Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive369

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ratnahastin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:00, 3 April 2026 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia

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

1. 21 March - Rude and uncollaborative approach.
2. 22 March - Another rude edit summary
3. 2 April - Another rude edit summary while reverting warning
4. 25 March - casting WP:ASPERSIONS
5. 27 March - engaging in the same battleground mentality as above
6. 30 March - Unnecessarily adding toxicity to a fair discussion. Himself engaging in battleground behavior but falsely accusing others of "brazen ideological battleground complaints" regarding the source in question.
7. 30 March - 31 March - Made 3 reverts to remove reliably sourced content from Diet in Hinduism.[1] [2] [3]
8. 2 April - Canvassing and exhibiting page ownership.

Diffs since this report

1. 4 April - Provided a misleading analysis of the cited sources. Almost doubled down when called out.[4]
2. 4 April - Falsely claimed that the quote is not supported by the source. Repeated the same false claim on talk page.[5] Apologized after being called out.[6]
3. 4 April - Fourth revert over the same sourced content.
4. 6 April - Fifth revert over the same content with the same status quo stonewalling.
5. 2 April tagbombing Firstpost article following discussion on about the subject on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Firstpost
6. 11 April - Edit warring to keep the article tagbombed
7. 11 April - continued edit warring and still no activity on the talk page.[7]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None applicable

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

[8]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Barkeep49 and Rosguill: The diffs I provided here show that TryKid continued edit warring even during the report on multiple pages. That is concerning. Barkeep49 here warned against "Further battleground behavior" on 22 April, and it seems that TryKid is still continuing the battleground behavior on another thread right now with comment such as this where TryKid is failing to assume good faith, making unfounded allegations of misconduct and unnecessarily causing distraction. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[9]

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.

(Diffs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 of the original report are in the context of Talk:Dhurandhar: The Revenge)

Diff 1: Removal of a template that was placed for two edits ([10] [11]) restoring the status quo while discussion was ongoing. An admin action was eventually necessitated to restore this status quo against aggressive edit warring.

Diff 2: Removing another template posted for two edits ([12] [13]) restoring an edit request with substantive discussion that was closed without any attempt to resolve the underlying issue. The edit request was closed after I started an RfC.

Diffs 4 and 5: I agree the talk page was not the right venue to raise my concerns, and I took the advice given at the time and did not post further.

Diff 6: admittedly forceful, but nothing beyond the pale I believe.

(Diffs 3, 7, and 8 are in the context of the content dispute over at Talk:Diet in Hinduism, which seems to have triggered this report.)

Diff 8: The pinged editors are longtime contributers to the article who have previously collaborated on the article despite mutual disagreements and participated in previous discussions on the talk page. Seeking wider input by pinging previous regular contributors is not canvassing.

Diff 7: My engagement with the article was constructive and collaborative. A timeline: an edit adds a long, misattributed quote, I revert along with other material (I ideally should have made individual reverts), but it is added back (with correct attribution this time). I revert again but offer a rewritten version based on WP:FIXCLOSEPARA: (Extensive quotations are forbidden by policy.) EarthDude states that the idea of not extensively quoting copyrighted sources verbatim in article body "is completely made up, out of thin air". The verbatim quote is added back.

Diff 3 is the removal of another template similar to the other two above. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss ]} 18:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC) reply

@Rosguill: by usage of these news reports, I meant the use of online text articles on Wikipedia; as apparently no edit in particular, nor any particular (on-wiki) citation to the source under consideration was contested in the discussion. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss ]} 23:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC) reply

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

I find the evidence here to be a mixed bag. I'm not particularly moved by the first few diffs of slightly snippy user talk page edit summaries in response to getting templated. As noted in the response from me that TryKid already highlighted in relation to the asserted "aspersions" at Dhurandhar: The Revenge, I think that the comments highlighted in this report are approaching problematic but don't quite cross the line, and TryKid disengaged when advised. I'm more concerned by the RSN comment highlighted in diff #6--in particular, the assertion No evidence has been presented to suggest the usage of these news reports are problematic seems specious--editors clearly indicated that there were verifiable examples of problematic reporting attested at Zee News#Controversies, and reviewing that page now, at least some of the examples there clearly affect the publication's print coverage. It's perfectly valid for an editor to disagree the specific examples and argue against them, but claiming that there was "no evidence" is disingenuous crossing into tendentious. Conversely, diffs #7 have extended justifications in the edit summaries, so their propriety is inconclusive in the absence of further evidence demonstrating that these arguments were misleading/tendentious/etc. I don't think that diff #8 adds up to "ownership", and the canvassing accusation is undermined by the fact that both of the other editors identified had previously actively edited that article.

Moving on to the post-filing diffs, diff 1-B does seem concerning; reviewing the sources in question, it's hard to see how TryKid could have arrived at their conclusions in good faith. For 2B, I can readily believe that TryKid's assessment was misled by the mistaken page number and a failed ctrl+f search, so that one is less concerning (although if there is a consistent pattern of failing to do due diligence when it is POV-convenient, that can become an issue). For 3B and 4B, the context of a TA editing a caste topic is an exculpatory factor, and the impropriety of the second revert is not self-evident. Regarding the final diffs concerning Firstpost, I'm of the opinion that TryKid was on one level justified in insisting on keeping a template on the page pending resolution of the dispute, but the number of templates used was excessive and disruptive.

I would appreciate other admins' input here. Overall, I do think there is some concerning battleground behavior on display, even though not every edit here is immediately problematic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC) reply

TryKid, the clarification regarding the news reports comment is appreciated, and think your position as expressed in the reply here is much more valid (although I would also hold that it's valid for the editors arguing against your position to assert that the controversies associated with Zee news--if found to be systematic, to affect its print/web coverage, and to include a pattern of a lack of taking accountability in the aftermath--are reason enough to call for a source assessment discussion). I think it behooves us to be careful to be precise and clear when making statements in discussions that could be taken as dismissing multiple editors' comments out of hand. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC) reply

Ratnahastin, to be honest I find many of the non-admin responses to Shaan Sengupta's ban appeal to be flirting with BATTLEGROUND attitudes (at best). Both the insistence that mentioning "Bharat" in any context is tantamount to an intent to POV-push, and the naive response from Sengupta and their defenders failing to see why others may view references to "Bharat" in English as a contentious POV, represent a failure to engage collegially. While this may move the needle on our evaluation of TryKid somewhat, I think such a basis for a sanction would also require us to follow through and sanction others engaged in that thread. Barkeep49, you've probably received more than enough pings already but I would appreciate your thoughts here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC) reply

I agree that lots of people in this topic area could do a little bit better about creating conditions to find consensus. However, I am unconvinced that the AN post does much to move the needle in terms of TryKid's behavior compared to what's already here. What outcome are you thinking Rosguill? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC) reply

I think a logged warning regarding BATTLEGROUND would be appropriate overall. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 27 April 2026 (UTC) reply

While I leaned just short of that below, I am OK with making it a logged warning rather than just the feedback here. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure this quite rises to "logged warning" territory, but I do think TryKid needs to take Rosguill's feedback to heart. Further battleground behavior could lead to some sort of topic ban as a next step. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC) reply

This is overdue for closure. I am okay with either an informal or formal warning, in Rosguill's discretion as the admin who has looked at this most closely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson (WP:GS/MJ)

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

1. 2020年05月29日 (context): «Maureen Orth and that Vanity Fair article has been banned from being used as "source."»
2. 2023年12月21日 (context): "Maureen Orth's sources on the topic of Jackson has been banned per consensus years ago."
3. 2023年12月21日 (context): "And that is the consensus that got her banned from Jackson topics. As I can recall it, she’s also banned from the topic of Bill and Hillary Clinton for the same reasons."
4. 2025年12月05日 (context): "the person speaking in the podcast has been banned as a source on the topic of Jackson" (FBI, This Week episode)
5. 2026年05月03日 (context): "Dimond it’s not allowed to be used as a source on Jackson per past consensus."
6. 2026年05月07日 (context): "Orth is also a banned source on the topic of Jackson via past consensus"
7. 2026年05月07日 (context): "The discussion can be found on Michael’s main page, and it applies to all of his pages. Dowd, Orth, Dimond, primary sources related to either the accuser family or the accused of family, and Victor are all disallowed."
8. 2026年05月08日 (context): «"Banned" was probably not the appropriate word to use here as there was never an RFC», "While I do have some of these discussions linked on my Mac, even then some links are dead or have changed. If a discussion wasn’t had here it was had there or somewhere else. I can’t remember where every last discussion took place across all of Jacksons pages."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2019年12月16日: Blocked for 72 hours for personal attacks made in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive316 § Meatpuppetry across the Michael Jackson articles
2. 2020年07月09日: Blocked for 36 hours from the FBI files on Michael Jackson article for edit warring
3. 2023年05月27日: Blocked for one month for meatpuppetry (inappropriate off-wiki coordination); see SPI case which explains overlap in Michael Jackson topic area
4. 2025年07月19日: Topic banned (by me) from all pages related to Michael Jackson for bludgeoning with LLM-generated comments on Talk:Michael Jackson and in a DRN case
5. 2025年07月19日: Unbanned (by me) on appeal, subject to unban condition that prohibits "using a large language model (LLM) to make edits on Wikipedia, which includes edits that are LLM-generated or LLM-assisted, regardless of whether the LLM use is disclosed"

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 2020年01月03日 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is an administrative referral from an RSN discussion about TruthGuardians's claim that certain individuals, including Maureen Orth and Diane Dimond, are "banned" from use as sources on Michael Jackson–related articles. I and other editors are unable to find evidence of these "bans". While reviewing TruthGuardians's edit history, I found that they've been saying this to multiple editors since 2020 without providing substantiation when asked. Now that I've thoroughly examined TruthGuardians's history in WP:GS/MJ, I believe their track record here is concerning. At a minimum, I'd support a topic ban of TruthGuardians from WP:GS/MJ, and am seeking a second opinion from AE for appropriate sanctions. — Newslinger talk 17:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

Thanks for an opportunity to speak. As I’ve already stated [14] I thought uncontested consensus meant a source could not be used. It was brought to my attention today that "ban" was not the correct word to use in this case as an RFC had not taken place, which I’ve also acknowledged earlier today. I mean as you pointed out I’ve been saying it for years. No one thought or sought to correct me until today and I think that was BlueSky, Black Skies or whoever they were. I guess I’m not seeing the big issue here over or even what Wikipedia policies were broken over a misunderstanding, but at the same time understand why it could be an issue. And once I learned, of course that an RFC is needed to officially ban a source, I even recommended moving forward with an official RFC to do just that. I’ve been one of the primary constructive contributors on this topic over the years, not a disruptor, although I have stopped disruptive, editing, many times. I mean, it’s ultimately up to you guys what you decide to do, but here I have stated the truth.

After reflection, I realized that I may have also been getting Dowd and Orth confused. They have the same first name for starters., they are both known for salacious pieces on Jackson, they both would probably be classified under the same demographics, and they both are journalist. While saying that either one was banned was politically incorrect on Wikipedia, I have definitely confused the two here and there. Oh my goodness.TruthGuardians (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthGuardians (talk • contribs) 18:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC) reply

[@voorts:]

Umm... from what I can recall and the evidence posted above. I was only blocked once for edit warning ever. And when I first started off, I was treating Wikipedia like a forum, because I mean obvious reasons... being new... and was blocked for I believe a personal attack, not for disruptive editing, which can be seen as disruptive. I get it. So if you wanna say I’ve been blocked twice for being disruptive, I guess you wouldn’t be wrong. With the first one coming in 2019, and the second one was in 2020. Since then I’ve been involved in many admin board discussions about other editors who would end up getting topic banned or blocked on the topic, taken an article to GA status, worked constructively with other editors, been on the winning side of various arbitrations, RFCs, and other consensus gathering forums, and have not made an edit that has been considered "bad" or lacking in encyclopedic value. But sure if you wanna focus on those two instances, then go ahead. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC) reply

Stop pinging my name every single time. I’m pretty sure I told you this years ago. You’re also not doing yourself any favors here by bringing up an arbitration that did not go you way on an article with GA status. TruthGuardians (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC) moving reply to danieljarva to correct section. Valereee (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC) reply

• Typo TruthGuardians (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC) moving stray comment to correct section. Valereee (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for the advice. It just so happens that I’ve ended up

  here because of other accounts who got their start on Jackson pages, ie Daniele above. TruthGuardians (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Moving to correct section. TruthGuardians, please comment only in your own section. Valereee (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC) reply

BilledMammal 's data here [15] also indicates that nearly 100% of TruthGuardians edits to Wikipedia in 2025 and 2026 are in the MJ topic area. Katzrockso (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC) reply

I'd like to point out that these issues have been going on for years.

There's been complaints of bias already in 2023.

For example, a lot of discussions on the FBI Files on Michael Jackson have been hijacked with false content and original research. Attempts to clarify have been ignored or ostracized.

Any content that does not support 100% the innocence of Michael Jackson gets removed instantly. For example, despite the evidence requested, the FBI Files on Michael Jackson page still contains the claim that "the FBI made several investigations into Jackson". As per User:TruthGuardians own words, "There is nothing to fix. If you believe that there is, you can file for arbitration for the third time just to be told exactly what I’ve been saying already"[...] I truly recommend finding the past arbitrations on this topic and others to understand how and why your request is impossible. Understand how the article has evolved overtime with the assistance of multiple admins, experienced editors, and those with opposing views who have all contributed to make it what it is today." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanieleJava (talk • contribs) 15:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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

I’ve been one of the primary constructive contributors on this topic over the years, not a disruptor, although I have stopped disruptive, editing, many times. @TruthGuardians: then why have you been repeatedly blocked and topic banned from the topic area? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC) reply

I'm not inclined to issue a TBAN here, particularly since nobody had ever pointed this issue out to TruthGuardians prior to the RSN discussion. I'm leaning toward an informal warning to carefully follow sourcing and verifiability guidelines and an admonishment to proactively seek consensus for in the topic area. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC) reply

voorts Though I note that TruthGuardians has previously taken part in at least one sourcing RfC on the Jackson page here. I would strongly suggest, however, that any RfC takes place at RS/N, not on the Jackson talkpage, as RfCs on those pages tend to only go one way [16]. Black Kite (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC) reply

• I agree with voorts that no action is required. I don't oppose issuing an informal warning for the error that TruthGuardians has now accepted. Arcticocean ■しかく 09:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC) reply
• I'm okay with an informal warning now, with the understanding that a more severe result is likely if a meritorious report brings us back here. I also informally counsel TruthGuardians to consider gaining some more diversified experience working in less fraught topic areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  +1, and @TruthGuardians, NYB is giving you good advice. Contentious topics are a really bad place to learn to edit. Valereee (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC) reply

• Putting aside my knee-jerk reaction to the username here, I agree with NYB --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC) reply

• WareWolf665 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/SA (WP:CT/CASTE and WP:CT/IMH)

The editor was informed of WP:CT/SA sanctions on 18 October soon after they created their account (warning, acknowledgement). Further notifications of WP:ECR restrictions for WP:CT/CASTE (which includes all social/ethnic groups in South Asia) topics were made on 5 and 18 November including by me (warning, warning, acknowledgement), further still in March this year (warning, acknowledgement). Another ackowledgement by the user at RSN recently: [17]. The user acknowledges and agrees not to violate the sanctions in each instance further but clearly does not follow through for there has been an uninterrupted violation of the ECR restriction at multiple articles since they created their account despite multiple warnings. Stunningly enough WareWolf665 warned another editor of WP:CT/IMH restrictions (warning, acknowledgement).

ECR vios even after multiple warnings are too numerous to list (the entire edit history being filled with them) but some recent ones include: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]

I think enough AGF and ROPE has been extended here. Gotitbro (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC) reply

I've given a time-out. -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NorthernWinds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/PIA

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

1. 28.2.2026 Said This page is complete BULLSHIT; making statements about the editors: If smb had tried to make a term look ridiculous, as in: propaganda and/or a result functional illiteracy, rather than encyclopedic approach, they would have acted exactly like this page's editors.
2. 28.2.2026 I've never, ever, seen such an UTTER BULLSHIT PAGE on all of Wikipedia; "That's how it looks like when nationalism goes berserk, especially when coupled with functional illiteracy"
3. 28.2.2026 Useless, unfunny and uncivil usage of sarcasm: Good upstanding citizens of eternal Palestine! I insist you put them back in right away, unless you wish to discredit the religiously tolerant nature of the Palestinians, which would be a deed too nasty to imagine. I also believe that unless wish to discredit the religiously tolerant nature of the Palestinians is a racist insinuation that Palestinians are not religiously tolerant.
4. 12.3.2026 Assumption of bad faith.
5. 5.5.2026 Calling User:Tiamut a "freedom fighter" and "activist".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 10.10.2023 48h block battleground
2. 15.10.2024 90 day topic ban for incivility, violating 1RR, and disruptive editing.

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

[25]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Noting that I was uninvolved at the time of these diffs and events.

This user seems like a racist, uncivil pro-Israel POVed editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. They have no place in this project NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 22:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC) reply

In a conversation we've had Arminden has said that they are mostly interested in history and archeology (which seems true from their recent editing history). They also said that they generally try to avoid political topics. I think that a topic ban will suffice in giving them the extra push they need to achieve their own goals of avoiding politics. I would suggest making the ban not "broadly construed" though (or making an exception) since they do seem to make good contributions to archeology pages in the region of Palestine. NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 14:34, 8 May 2026 (UTC) reply

@Valereee If a 1-way Iban is this hard to follow, why not (追記) always (追記ここまで) impose a 2-way Iban? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2026 (UTC) reply

Sometimes only one person is the problem, or is 90% of the problem, or is 75% of the problem. At some point we would decide they're both at fault, but if an editor is simply being harassed by another editor, we don't sanction the person who appears to primarily be on the receiving end. Valereee (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC) reply

@Valereee But interacting with an editor who's banned from interacting with you is problematic. Isn't it the perfect recipe for stonewalling? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC) reply

Absolutely. No matter what they say about your edits, you can't respond. It's a terrible spot to be in, and that's why I queried Arminden's understanding of what they were saying they preferred. But if we do not allow 1-ways, we motivate people to go harass those who criticize their edits so they can get a 2-way and prevent those folks from criticizing their own future edits. It's difficult. If you have a brilliant solution, please bring it to Village Pump. :) Valereee (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2026 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I understand now. I took it to Village Pump and proposed a more lenient solution. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC) reply

@Arminden It may be useful to provide links to these edits rather than just stating that they exist NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [26]

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.

Hi. I was tempted to ignore this and let things go whichever way they may, but that would be wrong, too.

Please check how many dozens of times I've corrected articles by replacing Israel with Palestine - Palestine region, Ottoman Palestine, Mandate Palestine - or a number of other wikilinked entities. I believe to be quite the opposite of what you accuse me to be.

This is an attempt at silencing an editor who has contributed a very large amount of reliable, balanced (!), useful material not only, but specifically to the topics of Israel, Palestine and Jordan. Not as a POV activist, to the point that others wondered where on the "I/P scale" I belong: this is indeed total BS, not everyone has to be pro this or anti that. What I am indeed anti, is Wiki activism, as a form of unencyclopedic, ideological approach. And this approach has plenty of representatives during the current wars. As I wrote in that specific thread, it's perfectly OK to be a freedom fighter and activist in the wider world, but this has no place whatsoever in writing an encyclopedia. I challenge anyone to prove the opposite.

"This user seems like a racist, uncivil pro-Israel POVed editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. They have no place in this project."

1. Racist: that's beyond laughable. What race do I look down upon? If you go the Nazi way and mistake race with something else, like ethnoreligious or ethnic group, which would be the one I dispise? I come from such a mixed cultural background that this would require quite some acrobatics on my behalf. I'm quite proud of my upbringing, and racism stood in the "untouchable" cabinet.
2. Uncivil: there I don't know. When does pushing an unreasonable-to-the-limit case reach the point where it's a deep offense to every thinking person's intelligence and intellectual integrity? When does defending against intellectual incivility allow a frank expression of the obvious truth?
3. Pro-Israel: thank you for sorting out for me a never-ending dilemma I have. But at second thought... no, you haven't.
4. POVed: yep, if logic based on academic consensus and some cartesian-checked common sense checks the box, then "point of view" it is.
5. Editor: this I do indeed identify with, after 14 years of editing in 3 languages on a wide range of topics.
6. "Who is not here to build an encyclopedia. They have no place in this project." See the point above, plus please ask fellow editors, and please pick those I'm not supposed to be on the same side of the debates with, according to the accusations expressed here. I can name a few if you wish.

Now to the concrete topic of that thread. Plenty of very calm, thorough, and academic sounding fellow editors have - I'm firmly believing: convincingly - made the case that there's a fundamental difference between the two uses of the word "Palestinian":

1. An ethnic Palestinian is what the intro of the dedicated article says they are: "Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون, romanized: al-Filasṭīniyyūn) are an Arab ethnonational group native to the Levantine region of Palestine [redirecting to Palestine (region) ]."
2. Some use "Palestinian" as a non-ethnic geographical adjective. Anything and anybody in geological, prehistoric and historic times from the Palestine region is called by them Palestinian this or that.

Everybody seemed to agree to this logic. You can't mix up the Palestineity of, say, Yasser Arafat, with the geographic marker of being "Palestinian" of a dinosaur fossil from the Jordan Valley or of a Crusader baron born in the land, as opposed to one coming from Europe on crusade. Did I say "everybody seemed to agree"? Well, not quite: our fellow editor Tiamut de facto does not. She's pushing the case for amalgamating the two distinct categories to a point where there is no other rational, mathematically provable conclusion possible than: she's well intended, but misled. Misled by what? Activistic impulse. A person with a deep cause won't budge, or it would be self-denying. I expressed this conclusion in a matter-of-fact, I believe respectful way. Please read that talk-page entry rather than the collection of disparate quotes presented here. Editing together unconnected bits and pieces can make even Mother Theresa sound like a foul-mouthed racist. If Tiamut felt offended by what I wrote (this in spite of her replying: "As flattering as your assessment may be, ..."), I deeply aplogise to her and sincerely wish her well, as a person and no less as a Palestinian.

Cancel policy is shameful in an encyclopedic effort, especially when applied against those who support the rational mainstream approach to a topic. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC) reply

• Thank you, that's very kind, but I'll leave it at that. Arminden (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC) moved from results section; please comment only in your own section Valereee (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  Thank you. True, I've reached exasperation point and that leads to misjudgement and outbursts I regret. Should have stayed out altogether, mea culpa. Arminden (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)moved to correct section. Arminden, please comment only in your own section. Valereee (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC) reply

[@asilvering :]

I would prefer an IBAN. Tiamut and I have communicated now on a different page, things have been spelled out calmly and the dialogue has come to a conclusion. I often edit archaeology-, history-, and in that context sometimes geography-related topics on Southern Levant, and while I'm doing my best to not to touch on politics, anything in this region can be construed to be political, no matter how remote in time it is. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC) reply

I had planned to ignore this filing, but Arminden is using it to cast aspersions on and misrepresent my editing at List of Palestinians. I am here to edit and build this encyclopedia using reliable sources and faithful to WP:NPOV in its fullest expression, which means representing all significant POVs, not just those I like or excluding some because others dislike them. My position regarding the problems at that article are best expressed here. Some of you already know I asked for eyes on it on the WP:AE talk page, so I have nothing to hide. I am not going to address Arminden's behavior, will leave it to others, because as I said, I am not interested in spending my time like this. Thank you all for your time. Tiamut (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC) reply

I am sorry to have to do this, but Arminden seems unable to perceive how his positioning and contributions can be interpreted here, particularly when it comes to the subject of Palestinians, or when interacting with Palestinian editors like myself. Since I made this comment to him months ago, I have seen little improvement, as evidenced by the many diffs above. And when I asked him to engage in self-reflection on his talk page after the filing of this report, you can see in in his reply that he continued the argument, offering his opinions on Palestinian identity, history and criticizing me as an editor for not being more forthright about my own opinions, and for sticking to discussing only the sources! I do not believe he will be able to restrain himself, as he does not seem to see his commentary/actions accurately. Tiamut (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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

• @Arminden: your statement went over 250 words past the word limit. Because two other editors have replied to you, I've granted an extension up to what you've written, but please request a word extension on the talk page before adding anything more. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC) reply
• I'm not going to block someone for incivility over diffs from two months ago, but if I'd spotted those Feb 28 ones I'd have blocked on the spot without hesitation. Arminden, this is the most contentious topic on the entire project. You simply cannot speak to other editors that way here. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Arminden, Arcticocean has suggested an IBAN. You may wish to consider if you'd prefer a TBAN. -- asilvering (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC) reply

• The comment on 5 May alone justifies a sanction, and the edits from February and March strengthen the case, in particular starting a new discussion with the headline This page is complete BULLSHIT. The common subject matter, and where Arminden seems unable to behave reasonably, are edits and comments by Tiamut. A one-way interaction ban could address the disruption, and 1 year would be an appropriate duration. ​Arminden may take 150 additional words only to respond to these findings and proposed outcome. Arcticocean ■しかく 09:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC) reply
• For Arminden's persistent battleground conduct, including their repeated use of personal attacks, I support either an indefinite topic ban of Arminden from WP:CT/A-I or an indefinite one-way interaction ban of Arminden from Tiamut. The indefinite duration would require Arminden to successfully appeal the ban to have it removed. — Newslinger talk 10:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC) reply
• I'm planning to close this with a 1-way IBAN. theleekycauldron, Asilvering, any thoughts about length or if a different sanction would be appropriate? Arcticocean, would you be okay with it being indefinite, or do you prefer it being 1 year? Sennecaster (Chat) 23:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  I favour a topic-ban. They've already been blocked and tbanned for the same problems in this topic before. -- asilvering (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  The history also runs back to this 2023 block for battleground editing which appears to demonstrate similar conduct. As the discussion has already progressed some way and as those incidents were around two or more years ago, in my view an i-ban is the appropriate outcome. @Sennecaster: I would support an indefinite duration. Thanks, Arcticocean ■しかく 06:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  I was just handling some procedural stuff on this one, so I haven't looked into the merits; I can look further if this is still open when i next have time, but I hope it gets closed faster. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  Asilvering and ealdgyth favor a topic ban, Newslinger wants either, Arcticocean favors an IBAN. I honestly just was trying to see where people were at for sanctions since this has stalled out a little bit, and it was unclear on what sanctions were actually being favored here outside of "suggested an IBAN, someone just wants a sanction in place". Out of respect for how difficult a 1-way IBAN is to keep, especially when the people have overlapping topic areas, I will close with a TBAN from WP:CT/PIA. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Sennecaster, just want to clarify: if Arminden really does prefer a one-way IBAN, that's fine. For an experienced editor who believes they know how to navigate that, it could be better, and obviously Arminden is highly experienced. I just wanted to make sure they understood when they said they preferred it, and also understood the suggested iban was 1-way. Valereee (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Valereee; we do have two AE workers here favoring a topic ban and one person fine with either, so I'm at this point trying to un-stall this thread since the workers here agree something should be put in place. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  Sorry, not trying to throw a wrench in! Personally I think an appealable tban. Just wanted to make sure Arminden wasn't misunderstanding that an iban wouldn't be 2-way. Valereee (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  I think this will make matters easier – I do support a t-ban. It just wasn’t my first choice. Arcticocean ■しかく 07:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC) reply

• Arminden, a 1-way iban is one of the most difficult to comply with when two editors are working in the same area. It means you have to avoid the other editor, but they don't have to avoid you. You violate the iban by undoing an edit they made, which means when making an edit anywhere you'll need to check first to see if that editor has edited that article and make sure your edit isn't undoing one of theirs. If the two of you are in the same discussion, you can't comment on their comments, even if they comment on yours. You can't talk to them or mention them or discuss any of their edits, anywhere on Wikipedia. If you haven't read WP:IBAN carefully, you should. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC) reply
• I think I prefer a topic ban - they seem to have more issues with the topic than with a specific editor. The block from HJMitchell shows it's not just a specific editor, but the topic, which causes Arminden to have issues. Better to get them away from the topic. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

AZMARAYJANMOHAMMEDKHANKK233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia

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

Created Battle of Teri (1836) which is within both the caste and the military history ECRs.

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 May 15

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

All of the user's edits are either in or right along the edits of the ECR topic area. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC).reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk:AZMARAYJANMOHAMMEDKHANKK233#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

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.

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

• Pblocked from article space to see if we can get their attention, as they don't seem to have discovered talk pages yet. Valereee (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC) reply

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

Statements 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.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sectionsbut should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

American Angel1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Left guide (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC) reply

Sanction being appealed

Partial block from mainspace

Administrator imposing the sanction

Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[27]

Hello, I am sorry for editing the Russo-Ukraine war or adding topics in articles like Orestopil or the 2026 Southern Ukraine counteroffensive for example, without 500 edits, I now understand that editing it without the extended reviewer protections Inappropriate at my part as an editor who joined months ago and failed to reach 500 edits across Wikipedia articles before editing controversial articles

Differences that people don't agree with:

1. I added the article of the Third Battle of Lyman

2. I edited articles about the battle of Kostyantynivka

3. I also edited the 2026 Ukrainian Counteroffensive

4.I also added restricted parts about the Russo-Ukraine War. All of these articles violated protections in place about the Russo Ukraine war and its entirety.

I now better understand the Wikipedia policies (like the 500 edits one which requires you to join for 30 days and 500 edits before editing anything) and going forward I won't edit the article again without reaching required requirements and the consequences of actions like what I did over 4 articles about the same topic. American Angel1 (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC) reply

American Angel1, I'm fine to remove the block, but please understand that any further editing in this area before you hit extended confirmed is likely to result in a more serious block. You also need to pay attention to your talk page and be more communicative with other editors. Much of this could have been avoided had you listened to the first warning you were given. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC) reply

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

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

• This appeal was originally posted as a single block of text under a level-2 header. I've since converted it into the proper appeal template, and notified the enforcing admin. Left guide (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA

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

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

• The New York War Crimes: Added POV qualifiers under a misleading summary; restored content without justification after being reverted, engaging in an edit war.[28]
• Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: Added an WP:EASTEREGG link and POV categories.[29] When challenged, they relied on personal opinion rather than policy.
• Francesca Albanese: Used a misleading summary ("cleanup") to introduce significant wording changes and qualifiers raising MOS:DOUBT concerns.[30] They restored the change after multiple reverts and being warned, failing WP:1RR.
• Rachel Kushner: Introduced editorializing by adding POV content not supported by the source, with the edit summary only addressing a link addition.[31]
• Bearing Witness to the October 7th Massacre: Multiple violations of WP:TERRORIST.[32]
• Antisemitism during the Gaza war: Removed sourced content (with the edit summary "Not relevant"), later justified by personal opinion on the talk page.[33] [34]
• Yinon Plan: Removed attribution to use WP:WIKIVOICE for a controversial claim, with a misleading edit summary ("added see also").[35]
• Hamas: Injected qualifiers not supported by the cited sources, with a misleading edit summary ("added links").[36]
• German support for Israel in the Gaza war: Introduced WP:DOUBT changing "ongoing Gaza genocide" to "alleged Gaza genocide", with the edit summary only addressing a link change.[37] This addition of the "alleged" qualifier has happened multiple times across different articles.
• Turkish support for Hamas. Added a POV category unsupported by the article. When reverted, restored the addition citing a personal opinion as justification.[38]
• Germany–Israel relations: Added a contested claim in WP:WIKIVOICE.[39] Restored it after reversion. Qualiesin then took it to the talk page, where they argued that It would be bad practice to not clarify to readers that false claims are, in fact, false, but you seem determined to keep this information off the page; once again, treating their personal position as a settled fact that should be reflected in wikivoice regardless of policy.
• Taring Padi: Replaced an attributed statement with WP:WIKIVOICE with the summary "cleanup".[40]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None that I can find.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 7 December 2024 by Valereee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Notified by Cambial Yellowing about WP:1RR and edit warring regarding the Francisca Albanese article, on 16 February 2026
• Alerted about incorrect categorization in the topic on 17 April 2026 by Smasongarrison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

• Xaviaer DuRousseau: Continued use of biased pipe-linking to label the Gaza government as a "terrorist regime".[41]
• Political parties whose policies involve antisemitism: Further editorializing via links by piping "condemnation of Zionists" to Zionist as a pejorative, which is WP:OR.[42]
• Killing of Abdel Fattah al-Sharif: Violation of MOS:CLAIM and MOS:DOUBT.[43]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

AE notification

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.

Main Statement

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

Let's go through your complaints.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[44] [45] [46]

@Valereee

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

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

And here is another instance of someone talking to them about an edit which made changes to almost every section of this article, and in total, added 4,206 bytes, but had the inaccurate edit summary "added links, templates, citations, cleanup". This edit made significant POV changes (e.g., changing "Palestinian" to "Arab", changing "colonization" to "settlement") [47]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canvassing:

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified on 16 May 2026

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.

The diffs in order:

1. N/A
2. N/A
3. This was done due to several editors complaining that the RfC was unclear [48] [49] and misunderstandings regarding what the options mean
4. I assessed the consensus wrongly. This was later highlighted by VR
5. N/A (not my diff)

---

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

---

1. I honestly had no idea about this and no one (including you!) has brought it to my attention so far. You are very dishonestly dropping the fact that I was simply reacting to a talk thread [50]. Looking back this revert was linked in the beginning of the thread but I did not press these links (I assumed they were old)
2. See this #1

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[51] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I assumed this'd be quickly AEPR'd. Every single time SAP has participated at this noticeboard, it has been to defend others they're aligned with and attack others they aren't. Imo they're the epitome of WP:CPUSH, interactions at Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks#Reportedly in lead stick with me. See [52] [53] among other comments, where they uncompromisingly argue for attributing something no sources dispute (violation of Avoid stating facts as opinions), and pushed the specious point that "reportedly" doesn't cast doubt. Re uncompromisingly, see their response to Valereee's valiant attempt at consensus building [54] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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

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

I started a discussion about the problem of having too many RfCs at Talk:Zionism/Archive 40#RfC overload. The issues here and on the Zionism article in general line up with the observations in ScottishFinnishRadish's evidence from ARBPIA5: The community has limited energy to continuously engage with dispute resolution in this topic area, so frequent RFCs tend to draw diminishing returns until only invested editors remain.

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

@Asilvering:

The editor who appears to have been abusing CRP the most is @TarnishedPath, with a number of reverts giving no explanation beyond "there's no consensus" or "restore longstanding version": [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] TarnishedPath has already been topic banned from PIA for 90 days, but this stonewalling behavior, which goes back months (see their edits to the page and look at the edit summaries for their reverts), is strong evidence for making that topic ban permanent.

The other main editor who has been doing this (M.Bitton) has been banned from the project entirely. But for completeness, here's some diffs of M.Bitton's stonewalling: [60] [61] SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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

Not sure why this ARBCOM case was exactly filed. Most of these edits had already been hashed out elsewhere and involve Vice Regent. Northern Winds and Vice Regent appear to have already made amends [62] and have continued working in a collaborative manner in sandboxes.[63]

Also worth noting that two Wikipedia's who would not be considered as sharing NorthernWind's POV have stated since the filing that they haven't viewed NorthernWind's conduct on the Talk:Zionism page as concerning. [64] [65]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Asilvering - I do think they provided a decent source, and that the information in it should be added to the article. That source essentially says that Bahuns originated in Nepal. A TA who brought me to ANI over this same dispute also brought up another reliable-looking source that supports an Indian origin. ([66] ) However, the Oxford University source in the article, which I changed some lines based on, says that the origin is heavily disputed, often based on the ethnic group of the academic.I do want to make the article more accurate and up to date, but am worried that this won't end well, and my own knowledge in these subjects isn't that good. Not sure what I'm going to end out doing. Any advice would be appreciated. InfernoHues (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

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.

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

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

Hello Team, its a beautiful day. I have provided some reliable sources. @InfernoHues mentioned that he will do the changes as he accepted the source plus i have reuqested to remove the line about indian origin kannauj thing because that source is talking about newari bahuns not khas bahuns. I just wanna know what should i do? am i allowed to request an edit and provide reliable source? and if yes then how many days it takes that to be changed ... Please let me know if i am asking wrong question or doing any mistakes by asking all this here... all we want is to have correct information i hope you guys will take this in a positive way. You all have a beautiful day out there. just waiting for a page with correct information. Manasludamase (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Asilvering@Sennecaster@Valereee@Voorts Manasludamase has now posted above. They acknowledge that their previous behavior was poor (i appologies for my words as those came from emotion and anger bcz its aboytt whole community not me.; ... and at the last i apologies for my part of mistakes). However, this statement also contains a further aspersion against InfernalHues (he put some lines based on his personal beliefs). Manasludamase's editing since this request was filed has been minimal; the only clear issue is this [67], but it seems they were unaware of this filing at that point.

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

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

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

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

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

  @Sennecaster, @Toadspike, @Valereee, @Voorts, can we get behind a logged warning?

  @InfernoHues, if you want nothing more to do with this and want to simply close that talk page discussion and require Manasludamase to try again, that's well within your rights.

  @Manasludamase, you are indeed allowed to request an edit and provide reliable source. I cannot tell you how long it will take for changes to be made; it varies. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  @InfernoHues, happy to give a 3O on the content issue once this is resolved. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC) reply

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

Users against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/PIA/WP:CT/GENSEX

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

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

1. 6.3.2025 Sean.hoyland accuses me of "targeting" M.Bitton for filing at ANI.
2. 8.3.2025 When M.Bitton was blocked last year for bludgeoning and personal attacks, TarnishedPath used a purported joe job as a reason to call for a CU of all M.Bitton's perceived enemies.
3. 21.2.2026 Sean.hoyland insinuates without evidence that M.Bitton's accuser at an ANI was coordinating on Reddit. Twice. By coordinate I mean organize, plot, conspire.
4. 26.2.2026 TarnishedPath responded to ANI complaint against M.Bitton's faction by asking for a checkuser against the filer in the ANI thread.
5. 26.6.2026 Sean.hoyland says that the accusation that M.Bitton is a nationalist POV-pusher is the kind of thing people can read on social media written by agenda driven partisan actors whose value systems do not align with Wikipedia's. Arbs cited the same evidence for Pushing a pro-Arab–Algerian point of view[68].
6. 2.3.2026 TP denies that M.Bitton/Skitash/R3YBOl are a faction and said that the suggestion was WP:ABF. Arbs cited the same evidence and wrote this FoF[69].
7. 19.4.2026 TarnishedPath responds to AE filing against M.Bitton entirely by attacking the filer and other editors.
8. 22.4.2026 Sean.hoyland: no comment on M.Bitton's behaviour, but makes space to imply a witch-hunt: they are relentlessly targeted and will continue to be targeted until they are either topic banned or blocked.
9. 26.4.26 TP accused someone of WP:GRAVEDANCING for an innocuous good faith question about the implications of M.Bitton's ban.
10. 26.4.26 TarnishedPath reports someone who had given evidence against them at AE and been subject to M.Bitton's pattern of personal attacks, gaslighting and incivility, and has contributed at AE report of M.Bitton. Much of the reported behaviour is in response to or about M.Bitton. TP says it's a violation to imply that M.Bitton is a troll.
11. 10.3.2025 When M.Bitton/their allies were suspected of sockpuppetry, TarnishedPath described all discussion of it as innuendo that shouldn't be discussed outside SPI.
12. 30.4.2026 Sean.hoyland openly WP:ABF because I asked to comment on TarnishedPath's conduct.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

TarnishedPath:

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

Sean.hoyland:

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Ah, I see they retracted. My last comment was in reference to [70]. Samuelshraga (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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

@Black Kite: The CTs are related to the editing relationship between these editors and M.Bitton. M.Bitton and TarnishedPath are the two most prolific contributors to Talk:Imane Khelif where they have been aligned on the content.[71] This was brought up after the ARBMAG PD. (e.g. [72]) Samuelshraga (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC) reply

@SuperPianoMan9167 thanks, fixed.

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

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

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

• TarnishedPath commented 18 times
• M.Bitton commented 60 times
• They both !voted oppose[73] [74] (the consensus was ultimately a qualified support).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

asilvering [75] look who was edit warring first and worst. Additionally, [76]. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Sean.hoyland
• TarnishedPath

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Rosguill can you please specify which diffs you are referring to with "some problematic edits to articles presented by editors other than the initial filing report" so I can know where I went wrong. Are you referring to reverts where I invoked WP:CRP? Vice regent addressed that below. While I may not have given much reasoning in some of my edit summaries, I had always followed up in talk page discussions with more substantive arguments. TarnishedPath ^talk 00:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC) reply

@Rosguill, apologies for that. I know that with one of the most contentious article on Wikipedia that it is best practice to follow up any reverts with talk page discussion explaining your position. I don't know why I failed to fully do so in that circumstance. I hope you reviewed VR's comments in this filing and Paprikaiser's comments in the filing below, which indicate that I have followed up in other recent cases cited by SPM. TarnishedPath ^talk 23:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bananakingler, I'll admit that being concerned about editors being targeted off-wiki in the media, on social media etc., is a less popular position than indifference or treating it as irrelevant to on0wiki processes, but if this is your quirky way of thanking me for trying to help you avoid conflict, you're welcome. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Here are several diffs of TarnishedPath abusing the consensus required provision for stonewalling on Zionism. These reverts give no explanation beyond "there's no consensus" or "restore longstanding version": [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] This goes back months (see their edits to the page and look at the edit summaries for their reverts). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC) reply

I will note that M.Bitton is not the only user that TarnishedPath and Sean.hoyland have jumped to the defense of a user aligning with their POV when said user is accused of incivility. When Nishidani was taken to AE for using "Dumb goyim" ('goyim' is frequently used online in an antisemitic context [82]), both TarnishedPath and Sean.hoyland downplayed Nishidani’s conduct and attacked the filer.

TP:[83] SH:[84] SH:[85]

TarnishedPath casted aspersions about how other editors dissatisfied with the lead to the Zionism article were External parties will continue to encourage their audiences to edit this article in a way that benefits Israel’s image. [86]. However, TarnishedPath also opposed restructuring the lead to moveas few Arabs as possible elsewhere in the lead because It's best up front given Nakba's ongoing impact, most obviously on the ongoing conflict. [87].

During the recent WP:AE case against M.Bitton for his incivility and stonewalling on the Talk:Zionism page, [88], TarnishedPath criticized the filer and handwaved M.Bitton’s incivility. [89]. TarnishedPath did not use M.Bitton’s talkpage to address M.Bitton’s incivility or his conduct, but instead used his talkpage to vent about their frustrations with other editors on the page. [90].

However, shortly afterwards, TarnishedPath filed an WP:AE against another user on the same page for incivility [91].

May be worth looking into the EIA between M.Bitton, TarnishedPath, and Sean.hoyland: [92]. EaglesFan37 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC) reply

@Rosguill [93], [94], [95]. This is how I found that case. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

I have not read this gigantic report and TarnishedPath has already been sanctioned for behaviour at Talk:Zionism but I am pretty sure these were not taken into account (@ScottisFinnishRadish:?). On several occasions TarnishedPath has stated falsehoods which made it look as if I am engaging in bad faith/applying double standards [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101]. I don't know if he lied knowingly or if it was accidental. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SuperPianoMan9167, regarding this comment[102]: Every single one of those edits that TP reverted related in some way to content that had been previously discussed on the talk page (and in every single case TP took part in some of those discussions) and had proven contentious there:

• TP restores[103] language relating to "colonization", which has been discussed ad nauseum on the talk page (eg most of Talk:Zionism/Archive 24 and TP takes part in some of that discussion too) in what appears to be a blanket revert (which is not constructive and goes against WP:BABY).
• TP restores "ethnocultural"[104], which has been discussed here (among other places)
• TP restores[105] "settlers" language, debated here (among other places)
• These TP reverts[106] [107] related to the "outweighed" language, which had been previously discussed here (among other places).VR 01:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC) reply
• Rosguill regarding[108], that's indeed problematic. Bob first proposed removing some sources, among other changes, in a voluminous comment on 10 July[109] and TP engaged with parts of it [110] [111] but doesn't appear to have specifically commented on whether to remove certain sources, though TP implies they might engage with the rest when they have more time. Bob goes ahead and removes those sources, TP reverts[112], Bob pings TP on the talk page regarding it[113] and TP doesn't say anything. TP should have either defended their revert or self-reverted if they realized it was no longer a good change. The most AGF explanation is that perhaps TP missed the ping in that comment([114]). I say that because I sometimes miss pings or forget to follow up in a discussion (and at least 1 editor on the talk page has expressed inability to keep up with the rapid discussion at Talk:Zionism). That's not to excuse what TP did, but I just want to note an alternative explanation. (I also want to add this is a case in which the removal of WP:CRP from that article, which asilvering did a few days ago, would actually help, despite my otherwise previous support[115] for CRP).VR 17:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC) reply

Sean.hoyland supported EasternShah (back then called Easternsahara) in his topic ban case. [116] [117] Easternshah got banned for multiple reasons. Some of the reasons are his „abusive behavior", his „POV Pushing" and „Support of Hezbollah". Easternshah also supported other Arab nationalist users like m.bitton and skitash during the Maghreb arbitration case[118] and tried to get me blocked by accusing me of sockpuppeting via a user who hasn’t been active for multiple years.[119] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananakingler (talk • contribs) 10:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC) reply

I think it's admins responsibility to weigh comments made by any editors based on facts and their perceived alignment towards any sides. I have seen behavior when AE cases are made - editors use it to attack or support editors based on their ideology. I do not consider Sean to be always taking the side of editors on one side. Their comments are (削除) usually (削除ここまで) sometimes vague and don’t really help in AE cases. Eg. See last comment in [120]

Another example is when AE case was made against me - Metallurgist used it to accuse me of POV pushing. Newslinger did a good job - questioning it and Metallurgist did not respond. All accusations against me was not proved except 1RR violation.

Sean.hoyland has participated in AE case against me - I will link both cases for admins to review.[121] [122]

I'd encourage all admins to spend more time reviewing other comments Sean.hoyland made before any actions are recommended against them. Because many editor's who participate here are going to look for what they want to see. I think that's not fair to the AE's subject.

I will also note that defending an editor is not by any means malicious behavior. For example, I made this comment on M.Bitton AE case. At the time, I hadn’t fully reviewed their Maghreb case, so I didn’t know the extent of M.Bitton’s behavior. Someone could say, "I supported M.Bitton, so I should be warned or banned as well" ? 🐈Cinaroot 05:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

  Alright, I've looked through the talk page archives at Talk:Imane Khelif, back through Archive 5, and I'm not seeing anything that I find terribly concerning from a "backs up M.Bitton beyond all reason" standpoint. At times, TP is a bit snippy. Given the absolutely unending grind of the argument on the talk page, despite a passed moratorium on discussion... well, frankly, TP is doing pretty well if their worst is "a bit snippy". I'm not impressed by their arguments at Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 5#RfC: SRY gene, namely [123] and [124] and the ensuing discussions, but if that's all we've got for GENSEX, I don't think there's much of a case for sanctions in that topic area. -- asilvering (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  I've now gone through these diffs and the past few archive pages of Talk:Zionism. It's evident that M.Bitton and TarnishedPath share a similar, strongly anti-Zionist point of view, but I wouldn't characterize anything I saw on that talk page as colluding, forming a faction with M.Bitton, etc. However, I do see very strong evidence of battleground editing. As, evidently, did ScottishFinnishRadish, since he already sanctioned for it. This one in particular really got me, but I found it harder to find examples of neutral or collaborative behaviour (eg [125]) than behaviour of the battleground variety. We can read TP's defense of M.Bitton in that light, and sanction for it, regardless. Rosguill, I think it would be appropriate to extend the tban to indefinite. Thoughts? -- asilvering (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

  And I do think the defence of "aligned" editors like M.Bitton is a significant factor here. Showing up at AE/ARCA/etc often isn't a problem in itself, in my opinion. But reliably showing up in defence of editors that prompt arbs to say things like This is some of the most egregious tendentious editing I've ever seen in an editor with tens of thousands of edits ([126]), well. -- asilvering (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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

  Well, @Rosguill, it's been nearly a week and no one has shown up to bail us out. I do feel pretty strongly that if SFR sanctioned on the basis of only part of the evidence, it's on us to apply something stronger, given the additional evidence that we have gone through. But if you're considering TP's response as a sort of pre-emptive unban request, well, fair enough. Are you still interested in a topic ban from user conduct discussions? I don't particularly see the merit in this one (I much prefer that things are reported rather than allowed to fester). In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  asilvering, I would be inclined to agree with most of what you’ve just written but I’m afraid I’m confused by I don't particularly see the merit in this one and thus am not certain what you mean. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  Ah, I'm not sure I agree that a topic ban from user conduct discussions would be useful. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  Reviewing the case again and noting that there were some problematic edits to articles presented by editors other than the initial filing report, no objection to a broader TBAN at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  Sorry, by "broader", do you mean extending the tban to indefinite, or? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC) reply

  Asilvering, I meant to agree with your proposal. TarnishedPath, the further edits I looked at were those presented by SuperPianoMan9167. While individually some are defensible, I do think that the overall pattern crosses into stonewalling (in particular this comment in the context of the broader discussion where it was made illustrates the issue). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:01, 24 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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

  @Bananakingler, I don't think that pointing out that an editor has been targetted in off-site fora is evidence of battleground behaviour so much as a statement of fact. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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