had forgotten about, and the disproportionate response of one editor getting blocked and a tban and one getting an informal warning feels wrong here. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    If the concern is BLP more generally, which it appears to be from your comment, won't a broader BLP TBAN will be needed? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    I didn't get a chance to look at their other BLPs yet, but I should in the next day or so. My thinking is that an Epstein tban under BLP would probably be not burdensome to abide by, curb the disruption, and could be expanded easily to BLPs in general if needed. I am honestly hesitant to levy a full BLP tban without some kind of warning but am equally hesitant to close this with just a warning, if that makes sense. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 19:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    It does, I'm happy with a TBAN from Epstein combined with a more general warning that anything further will likely result in a block or full BLP TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

IOHANNVSVERVS

[edit ]
Warned and closed. Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning IOHANNVSVERVS

[edit ]
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: [40]. I reverted him that day: [41]. 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: [42]. 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

[43]

Discussion concerning IOHANNVSVERVS

[edit ]

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

[edit ]

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?"[44]

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."[45]

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.[46] 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.[47] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Pinging @Drmies. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I'd like to say that I'm fine with this being closed without my accusations against Zanahary being addressed. I'll file a separate report eventually if necessary. Happy new year everyone. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Statement by Nehushtani

[edit ]

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

[edit ]

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 [48] 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

[edit ]

While the content dispute itself is a good faith disagreement concerning the article the manner in how it played out violated the One-Revert Rule. The restoration of the material without reaching consensus on the talk page violates the restrictions on this article. Given that IOHANNVSVERVS realized the error and self-reverted a warning I am going to use discretion and will not issue a block at this time. IOHANNVSVERVS is formally warned that future violations of 1RR or restoring contested material without consensus could result in sanctions. This is more firm than I would have liked but with these topics we have to keep things tight.

I would like to note that Aquillion had a good point that the behavior of Zanahary and refusing to discuss any of the content until IOHANNVSVERVS reverted their edit. This is not how BRD works and can have a negative effect on reaching consensus. This report is about IOHANNVSVERVS and not Zanahary but circumstances and context matter and I felt it should be noted in the close.

I would have preferred to see y’all work this out in meditation than come here to have me handle it. Before today I’ve seen the work both of you have done and it’s both important and impressive. My hope is that you two will be able to work together going forward, maybe if y’all are up to it on a topic that is less contentious that you two have in common. I’m not trying to force you two to be friends but I do believe that a professional and less hostile relationship is possible. I honestly believe that a lot of social cues and context is lost in online spaces which makes topics like this much more volatile. What I’m trying to say is that you both bring a lot of value here and it sucks if y’all are fighting, it won’t make this place better and it won’t build a better encyclopedia. I would encourage both of you to review WP:PILLARS and assume good faith in other editors. Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    Lucasattitude

    [edit ]
    Lucasattitude topic banned from Dhurandhar. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Lucasattitude

    [edit ]
    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Lucasattitude (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:ARBIPA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 09:31, 26 December 2025 WP:POV, brushing off WP:RS
    2. 09:42, 26 December 2025 WP:ASPERSIONs
    3. 10:08, 26 December 2025 More WP:ASPERSIONs and personal attacks (including my user name)
    4. 15:28, 27 December 2025 cites "personal view" as justification for a previous revert
    5. 15:39, 27 December 2025 continues to cite personal opinions even when reminded of WP:V and WP:NPOV.
    6. 01:46, 28 December 2025 More WP:ASPERSIONs and personal attacks
    7. 02:09, 28 December 2025 WP:ASPERSIONs now taking on the level of campaigning against an editor (me)
    8. 04:48, 29 December 2025 claims incorrectly that "dhruv rathee's rant" has been used as a source
    9. 01:34, 31 December 2025 WP:POV, shooting down WP:RS
    10. 05:45, 31 December 2025 WP:ASPERSION
    11. 13:13, 31 December 2025 WP:PA
    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 02:42 25 December 2025 (see the system log linked to above).
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    The editor constantly canvasses for the film Dhurandhar, casts WP:ASPERSIONs on me in particular, and enages in personal attacks. They are probably principally responsible for the toxicity on the talk page.

    Their first action was to revert my straightforward edit highlighting Pakistan issues in an Indian film called Dhurandhar. When queried on the talk page, the editor had nothing to offer other than personal opinions, which too came after 24 hours had elapsed. They claimed that opinions from The Wire and The Hindu (well-recognised WP:RS) are "irrelevant". They also seem to have an axe to grind on Dhruv Rathee, a political commentator with over 30 million subscribers on YouTube. Next came an aspersion: "maybe [you] want to undermine a film" and "cutting down things and adding your own pov".

    The page has an ECP now, and the editor can only comment on the talk page, which continues in the same vein everyday. Their latest contribution was to demand: "Remove propoganda word. and remove that essay subheader 'Factual accuracy and political messaging'". Apparently the majority of critics have "enjoyed" the film, which supposedly rules out propaganda as well as issues of factually accuracy. This is followed by an aspersion and a personal attack. They have not yet cited a single source to justify their views, or any Wikipedia policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Nofified

    Discussion concerning Lucasattitude

    [edit ]

    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 Lucasattitude

    [edit ]

    Statement by Orientls

    [edit ]

    Dhurandhar is yet another propaganda movie, that aims to provide a fictional story concerning the conflict between India and Pakistan in order to improve the image of Modi government. This subject concerns Indian military history, where users are required to get WP:ECP before they will even edit the related articles. Lucasattitude has only 205 edits. He should cease editing about this movie. Orientls (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    Statement by RangersRus

    [edit ]

    Lucasattitude has been given multiple warnings from removing content to attacking other editors to edit warring. After second edit warring, Lucasattitude was reported that resulted with page protection of Dhurandhar. Lucasattitude does not take warnings seriously by either ignoring it or replying with sarcasm. Talk page discussion on page Dhurandhar, clearly shows that Lucasattitude ignores the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, that has also been notified on user's talk page. RangersRus (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    Statement by (username)

    [edit ]

    Result concerning Lucasattitude

    [edit ]
    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • The article Dhurandhar has seen a massive amount of disruption both on the page, and the talk page where it is bombarded with multiple semi-comprehensible complaints from TAs and from accounts such as this one, that I can only assume it is the target of some type of off-wiki co-ordination (see also: User:SakuraSmart, blocked here a few days ago). I expect that the talk page will have to be protected soon as well because this isn't really sustainable. As for Lucasattitude, I note this edit to the director of Dhurandhar which is not only promotional but also introduces multiple grammar and English errors (which I'm just going to fix now); I don't think they are really competent to write longer pieces in articles. Meanwhile, I see removal of sourced material in a BLP without good reason [49] as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

      Cdjp1

      [edit ]

      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 Cdjp1

      [edit ]

      I'd like to withdraw this request, it can now be closed. Thanks. Nehushtani (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

      User who is submitting this request for enforcement
      Nehushtani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
      User against whom enforcement is requested
      Cdjp1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


      Sanction or remedy to be enforced
      WP:1RR
      Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
      1. First revert 10:10, 5 January 2026 (revert of this).
      2. Second revert 11:42, 5 January 2026 (partial revert of this, as they removed the "Barnaby Joyce blasts Anthony Albanese over Bondi probe as Jewish groups renew calls for national inquiry into anti-Semitism" citation).

      The article has a 1RR template. I requested that they revert, they insisted that they stand by the edit and that it had been discussed on the talk page, I told them that 1RR applies even if there's a talk page discussion, they doubled down again, I asked them once more to revert and they refused saying "There is no argument that can change my mind on the matter".

      Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
      1. 21:12, 6 November 2025 - They received a logged warning for behavior including 1RR violations.
      If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

      [1]

      Additional comments by editor filing complaint

      Ok, I see that Cdjp1 did indeed revert, but I missed it since they did not say in the edit summary that they were self reverting, and they insisted on their talk page that they would not. If so, this case is moot and can be closed, but I think that Cdjp1 needs to be more careful with 1RR and to communicate more effectively. Nehushtani (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

      @Callanecc - Perhaps I didn't put this in the correct place before, but this user has previously received a logged warning for 1RR here. Nehushtani (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
      Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

      [2]

      Discussion concerning Cdjp1

      [edit ]

      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 Cdjp1

      [edit ]

      The self-revert can be found here that was done over 30 minutes before this filing (and ten minutes before my supposed refusal), after Nehushtani had provided the correct differences to show a violation, and before Nehushtani continued to discuss the matter on my talk page. At no point did I refuse to revert, I stated my view that such a tabloid should not be re-added to the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

      Insisted that they would not except at no point did I say I would not self-revert. Communicating more effectively includes not making assumptions about what other editors have said. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

      @Arcticocean: I am not versed enough to the requirements/rational for a 1RR exception to make such an argument. I do think the tabloid is unnecessary due to the availability of sources that have been determined to be GREL that provide the same information. But as the action without making an exception case did break the word of 1RR, on it being pointed out and evidenced to me that I had broke the 1RR, I self-reverted as is the standard action taken by editors in such cases, to avoid the cost of energy and time that is an arbitration enforcement request. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

      As it seems to be misunderstood, what I think is the correct action over the use of tabloids does not supersede the P&Gs we have. The violation of 1RR was not intentional, but as it did occur then whatever actions are deemed necessary as corrective should be implemented. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

      @Black Kite: from the talk page discussions, the article in question (wrongly in my opinion) is not covered by ARBPIA bar a couple of specific sentences. It is under the CTOP that covers IS to my knowledge. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

      Statement by Jéské Couriano

      [edit ]

      @Black Kite: I believe the CTOP in question is WP:GS/SCW. Per this motion general sanctions regimes may now be enforced via this board. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

      Statement by (username)

      [edit ]

      Result concerning Cdjp1

      [edit ]
      This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
      • ​Cdjp1, undoing a second revert will not undo a violation of 1RR. You've clearly described that WP:RS was the reason for your revert, in that you considered the low-quality tabloid source to be unreputable. Do you accept that this would not have been a permitted exception to the 1RR restriction?While the filing user has 'withdrawn' this request, filing users are often not best-placed to decide whether a request is without merit and should be withdrawn. This request will remain open, absent a consensus to close it from reviewing admins. Arcticocean ■しかく 19:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

      AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /