From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Help desk (Request )
Content disputes
Third opinion (Request ) Mediation Noticeboards Requests for comment Resolution noticeboard (Request )
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)
v t e

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

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

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

Initiated by Johnpacklambert at 16:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Case or decision affected

Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 4) Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect. This sanction supersedes his March 2017 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
2. Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

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

• Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [diff of notification Username]
• [diff of notification Username]

Information about amendment request

• 4) Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect. This sanction supersedes his March 2017 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • I want it to be clear this clause allows me to participate in categories for discussion
• Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
  • State the desired modification

The restriction on my participation in deletion discussions and related discussions was imposed in July 2022. I understand that I was at times too combative on issues and apologize for that. The discussion at the time focused only on my participation in article deletion discussions. However when the restriction was written it was written in a way to cover topic discussions on things other than articles. This included a ban on participation in discussions about categories. After almost 38 months I am asking that that specific part of the restriction be lifted so that I can participate in discussions about deleting, merging and renaming categories. I understand these restrictions were imposed for wise reasons back in 2022, but I feel allowing me to participate in Category discussions would be reasonable at this time. The decision speaks of reconsideration after 12 months. There has been no discussion on this restriction now for I believe 22 months, and I better understand now how to cooperate with others. I feel allowing me to participate in Categories for discussion discussions would be a reasonable modification of this restruliction at this time. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• I was wrong in my actions in late 2022 that lead to a total editing ban for a time. That was over 3 years ago and I have not done anything like that since. I have tried to avoid discussing deleting articles at all. My understanding was that the ban applied to articles. I did not think it prevented me from making comments on the organization of categories. I was under the impression that I was not able to participate at CfD because the pan on Afd was extended to other general discussion formats. My understanding though was that the broad ban on discussing deletion was a ban on deleting of articles, broadly construed, and did not apply to non-article things such as categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The best way to learn if an editor has learned their lesson, is to allow them to prove it. Recommend lifting the aforementioned restrictions. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Per GoodDay above, that's the way to find out if it's going to work. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Johnpacklambert has a habit of requesting that editors merge categories, time and time again. Their talk archives have plenty of examples (I have yet to find one without such comments), and they were blocked for violating their topic ban back in 2022 following an AE thread.

I gave Mr. Lambert a note about this last year, and it seems the behavior has continued. However, AE seems to think that merge/rename nominations are not covered by the topic ban. I strongly believe that merger discussions are covered; the only difference at CFD between "merge" and "delete" is whether the former contents of the category are added to another before deletion. I have no firm opinion on whether rename discussions at CFD are covered, though a sizeable minority of rename nominations end with deletion or merging. If the ban is not lifted or narrowed, some clarification on what is and is not permitted would be appreciated.

Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Harry, I was deliberately vague about that because I don't have a firm opinion on the matter :) ... consider my above comment something of a Brandeis brief.

From what I can tell, the restriction was a deliberately overbroad; to paraphrase a recent vote of yours, it was ensuring the same caravan did not pack up and move on to overzealous deletion of categories or files or drafts. Mr. Lambert was already under a community XFD restriction, an unrelated topic ban in religion, his block log is not super pretty, and a site ban was on the table and was seriously considered; in those circumstances, broad strokes would seem wise. Using more refined strokes would not be a terrible idea, though I would oppose repealing the ban wholesale; the article deletion processes (PROD, AFD, BLARing articles) should continue to be covered. A suspended removal, allowing uninvolved admins to reinstate the ban if need be, would be wise. In other words, I think a probationary lift allowing all participation regarding CFD would not be a terrible idea.

My impression of Mr. Lambert's comments are that they are helpful, though I have not read them in detail. I would be curious to hear Smasongarrison's thoughts on lifting the topic ban; she is a category superstar, CFD regular, and has interacted with Mr. Lambert frequently. My real advice would be to listen to whatever she says :)

Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This topic ban was imposed for overzealous behavior in AfD discussions. It never made sense to expand its scope beyond AfD discussions and I would suggest it be narrowed to that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have mixed feelings about JPL becoming more involved at CFD. He has a long history with categorization. Most of the discussion has focused on his topic ban in terms of article work, but historically, he's had similar issues in categorization (e.g.,Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#User:_Johnpacklambert_emptying_categories_prematurely;_edit_warring, which makes this directly relevant here.

On one hand, I do think he's shown real growth. When editors are willing to put in the time to work with him, he's open to the feedback and able to have productive conversations. On the other hand, consistent follow-through on that feedback hasn't been his strong suit.

My main concern with full participation at CFD is that he can be extremely rigid on certain topics, particularly when it comes to distinctions between nationals from modern and/or former countries. That rigidity tends to cause recurring friction (e.g., recent ones include [1] User_talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2025/October#Manually_overriding_templates, User_talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2025/August#Please_populate,_parent,_and_sort_key_the_categories_you_create). There's also a bit of irony in his approach: he often points out that categories are underpopulated and should be merged, but he continues to create new, narrowly defined ones of the same kind, without recognizing the contradiction.

All that said, I don't think the answer is to exclude him entirely. He does have good ideas and, given structure and oversight, can make valuable contributions. I'd support allowing him to comment in CFD discussions but not to make proposals himself. I think that that would strike the balance between giving him the opportunity to demonstrate his growth, without disrupting the project. ^SMason_Garrison 05:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've been very occasionally keeping tabs on JPL and as far as I can see the ban converted them into an effective, productive, gnoming member of the EN WP community, and they have (admittedly with some shakiness at the start) kept their nose clean. I can't claim to have reviewed every edit they've made since the ARBCOM decision, but the ones I've reviewed have been entirely on-point. In the spirit of WP:ROPE I think at the very least the request can be granted, and that possibly loosening of restrictions can go further. FOARP (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• As a participant in the Arbcom case being modified, I would support this provided that JPL's reintroduction to deletion discussions is rate-limited in some way, such as for example: (a) participating in no more than one XfD at a time (he can choose a new one to participate in when the previous one is closed); or (b) editing no more than one XfD page per day.

JPL's conduct in individual XfDs isn't highly problematic. It's the aggregate effect of participating in hundreds of them.—S Marshall T/C 16:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

500 words is very long for a CFD !vote, isn't it?—S Marshall T/C 07:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The obvious corollary to my first comment, of course, is that I would oppose this if not rate-limited in some fashion. JPL can be very prolific indeed, and CFD is not all that well-attended, so he could have a significant impact on how our category system works. Simply put: we need it to be JPL that adapts to our category structure and not the other way around.—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

At the time of the decision, JPL asked if merges were included in the topic ban, and then arb L235 answered yes something that I, as another then arb agreed with at that time. I believe there might have been more discussion about this either on arbwiki or the list (or maybe it was IRC) at the time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

• Recuse (CFD is my wheelhouse, and I am considering adding a statement). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• I'm reasonably receptive to this request but XfD is not my area of expertise. HouseBlaster@ should I take your comment as opposition to the request? Besides the ambiguity of whether the restriction applies to CfD, have JPL's contributions there been disruptive or unhelpful? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• There was some discussion of whether merge discussions are incorporated into this sanction at that AE thread, but I think the controlling factor was really the nature of his participation and the question wasn't fully dissected. I would hold that participating directly in a merge discussion almost certainly violates the restriction. They involve whether a standalone page should exist or not, which gives them a lot of the same personal-philosophy baggage as AfD. As for amending the sanction to allow weighing in on categories, I'm hesitant. As I understand it, the category area combines a lot of procedural rigor with a tendency for controversy disproportionate to the weight of the matter a la ARBCAPS. If we were to do something that allows him to show he's here to contribute constructively, I'd say an unban that allows for a maximum of 3 CfD comments per day – limited to 1 comment per thread, 500 words per comment, and no nominations – would be my starting place. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  happy for it to be 250 as well :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• I think leek's idea for cats is a reasonable way to proceed, maybe with a 6 month wait before review. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Though I'm generally in favor of simple restrictions when possible, I'm open to a suggestion along these lines. - Aoidh (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • 250 is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I'm fine with leeky's proposed modification. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Agree with the above, but tend to also agree with S Marshall's comment that 500 feels quite long. Reckon 250-300 is the sweet spot - this comment, for reference, is 42. Twelve times the length of this, is a very long CfD comment. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• There was a 2022 clarification request and 2023 amendment request on the possibility of a categories exemption to the topic ban. Based on community input here, I think that we can loosen this, especially since some of the cited misconduct is quite old.I don't like overly-complicated restrictions: enforcement eats into time and energy that is better spent elsewhere. Of the options so far (word limits, nomination ban, CfD rate limit) I think that having all would be too much: from the case's findings, the main issue is the speed at which Johnpacklambert works, so I would have only the CfD limit that automatically expires. If we want to give someone the ability to show that they have changed, having an extremely short leash is not always helpful. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I would prefer a suspended removal over rate-limiting participation; if we really are willing to give them slack to demonstrate their changed ways, we might as well just do it rather than kick the can down the road and have to revisit this (again) six months down the line. Primefac (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• A quick update - noting that there's general sentiment to make some sort of amendment here, just working out wording etc. with colleagues and we'll be able to post some motions for voting at some point hopefully soon. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Initiated by Lightbreather at 23:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Case or decision affected

Lightbreather arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Gun control topic ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Gun_control_topic-ban
2. Restricted to one account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Restricted_to_one_account
3. 1RR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_1RR
4. Reverse topic ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Reverse_topic_ban
5. Interaction bans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Interaction_bans_taken_over_(alternate)

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

• Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Karanacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mike Searson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scalhotrod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [2] diff of notification of Karanacs
• [3] diff of notification of Mike Searson
• [4] diff of notification of Sitush
• [diff of notification of Scalhotrod] (not possible)

Information about amendment request

• Gun control topic ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Gun_control_topic-ban
  • I respectfully ask to have the ban lifted
• Restricted to one account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Restricted_to_one_account
  • I respectfully ask to have the restriction lifted
• 1RR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_1RR
  • I respectfully ask to have the restriction lifted
• Reverse topic ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Reverse_topic_ban
  • I respectfully ask to have the restriction lifted
• Interaction bans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Interaction_bans_taken_over_(alternate)
  • I respectfully ask to have the bans lifted

I successfully appealed my site ban in Sept. 2022. I stated I would wait at least 12 mos before asking to remove the other restrictions. The appeal is here: [5], including my "Dear community" promises.

I waited until this March to ask that the remaining restrictions be lifted. Between Sept. 2022 and March, I made hundreds of edits to dozens of articles, including the creation of (P. B. Young and Amy Kelly). I abided by my restrictions and behaved as promised, but the request was declined: [6]

It was suggested that I edit more and try again in a few months. I recently put a lot of work into improving Mexico–United States border wall, which had been the destination page for an unconventional "merge" from Trump wall. This work had the potential for conflict, but there was none. I also recently worked to improve Ed McCurdy.

I respectfully ask once again to have the rest of my restrictions removed. And I thank you once again for your consideration.

In anticipation of some of the questions that you might ask:

• Re: recent inactivity: As I said previously, that will probably be a pattern for me: Edit for some length of time (days, weeks, or months) and then, out of choice or necessity, be inactive when my energy is directed elsewhere. (For instance, my dog died last May and I just adopted a young dog from the pound. She is going to need lots of supervision and training as she came in off the street.)
• There is one other website that I have volunteered at for over 14 years, without incident. If the committee wishes to know my identity there, I will be happy to email the link.
• Someone suggested at my last request that I am unable to join a project, contribute, and seek review, but that is untrue. In Jan. 2015 I set a goal to bring "Gun show loophole" to good article status, I invited others to join me, and we did it. Links: [7], [8], [9]
• Rather than focus on the quantity of my edits since being unbanned, could I get some feedback on the quality of my work? Consider perhaps what user wbm1058 said [10] re my article on Amy Kelly.
• In a nutshell, I would like to put the past - 10 years past - behind me and further prove myself. I promise I will not let the community down.

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks for the notification and consideration.

@Primefac: et al. I have explained why I "pop up" here to edit. Surely there are other editors in good standing who edit in this way. As for need, this is a sincere question: Is it policy that an editor must demonstrate a need to have a restriction lifted? Equally sincere: If an editor demonstrates that the restriction is no longer needed, is that not taken into consideration? Per the motion of Sept. 2022 [11], I have engaged in no behaviors identified in the Findings of Fact from my case, and I have adhered to normal editorial process and expectations. I understand that was about my site ban, but is it not relevant in considering my current requests?

@Anastrophe: My reverted response wasn't about guns, it was about an apology you made to me.

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I have no intention or reason to create another account. If I want to someday, I will follow whatever policy is required. I would like all restrictions lifted because: 1) It took me four appeals just to get my site ban lifted and each attempt caused me extreme stress (which you will understand because of info I shared privately). 2) This is my second appearance before the committee to request lifting my remaining restrictions, and the thought of having to return a third or fourth time stresses me badly just to think about. 3) I feel I have shown that I am perfectly capable of editing here productively and without conflict, unlike the spring of 2015.

Arbs: Keeping this short for word-count and stress reasons. 1) Discussion A. mentions was in response to notifications on my talk page about gun-related articles. I neither can nor want to discuss guns on-wiki. 2) Said discussion was in a private area. 3) The quote A. gave was about Scalhotrod, banned for sexually harassing me. 4) More I will discuss via email, for word-count and stress reasons. 5) WPO has "shit-talking" members (as A. wrote) but there are many guys (it's mostly men, like here) who are temperate. A kind one proved to WMF Scalhotrod's abuse.

OK, I never got the "one account requirement"--the only thing that's different is arb approval rather than arb notification. Might as well do away with it. The other restrictions should also, in my opinion, be lifted. LB had been editing conflict-free, has done good work, and should be just another member of the flock. The inactivity doesn't concern me at all: LB offered reasons for it, but the question is, IMO, just not really appropriate: we all have lives. My edit count over the last year will tell you I've been going through things but that's just not relevant to my participation here. Same applies to LB. I favor a lifting of all restrictions. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• I too support a reversal of all sanctions, for time served. But, it seems too late for that as it appears that she's throwing in the towel and giving up on the idea of ever getting her good name back. Her next step may be to request a WP:Courtesy vanishing, which as far as I know, she doesn't need to have her sanctions lifted in order to do that – or does she?! She's made a boatload of edits on Mexico–United States border wall, which have stuck, without drama. What the hell more does she need to do to demonstrate she's a capable editor in controversial topic areas? – wbm1058 (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • She's responsible for a third of the content of the Mexico–United States border wall article. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• This is not a "one fell swoop" request. There was a previous request to undo one of six. A "one fell swoop" would be to undo all six at once. This is just to undo #2 through #6. I also point out that all six remedies were imposed in ONE FELL SWOOP . If you can impose six with one fell swoop, what's the big deal with taking two fell swoops to terminate all of them? If y'all didn't wait until things got to ten times boiling point to even accept a case, then you might not feel the need to impose so many sanctions at once, and if sanctions were imposed over time as a series of escalations, then it might make more sense to relax them over time as well. /soapbox wbm1058 (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Per Drmies above. Time served. Please lift. Andreas JN 466 22:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(Sorry, I'm back)
I'd never heard of "wikipediocracy.com", and wish I still hadn't. I'm loathe to ever revisit it.

I have questions.†
Shouldn't arb committee members who are active members on that site, and have interacted with requestor there, recuse? I ask this in good faith. Interaction offsite with requestor strikes me as 'giving even the whiff of impropriety' which is generally seen as enough to recuse, in my general understanding. I am not implying any impropriety - I don't believe there is any - only the potential appearance of it.†

Shouldn't the 'notification of involved users' be more than three inactive and one that's banned? Item 3 in 'submitting a request' seems to imply so. All editors who contributed commentary in the original site ban, the failed return attempt(s), and the restricted return, deserve to be notified and to contribute. They are all 'party' to this upcoming decision, for all intents and purposes. I again ask this in good faith.†

†I understand that these sorts of procedural queries probably won't be addressed here, as this isn't the right venue. If you're inclined to clue me in on my talk page, fine. If not, fine. I recognize you all have a lot on your respective plates, and that indirect communication with me on these queries may be verboten.

I've been led astray. The old behaviors are still patent on wikipediocracy. Shit-talking existing editors of various stripe, by name. Obsessively trying to 'prove' that a current editor is really a long-gone/banned editor, soliciting for more 'proof' of same, offering to privately share their 'proof', because, and I quote: "I do *not* want them to be allowed to edit at WP" (ital emphasis mine). Still obsessed with gun-related topics, and dismayed they are being edited by "gun nuts". These are some of the behaviors that contributed to the site ban, and based on a reading of recent activity there, haven't abated in the slightest. The requestor has not learned from past mistakes.

I no longer believe that anything in "Dear community" is authentic or can be trusted.

Rescind Motions B, C, D and E. Sure, I guess. Motion A? No. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thank you for your reply and clarity with the link to 'involved'. As I've said elsewhere many times, but not here, over the decades I have intentionally tried—as much as possible—to avoid learning about the arcane, medieval bureaucracies that are rife on WP. This creates an intentional disability that I'm willing to live with, in order to minimize engagement in such entanglements - but sometimes I'm obligated to engage. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: As above. I was asking a question. I was ignorant of WP:INVOLVED. Apologies. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Per Drmies, lift all restrictions (with the possible exception of the one a/c restriction). I also agree that LB's levels are wholly in accordance with community ethos. She has 750 edits to mainspace this year—ironically more than most active arbs! (OK, it's apples/oranges), But she's demonstrated a commitment to uncontroversial article work which should not be used against her. — Fortuna, imperatrix 13:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Anastrophe: Out of curiosity, what defines "interaction" on another site? Quoting one of her posts? Commenting in a particular thread? /or, perhaps, simply being a member is sufficient...? — Fortuna, imperatrix 17:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

confused face icon Just curious...has ArbCom decided to put #8 of Larry Sanger's 9 Theses into play? My thoughts actually bounce back to User:Jytdog so will he also be coming back? I realize each case is different, but...is Wikipedia now completely erasing all lines? Atsme 💬 📧 16:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Luckily Sanger published that, otherwise no one would have ever been unbanned or unblocked after an indef, That's how things were before he wrote that, right? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh nevermind, I just checked and LB was already unbanned before that list was published. So I guess the answer is no, it had no impact at all. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(re Atsme) indefinite blocks, even those imposed by ArbCom, have always meant "until it is no longer needed" not "forever" so, no, nothing has changed. Jytdog will be welcome to return if they (a) appeal, and (b) convince ArbCom (and possibly the community, I can't remember the details off the top of my head) that they will not repeat the behaviours that result in their ban. Lightbreather's appeal is completely unrelated to a hypothetical appeal by Jytdog (and, afair, both were entirely uninvolved in why the other was banned) though so I don't understand why you think it is relevant? Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: isn't replying to comments in other users' sections frowned upon here? Ivanvector (^Talk /_Edits ) 19:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Much like the sectioned discussion on the pending decision talk pages, Arbs have some latitude to reply where they think it would be most effective or constructive. Since it didn't have to do much with the actual report (much like this response) it's better off outside of the arb deliberation and discussion sections. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Cool. Ivanvector (^Talk /_Edits ) 14:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(general comments) I normally oppose lifting one account restrictions on principle, but Lightbreather is under this restriction from having edited while logged out once, ten years ago. I can't tell why the Committee imposed it in the first place.

For the other restrictions, I stopped reading when I saw that the newest of them is a decade old. I frankly don't care about anything else, having happened while Obama was still in the White House.

The restrictions should be lifted, not for time served but because Lightbreather has kept their side of the bargain, and because they clearly are here to build an encyclopedia. Ivanvector (^Talk /_Edits ) 19:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I note some suggesting Lightbreather's gun control topic ban shouldn't be lifted because the topic is "still" a political hot potato. Are you all going to insist that the Americans actually solve their gun violence problem before Lightbreather can be allowed back in the topic again? Just in case you haven't noticed, things are trending in the opposite direction, to put it mildly. It's not Lightbreather's fault that Americans can't get their shit together. Among parties to the original case only Lightbreather has made any progress towards returning, and keeping them banned prevents no disruption and helps nobody.

Lightbreather's site ban was lifted on a probationary basis back in 2022 yet Lightbreather's block log is empty since the lifting of that block. I see no (good) reason not to try lifting the topic ban on the same probationary basis. I read these comments as grasping at politically sensitive straws and perpetually moving goalposts to keep a productive contributor banned forever. Ivanvector (^Talk /_Edits ) 14:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@EggRoll97: the {{ACWordStatus }} template you placed here is producing an inaccurate count. The comment that ScottishFinnishRadish inserted here is 53 words on its own, and should not be included in my total. Please update the count. Ivanvector (^Talk /_Edits ) 16:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Statement condensed to comply with (still broken) word limit. Ivanvector (^Talk /_Edits ) 10:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I would like to recommend that Lightbreather not have their topic ban rescinded. This gun control topic ban was put in place it would seem with very good cause, and this editor shows an obsession with the topic of gun control, and any editors who have touched the area. From that prior matter, "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all." Lightbreather continues to make bad faith off-wiki attacks but has never reached out to me for comment or brought any matter to WP:Dispute Resolution involving me that I am aware of. Lightbreather has recently made comments and threads on Wikipediocracy attacking my character immediately preceding this ArbCom request, all beginning on August 31, 2025. Lightbreather claimed I am someone named Scalhotrod (apparently that editor had a history with Lightbreather, I did not know either of them until I saw the threads). I think it would be a mistake to remove any of these restrictions, but especially the topic ban. They are not able to edit in that area without extreme POV pushing and may have attempted to dox me. I have never seen another editor assume bad faith worse than Lightbreather did on there. I hesitated to make this comment, but it would appear as if some people believe that Lightbreather has reformed from their very contentious editing of the past. Judging by the prior discussions I read here, and the off-wiki discussions, that does not seem to be the case. Thank you to the ArbCom, and for anyone that has already commented, I think it would be worth reconsidering your support for ending this restriction. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Evidence has been emailed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Thanks Iljhgtn (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't see a need for ongoing restrictions that aren't being violated and haven't been for a long time. It should be pretty clear that a block or other sanctions can be easily reapplied if problematic behavior resumes, but we should give productive editors a chance to continue showing us they won't be a problem. Keeping unnecessary restrictions in place appears punitive vs preventative, which flies in the face of the general spirit of Wikipedia. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

• I've removed one of the party headers like last time. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• @Anastrophe: Arbitration pages, like this one, use sectioned discussion, meaning comments in one's own section, for all content by that individual, including replies to others. This is in contrast to how much of the encyclopedia works, which is the usual threaded discussion that you are likely expecting. You can find more details about this format in the guide to arbitration. Theleekycauldron has added a note to your reply indicating that it is a reply. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• @Lightbreather: I am going to grant an extension to 750 words as you are obviously the main party at this request, so should be given more leeway to respond to others. If you need any more, please ask here. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• @Ivanvector: We (the clerks) are aware your statement length is shorter than it appears in the template. As of this comment, you are at 545 words. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by automatic template check

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Passing	Support needed	Notes
Motion A: Gun control topic ban rescinded	6	1	1	Currently not passing	1	2 supports conditional on Motion C failing
Motion B: Restricted to one account rescinded	3	4	0	Currently not passing	4
Motion C: 1RR rescinded	2	6	0	Currently not passing	5
Motion D: Reverse topic ban rescinded	8	0	1	Passing	·
Motion E: Interaction bans rescinded	7	0	2	Passing	·

Notes

• As with the previous request, I am recusing. - Aoidh (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• One of the big issues raised in the last appeal was lack of activity. This appeal follows about a month of activity following 5 months of inactivity after the last appeal. There's no explanation of why they want or need the ibans, one account restriction, or 1RR lifted. There was some discussion in the last appeal about the reverse topic ban being onerous, and I'm most amenable to lifting that. Giving this more thought, but I didn't want this to sit here with LB not knowing that it's being considered. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  anastrophe, I assume you're talking about my single reply on September 3rd,
  You mean small caliber semi-automatic pistols with standard magazines, right?I stay away from gun debates on Wikipedia because the drama to constructive editing ratio isn't worth it without some impetus, like BLP concerns, but I know a lot of firearm owners, as well as being one myself. The general gist I've gotten in discussions is that they're bothered by the focus on the type of weapon by people who don't know that an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14 are capable of the same thing, but push against ARs because the furniture looks tacticool. Focusing on ARs is like focusing on F-150s and Silverados. Sure, they're involved in the most fatal crashes, but they're also very popular and there's a ton of them in use.That's not directly related to Wikipedia editing, but I assume that gun editors follow the same general vein as gun owners. Just like they don't care the brand or model of shotgun I used to take a deer, they don't care about the brand or model a criminal used and find the the focus on it misses the point.As far as I'm aware that is my single interaction with LB outside of Arbcom. That falls well below include[ing] current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature or age of the dispute. Simply having been in a discussion with and having made a single reply to another editor does not make one involved, or the easiest way to avoid sanctions would be to vote in every RFA and respond to an admin in any discussion you see them in. If you'd like to discuss this in further detail feel free to reach out on my talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• My initial thoughts are similar to those of SFR. I will note that this is a standard I would give to just about any request; a period of sustained activity is more likely to demonstrate need/ability (depending on circumstance) than popping up out of nowhere and asking for things. Primefac (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Re Lightbreather: it is (clearly) not a policy, just my own opinion on the matter. I will also note that it does not preclude someone from getting what they ask, just that it makes the decision a lot easier. I am still waiting on a few responses but I will note that at the moment I am leaning positively towards most of your requests. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• I'm of a mind to support lifting restrictions and throwing out some rope. Unfortunate to see LB reverse course after just a few days and threaten to quit but I understand that Wiki life can be stressful. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 19:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Supportive of removing the reverse topic ban and the interaction bans. Open to removing the topic ban and 1RR, pending further input from the community and my colleagues. Opposed to removing the one account restriction. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• In general, I don't agree with lifting all restrictions in one fell swoop. I hear the concerns about activity but I also take Drmies's point, and I can see that a restriction as onerous as the reverse topic ban might contribute to a decline in activity. I'm open to a loosening of restrictions as the first step on the road towards removing them, but not to lifting them all outright. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I've had a tough time making up my mind here. I (and I think most Arbs) usually want to see a decent amount of activity before lifting sanctions, with a higher bar for sanctions that don't meaningfully impact one's ability to contribute (such as a one-account restriction). Someone staying inactive doesn't necessarily show that problematic behavior won't recur when that person becomes more active -- it's not evidence against that editor, it just means we don't have enough information to really tell.

Looking specifically: Lightbreather's recent contributions are good, including contributions in contentious topics. Additionally, after a few days for input, no one in the community has expressed concerns. While Lightbreather hasn't has had sustained activity over the past few years, she has been sporadically active; since being unbanned, there's been six months where's she's made at least fifty edits, mostly to articles. Given these circumstances, I support lifting all sanctions. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Last time, Lightbreather was told to become more active. She's made over 500 mainspace edits in 2025 and 800 since her unban in 2022. Let's keep in mind that she's a volunteer, under no obligation to maintain any activity standard. Lightbreather was 10 years ago. I think that we can move on, and hope that people change after a decade. I support lifting everything. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Quite the Catch-22 you've set up, Anastrophe – how is Lightbreather supposed to prove she's no longer a threat to disrupt to the gun control topic area when she's no longer allowed to touch the topic area, if her word and productive editing elsewhere isn't enough? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Marking myself provisionally inactive on this thread; I may be able to invest the time in looking into this issue, but probably not for a bit, and I don't want to be a holdup. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have presented these motions all individually, to allow them to be voted on separately, per the split in commentary in the arbitrator views and discussion section above between 'rescind all' and 'rescind some'. (I have kept the interaction bans as one proposal, given they were one remedy in the original case.) Once the below motions are all concluded either way, any motion(s) that pass can presumably be actioned as a singular unit. Daniel (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Support

1. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
2. On the condition that her 1RR remain. If motion C passes, treat this as an oppose. I think that gun control is not as hot a topic as it was ten years ago. But if we're going to lift the ban, I think that she would only benefit from the restraint a 1RR poses. Easier to not edit war if you can't be tempted to. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
3. Daniel (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
4. Looks like it's breaking this direction, allow gun control edits, keep 1RR. That works for me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
5. See my comment above. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
6. If the 1RR remains, I'm a support. If 1RR is lifted, I'm an oppose. Katie ^talk 17:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose

1. Gun control was at the very heart of the issues and remains a hot-button issue. I'm willing to assume good faith that Lightbreather has mellowed over the years and therefore willing to think about loosening restrictions, but reintroducing a a controversial editor into an emotive topic area is not the place to start. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Abstain

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Arbitrator discussion

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Support

1. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
2. Socking doesn't seem to have been the biggest issue in the case, and any future socking would be sanctionable in its own right. I do honestly believe that Lightbreather wants to rehabilitate her reputation so it seems unlikely that she would jeopardise that with socking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
3. I'm unaware of any allegations of sockpuppetry that aren't many many years old. The last block for socking was in 2014 . See my comment above and I agree with Harry. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
2. Daniel (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
3. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
4. I see no reason to lift this now. Katie ^talk 17:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

Is there any pressing reason why they would need this restriction removed other than wanting to be out from under sanctions? Lightbreather, do you have any intention of creating or using alternate accounts? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Support

1. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
2. I haven't seen any recent evidence of edit-warring and doubt that Lightbreather will start now. See my comment above. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
2. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
3. Daniel (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
4. Looks like the other arbs had a stronger preference than myself for which sanction to remove and which to leave, and that works for me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
5. Willing to be convinced, but edit-warring was an issue and this is not an onerous restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
6. Per Harry. Katie ^talk 17:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

I'm more likely to support one of the other between this and the gun control topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Support

1. Daniel (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
2. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
3. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
4. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
5. This is a particularly onerous restriction and of dubious necessity a decade on. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
6. It is a particularly onerous restriction. Deliberately, and necessarily, so at the time but I'm not sure it was intended to last a decade. Rather, it should have provided a path back to good standing. I'm willing to lift this as an attempt to put Lightbreather on that path and hope that she stays on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
7. See my comment above. I think that it is very plausible that this restriction is discouraging greater participation. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
8. Katie ^talk 17:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose

Abstain

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Arbitrator discussion

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Support

1. Daniel (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
2. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
3. Primefac (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
4. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
5. Only one editor is really impacted here. Of the four editors she was ibanned with, two are now blocked, one hasn't edited since 2019, and the other is Sitush, who hasn't edited in five months. If Sitush comes back and says no, I'd consider opposing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
6. See my comment above. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
7. Willing to see how this goes; if Sitush has a problem with it, we can address it when they return. Katie ^talk 17:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose

Abstain

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
2. I'm undecided here. I also have some previous involvement (I was on good terms with Eric Corbett and I imposed the interaction ban on Mike Searson), so I'll sit this part out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Arbitrator discussion

• Just noting that this motion had a wording tweak post-publishing to make clear that it was the interaction bans themselves being rescinded, not the Committee's assumption of them. At that time only ToBeFree and I had voted, and we have both subsequently re-voted on the new proposal (note to ToBeFree). Thanks to Elli for the feedback. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Initiated by L235 at 23:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Noticeboard_scope_2

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.

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

• L235 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.
  • Expand the scope to a broader set of communtiy-imposed general sanctions

In 2022, as part of WP:CT2022, ArbCom authorized AE to hear requests or appeals relating to community-designated contentious topics, so long as the community wanted AE to hear those requests or appeals. A recent RfC has taken ArbCom up on this offer and now allows community-designated contentious topics (CCTOPs) to be enforced at AE.

In the process of writing the documentation at AE to implement this RfC, I have noticed that the current language has the potential to create its own confusion, because AE can only hear requests and appeals that arise from CCTOP enforcement and not enforcement of other community remedies like 1RR or ECR. To clarify what I mean, there are currently four buckets of community-authorized general sanctions:

1. Plain CCTOP designations without 1RR or ECR (WP:GS/UKU, WP:GS/PW, WP:GS/MJ, WP:GS/UYGHUR, WP:GS/ACAS);
2. CCTOP designations plus 1RR (WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and WP:GS/Crypto);
3. ECR to supplement an existing ArbCom CTOP (WP:RUSUKR, which imposes community ECR within the broader WP:CT/EE; WP:GS/AA, which imposes community ECR to supplement WP:CT/A-A; WP:GS/KURD, which imposes community ECR to supplement WP:CT/KURD); and
4. Plain non-CCTOP restrictions (WP:GS/PAGEANT, which authorizes indefinite semiprotections).

Now that the community has authorized enforcement of CCTOPs at AE, bucket #1 works great. But because the authorization for AE to hear community-imposed sanctions only applies to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure (emphasis added), buckets #2-4 face some confusion. In bucket #2, AE can hear enforcement requests and appeals for contentious topics in general but not 1RR violations. In bucket #3, the ArbCom CT portion can be heard at AE, but not the community ECR portions. And bucket #4 is wholly unaffected by the new RfC.

This state of affairs is quite confusing because some restrictions within a topic can be enforced (and some enforcement actions can be appealed) at AE, but not all of them. I can't think of a principled reason for this difference in treatment. I would therefore ask that ArbCom permit the community to designate AE as a place to hear enforcement requests and appeals for a broader set of topicwide restrictions.

Below I've included some suggested motion text, but the exact way this is done is of course up to ArbCom.

After such a motion is enacted, the community would then need to allow the use of the AE noticeboard in those cases, which it could do by RfC. Speaking personally, based on the results of the last RfC, I think such an RfC would pass fairly quickly.

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I thank the arbitrators supporting the amendment and will note that such a change will likely need to be made by motion announced (with 24 hours notice) at ACN and AN in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Modification of procedures. Therefore, a rough consensus of arbitrators of arbitrators under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Closing is unlikely to suffice. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

For editors who spend most of their wikitime in mainspace rather on the noticeboards and arbitration pages, the distinction between ArbCom-based contentious topics and community-based general sanctions, and the existence of different procedures for invoking or appealing them, takes time to learn about and can be a distraction. Anything that makes the procedures more parallel, and therefore easier to understand and implement, warrants serious consideration. The proposal would seem to fit into that category. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree that this is a good change, but I want to make clear that, for general sanctions other than contentious topics, the community has yet to assign those requests and appeals to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as the recent RfC was limited in scope to contentious topics. I hope that, if this change is adopted, the community will come to a consensus to make such an assignment. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

• Yeah, that's fine. It's all called contentious topics, so I don't think it's that big a deal, but if people want to adjust language that's fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I don't see an issue with the suggested change, or with making the process (slightly) less confusing. - Aoidh (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Seems reasonable to me. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• This seems like simple-enough housekeeping and I support the principle of simplification/removal of duplication. It probably needs a motion as a change to the procedures, but that should be simple enough. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  +1 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• This looks fine in enforcing the Community's will (different people will have different opinions on whether AE is inherently better than AN), but I am more hesitant over the suggestion of using AELOG for Community-imposed sanctions. I think that the drawbacks from the confusion that may cause is greater than the minimal increase in convenience. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Consensus of arbitrators commenting is that this is automatic. Daniel (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initiated by JHD0919 at 17:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Case or decision affected Yasuke arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: JHD0919 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) Statement by JHD0919 In regards to Remedy 1a, specifically this portion: Starting in 2026 and checked yearly afterwards, this designation expires on 1 January if no sanctions have been logged in the preceding 2 years. When it comes time for the expiration, does it expire automatically, or is a motion required? The remedy text doesn't say, which has left me confused. JHD0919 (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Statement by {other-editor} Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information. Yasuke: Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). Yasuke: Arbitrator views and discussion Looks automatic to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] +1, we could intervene if we didn't want it to expire but the application does seem automatic. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Looks automatic to me too. Daniel (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Concur; it expires if nothing has happened, which seems fairly automatic. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] I was a drafter on that case, and it was worded with the intention for it to be automatic if there are no logged sanctions in that time period. - Aoidh (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Automatic. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] I thought this was a good piece of drafting that kept a provision for as long as it was useful but avoided having unused provisions on the books. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] I agree with my colleagues that it is automatic. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Consensus is that removing prods and improving articles is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initiated by JHD0919 at 18:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Case or decision affected Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: JHD0919 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request diff of me telling TPH about me making this request Statement by JHD0919 Here's the deal: Yesterday I PRODed Stony Point Fashion Park under the belief that it failed GNG. Shortly afterwards, TenPoundHammer attempted to expand on the article to prevent deletion, only to undo it after coming to the conclusion that they were flirting their topic ban. And then, earlier today, they sent a message on my talk page claiming to have found a ton of coverage on the subject in Richmond, Virginia newspapers. I am unsure as to whether coverage in newspapers from a single city is enough to strengthen the article, but I am also willing to give TPH the benefit of doubt and allow them to expand upon it with said coverage...except, I have no idea if they'd be violating their topic ban by doing so. Does TPH's topic ban apply to attempting to improve on articles that have been PRODed, as well as removing PRODs? JHD0919 (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Sorry TPH, I had no idea what pronouns you use. I've revised my initial statement accordingly. JHD0919 (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Nyttend, with all due respect, I hard disagree with your assertion that this request was unnecessary. As I said above, the reason I made it was because neither TPH nor myself knew whether edits to PRODs and De-PRODs count as violations of the former's topic ban. Had TPH not self-reverted their initial Stony Point edit, or self-reverted it for a reason other than "I fear I'm flirting my topic ban," we wouldn't be here talking about this. JHD0919 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Statement by TenPoundHammer First off, a polite reminder that I use they/them pronouns. The level of coverage from the local newspaper has a strong historical precedent of being sufficient for shopping malls. Compare Muscatine Mall, Tri-City Pavilions, Colonial Plaza, University Park Mall, Swifton Center, or any of the other GA-class shopping mall articles out there. I think the precedent is very much in favor of Stony Point Fashion Park. (Is any of this flirting too close to "don't talk about notability when you're topic-banned"?) I have made edits to articles that were at PROD, but to my knowledge no previous attempts have even implied that I shouldn't make any edits to an article at PROD. Even at David Slater, the warnings were about my invocation of WP:BLPUNDEL and discussions of notability being in violation of my topic ban (which I concede are valid concerns, and why I've tried to avoid discussions of notability since), and not the fact that I was making good-faith expansion of an article that at the time was at PROD. Even before the topic ban, I don't recall deprodding ever being an issue of concern for me. I still decided to self-revert my Stony Point edit immediately as I wanted to play it safe after both the David Slater incident and my recent block. I know that past edits of mine have given the impression of trying to get one over on the topic ban, and I've tried to refrain myself from any such edits, which is why I'm hesitating and questioning. I want to know what the right method is in a case like this. I genuinely do want to expand the Stony Point article because it's a topic of interest for which I have found substantial sourcing. It already was on a personal list I keep on my computer of articles I want to improve. So is it okay for me to just add those sources in or not? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] So it looks like there is no apparent objection to me editing articles at PROD so long as I don't go overboard. Per the precedent of Johnpacklambert's topic ban, does this also mean that removing PRODs is acceptable if I disagree with them and subsequently improve the article -- again if I don't overdo it? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Statement by Toadspike While I appreciate that the committee is heading towards allowing these specific edits by clarifying that PRODs are not deletion discussions, I think it would also be helpful to clarify whether regular editing of pages up for any kind of deletion is allowed. If I understand correctly, the topic ban was intended to stop disruptive communication with other editors, not issues with content, so I personally think that e.g. expanding an article with an ongoing AfD should not be restricted by this topic ban. Toadspike [Talk] 08:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] S Marshall I think the topic ban was because TPH's deletion-related contributions were so prolific that TPH's personal opinions and thoughts about deletion were having a significant impact on the project. TPH is a good faith editor, and a passionate and prosocial one. Their edits individually are unproblematic, as in this case. But tens of thousands of such edits can become a problem when taken together. This PROD-related stuff is fine in the volumes we're talking about here. But don't throw the floodgates wide open, please. Just let a little water through.—S Marshall T/C 09:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Statement by Barkeep49 Can confirm that the drafters of the case (and ultimtately the committee through the votes) did not consider PROD a deletion discussion and crafted remedies with that understanding in mind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Statement by Jclemens Only in the most extreme circumstances, post-disastrous behavioral breaches, should any sanction be considered to prevent the good faith improvement of content facing any form of deletion through the appropriate addition of reliable sourcing. If we ever get so wrapped around the axle of disciplinary process that we lose sight of this, we are in trouble. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Statement by Cunard A September 2024 clarification request concluded that "PROD and contesting proposed deletions are covered by the topic ban." The topic ban includes both actions until and unless the Arbitration Committee decides to overturn this previous decision. I recommend allowing TenPoundHammer to contest proposed deletions and improve articles nominated for proposed deletion. I am not aware of any past disruption in that area. I'm concerned that there will be disruption if they are allowed to nominate articles for proposed deletion. In this May 2022 ANI post, I wrote: According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (based on a search of "Creating deletion discussion page"). In the last 18 days, TenPoundHammer has averaged 35 proposed deletions a day and 10 AfD nominations a day. In an April 2024 amendment request, I wrote that I told TenPoundHammer that their redirects of television articles was controversial and they should stop. They did not heed my message and redirected over 50 more articles later that month. The Committee imposed a topic ban for blank-and-redirecting, suspended for a period of 12 months. The suspended topic ban expired on 4 June 2025. TenPoundHammer was blocked four months later on 4 November 2025 for edit warring. They had blanked-and-redirected Gambino Family (group) six times and Ghetto Organized seven times. In the ANI thread TenPoundHammer started, another editor wrote, "What I find more disappointing is that @TenPoundHammer with 20 years on WP and over a quarter million edits stoops to multi-reverting in clear violation of 3RR and seemingly as a repeat of the behaviour that got a just-expired ban." TenPoundHammer has made strong content contributions since their topic ban. I hope they can continue their good work in this area but stay away from areas that have caused trouble. In the proposed decision, two arbitrators had recommended making proposed deletions explicit in the remedy but this did not happen. I ask that TenPoundHammer be topic banned from blank-and-redirects and proposed deletions but not topic banned on contesting proposed deletions and improving articles nominated for deletion. In a previous amendment request, I did not receive a response on whether I should have submitted a separate amendment request (context). Please confirm whether I need to file a separate amendment request or if my request will be considered as part of this clarification. Cunard (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Statement by Nyttend Saw this at WP:AN, and I hope you don't mind a totally uninvolved editor chiming in. (If you do, feel free to remove this.) Frankly, I don't understand why this is even considered to be related to TPH's bans at TenPoundHammer topic banned (1) and Amendment: TenPoundHammer suspended topic ban for blank-and-redirecting (June 2024). PRODs aren't discussions, and at a brief glance (which is all I know about this, having previously been unaware of this Arbcom case) I don't see anyone alleging that TPH was disruptively prodding or deprodding articles — and since the case banned two other users from deprodding articles, I daresay Arbcom would have included such a ban for TPH too, had this been intended — so I'm surprised that this is necessary at all. (Thank you to TPH for being careful about this.) If this were a community ban, and someone had raised the issue at WP:AN or WP:ANI, I'd say "no way is this a problem" and be dumbfounded if anyone sought sanctions. Since we've ended up here, Arbcom might as well say "sure, we didn't intend TPH's ban to cover prods", but otherwise no attention is needed. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Edit — now I see the link to the clarification request from last year. I'm very surprised by what was said there, and I don't think it wise at all. If I understand rightly, people objected to TPH nominating too many articles for deletion (thus overwhelming the system) and perhaps being too vigorous in seeking deletion. Deprodding an article helps to de-overwhelm the PROD system, and any inappropriate behaviour (e.g. abusing whoever prodded the article) can be dealt with as such, instead of with Arbcom sanctions. Just throw out all PROD-related restrictions (or if you absolutely have to keep some restrictions, create a completely new statement comprising all extant PROD-related restrictions) and make the whole thing simpler. But don't leave it in the clarification requests; that's just confusing for uninvolved admins and perhaps for involved parties too. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Statement by {other-editor} Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information. Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion I would argue no, it is not included; see the topic ban of Johnpacklambert in the same case, where PRODding and de-PRODding are heavily implied to be separate from a deletion discussion (broadly construed) topic ban. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Yeah, what she said. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Agreed. - Aoidh (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Agreed. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] I agree with my colleagues above. PROD, by design, is a lightweight process and not a discussion. I also see no problem with TPH expanding articles that are up for deletion (disruptive editing of such articles can be dealt with the same way as any other disruptive editing without the need for ArbCom to legislate for every possibility). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] I think that "deletion discussions, broadly construed" means that it is only forbidden if TenPoundHammer participates in the discussions themselves. Adding and removing PRODs are fine. But I would steer away from trying to influence editors directly on their talk pages if articles are at AfD (I know that this wasn't the case this time): I think that could be viewed as trying to participate by proxy. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Aesurias is topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. TheNewMinistry is subject to a one-way interaction ban with Aesurias. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Aesurias User who is submitting this request for enforcement TheNewMinistry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] User against whom enforcement is requested Aesurias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:AC/CT Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 19 September 2025 Responded to second warning from admin by asking the same admin to engage in WP:PROXYING on their behalf 23 September 2025 Added WP:FALSEBALANCE to politician's article with weasel-wording about their support of Palestine relief group UNRWA - they had previously tried to insert the same unsourced information into the article back in March ([12]) 28 September 2025 Reclassified an Israel-sponsored trip by right-wing political figure, implying such trips are not controversial 29 September 2025 Removed sourced quote from pro-Israel politician's article where she equated Palestinians to barbarians 2 October 2025 Removed passage identifying group's founder as Gerald Ronson and his connection to Netanyahu - Aesurias acknowledged the information is correct and should be in lead instead, but chooses to delete everything 3 October 2025 Removed passages explaining that Israeli-Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican in the 2012 US Presidential Election, and that democratic socialist Bernie Sanders is Jewish 9 October 2025 Admonished another user for removing a tag from an article they created, telling them "DO NOT REMOVE A TAG WITHOUT IT BEING DISCUSSED, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS YOUR OWN ARTICLE" 10 October 2025 Tagged The Holocaust and the Nakba for deletion, but was widely rebuked in the AFD discussion and it failed 11 October 2025 Deleted passage from The Holocaust and the Nakba explaining its views on Israeli Jews 12 October 2025 Removed notability tag from JEXIT, an article Aesurias created, without allowing any discussion 13 October 2025 Created page on the pro-Israel Zioness Movement, with half the sources either dead links or direct links to the Zioness website 14 October 2025 Removed sourced passage explaining that Israel's doctrine they use to justify denial of the Gaza genocide was authored by biased individuals 14 October 2025 Removed a passage explaining that the Australian Jewish Association defended a former neo-nazi 18 October 2025 Moved List of companies of Palestine to draftspace, saying the formatting is incorrect 18 October 2025 Started an AN investigation into a userpage having a vague reference to Hezbollah, which was promptly closed after the consensus was that Aesurius was wasting everyone's time 21 October 2025 Moved article on Track AIPAC, a watchdog group monitoring pro-Israel group AIPAC to draftspace, calling it improperly sourced and non-notable 21 October 2025 Created page on Better Australia, a group supporting pro-Israel politicians, using only five sources - two of which are primary, and one of which is a blog 22 October 2025 Reverted my addition of Template:Promotional to Zioness Movement page they created without making any changes to content or sourcing Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 11 September 2025 by Helpful Raccoon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for condiuct in the area of conflict on 19 September 2025 by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Additional comments by editor filing complaint Editor is clearly inserting pro-Israel messaging into Wikipedia's articles and suppressing criticism of Israel, and a topic ban on any material covering the Arab–Israeli conflict would be appropriate. Their New page reviewer permission should be revoked. TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [13] Discussion concerning Aesurias Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Aesurias I previously opened an NPOV discussion against this user, here, over an image taken of a political candidate in 2007, which the user uploaded to Wikimedia as their 'own work'. The user, paradoxically, insisted that they had no COI with the candidate. Other editors questioned the user about this, because by insisting on 1) the image being their own work and 2) them having no connection to the person in the image, they were lying about at least one thing. After I opened that discussion, I was incessantly hounded by the user, who has been reprimanded by administrators for his behaviour here, but didn't acknowledge it. They thanked me dozens of times, spamming me with notifications, seen here. Their recent edit history, seen here, is made up almost entirely of my articles -- they created talk pages for more than a dozen of them, adding the 'contentious topics' tag to each one, notifying me. Their recent edit history also shows they were adding tags onto my articles without explaining why on the talk pages. On Better Australia, they added an NPOV tag and opened a talk page discussion (the only page where they explained why they added the tag!) here. I was receptive to this, adding things they wanted to the article. The user then stopped replying. Another editor replied to the talk page saying I didn't need to add any of what this user wanted in the first place, as it was not relevant. Additionally, they previously received a 48hr ban for personal attacks against me, seen here. They have received other bans of various types, including another ban for personal attacks on other users. Creating articles on Wikipedia is not a crime, as the user is trying to insinuate. Other editors approved these articles with no problem. I stand by all of my own reviews of pages, they weren't ready for mainspace. Cherrypicking a few of them relating to Israel-Palestine and ignoring the dozens that weren't is disingenuous. My edits were fine -- for example, the Israeli-American one was false info, it was a poll asking Israelis in Israel who they would theoretically vote for if they could, which is why I removed it. I removed some parts of 'criticism' sections because they didn't contain criticisms, rather they contained things that the editor who added them didn't personally like. A failed AfD is not relevant, some editors agreed with me, some didn't. This request is unserious. The user's assumption of bad faith, accusing me of "inserting pro-Israel messaging into Wikipedia", is not only offensive to me, but offensive to the dozens of well-respected editors who have approved my pages. User:Sean.hoyland I had not seen this post before you sent it, and although I have a Reddit account I am not active in that subreddit. I would have disclosed this in the AfD if I had seen it prior. I don't believe a topic ban is warranted. If I am allowed to go over 500 words, I can rebut each claim and explain each edit. Aesurias (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] I'm requesting that I be allowed to go over the 500 word limit, to explain each edit. I don't feel that these accusations have validity and would like to discuss each point! Thank you. Aesurias (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] The allegations against me are flawed -- I have a 200word limit but some examples: Accusation #6 falsely claims I removed info about Israeli-Americans from an article about American Jewish politics - the edit history would show that it was actually a poll of Israelis living in Israel who can't actually vote (therefore shouldn't have been in the article). #8 is about an AfD (irrelevant), #9 was an approved edit from AfD discussion, #11 and #17 were just me creating articles (one of the points of Wikipedia...?), #18 was me removing a tag placed without explanation in talk page as part of their harassment campaign they were indef blocked for. Only of my only genuine errors in these accusations is #1 -- I had just begun editing and wasn't aware. The other editor in the convo kindly explained contentious topics rules but because my writing had no issues, it wasn't reverted and there was no issue. Aesurias (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Statement by TheNewMinistry Asilvering (talk · contribs) is literally the administrator who advised me on October 15, 2025 to open an investigation on this very forum when I asked them for advice regarding Aesurius' biases in Israel/Palestine editing: As for Aesurias, if you have npov concerns regarding Israel-Palestine, the place to raise those is at en:WP:AE. [14] For Asilvering to claim they are an uninvolved administrator is laughable. I'm politely asking @Asilvering: to recuse themself from this investigation. TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Incorrect Asilvering (talk · contribs) - I last thanked Aesurias (talk · contribs) before today on October 12th, according to the logs posted above. I only thanked Aesurias once, today, after they left contact information on your Talk Page so you could both discuss ways to retaliate against me offsite. Again, @Asilvering: - please recuse yourself from this investigation since you clearly hold a grudge against me. If you did not direct me to this forum in good faith in your advice to me here, as I had assumed, and instead thought you could lure me here to punish me for non-related matters, as you imply in your edit here - that is quite disturbing. TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Statement by Sean.hoyland The following line caught my eye. 10 October 2025 Tagged The Holocaust and the Nakba for deletion... Looking at the timing and the fact that the nomination for deletion was, I think, Aesurias' first visible interaction with that page, I would be interested to know from Aesurias whether the action was in response to this Reddit thread or perhaps another site. If so, I do think for ARBPIA, for processes susceptible to external influence like AfD, it would be helpful if people just openly described the off-wiki discussion/social media post etc. that caused them to take action on-wiki whenever it happens as part of the nomination. That way we might have better visibility into the off-wiki/on-wiki causal connections that exist. Just a simple - saw this post/discussion... - might help. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Thanks Aesurias. I take that to mean that you also think that something like a WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT for these kinds of things might help. If so, that probably makes a total of two of us. It's a start. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Result concerning Aesurias This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Disclosure: I was the administrator who warned TNM about hounding Aesurias ([15]), having earlier blocked TNM for harassment regarding the same. I have also responded to Aesurias's questions about where to take various disputes, and about the word limit in AE proceedings. I do not feel that either of these prejudice me unfairly in this case, but am more than willing to move my comments up if other admins think I ought to. Regarding the evidence against Aesurias, I have not fully investigated but it looks at least good enough that we should investigate, not reject this filing out of hand for being retaliatory. However, the filing is quite clearly the most recent salvo in a pattern of harassment that I warned TNM over just yesterday. Clearly, some sanction for harassment on the part of TNM is required, regardless of the ultimate outcome regarding Aesurias. -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Yes, @TheNewMinistry, I told you to raise complaints at AE. A week ago. In the intervening time, instead of raising concerns at AE, you continued to harass Aesurias, and I then gave you a final warning, as I stated. As I have said, if other admins think I should move my comments up, I am happy to. I have, however, only been involved here in an administrative capacity. -- asilvering (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Regarding Aesurias's assertion that TNM has been cherrypicking, I'm not sure that can possibly be true, given that, unless I am much mistaken, TNM's evidence does not contain anything about Talk:Pallywood, Aesurias's most-edited talk page. That discussion has also spilled out to WP:NPOVN#'Pallywood' (though, note also the personal attack on them here [16]). Their position appears to be that Pallywood is "real". Pallywood is both a slur and a conspiracy theory. Someone who cannot distinguish between Pallywood and Misinformation in the Gaza war should not be editing in WP:CT/PIA. -- asilvering (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] @Aesurias, you can have another 200 words. -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Well, I think asilvering is fine to participate. I also think that Aesurias deserves a topic ban at minimum from PIA. TNM should get an interaction ban with Aesurias for the harassment at this point. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] I have blocked TNM indefinitely for their comment above in which they acknowledge that they used the "thank" button in response to an edit by Aesurias that they characterize as part of a conspiracy to "retaliate against me offsite"—obviously not sincere thanks, but a continuation of the same harassment Asilvering warned them for. I might have gone with a p-block from thanking, or a longer tempblock, but their complete lack of self-awareness that this is harassment suggests a problem broader than this one issue, and so for now at least an indef siteblock is the least restrictive remedy that addresses the disruption. This is not an AE action, and should not lead to an early closure of this thread. For now I have no opinion on TBANning Aesurias, but support an IBAN on TNM, blocked or not. -- Tamzin [cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] @Tamzin, if you agree with a PIA tban for Aesurias, that leaves us at unanimous consensus and you're clear to close the thread. -- asilvering (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] @Asilvering: I think I remain neutral on a TBAN. Not neutral in the sense of having a long analysis at the ready of the pros and cons, but neutral in the sense that the evidence doesn't quite click for me and, if not for the overlapping matter of TNM's conduct, I would have just not commented here. Please don't delay a close on my account, though. 3 support to 1 neutral is still a rough consensus. -- Tamzin [cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] I also support a TBAN for Aesurias from PIA and an IBAN for TNM with Aesurias. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] @Asilvering, Tamzin, Callanecc, and Sennecaster: How do you feel after reading Aesurias's latest post? I see consensus for a TBAN here, but given that an extension was granted the material in it should be considered. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] I remain the most concerned about the AN thread they started about the userbox, which is what ultimately persuaded me. I'd be fine with a warning, informal or formal, but I don't think this is a close without action situation because of that thread. Unrelated to this AE, Aesurias, you should probably start using more precise draftify reasons than the one you used in diff 16 (Identical to other page). Sennecaster (Chat) 17:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] The issues raised in the recent post are irrelevant to my own reasoning. -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Having reviewed the evidence myself, I concur with my colleagues that a TBAN is warranted. Aesurias's conduct at Talk:Pallywood makes me believe they will not be able to edit this area in a policy-compliant manner. I also agree that TNW requires an interaction ban. Closing with this result, given the rough consensus here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Lumbering in thought is warned for adding unsourced information and restoring it after it was challenged. They are encouraged to better familiarize themself with WP:V going forward, and cautioned that even beyond contentious topics, repeatedly adding unsourced information may lead to a block as a regular admin action. -- Tamzin [cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Lumbering in thought User who is submitting this request for enforcement Longhornsg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] User against whom enforcement is requested Lumbering in thought (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:PIA Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [17] [18] Adding OR and info not supported by RS or in the article body to the lede of Jewish lobby [19] Readded OR and wrong information after reversion asking for sources Refusal to provide an RS for additions to lede on talk [20] [21] Continued to add OR to the page and not engage with RS on talk 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, [22] Additional comments by editor filing complaint Clear disregard for the need for RS in this topic area. Despite multiple requests to present RS, multiple times, none were presented. Diff 4 was after several attempts for RS. I just reverted but am not interested in getting into an edit war. The diff shared is further evidence that they don't know how to constructively edit on Wikipedia, especially in contentious topics. What I did was WP:BRD. I reverted, discussed on talk page, and we achieved consensus. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [23] Discussion concerning Lumbering in thought Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Lumbering in thought I take issue with 1-3 to the point of belief that the plaintiff has committed WP:BLUD, as for 4 [[24]] you can see the plaintiff didn't revert my revert when I started the request to get consensus. My revert being allowed to stay when we entered the talk was confusing. Thus arguably, the plaintiff's established pattern of behavior is worse than mine as per Special:Diff/1318135022. Lumbering in thought (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] In response to the plaintiff's latest, recognizing that I never broke the 1RR per WP:PIA, I should have replied to their message on my Talk page, an attempt to establish a pattern of behavior which didn't have an invitation to the article Talk page done in coordination with their first edit summary revert reason [[25]] implying satisfaction with edit summaries, with an invitation to the article Talk page and a reminder that they should be discussing the article substance. Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that a re-revert edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond without risking an edit war. See also WP:QUO. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, or invite the editor to the talk page if they insist on using only edit summaries, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle. Lumbering in thought (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Statement by Sean.hoyland A couple of comments for what it's worth. It's probably debatable whether the entire article is covered by PIA restrictions resulting from its relationship to 'the Arab–Israeli conflict, a contentious topic'. Maybe the ARBPIA template should have |relatedcontent=yes. Either way, it is currently unprotected. I'm not sure I agree with the way Longhornsg has constructed this complaint. Isn't the right question - are the additions consistent with WP:LEAD? Other rules like OR, RS aren't pertinent because it's the lead. So, maybe it's about whether or not the changes are trying to crowbar content into the lead that is not present in the article body (always a red flag in PIA) i.e. it's not a valid summary, or is it? I haven't actually checked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Statement by (username) Result concerning Lumbering in thought This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I think this just barely falls into PIA, in that LIT is talking about diaspora Jews at the deliberate exclusion of Israeli Jews, and then on talk drawing a distinction between the Jewish lobby and Israel lobby. With jurisdiction established, I'm pretty concerned here about what reads as a basic failure to understand WP:V. LHSG has repeatedly asked LIT for sources for their edits, and they've blown right past that while leaping to claims of bludgeoning. I'll stress that, while citations are generally not needed in a lede, the lede is expected to follow the body, and the body has nothing to back up LIT's edits, so LHSG's request for sources is valid. Furthermore, I'm pretty squeamish about seeing the word "predisposed" anywhere around ethnicity. Maybe that was just poor wording, but combined with the rest decreases my confidence. I'm not sure whether or what level of sanctions are necessary here, but something needs to be addressed in some way. -- Tamzin [cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] I agree with Tamzin that the additions are problematic. WP:LEAD offers no exception to the policy on verifiability; it only allows for providing citations in the body of the article. Lumbering's conduct is only marginally mitigated by the lead as it stood also being unsupported by the body. For a first offence I would suggest a logged warning. If they continue to miss the point, a TBAN is inevitable, although I would also consider a block as an ordinary admin action for adding unsourced content. As an aside, this is an excellent example for my oft-repeated position that contentious articles should not only allow but encourage citations in the lead. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] I agree with a logged warning for WP:V (in particular, to provide an in-line citation to a reliable source for any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] It looks like there's consensus here for a logged warning - Tamzin? -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2025 (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

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Chronos.Zx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation

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

The participation of several editors at Sati (practice) and Sati (practice) has left a lot to be desired. But Chronos.Zx has approached the topic with a degree of aggression that is not appropriate to a contentious topic.

1. 28 September, 29 September: Edit-warring (same content), assumptions of bad faith ("whitewashing").
2. 1 November; more edit-warring, claiming source misrepresentation without evidencing this on the talk page.
3. 28 September Assumptions of bad faith, selective reading of the source to support content contrary to its intended meaning.
4. 15 October Source misrepresentation: see my explanation in reply.
5. 18 October continued inability or unwillingness to understand the nuance in the phrase "largely historical".
6. 27 October misrepresenting article history; see my explanation in reply.
7. 1 November, 1 November further assumptions of bad faith.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions that I can see.

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

Chronos.Zx's multiple accounts and username changes make the history at AE difficult to track. They were given a GS/CASTE notification here and an ARBIPA notification here, in October 2023, and participated in an AE discussion with their previous account here, in April this year. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The recurring theme here is a "give them no quarter" battleground attitude that has precluded any meaningful discussion of this complicated topic. Chronos.Zx is not the only offender here - if an uninvolved admin would like to give that talk page some attention, it would be appreciated - but their aggressive approach has been among the worst. This topic is a complex one, with a long history. Editors need to be willing to discuss differing interpretations in good faith, with sensitivity to nuance: Chronos.Zx has been consistently unable to do so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Just noting that Chronos.Zx continues to portray people he disagrees with as claiming the practice of Sati has ceased, which is not a position I or anyone else has taken. The failure to understand the nuance in "largely historical" is the heart of the matter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2025 (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.

Addressing all the mentioned diffs:

1. I said "no stonewalling" here because removal of sourced content by UnpetitproleX was backed with the "get consensus first for your WP:BOLD changes to longstanding WP:STABLE version of lead" instead of justifying their removal of the content. This is frowned upon by WP:STONEWALLING which says "Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion." Similarly, this is not "assumptions of bad faith" because UnpetitproleX was indeed removing reliably sourced content by falsely asserting "source misrepresentation".
2. This is outright misleading. You are describing a partial revert by wrongly terming it as "more edit-warring" and falsely asserting "claiming source misrepresentation without evidencing this on the talk page," when the evidence of misrepresentation was already provided on talk page in lengths.[27] [28] It was only after that I made this partial revert. The editor who was actually edit warring has been page blocked for 2 weeks.
3. This is also misleading because UnpetitproleX was indeed removing reliably sourced content by falsely asserting "source misrepresentation". UnpetitproleX failed to justify their false assertion after another editor got on the point before switching their opposition to claiming "it fails WP:LEAD" instead of "source misrepresentation" anymore. UnpetitproleX was wrong about that as well because the article body covers the content at Sati (practice)#Opposition to the ban. Vanamonde93 removed the concerning sentence without ever discussing it,[29] however, the content was re-added to lead by another editor with almost same wording.[30]
4. There is no source misrepresentation there. This is my whole response. Where is the misrepresentation? Both sources confirm Sati practice has not faded away.
5. This is purely content dispute. Nothing to do with conduct.
6. I linked to this version because this is the last version that required page protection.
7. This is no "assumptions of bad faith" here. As for this, I am sure that the charge of "second time you have tried to misrepresent this particular source" is wrong, and so is how UnpetitproleX trying to treat the word "may" to be indicative of a false claim.[31]

Crux of this complaint is, that saying Sati practice still happens or arguing anyone who says the contrary is either "misrepresentation of source" or "assumption of bad faith". Anyone who reads Sati (practice)#Current situation will not doubt that the practice does happens to this day.

Talking about "misrepresentation of source", Vanamonde93 clearly added an inaccurate summary of the source on the main article,[32] and failed to justify their edit on the talk page by completely evading the point.[33] Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Rosguill and Sennecaster: I acknowledge the issues, and promise to do better.

I would like to inform about two things that have came to community's attention only after this report was filed. It is that the long-standing version said "is a practice, a chiefly historical", not "largely historical". See past versions such as this, this, this and it is easily more accurate in comparison. These revelations can be found here. If these facts were known earlier, then I think that things would be far better as I would have simply supported this wording over the options that were available so far.

It is not like I am not amenable. For example, you should see my edit here which was reverted for being against the basic standards of editing in this subject.[34] I did not justify myself. I opened a talk page discussion to acknowledge the problem with my edit and for helping others become aware, in case their edits are having a similar problem.

Getting back to the report, I note that this is a single page issue as of current. I can confirm that there has been significant improvement in my editing across Wikipedia. I ensure the highlighted issues wont resurface. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Rosguill: I said "the long-standing version said "is a practice, a chiefly historical", not "largely historical"." This is different from comparing just "largely historical" with "chiefly historical". The difference between "is a practice, a chiefly historical" and "is largely historical" is that the former is first ensuring that there is a practice before talking about its extent while the latter is directly talking about its extent. There is a subtle difference between "Chiefly" and "Largely" here because "Chiefly" means mainly, while "Largely" means to a great degree in terms of relative frequency. Therefore the argument I made would have been more valid in favor of "chiefly".

It is not just me who is seeing the importance of the difference between these two words but multiple users have on talk page,[35] [36] well before I made my comment right above. Chronos.Zx (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

I am unimpressed by the amount of WP:ABF shown in the diffs and extremely unimpressed by the retaliation diffs provided. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(edit conflict) Reviewing the diffs here:

1. is indeed edit warring by Chronos.Zx (and also Unpetitprole). I'm particularly, unimpressed by Chronos.Zx's repeated assertion here that Unpetitprole's edit falsely assert[ed] "source misrepresentation". It is indeed fair and due for Unpetitprole to cry foul when a source, which in its totality casts doubt on the prevalence of sati and its prominence in British accounts, is used solely to support a claim that in the Wikipedia article's context suggests that sati was prominent and popular among Hindus.

2. Here I don't see edit warring--there's one revert, and there's explanations on the talk page from other editors. That having been said, at least some parts of the explanation given by the explanations that Chronos.Zx highlights seem inaccurate: India before Europe does in fact emphasize the Rajput vs. Muslim divide, contra Orientls's claims in diff 19.

3. This is essentially part 2 of the repeat assertion I noted in point #1. A bad look to baldly double down on the assertion by saying :That said, you should refrain from engaging in whitewashing with misleading excuses..

4. I'm inclined to agree with Vanamonde93's assessment on this point, and Chronos.Zx's responses here seem to be crossing into IDHT territory. A source that states Whatever the reason, sati has not disappeared completely. While relatively few in numbers... very much supports the framing that it is a largely historical practice; the use of the word "largely" directly accounts for the fact that the practice continues, albeit sporadically. Chronos.Zx would have a valid point if their discursive counterparts were asserting that the article should just say Sati was a historical practice. Other sources regarding the prevalence of the practice could be brought to bear (read: I am not making a content judgment of what the article should say), but it is disingenuous to present Ahmad 2009 as a source that categorically disagrees with the description "largely historical".

5. I don't think that this diff in itself is a violation, nor does it present any new perspectives not already addressed above, although it is consistent with the IDHT perspective.

6 Mu -- Vanamonde93 appears to be correct about the overall history of the page's status quo, and Chronos.Zx's methodology in highlighting the revision they chose is a little odd, but it's not totally unreasonable and I think it's jumping to conclusions to conclude that this had to have been a bad faith assertion.

7. The first diff here doesn't seem to have any issues; the second repeats the POV-pushing accusation

In light of the above, there's a clear failure to assume good-faith, and a pattern of reading into sources what they evidently want to see to support their arguments rather than what the sources say in their totality. Charitably, if we assume that the rest of the bibliography that Chronos.Zx and other editors on their side of the dispute cite is decisive, this is still a failure to collegially engage with editors' discussion of RS coverage of the topic (n.b. the ongoing RfC participation does not currently suggest that the broader community finds the outcome to be one-sided). The evidence brought to bear does not suggest that Unpetitprole is misrepresenting sources or falsely accusing others of the same, and thus Chronos.Zx appears to beg the question of Unpetitprole's misconduct to justify their own terseness. All of that taken into account, I'm currently waffling between a logged warning and a topic ban. In reviewing AE and ANI logs, I note that Chronos.Zx under their prior aliases has been an avid participant at the drama boards, mostly raising cases against others, but in the process I do see that about 9 months ago they were sharply, if informally, admonished by Black Kite for edits to Bangladesh that leave very little room for assumption of good faith. With that in mind, I'm leaning towards a topic ban from CT/SA, as the battleground attitude appears to have occurred across the topic area. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Regarding Chronos.Zx's reply, I don't think that there is a meaningful difference between "chiefly historical" and "largely historical", and this grasping at straws to justify their position does not inspire confidence. Unless there is additional input from other administrators, I think we can move towards a close here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't find the following rejoinder insisting on "chiefly" persuasive in the context of the discussion on the relevant talk page. N.b., Vanamonde93 identified that the status quo ante version included "chiefly" on October 27. Chronos.Zx proceeded to !vote "no" and present several follow up arguments on November 1st in a section titled RfC: Chiefly historical or not?--granted, the actual question in the RfC says Should...describe sati...through a descriptor such as "a largely historical practice", but nowhere in their responses do they indicate any qualification to their "no" suggesting that they might support another near-synonym in the lead sentence. That they're now changing their tune while under cross-examination does not change my opinion of their conduct in the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, Chronos.Zx, you've exceeded the 500 word limit for your responses here. Please do not respond further unless specifically requested to by an administrator. You are allowed to request extensions, although I don't really see much reason to grant one at this time (but perhaps in response to another admin's participation it could become relevant). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Finally, to cap off what I’m realizing became a bit of a tangent: the crux of the issue here at AE is not whether Chronos.Zx was correct/incorrect to argue against the inclusion of "largely". The issue is the disingenuous argumentation and lack of AGF demonstrated in their responses to those who were advocating for "largely", given that these arguments were not baseless. It may well be that "chiefly" is better suited due to the numerical connotations of "largely", but that doesn’t explain the insistence that editors arguing for "largely" were engaged in source misrepresentation, nor does it explain Chronos.Zx’s arguments regarding Ahmad 2009 and its use in the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• After reviewing a sample of the diffs, I would consider Chronos.Zx's edits (both article edits and talk page comments) to be substantially in keeping with WP:NPOV/WP:V. However, there is a stark inability to pose comments or questions in a manner consistent with WP:AGF. It is not enough to have a good grasp of the sources or to have editorial policy on your side. Editors also have to keep the peace with other editors, even at times of disagreement. I would support a short site-wide block, but not a topic ban at this stage. Arcticocean ■しかく 10:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Arcticocean, I'm not sure what that prescription would accomplish, as it seems more like an arbitrary punishment than a preventative measure. I know we use short blocks to address incivility, but that's typically in the face of persistent incivility that is ongoing when the administrative decision takes place. With that in mind, a logged warning seems like a more appropriate alternative rather than a short block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I suggested a block because it would be preventive. The conduct has been slowly paced out – looking backwards, it last occurred on 1 November (7 days ago), 27 October (12 days ago), and 18 October (21 days ago). It's an analogous situation to slow edit warring, where once the pattern becomes clear, it can be interrupted with a block, even where the last instance was some days prior. I don't oppose a warning, but I don't think it will be effective. Arcticocean ■しかく 18:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I see. I think I’d stand by my original suggestion of a topic ban based on such an assessment: given the slow pace of the edit warring, I don’t see a block providing a "cool off" effect that is often salutary and sufficient in other disputes. Meanwhile, the bad faith assumptions seem to clearly be attached to perceptions of culture war in Indian topics, so my sense is that a topic ban would be ideal for both halting the disruption and providing a clear path for regaining the community’s trust. Pinging Sennecaster for their thoughts on which sanctions are most appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  What duration of topic ban did you have in mind? I may support your proposal, if the duration were proportionate, on the basis of the behavioural policy violations. Arcticocean ■しかく 19:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  My thinking was indefinite, with expectation that a successful appeal could be considered in as soon as 1-3 months, depending on the quality and quantity of contributions in the intervening period. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I think a topic ban would be a good idea. Indefinite duration, because their activity is fairly spread out. I'm amenable to Rosguill's suggestion of considering an earlier appeal, but have no real strong opinions about it. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:24, 9 November 2025 (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

NicheSports (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rap no Davinci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:PIA. Requesting TBAN due to repeated LLM misuse in topic area.

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

The user has repeatedly misused LLMs in and out of the PIA topic area. Diffs are in the order that I became aware of them.

1. Draft talk:Nayda § High likelihood unreviewed LLM-generated text I became aware of this user after finding an article they created via the 1325 edit filter logs. I draftified it after noticing that nearly every claim in the lead failed verification. They seemed to misrepresent their use of LLMs in their response to my note on their talk page
2. 14:31, 1 November 2025: Today I noticed that this addition to Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi seems to be composed of unreviewed LLM-generated content. Five of the sources they introduced here have dead links/resolve to 404s. [37] [38] [39] [40] [41].
3. 15:39, 17 September 2025: I found this today while looking for other cases of LLM misuse in PIA. There are multiple material content verification failures here. Example: [42] and [43] are provided as the only source for the claim ...with a recent show in Amsterdam featuring a Palestinian flag on stage and renewed chants. despite neither article mentioning Amsterdam
4. They were previously warned about the diff above on their talk page, a warning they deleted

I do not edit in the PIA space. This user was warned multiple times about LLM misuse prior to their recent edit to Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi and after seeing it I decided I had to file here.

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 think they are aware because they have extensively edited in the PIA topic area, but most of these do not apply.

• Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic: at Special:Diff/1311408607 they !voted in support of a Deletion review request that explicitly referenced Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Rap No Davinci's explanation does not make sense given how they fixed the broken references. In every case, they replaced the broken URL with links from a different publication. See the table below (triple-checked, at least broadly correct, but as always mistakes are possible).

Original broken URL	Replacement URL(s)
Haaretz	BBC, CBS News, Al-Jazeera, NPR
Times of Israel (1)	The Guardian (1)
The Guardian	CBC, PBS, The Guardian (1)
Times of Israel (2)	BBC (2), The Guardian (2)
JPost	BBC (2)

NicheSports (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[44]

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 raising this. After looking back at my edits on Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, the issue seems to have been mainly with the references: some links were wrong or dead, not with the content itself. I’ve already fixed those citations without changing any word in the "Resignation" section.

The source errors are my own, mostly from working too fast. However I take full responsibility. I’ll make sure to slow down and double-check each citation, especially for sensitive or conflict-related topics like this one.

I am still relatively new here, I have never been penalized before. If admins believe a sanction is still warranted, I will accept the decision and continue participating in a responsible manner. My goal is to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith and within policy.

Cheers!

• Reply to @Arcticocean and Asilvering:

To clarify my earlier point, I never denied using LLM but rather: I did not use it to generate the content, I used it to help me paraphrase text and format citations for Wikipedia source. I believe that formatting of all info to be source-suitable is what caused the citation errors/changes. I understand what went wrong. I should've double-checked the sources afterwards, but due to working a bit too fast I missed it, and I take full responsibility for that oversight. This is also why I mentioned it was easy to fix the 'resignation' section, as all the info was factual and the quotes accurate. Thanks for your attention.

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

• I am not convinced by Rap no Davinci's claim that the five sources in one edit were coincidental human errors, not LLM hallucinations. Where did they find the sources? What sources did they intend to use? As the user has been previously warned against disruption through use of AI-generated content, also in this topic area, I think a sanction is necessary. I'd welcome views on which sanction would be proportionate. Arcticocean ■しかく 09:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  As the user admits using an LLM, a further warning would be appropriate. As this is the second warning, further AI misuse is likely to result in a sitewide block. Arcticocean ■しかく 06:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Rap no Davinci, can you please answer Arcticocean's questions, above? Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Tentatively in favor of AGFing and leaving this at a logged warning for misuse of LLMs, with the understanding that any further issues will be a TBAN at minimum if not just a siteblock. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

indef'd. -- asilvering (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning EilertBorchert User who is submitting this request for enforcement JaggedHamster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] User against whom enforcement is requested EilertBorchert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:COVIDDS Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 09:19, 1 November 2025 Long conspiratorial screed promoting the lab leak theory 19:19, 21 October 2025 More of the same, apparently copy and pasted from "The DisInformation Chronicle" 11:09, 11 October 2025 Incorrectly claims "There is consensus that the 27 scientific workers (signers) dit not mention the truth in the scientific Lancet Paper" Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 09:43, 9 January 2025 Additional comments by editor filing complaint I give 3 diffs above but I could have picked basically any from their contribution history, their only contribution is promoting lab leak conspiracy theories on various talk pages. They seem fixated on repeating various irrelevant/disproven points and end up derailing discussions about how to improve the articles. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [45] Discussion concerning EilertBorchert Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by EilertBorchert Statement by Alpha3031 Wow, I had somehow missed the copy and paste in the history. I've tagged it with the usual, but if any of the admins here get there first it should probably be RD1ed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Statement by (username) Result concerning EilertBorchert This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I have completed the revision-deletion requested by Alpha3031. For the benefit of any non-admins reading along, the diff contained a complete copy of this substack post. I also note that the text in diff number 1 is lifted from this HSGAC press release. As for the substance of the request, it seems fairly clear to me that EilertBorchert is unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue with their fellow editors, and I'm inclined to think an indef is warranted. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] All of this user's contributions relate to COVID-19, and there is evidence of tendentious editing from the beginning and throughout. I'd support either an indefinite topic ban from COVID-19 or an indefinite site wide block. Arcticocean ■しかく 09:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ] Seeing no opposition to an indef, that's how I'll close this. -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2025 (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

Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Countryboy603 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

GENSEX

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

1. Nov 14, 2025 Vandalism in violation of MOS:GENDERID
2. Nov 14, 2025 Ditto
3. Oct 4, 2025 Changed a trans BLP's name in article to their deadname
4. Oct 4, 2025 Changed "transgender man" to "a transgender that identifies as a man"
5. June 10, 2025 Jun 9 2025 Harassing and outing a trans editor by posting his picture to wikipedia.
6. October 29, 2024 October 29, 2024 Changing a BLP's pronouns because A person cannot changer their sex.

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)

[46]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Can we indef him please? He's clearly NOTHERE.

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.

Looks like an indef to me. Account seems to be WP:NOTHERE over a sustained period. The misgendering goes back more than a year. Also, I know it has nothing to do with GENSEX, but the George Floyd stuff from 2023 (e.g. diff) looks like disruption wearing a mask of faux civility. Only thing I can say in his favour is that he never got a final warning which, in retrospect, was an oversight. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

• I'd rather not indef on a first block. I just gave them 31 hours for WP:DE as a unilateral action. If that doesn't help them change their mind and/or if they start digging themselves a very large hole, I have no objection to anyone extending it. -- asilvering (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  The (now suppressed) posts in point 5 are the most concerning to me; if not for them I'd be inclined to suggest a TBAN from GENSEX, but including those leaves me thinking an indef is the only acceptable outcome here. CoconutOctopus talk 17:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Agreed; I honestly might support an indef just for the blatantly transphobic vandalism, but trying to out a editor for being trans is really not acceptable. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I lean indef on WP:COMMUNICATE grounds if nothing else. That might seem strange to say given that it's a far less serious issue than harassment, but my reasoning is that as I try to assess whether WP:HATEDISRUPT and/or WP:HARASS applies here, I find I really can't get a good answer because this user never explains themself. They've made a number of edits that read as pushing an anti-trans agenda, although [47] makes me think this may be more a case of someone having somewhat idiosyncratic views on gender and trying to "helpfully" implement what they view as a compromise. Maybe that's an excess of AGF, I don't know, but I guess my point is I can't know, because they keep making these driveby edits and then neither engaging when people revert them nor changing their behavior subsequently. So I think the simplest way forward is a non-AE indef for failure to communicate, and then an unblock reviewer can decide whether to downgrade that to a GENSEX/trans-topics TBAN, uphold it as necessary to prevent disruption, or (rather unlikely IMO) simply unblock. In some cases I might say just letting the tempblock ride and seeing how that goes would be enough, but given how they've flown under the radar, including with an apparent attempt at outing, I'd rather this be sorted in a way that falls back to being blocked. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=1136596190"

Categories:

• Wikipedia arbitration
• Wikipedia requests

Hidden categories:

• Noindexed pages
• Wikipedia semi-protected project pages
• Wikipedia move-protected project pages