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.

Shortcuts WP:ARCWP:ARC WP:A/R/CWP:A/R/C About this page Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. File an arbitration request Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits. Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced. In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs. Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.) Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted. Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions. Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises. Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~). Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them. Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget and this report may also be helpful. Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process. General guidance This page is for statements, not discussion. Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning. Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page. Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse. Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Initiated by NorthernWinds at 11:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_14#c-HJ_Mitchell-20250509105000-Someonefighter

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. As a result of an appeal, NorthernWinds' site ban is vacated and replaced with an indefinite topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed).

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

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

Information about amendment request

• As a result of an appeal, NorthernWinds' site ban is vacated and replaced with an indefinite topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed).
  • Lifting the topic-ban.

I am requesting an amendment to the topic ban imposed on me approximately eight months ago, which at the time was made appealable after six months.

Since the sanction was imposed, I have complied fully with its terms. I have not edited within the restricted topic area, nor have I attempted to circumvent the restriction in any way.

I again fully accept responsibility for my actions. I understand the importance of maintaining a strictly on-wiki process, and using Wikipedia's conflict resolution solutions in order to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia. Attempts to change vote outcome, especially by using means invisible to other contributors, undermine the transparency of discussions, distort consensus, and weakens community trust. Consensus must be built openly and as transparently as possible, so that all editors can weigh in and contribute to its construction.

Prior to the sanction, my contributions mainly focused on adding reliable sources and improving coverage. In Arab-Israeli conflict topic-area, I invested significant effort in improving coverage of the British Mandate period events. Elsewhere, I have added sources to hundreds of articles without any citations. (More information on these in my original appeal)

Since I have been sanctioned, these were my note-worthy contributions which may be of interest when determining this appeal's outcome:

1. In the month of may (following the sanction), I have added citations to 1,800 articles.
2. Discussion in Talk: International Court of Justice.
3. Correcting a mistake I made in Arab-Israeli conflict topic-area with AC member permission.
4. I have edited a few topic-related talk pages with email permission from the committee given on June 6th.

If the ban is lifted, I intend to proceed with caution. I would first make a few uncontroversial edits that I have noted during my restriction (such as correcting citation author and removing content that failed verification).

I fully understand if the Committee believes that continued safeguards are appropriate. If a full lifting of the ban is not yet appropriate, I would also welcome a probationary period or an amendment that allows for specific, pre-disclosed edits and/or usage of edit requests or any other method that the committee deems appropriate. I believe that lifting the sanctions will improve the encyclopedia, and that the sanctions have served their purpose.

Hello HouseBlaster,

1. I am capable and fully intend to follow and uphold NPOV in any topic area, AIC included.
2. I believe that a balanced editing restriction would be sufficient for the type of editing I intend on doing. I do not expect such a restriction to meaningfully limit the contributions I plan to make in the foreseeable future. If I ever do wish to contribute more, I would follow the appeael procedure. That said, I do prefer to have the restriction completly lifted.

Best,

NorthernWinds (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sean.hoyland Indeed, none of the edits changed conflict-related content unauthorized (7272-7281 were authorized as well). I do now recall though that I did violate the ban shortly following the sanction, but ceased following Mitchell's guidance.

Best,

NorthernWinds (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Since the sanction was imposed, I have complied fully with its terms. I have not edited within the restricted topic area, nor have I attempted to circumvent the restriction in any way., if we assume "the restricted topic area" is defined by the presence of one of the various ARBPIA related Talk page templates, the statement is testable. This assumes that templating of "the restricted topic area" is both accurate and complete, and neither of those assumptions are true, but they are true-ish.

Is NorthernWinds' claim true? No, it's not, strictly speaking, but in ways that I don't think should impact the appeal. Here are the post-topic ban revisions to templated pages. The left-most column shows whether the article is in the topic area in whole (blue) or only in part (orange). I'm going to use the 'Seq ID' to refer to revisions.

• 7265: unrelated to the conflict
• 7272 - 7281: only updated signatures from old to current - maybe unwise but harmless.
• 7296: authorized error correction
• 7332: unrelated to conflict
• 7401 - 7402: These are topic ban violations if you assume template presence is enough to define the topic area, and templating errors don't matter. I don't think that article should have been templated. I'm guessing the article creator was a disposable sock account, but whatever.
• 7403: unrelated to the conflict
• 7406: unrelated to the conflict

	Rev ID	Timestamp	Size Change		Page ID	Full Page Title		Namespace	Redirect		Reversion	Seq ID
	Special:Diff/1329548947	2025-12-26 18:32:59	-121		51425	Somaliland		(Main/Article)	false			7406
	Special:Diff/1324094793	2025-11-25 14:23:38	74		231002	Zion		(Main/Article)	false			7403
	Special:Diff/1324093311	2025-11-25 14:11:07	7		77318483	Olives in Judaism		(Main/Article)	false			7402
	Special:Diff/1324093277	2025-11-25 14:10:48	4019		77318483	Olives in Judaism		(Main/Article)	false			7401
	Special:Diff/1304659162	2025-08-07 11:01:00	-524		847476	The Jewish Chronicle		(Main/Article)	false			7332
	Special:Diff/1300860215	2025-07-16 19:50:51	-228		14628728	List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine		(Main/Article)	false			7296
	Special:Diff/1294308039	2025-06-06 23:18:35	-3		31838043	Talk:List of massacres in Israel		Talk	false			7281
	Special:Diff/1294307747	2025-06-06 23:16:07	-3		62764	Talk:Haganah		Talk	false			7280
	Special:Diff/1294307697	2025-06-06 23:15:43	-43		74998329	Talk:October 7 attacks		Talk	false			7279
	Special:Diff/1294306825	2025-06-06 23:08:38	-22		14628740	Talk:List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine		Talk	false			7278
	Special:Diff/1294306506	2025-06-06 23:06:17	-11		75063247	Talk:Kissufim massacre		Talk	false			7275
	Special:Diff/1294306367	2025-06-06 23:04:58	-46		67712	Talk:Deir Yassin massacre		Talk	false			7273
	Special:Diff/1294306325	2025-06-06 23:04:33	-3		11080181	Talk:1947 Jerusalem riots		Talk	false			7272
	Special:Diff/1293746045	2025-06-03 12:56:19	-117		40067459	Falastin		(Main/Article)	false			7265

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'm still looking through the evidence that led to the ban and the conduct since it was lifted, but I have two initial questions for NorthernWinds:
  1. My main concern with allowing any return to the topic area is whether you can uphold NPOV. Can you please comment on that?
  2. If we go for continued safeguards, what would you think about a balanced editing restriction? It might be beneficial to ensure a majority of your time is spent outside of PIA.
• Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NorthernWinds for your answers. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts WP:ARMWP:ARM WP:ARBMWP:ARBM This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (arbitrators only) All editors are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension on this page below (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended comments or submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

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

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

• Recuse, I participated as an AE admin in the thread. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 20:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @AndreJustAndre: Your statement is above the 500 word limit for statements. Please reduce your word count or request an extension by using {{@ArbComClerks}} or email clerks-l. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @AndreJustAndre: you are granted an extension of 500 words (for a total of 1,000 words) to address Paprikaiser's evidence. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Paprikaiser: You are granted an extension of 400 words (to a total of 900 words). EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm bringing this here because we have a rough consensus on-list that something needs to be done, but no actionable complaint has yet been presented and the Iskander thread at AE closed without a resolution because the filer was found to be a compromised account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we either need to do a formal review (PIA5.5) or consider roughly 15 potential motions to tie up some loose ends revealed in the 12 months since PIA5 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Per User:Newyorkbrad below, I am still very much against using standing to describe anything on Wikipedia, as it reads like Standing (law) which is only going to cause problems and confusion and is completely unnecessary. The community soundly rejected codifying "standing" into Arbitration Policy for good reason, and I do not intend to support any motion that encourages or uses this wording. - Aoidh (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I had abstained from the discussions behind the scenes and do so here too. I'm not sure if it matters much as this isn't a case and I won't be an arb anymore tomorrow; WP:AC/C/P says something about "motions not related to a case", whatever. It would amuse me if my abstention is struck through. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No longer on the committee. Izno (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree with the characterization that there was a rough consensus to come here. One Arb, around Christmas, suggested bringing it here, and no one else agreed. I hadn't even read the email as I was away for the holidays (as I suspect many other Arbs were). At any rate, this is far too broad, open ended, and lacking in structure. We're just sending up a call for any diffs about the editors we topic banned a year ago? Without even having a case structure? That is going to create more drama and problems and more work for everyone. We're at ARM and there aren't even any motions. I do hope Guerillero goes and posts his motions though, perhaps in a separate header, as he had some general ideas aimed at tying up loose ends. But I oppose this structureless attempt to fish for further sanctions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree we can probably come up with a better word than standing, but it would be nice to have it clearly laid out that we're not accepting emails from random anonymous editors about CTOP/AE violations, especially if the topic is covered by ECR. However, of something is raised on-wiki, this is more or less my view on that. Much as it is when one UPE sock reports another UPE sock, there are no free passes depending on who raises a violation. Special:PermanentLink/1330538550#Bad math contains violations by both Iskandar and Levivich discussing an earlier violation here, and this is after Iskandar's last block for topic ban violations. I don't think ignoring this is the way to go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to highlight this from dlthewave in the comments below: It would be immensely helpful to have either a noticeboard or a list of admins' talk pages where someone could post "Hey, this situation is starting to get out of hand, could you please take a look at it?" I think adding "quick requests" to WP:AE was a very good idea, and something like this could be an interesting further reform to the process. New editors in particular are often perfectly capable of observing that something is going very wrong, but completely unable to navigate the complex CTOP processes to make a report. In theory, WP:ANI would be the place to go with this kind of complaint, but in practice, not so much. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Paprikaiser, AndreJustAndre, I would say that the comment about Graham Platner, [1], is really on the edge. The linked source makes no direct mention of the conflict, and neither does Andre. But GW's initial post very clearly does mention the topic area. I don't think posting something that close to a tban subject is wise. If this is part of a larger pattern, I would say this is a problem. The Bari Weiss comment, [2], is not related. Or, at least, if we're calling that related, then a PIA tban is effectively a tban from politics altogether, which I'm sure was no one's intent. -- asilvering (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't have anything to say about the various accusations against me that hasn't already been said by someone else (thank you all), so I haven't said anything so far. I will say that Alan is right, I know I've had my say about that thing and I know better than to carry on about it. If any arb wants me to address anything specifically (or, heaven forbid, all of it), just let me know.

Arbs' comments have raised some questions, though, about these PIA TBANs, and I'd ask the Arbs to answer them to help me and others comply with the TBANs going forward.

1. How do Isk's putative POV-pushing edits favor one side in the conflict, or otherwise violate WP:NPOV, either individually or in total? I would have made those edits -- like revising a sentence so it doesn't talk about the 12 Tribes in Wikivoice as historical fact -- and I don't understand how that would favor either side in the conflict, nor how it would be part of I/P, even broadly construed, and thus a TBAN violation (unless it's construed so broadly as to include all of Jewish and Islamic history, which would be overbroad because it's not a conflict between Jews and Muslims, but a subset of each). Does "broadly construed" include all of Jewish and Islamic history? If not, then why are these edits in scope?

2. I don't want to be TBANed in another topic area because my edits favor one side in a conflict. If I write about Russian war crimes, do I also have to write about Ukrainian war crimes? If sources say one side committed 10 "massacres" and the other side committed 1 "massacre", is it a violation of policy that I vote "10-1" in RMs? What part of NPOV or any other policy requires bothsidesism? Is the bothsidesism just for Israel-Palestine, or is it just for us TBANed editors, or do I not understand how NPOV works? I thought it was about representing viewpoints in accordance with the sources, not about representing the viewpoints of both sides to a conflict equally. Which means if the sources are one-sided (which they tend to be for, e.g., genocides, terrorist attacks, invasions, and massacres), then so should Wikipedia be. So what am I, and apparently Isk and possibly other TBANed editors, missing here?

Thanks in advance, Levivich (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another question about TBAN scope, raised by BK49 but not answered yet AFAICT: why are either of my edits considered part of the I-P topic area? Both of the edits are about my TBAN, not about the conflict. My TBAN is not part of the I-P conflict (I am not that important). Does my TBAN mean I'm not allowed to talk about my TBAN, and if so, why or based on what policy? Because WP:BANEX permits addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum, which means you can address your TBAN as long as it's the appropriate forum (like, eg, the page where others are discussing you, or your own user talk page, right?). Levivich (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replying It's been a bizarre year. Wikipedia is a place where one day you make an account to fix a typo, and next thing you know, the papers are saying you're the leader of the Encyclopedia Wing of Hamas. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ to another topic banned editor on your talk page is not discussing a legitimate concern about the topic ban in an appropriate place. That exception is there for appeals, questions about the scope or the topic ban itself to an admin, and similar clarifications. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer SFR, but I still don't understand. BANEX isn't limited to appeals and clarifications--those are two examples given of what's allowed, the policy says "including," not "only." More to the point, why isn't off-wiki harassment caused by the TBAN a "legitimate concern" about the TBAN, and why isn't a user talk page an "appropriate forum" for discussing that concern? Since when do we punish people for talking about their TBAN in their user talk page (especially for one-time offense)? Even more to the point: how is it in any way disruptive for two TBANed editors to discuss the off-wiki harassment they've received as a result of the TBAN in user talk? Who is this conversation disrupting? It's not even about the conflict, or about Wikipedia's coverage of the conflict, it's entirely meta to the conflict and Wikipedia's coverage of it. It just seems like with both BANEX and NPOV, Arbcom is changing what the policy says. These are new and novel interpretations that I've not seen before, and they catch me by surprise. I'm extremely surprised by this ARM. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the important part of BANEX, Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. A discussion on your talk page with another topic banned editor is not legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. On your point about punishment, that's why the ban is 1 support and 9 oppose right now, whereas the warning is passing. We're giving you a warning that the discussion was not engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. As for the disruption, that's not part of topic bans. Everyone is prohibited from making disruptive edits (ostensibly, obviously) whereas topic banned editors are banned from making any edits that relate to the topic ban. Personally, I've blocked editors for topic ban violations on their talk pages and user pages in the past. It's fairly common practice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: I agree completely with the principle laid out in your most recent comment. But when the off-wiki allegations are "imported" or repeated on-wiki, then they become on-wiki allegations. I was responding to the on-wiki repetition at RSN of off-wiki allegations--it's the on-wiki stuff in December that triggered my response; the off-wiki allegations were made back in September and I didn't respond on-wiki back then (I agree with your logic, it wouldn't have been proper to do so in September since the allegations were purely off-wiki at that time). I don't think any formal exception needs to be carved out, just the straight application of BANEX: correcting the on-wiki allegations was "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution," the repetition of the allegations on-wiki was a "legitimate concern," and RSN was an "appropriate forum" because that's where the allegations were repeated. (The same logic applies to Isk's post on my talk page, if you believe as I do that a user talk page is an appropriate forum.) Levivich (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Going along with Guerillero's statement below about no such thing as an allowable violation, I suggest an additional motion on Nableezy having violated his topic ban with a remedy of an indefinite block. Wouldn't want anybody confusing this body with one that is thoughtful, deliberative and proportionate. nableezy - 22:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This has turned from pretextual to farcical. Any of these supposed violations could have been dealt with at AE if any admin felt it necessary. Hell one of you has repeatedly seen fit to take it upon himself to do exactly that a number of times. But then we get trust me bro I seent it as the justification for an indef, and others saying these aren’t topic violations but the vibes are off. There’s no examination of the totality of an editors work, there’s barely any public discussion as most of the voting arbs have chosen to not engage at all with anybody but themselves. Zero consideration for what is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Somebody brought up NOTHERE but the target is wrong. Yall are not here to build an encyclopedia. Neither am I anymore tbh, but that’s just cus I’m just not going to be here. nableezy - 03:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jfc.Selfstudier (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Regarding diffs by Paprikaiser, they are minor, and not violations. One is explicitly a revert of vandalism per the edit summary. Bari Weiss/CBS and Graham Platner might have aspects that fall under ARBPIA, but not in entirety, and I didn't touch those aspects. If there is a diff that someone thinks is a violation, please explain why, and I'll request a few more words. Andre🚐 23:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Paprikaiser, these diffs do not contain a violation or any problematic pattern of editing, require no warning or any action, they are uniformly constructive and not disruptive, push no particular POV, and some are stale:

• [6] Hellenistic Palestine. This was reverting what was identified in the edit summary as vandalism. Anonymous user broke the page and removed sources while changing Palestine to Judea. This is against my "type categorization" also - I was restoring Palestine, so even ignoring that it was apparent vandalism, it would be opposite my theoretical POV to push.
• [7] Hasmonean Judea. Simply wikilinking the Books of Maccabees. Minor, not a violation. Article not under ARBPIA, edit doesn't relate to it.

On Yahweh, article not under ARBPIA, edits not related:

• [8] add 1931 to source for a depiction of Yahweh to qualify the statement.
• [9] Per consensus on talk, simplify geography to "South".
• [10] Removed weather god in lead per talk.
• [11] Removed volcano god category.
• [12] Add "likely" 2x to lead
• [13], [14], [15], [16] Tweaks to Fleming citation.

RSN:

• [17] About Platner's neo-Nazi tattoo, adding CNN source showing he wasn't truthful to support additional to Jewish Insider. Unrelated to ARBPIA. It's true that OP's comment mentioned it, about JI's reliability, but the discussion moved on from that, and that reply was strictly about Platner, and corroborating the reporting about his tattoo fibs. JI, nor Platner, isn't completely under ARBPIA.
• [18] Suggesting that we wait and see how Bari Weiss affects CBS. Unrelated to ARBPIA. The fact that Bari Weiss has a warning saying part of her article relates to ARBPIA does not make any edit about her to RSN related to it.
• On edit filter log: includes many edits that are entirely un-ARBPIA-related. I can't respond to all of them, so raise one if needed. The discussion on Bondi said it is ISIL/Syria Civil War, not ARBPIA.

I believe between my original statement and this outline of diffs, I have responded to all concerns raised by Paprikaiser. The comparison to Iskandar's and Levivich's more clear-cut violations is not apt, and unfortunately betrays a lack of understanding of what a topic ban does and does not cover. These edits could have violated a ban in those places, but they didn't. If of course it is I who am mistaken, someone please swiftly inform me. I do have many edits to Jewish history and other history or politics topics, and if any others are of concern, I have always been open to that. I have tried to neutrally and thoughtfully contribute to those areas. Andre🚐 00:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, my understanding was that as long as I didn't respond to the PIA portion of OP's post, and the discussion was a page away, I was not engaging with it, just like when you edit elsewhere in an article. Since it was only two sentences of the post. Andre🚐 04:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's evident. I still find it uncomfortably close. But again, I wouldn't call it a tban violation in itself. -- asilvering (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how you might say that and I don't think there are any other similar situations to that in the past year, and I can maybe keep an eye for that on RSN in the future. Andre🚐 04:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't feel that I must respond much to Paprikaiser's latest mention, which offers no diffs or evidence as far as I'm concerned, and no violations, but can I please have words to cover how much over I am (<100 words excluding sigs). I don't exclusively edit Jewish history, as I edit in politics, business, electronics, software, music, etc., and as far as peoples, this year I've edited Samaritans, Copts, Talk:Kabyles hadra, I try to edit neutrally and no diffs were provided to the contrary. Andre🚐 01:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @AndreJustAndre, I don't think you have any need to respond here. Don't worry about it. -- asilvering (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• consider roughly 15 potential motions to tie up some loose ends revealed in the 12 months since PIA5 are these motions that did not pass from PIA5 or additional motions besides those? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I have just a wording point at the moment. For the past several years, I have urged that the Committee do its best to keep the rule-set in this area as simple as possible; and there has also been a desire for ArbCom to use less legalistic language. For both of these reasons, if "editors with standing" just means "extended-confirmed editors," then please use the latter wording. If you don't, I foresee that sooner or later, someone will try to wikilawyer some distinction between them. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Newyorkbrad, the most obvious example here is of BlookyNapsta, who initiated the Iskander323 AE thread and has since blocked as a compromised account. So "editors with standing" is indeed intended to have a broader meaning than simply "extended-confirmed editors". -- asilvering (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Then could someone then denotatively define "standing" in that context, please. - jc37 21:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The scope of the CT refers explicitly to the "Israel-Arab conflict". This "conflict" involves two parties, Israelis and Arabs, and in some cases Jews and Muslims. The recent trend to expand it to anything related to Jews or Arabs separately is a widening that is not supported by Arbcom decisions as far as I know. To take a pertinent example, Iskandar323's recent edit to Talk:Dome of the Rock is about whether the structure is a mosque or a shrine. This is a question which lies entirely within Islamic law and practice. It has nothing to do with either Israel or Jews and therefore nothing to do with the Israel-Arab conflict. I am not aware of any Jewish or Israeli interest in the question. Incidentally, I'll remind the committee that the CT notice was added after Iskandar323's edit. (It is incidentally the wrong notice—it should have the "related content" attribute since only a fraction of the article refers to PIA.) Zero^talk 02:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  isn't Zero an involved editor and should be above as he were a party to the case last year? even if he only got a warning? asking honestly, if the involved editors is only folks who got topic bans, apologies. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  According to the title and the description given by the filer, this is about topic ban violation, and since I don't have a topic ban I can't violate it. If the committee decides to widen it, that might be a different matter. Zero^talk 05:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added |section=yes. It seems clear that most of the page content should be accessible to non-extendedconfirmed editors to edit without having to post an edit request. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it’s somewhat clear that Iskandar doesn’t have any “hard” tban violations in the edits they were reported for by the compromised account (though they’ve been served a warning and tempban for other ones in the past year). The question, as Guerillero framed it, is twofold:

  • whether the naked violation of their topic ban linked by Guerillero is worthy of a more severe sanction, when taken in conjunction with their prior vios, and
  • whether Iskandar’s editing in the tangentially-related areas you describe is a “soft” violation; i.e. not explicitly editing a TBANned page, but a pattern of subtly attempting to push a narrative on related pages (as Guerillero also stated).

  The Kip ^(contribs) 07:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• My only comment at this time is that I would encourage the Committee to allow presenting evidence on the various sanctioned editors' behavior in general, not just within PIA. When an editor is sanctioned in an ArbCom case, and then continues to disrupt the project in other ways, it is within ArbCom's jurisidiction to consider evidence regarding their general fitness to edit the project. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin, what you call for is the kind of rough justice that we generally see at ANI. If we were to do as such, I would argue that there be allowed the presenting of evidence against anyone who meanders into this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 13:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyone who comments here is in-jurisdiction for AE. The conduct of the ArbCom-TBANned editors is a special matter because it's ArbCom's job as sanctioning authority to make sure that the sanctions are sufficing to avoid disruption to the encyclopedia. That is not something that can be determined without looking at editors' conduct holistically. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• In Iskandar323's case specifically, this shows revisions by Iskandar323 post-ARBPIA5-close to pages that are templated as being within scope of CT/A-I, either in whole (blue) or in part (orange) because of the presence of '|section=yes' or '|relatedcontent=yes'. Apologies, but posting an image for this kind of data is my only option at the moment. No comment on the accuracy or completeness of topic area related templating. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe don't reward complaints by accounts compromised to stir up trouble by stirring up trouble at their behest. Just a thought.Dan Murphy (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The community seems happy with the current faith-based trust-and-don't-verify 'crime does pay' approach to whether an account is in 'good standing'. A 'crime doesn't pay' approach might be a lot of work e.g. CUs for anyone who uses reporting systems, erasure of content created by accounts found to not be in good standing etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The community is happy because of both WP:AGF and because misconduct on the part of the filer shouldn't excuse misconduct on the part of the accused. It's an unwinnable situation where misconduct is being excused either way and, assuming bad filers keep getting caught (as they almost always are), the current approach results in the least long-term damage.

  The alternative described is to mandate that any bad-filer reports with merit (read: not frivolous) are re-filed by a non-bad account, either creating more unnecessary work for everyone in re-filing and re-processing the report, or getting the accused off scot-free if nobody re-files the report. The current approach is effectively the community judging that they'd rather just cut out the middleman.

  Remember that Arbcom are not paid employees; they're all volunteers. Sometimes the most convenient option is best. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a time-saving exercise? What a world.Dan Murphy (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If nobody but the obvious bad faith account "bothers to refile", how actually disruptive can the behavior that desperately MUST be punished be? Is this about bettering the encyclopedia or simply punishing for the sake of it? Parabolist (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Two points: I'm only addressing filings that were judged to potentially contain valid misconduct, i.e. the Iskandar one that sparked this - that filing wasn't dismissed because Iskandar hadn't done anything wrong, but because the filer literally stole another user's account. We're now here because an arb said there was potential legitimacy to the complaint despite the filer's actions. Frivolous filings in bad faith are what they are, and the community is good at shutting those down.

  I'm also saying that for cases with valid complaints, there's the potential that no non-bad account could refile, which could happen for various reasons; a desire to avoid conflict, to avoid ARBPIA, to avoid being labeled a partisan within ARBPIA, ideological/personal alignment with the accused, etc. I think the second item applies to a lot of Wikipedians, and the fourth item sums up why many cases in the area are accused (usually justifiably) of weaponization - I can only name one recent ARBPIA filing where someone reported a user that was "on their side." I can dig into more research on that if requested.

  All of that could be avoided if you mandate that cases containing legitimate misconduct be re-filed by good-faith editors, which I'd support, but again, that creates more tasks for what's already an over-strained volunteer system. The Kip ^(contribs) 09:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, this doesn't address the systemic issues. If the objective is to improve something, or reduce something, it probably won't do that in any way that matters. That seems to be what history shows. If we can't tell the difference between accounts "in good standing" and accounts created or acquired by people evading a previous sanction, then sanctions related to "legitimate misconduct" can only be imposed on accounts "in good standing". This is perhaps the most important property of the ARBPIA system for me because it breaks the symmetry, it ceases to be a symmetric game, different players have different payoffs, and that changes everything. We know that people who employ ban evasion are effectively unsanctionable and weaponize reporting systems to target editors "in good standing", and so we know that sanctions related to "legitimate misconduct" can only be effectively imposed on people who believe that the rules apply to them and accept the verdict. Under these conditions, what is the objective when we allow people who think the rules don't apply to them to sample the vast number of revisions in the topic area to target opponents and then reward them by pretending that any "good-faith editor" might have done the same thing because it's just about dealing with "legitimate misconduct"? It's not about misconduct. Why would we allow ourselves to be played and pretend that it is? It's about them removing perceived opponents and us rewarding bad actors who employ deception. Many, many people have already learned that it is better to use disposable accounts in the topic area. Some of them keep their heads down, and don't bother anyone, and good for them. Others, like the person who acquired the BlookyNapsta account have a value system that is incompatible with Wikipedia's, and yet we keep reminding them that using disposable/compromised accounts was the right decision. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to agree with the train of thought above. If no actually in good faith editor is willing to raise a complaint, then any complaints raised by a not in good faith, actually in BAD faith, compromised editor must be considered fruit of the poisonous tree and dealt with accordingly. To do otherwise is a rabbit hole we do not want to go down. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• In Iskandar323's case specifically, this shows revisions by Iskandar323 post-ARBPIA5-close to pages that are templated as being within scope of CT/A-I, either in whole (blue) or in part (orange) because of the presence of '|section=yes' or '|relatedcontent=yes'. Apologies, but posting an image for this kind of data is my only option at the moment. No comment on the accuracy or completeness of topic area related templating. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Since finishing their 2-week block for TBAN violations, Iskandar323 has edited Talk:Dome of the Rock (as already discussed), while the article was explicitly tagged as ARBPIA. On 18 December 2025 they edited Syria Palaestina which has an ARBPIA template. Additionally, on 15 December 2025 they removed a phrase that appears in 1988 Hamas charter (to quote from that article "The 1988 Hamas charter proclaims that jihad against Jews is required until Judgement Day."). In their edit summary, they cited "marginal sourcing" from Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust museum. On 16 December 2025, they violated their topic ban by discussing the conflict on another TBANed user's talk page. On 17 December 2025 they violated WP:CIVIL.
  In addition to the above violations, they have also edited extensively on the history of Judaism just outside of the topic ban. While no particular edit is problematic, the edits together show an ARBPIA related POV being pushed by minimising the historical Jewish presence in ancient Israel. The connection of Jews to Israel or the denial or downplaying of this connection is one of the major issues of the Israeli-Arab conflict (some of these examples are from before the latest block, but this issue was not addressed in that block and continues). 5 November 2025, 5 November 2025, 25 November 2025, 25 November 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, and 17 December 2025.
  Other users TBANed in ARBPIA5 have also violated their TBAN. Levivich responded to Iskandar323 above, also violating their TBAN on their talk page on 16 December 2025. On 25 December 2025, they also violated a participation restriction at AE.
  On 4 November 2025, Nableezy edited another editor's comments on Talk:Gaza genocide, violating their TBAN. They wrote in their edit summary "worth a block of any length", meaning that they were well aware that this was a violation.
  On 28 April 2025, Makeandtoss violated their TBAN with an edit about a sabotage plot related to Israel (see the source cited, and note that in the current version of Islamic Action Front, the section is titled "Reaction to Israel-Palestine war").
  Nishidani was blocked on 22 August 2025 for a month for TBAN violations.
  In short - several of the users TBANed in ARBPIA5 have not been meticulously observing their TBANs and continue the same behavior as before their TBANs. I think that ARBCOM needs to get involved. The pattern shown with Iskandar323 is especially disturbing. The user had multiple TBAN violations, and following a block for those violations, they continue with the same behavior. Multiple warnings and a temporary site block have not deterred them from violating their TBAN over and over again. I see no alternative to an indef CBAN. I also recommend to ARBCOM to take a look at the behavior of other senior users who have been involved in similar conduct to those who were banned in ARBPIA5. Nehushtani (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Makeandtoss claim feels weak - unless I'm missing something, neither the Reuters source nor the article address anything directly related to ARBPIA, and another Reuters article says the sabotage plot was planned attacks within Jordan. The Kip ^(contribs) 09:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Reuters source is about the sabotage plot that links to an article from a week earlier that explains the full context at Jordan says it has foiled attacks by Muslim Brotherhood which explains that "Security forces found a rocket manufacturing facility alongside a drone factory, according to a statement by the General Intelligence Department released on state media. "The plot aimed at harming national security, sowing chaos and causing material destruction inside the kingdom," the statement said. ... It said some of the arms were bound for the neighbouring Israeli-occupied West Bank, adding that they have arrested several Jordanians linked to Palestinian militants. ... Jordan has over 3,500 American troops stationed in several bases and, since the war between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza erupted in October 2023, it has been increasingly targeted by Iranian-backed groups operating in neighbouring Syria and Iraq." In other words, the "sabotage plot" was intended to smuggle weapons to Palestinians to use against Israel. Nehushtani (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The underlying question here is "what to do when sockpuppets, compromised accounts, etc. bring an at least potentially valid concern to AE." This is a particular problem in the ARBPIA topic area due to the large number of recurring sockpuppets, who aggressively target ideological opponents, coupled with lots and lots of people with restrictions that they may in fact have violated. On one hand we don't want to ignore potentially valid problems, but on the other hand moving forward based on allegations from sockpuppets encourages them to continue pressuring Wikipedia via those vectors and creates potentially one-sided examinations because the socks can freely harass people, getting banned repeatedly, then report them when their targets react; additionally, normal users would get in trouble if they repeatedly abused AE, whereas sockmasters can keep creating new accounts and throw things at the wall until they find something that sticks. That said, I feel that this shouldn't actually be that hard of a question - we've already answered it, albeit in lower-pressure situations, when it comes to WP:BANREVERT. Specifically: If it's found that someone is a sock or otherwise shouldn't have been bringing things to AE, it can be closed without prejudice until / unless an editor in good standing is willing to vouch for it; but anyone can choose to vouch for it and re-open it (or create a new case based on it), effectively taking over as the filer. This avoids situations where people can use sockpuppets to spam our system with weak accusations, while still making it easy for cases to happen when there's clearly something that needs to be looked into. --Aquillion (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah the iskandar blookynapsta filing situation tban vio is a good initial place to start from. I have no opinion for or against further creep scope at this point User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyone filing lots of reports against ideological opponents/participating lots at AE should just be page blocked from it, uninvolved editors in good standing should be using their social capital to clean up these CTs Kowal2701 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed the rapid fire ae reports was not a good look. Nor was the participant restriction not being used earlier and more often. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that abuse of AE should be dealt with, but I wrote an essay about this here - as long as requests have a valid basis, I don't think we should bar people from bringing a bunch of AE cases against people they're in a dispute with. The facts are that:

  1. Many topic areas are filled with stuff that needs to be brought to AE or SPI. ARBPIA and ARBTRANS in particular are flooded with both sockpuppets and outside canvassing, which have brought a lot of people whose edits could reasonably be described as tendentious. Sometimes someone making a lot of reports just means there's a lot of problems. And while these problems are not one-sided, they do tend to come in waves.

  2. People are simply more likely to notice issues with someone they're in a dispute with. It's a lot easier to spot incivility when it is directed at you! It's much easier to notice revert-warring and 1RR / 3RR violations when it's your edits being reverted! Tendentious editing sticks out a lot more when it's pushing a position you also believe to be wrong; and believing something to be WP:FRINGE usually means disagreeing with it. The simple fact is that most people don't look too closely at edits they agree with.

  3. Making an AE case is a lot of work. Only a few people are willing to actually do that work; and people who have done it a lot in the past tend to be better and faster at it and more willing to do it again, simply because they know how.

  The combination of these things means that in certain topic areas, you're going to see a lot of reports from the same people, often aimed at those they disagree with. It's a reason to be a bit more thorough and cautious with those reports and to avoid just assuming things are valid... but if the reports do in fact seem legitimate, I don't think people should be prevented from making them. Because the flipside is that AE is one of the few venues we have to report actual abuse that is, in fact, happening; if you bar people from reporting too many people they're in a dispute with, you'll end up with actual issues festering until they reach ArbCom. And finally, yes, while people do make plenty of invalid or ridiculous reports... ultimately that's a WP:ROPE situation. People like that are probably part of the problem in the topic area; by filing reports they're calling attention to themselves and will eventually get removed. (This doesn't apply to sockpuppets / compromised accounts for the reasons I outlined above, of course. But it's why I do want editors in good standing to be able to "cure" those reports. AE might be frustrating but we do need it - as the ArbCom cases showed, the flood of reports in these topic areas isn't people trying to remove otherwise blameless ideological opponents; it reflects genuine problems.) Basically, for someone to be abusing AE, they have to actually be filing weak or frivolous reports. If they're filing a bunch of valid ones then that's not abuse. Look at eg. the recent WP:ARBTRANS case - a lot of filings leading up to it were dismissed as just people targeting opponents, yet almost everyone who had an AE case filed against them was ultimately removed by ArbCom, several of them with verbage that made it clear it was not a hard call and that those people probably should have been removed earlier. AE needs to be able to handle those cases, which means it can't just dismiss otherwise valid reports as partisan griping. --Aquillion (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but having ideological opponents file reports to ban each other only makes the topic more battlegroundy and entrenched. Theoretically It’d be better for people not involved in the topic area to make reports. It’s not too time consuming for such an editor/admin to glance at articles often subject to disputes, identify someone who seems tendentious, and keep an eye on their conduct in other disputes they get into. I don’t know why admins only get involved when something’s placed on their desk (though I’m sure there’s a good reason). All CTs need is a couple Frams Kowal2701 (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is huge and recognizing a pattern of tendentious behavior in particular requires both experience with the topic (to recognize when someone is eg. clearly pushing for undue weight rather than trying to fix genuine existing bias) and, usually, experience with an editor's contributions that comes from interacting with them a lot or caring enough to go over them. Even recognizing a pattern of low-key uncivil behavior can require focused attention. Administrators can't randomly go through checking everyone, especially given the amount of work it often requires to identify complex or long-term problems; realistically the system depends on those who interact with each other making reports, because they're the first ones who will notice something wrong. And I don't agree that it causes battleground entrenchment; I think it's a symptom. I think genuine bad-faith reports are rare - people do usually actually believe the people they report have conduct issues; this belief is just sometimes tainted by their biases. If you bar them from making reports, they're still going to think the people they interact with have conduct issues and shouldn't be editing, and that will leak through and taint interactions. IMHO it's better to encourage people to "put up or shut up" - to take concerns to AE quickly, handle them rapidly and with minimal back-and-forth or crossfire, and accept the results if they're told there's no issue. AE is a pressure-release valve, basically. I'm all for making it smoother and less... squabble-y, but we should be encouraging people to take things there quickly, not discouraging it, because that is how you get those uninvolved admin eyes on something; and whether there's an issue or not, getting that attention is how you resolve things. But, like I said - we get a lot of eg. ARBPIA reports because there are, in fact, a lot of problems in the topic area. Making it harder for things to be reported is just going to make them fester and will ultimately make the battleground behavior worse, you just won't see it until it explodes into a full ArbCom case or some other issue that can't be ignored. --Aquillion (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Back when I was more active in contentious topics, I always felt like discretionary sanctions were underutilized because there's no neutral way to request that an uninvolved admin step in. You're either borderline-canvassing related projects (editors often know exactly which wikiprojects are monitored by those who agree with them) or making specific accusations at AE or ANI. It would be immensely helpful to have either a noticeboard or a list of admins' talk pages where someone could post "Hey, this situation is starting to get out of hand, could you please take a look at it?" –dlthewave ☎ 16:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Asilvering:, thanks for pointing out the "quick request" option, it's exactly what I had in mind. I might go over there and suggest that we explicitly include individual admin CT actions, including blocking editors, without requiring a request for a specific action.

  When I've asked for CT enforcement at AN and ANI, the discussion either turns into a vote where no admin is comfortable taking unilateral action without waiting for consensus or I'm directed to AE which likewise required specific accusations and a drawn-out process. Both inevitably led to drama and delays, but it looks like "quick requests" are the answer. –dlthewave ☎ 00:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  We ought disregard with prejudice filings made by sockpupppets/compromised accounts. Their edits and arguments are in bad faith by definition given their block evasions. There is no further analysis required. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  What would it mean to disregard them with prejudice, though? What happens if someone else goes "wait, that was a sockpuppet, but their filing pointed out a serious problem with how Lex Luthor is editing our BLP on Superman?" Do we tell them "sorry Lex Luthor was reported by a sockpuppet so now everything they did is excused?" --Aquillion (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps my language is a bit sloppy, but I meant with prejudice against the filing party, not against other editors who are in good standing. TarnishedPath^talk 22:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  there reports were thrown away with prejudice. but the diffs are real, and if arbcom believes they can separate the prejudicial value of the original report from possible real concerns at play, let them. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with asilvering's highlighting of Dillthewave's comment. Even people who are experienced editors but not familiar with the topic (area) and/or regular players in it can often tell that something seems wrong even if they can't put their finger on what or who is the problem. Somewhere where they can bring their observations to the attention of those who do have the relevant knowledge would be valuable. I suspect that some experienced editors are using informal channels (IRC, Discord, email, whatsapp, etc) for this purpose currently but those channels are not available to everyone. Thryduulf (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, one thing I wish we had was a simple "report diff" button (similar to the "thank" button), coupled with a page that simply showed recently reported diffs sorted and filtered in various ways, especially the most-reported diffs, and who reported them; probably we'd also want a place to see every diff someone has reported to investigate abuse. Then admins could just regularly glance at the page and investigate diffs that get reported. It wouldn't be perfect (it would put the burden on admins who see the reports to figure out if some actual policy has been violated and turn it into an action if that's the case) but it would be extremely easy to use and intuitive for new users. While reports would be public they wouldn't produce notifications (in particular the person being reported wouldn't get a notification, though they could see it if they happened to look) - this is IMHO necessary to avoid turning it into a back-and-forth argument like we see in ANI and to a lesser extent AE; the idea is that this is only a very light "hey, someone should look at this" request, with the actual process-heavy case and the chance to defend oneself happening afterwards if an admin decides reports are worth doing something with. This would also mean that if someone is brought to AE or ANI, all their reported diffs could be reviewed to get a bigger picture of what potential issues there are. --Aquillion (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Some amount of "report diff button" is the intent of mw:Product Safety and Integrity/Incident Reporting System. Izno (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Before addressing the substance of the proposed remedies, I want to register a serious procedural concern others have raised too. This enforcement request was originally filed by a user who has since been banned and whose activity forms part of a long running sock and meatpuppet operation active across multiple accounts, which I'm currently looking into for a case, and overlaps with earlier documented sock and troll activity in this topic area. This network has for years engaged in coordinated participation in CTOP discussions, enforcement filings, and deletion debates to advance a pro-Israeli POV, and it has targeted editors named here as a perceived threat to this. Levivich has also previously played a key role in exposing this network. As Sean.hoyland and others noted, I believe arbs should seriously consider whether the allegations against Iskandar323 and Levivich have been raised disproportionately by the same small cluster of related accounts, as failing to acknowledge this provenance risks incentivizing precisely the kind of conduct the Committee has sought to deter while rewarding persistent sock/meatpuppetry.
  As to the case, I see that AndreJustAndre, the sole active editor previously sanctioned who wouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny by the aforementioned network given its pro-Israeli POV, has plenty of edits that match the potential t-ban violations mentioned for Levivich and Iskandar323.
  If Levivich has violated his t-ban for commenting in a discussion of a source which touches the PIA topic, this is a violation too, considering the discussion specifically mentions PIA. The same applies to the discussion surrounding CBS News reliability after Bari Weiss's appointment since she as a topic is also covered by PIA.
  As for Iskandar323, is the problem that the pages are considered to be in the topic? If so, AndreJustAndre has edited on 3 of the 7 pages presented as potential t-ban violations, including the only one that is tagged as belonging to PIA (Hellenistic Palestine); Yahweh ([19]), Hellenistic Palestine ([20]), and Hasmonean Judea ([21]).
  If the problem is that the edits per se are "non neutral" then I second Parabolist in asking for more details regarding what exactly constitutes a non-neutral edit. From what I can see in the diffs provided, Iskandar323 removed content that failed verification or was sourced to WP:GUNRELs, removed WP:OR, and opened a discussion asking for feedback after being reverted, following WP:BRD. That is arguably the opposite of being disruptive.
  The 1339 filter might not be great since there are a lot of pages not properly tagged. But just by looking at it, Levivich has never triggered it since his t-ban ([22]), whereas Iskandar323 has triggered it 24 times ([23]) and AndreJustAndre has triggered it 30 times ([24]).
  Is the problem related to editing in topics that are too close to PIA, such as the history of Judaism, even if it precedes the creation of Israel? If so, again, AndreJustAndre has plenty of edits that match that description, way too many to mention here. Yet his edits haven't been subject to constant and intense scrutiny by the aforementioned network given its POV, unlike Iskandar323. I believe this should be taken into account.
  I ask that the same standards be applied to everyone equally. If this is framed as a "Review of the PIA topic area" then the logical assumption is that this would entail an overall review of all of the editors involved in the previous case, with the thresholds for violations explained properly and applied to everyone. A proper analysis then should follow, with everyone scrutinized equally. This could even include new parties. Otherwise, I don't see the point of this when it only includes two editors, or why it wasn't dealt with over at WP:AE. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @ArbCom Clerks: I would like to request an extension of approximately 800 words to allow me to respond properly. Thank you. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You're already over 500 words, do you really need 30% more words than you've already used, to a total of ~1400, to respond? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I was under the impression that I was still within the word limit, so I apologize for that. Could I please have an additional 400 words then? That should be enough. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Is your intent to respond to Andre or to provide necessary context and information to the committee? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  To provide necessary context and information to the committee. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The origins of this case warrant examination. Iskandar's editing made him a target of sustained scrutiny by the well-documented Icewhiz/Galamore pro-Israel sock/meatpuppet network, spanning dozens of accounts over years. This led to inclusion in this case via recently banned sock/meatpuppet BlookyNapsta filing the precipitating AE case.

  Nehushtani, now banned as a sockpuppet of Galamore, was pushing for a site-ban there after unsuccessfully seeking sanctions for alleged topic-ban violations in September and November, efforts that continued here with a shotgun diff submission focused exclusively on editors perceived as critical of Israel. ArbCom then picked up cases against Iskandar/Levivich, targets of and involved in investigating the network. ScottishFinnishRadish says this was being discussed weeks prior because of t-ban violations, which is questionable per IOHANNVSVERVS given the overlap with Nehusthani's diffs (see also aforementioned September/November notices by Nehusthani). ScottishFinnishRadish also referenced alleged topic-ban violations dating back to 2021 to support a site-ban; the AE request that resulted in a 12-month ban was also filed by an Icewhiz/Galamore sock/meatpuppet.

  Regarding Andre's edits, Hellenistic Palestine, Hasmonean Judea, and Yahweh-related topics are comparable to those for which Iskandar was faulted. ScottishFinnishRadish's reference to lack of similar edits on other religions/peoples is untrue for Iskandar, but appears to apply to Andre, as does RSN participation on PIA-covered topics. AbuseFilter hits, while indeterminative, show Andre's activity isn't categorically different either. Staleness is not a valid differentiator, as they fall within the sanctioned period. HouseBlaster and other arbs alleged Iskandar's edits aligned with a particular POV; this is true of Andre. The sole difference lies in persistent targeted scrutiny, not behavior. Proceeding with sanctions against Iskandar/Levivich while treating Andre differently applies a narrower standard and rewards asymmetric scrutiny produced by the sock/meat network.

  This should be dispositive in dropping sanctions against Iskandar, as the enforcement chain is the product of a targeted sock/meat network campaign. The diffs cited as misconduct have already been found unsatisfactory by other editors, yet the underlying concerns remain unaddressed. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and I was TBANed for "inconsistent standards of behavioral expectations" :-) I think I'm the only person in the history of Wikipedia to be sanctioned for this, perhaps the only one subject to this requirement. Levivich (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  yeah, its a shockingly bad look that icewhiz sockpuppets keep showing up directly or indirectly in PIA5 and PIA5.5.

  the poisoned tree argument [25] makes the otherwise ridiculous idea to vacate tbans somewhat less ridiculous [26]. it seems ludicrous to punish tban vios when Icewhiz clearly continues to pursue and punish their ideological opponents to obvious great effect.

  edit: i mean tban vios need to be punished (maybe iskandar), but the gap in between those who are antagonized off wiki like levivich complaining about how they've been turned into a Boogeyman, and Icewhiz who gets to go on their merry way cycling through their sockpuppets is truly exasperating. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, now we find out that some of the edits were so disruptive that an Arb would've made them! And yet they're still bannable because the editor has topic bans that the edits do not fall under. Could any arb deign to respond to Paprikaiser, Toadspike, or even their own fellow arb in asilvering? Or is the community comment section just a waste of everyone's time while half of the arbs show up to sign their names and say nothing else but "First choice." It seems like the only way to get an arb to respond to you is to ask for more words. Parabolist (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Excellent selective quotation you've employed there. My comment in toto was a response to the criticisms so far levied at the motion of interest. Izno (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Which of Iskandar's edits would you have made? If you would've made them, would you have been pushing a POV? What POV is being pushed? Better yet, instead of responding to me, I listed several comments above that go in much more detail. Those editors put in the work that this page asks for from the community, and it's shitty that someone has to make a comment like mine to even get a response. Parabolist (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I think many of the commenting editors here (and not just the ones being scrutinized for topic ban violations) should review WP:TBAN and WP:BROADLY. Given that many of the commenting editors seem to be arguing against what is written in WP:TBAN and WP:BROADLY, I doubt those sections have been read and this has only made things more confusing for AndreJustAndre, Iskandar323, and others and does not help them or anyone understand why they have been placed under scrutiny for their edits. Therefore, I think those under topic ban who have edited pages that fall under "broadly construed" should just all get warnings at most due to confusing, conflicting feedback not only here, but also on their talk page. If someone had actually pointed out and linked the related Wikipedia policy and essay pages, this could probably all have been avoided. Any "advice" or feedback Iskandar323 or AndreJustAndre may have received that could have encouraged them to continue editing broadly construed pages was just plain wrong. Wafflefrites (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A complete site ban would do nothing to address the real issue, which was ambiguity over what is covered by the topic. It would only cause resentment and perceived unfairness by the banned and by others of the community. The real issue is the “broadly construed” and how broad is broadly construed? Does it include Jewish topics or just Israeli topics, is the UN banned, etc. Furthermore it is possible that people, including myself, can read things very literally at times and require clarifications. Some people may just really enjoy editing Wikipedia and have interests or expertise that overlap with broadly construed topics, so clarifications are needed in case they accidentally edit or correct a typo on an article that is tangentially related to their topic ban. Wafflefrites (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These motions came out of an informal brainstorming session that included myself and several other arbs. I would catagorize several of these proposals as blue sky ideas that may not have the support of the committee or the community. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 at 03:40, 31 January 2023.

Motion implementation notes

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Passing	Support needed	Notes
Iskandar323 topic ban violations	13	0	0		.
Iskandar323 further POV pushing	7	5	0		1
Iskandar323 banned	7	5	0		.
Iskandar323 topic banned	0	11	1		Cannot pass	2 second choice votes counted as opposing because 3.1 is passing.
Iskandar323 warned	4	8	0		Cannot pass	2 second choice votes counted as opposing because 3.1 is passing.
Levivich topic ban violations	10	0	2		.
Levivich banned	1	9	2		Cannot pass
Levivich warned	4	7	0		Cannot pass
Levivich warned (alt)	8	3	0		.
Direct violation reports I	0	9	0		Cannot pass	1 fourth choice vote counted as opposing because 6.5 is passing.
Direct violation reports II	0	8	0		Cannot pass
Direct violation reports III	0	6	1		7	2 third choice votes counted as opposing because 6.5 is passing.
Direct violation reports IV	2	6	1		Cannot pass	3 second choice votes counted as opposing because 6.5 is passing.
Direct violation reports V	7	2	1		.
WP:ARBPIA EC by default adjusted	6	8	0		Cannot pass
Administrators permitted to topic ban from a wider area	7	3	1		.

Notes

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

1) Iskandar323 (talk · contribs) has violated their topic ban. ([27][28][29]). Iskandar323 was previously warned by Tamzin on 21 February ([30]) and blocked for 2 weeks by ScottishFinnishRadish ([31]) on 26 November for violating their topic ban.

Support

1. Factual. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Added mention of the warning and block, borrowing from Guerillero's language. CC ScottishFinnishRadish. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per Tamzin, I might want to add something like Iskandar323 was previously warned by Tamzin on 21 Feb and blocked for 2 weeks by ScottishFinnishRadish on 26 Nov for violating their topic ban. to give addtional color --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. With the addition of the logged warning and block is better. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Indeed. asilvering (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Izno (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. Aoidh (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
8. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
9. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
10. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
11. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
12. Clearly. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
13. With some reservation as to the first violation back in February 2025, now nearly a year ago. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

• This should probably also mention the warning I gave and the subsequent tempblock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this motion now invokes three CTOP-attributed diffs: two on un-templated pages pre-dating the two-week block – one from January, and not clearly related to any CTOP content on page, but in any case prior to my CTOP warning from Tamzin, and one directly related to the two-week block from SFR – so already defined, by process, as a violation, making the motion moot. It has also been punished. So what is it doing here, unless to call for double jeopardy? The final diff is a literal (not figurative) joke in user space with no bearing on any content, no mention of CTOP keywords and no Wikilinks or url links to anything CTOP related, and which Levivich's response to which has been called a 'nothingburger', per @asilvering. The motion is hardly a motion. It's factual, as the first vote notes. But what does it add? And how is the one diff that post-dates my block justify serious further action? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see that @User:Asilvering has removed the ARPIA banner at Hellenistic Palestine here. Yet it is listed as an example of @User:Iskandar323's violations above (but not considered a violation when @User:AndreJustAndre edited it. Don't understand really. Tiamut (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiamut, I removed the banner because it says the page is under ECR, which it is obviously not. This has little to do with whether an edit is a tban vio or not, since is fully possible to make an edit that is covered by a topic ban on an article that is not itself fully covered by the CTOP. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am stunned that some light-hearted banter on a user talk-page (in which I took part) count as a topic-ban-violation. (the third diff for Iskandar). The second diff he has already been blocked for (how many times can you be punished for the same diff?) That leaves the first diff, done in January 2025. One edit, out of 1500-2000 since his topic-ban. And that is enough to get him blocked? The diffs given here are equally underwhelming Huldra (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC) PS Hope this comment is in the right place?[reply]

2) Since their topic ban in WP:ARBPIA5, Iskandar323 has been engaged in consistently non-neutral editing around the history of Judaism ([32][33][34][35][36][37][38]). This is a continuation of the misconduct that led to the original topic ban.

Support

1. The edits are obviously a continuation of PIA-related editing just outside of the topic area. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   My vote is based on a similar set of observations as SFR from looking over Iskandar323's editing over the past 6 months --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2. A topic ban doesn't mean find something only partially covered by your topic ban (as demonstrated by the warning and block) and continue POV pushing. As to what Parabolist said below, WP:NPOV is policy and non-neutral editing is disruptive. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVOCACY and not a WP:BATTLEGROUND to further disputes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   In response to the questions, the diffs presented are not the entirety of what I considered, they were some of the diffs from Iskandar323's recent editing that came up in discussions. I've spent a lot of time looking at Iskandar323's edits as I've fielded several reports of topic ban violations and I watch a lot of ARBPIA and adjacent articles. In some of the cases the edits were, as has been pointed out, correct and worth making, but when looking at the totality of their editing, especially with the ARBPIA FoF, engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including consistently non-neutral editing in mind, there is a pattern of minimizing or removing mentions of Israel, Judea, and Jewish history without similar edits made when dealing with other religions or peoples. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   We're not calling these topic ban violations, because they are not. I am saying that these are continuing the same behavior that led to the topic ban: pushing a point of view. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Izno (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   (moved to oppose theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)) per above, and consistently non-neutral editing is absolutely disruptive. When it's intentional, it's POV pushing; when it's not, it's incompetence. Either way, that's disruptive. see Transgender healthcare and people § Partisanship. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Taking some time to look over what asilvering and Eek have raised in the oppose section; also, I was approached about the above comment (particularly the "incompetence" half), so I should clarify that it wasn't meant to characterize Iskandar's behavior specifically. I just meant that as a general principle, consistently non-neutral editing is disruptive even when it's unintentional. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Elli (talk | contribs) 18:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   These edits don't look great. Part of the reason it's a good idea to stay away from topic areas similar to those one is banned from is precisely this: there's much less of a presumption of good faith in any edits that look like POV-pushing. However, the evidence presented here by others, specifically Aquillion, is sufficient to show that these diffs alone do not indicate a pattern of POV-pushing.

   We should've held a case here, or at least some more clearly-well-defined process. Both the behavior of Levivich and Iskander323 should've been explored more in-depth, and that hasn't, and won't, happpen here. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

4. Per HB. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Aoidh (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I went through the edits and was surprised at how much of a nothing burger they were. The first is still up in the article. The second was a good removal; it was a failed verification and a somewhat dubious slander. The third: I'm not sure some of the finer copyedits were necessary but I generally support removing superfluous references from leads. The fourth has been undone but obviously the two maps on that page do not agree with each other, it wasn't strictly unreasonable to decide to replace one of them with a more generic image. The fifth still hasn't returned that map; no idea if its a good map or not. The sixth seems dubious, but the current article has since decided on a completely different successor/predecessor states anyways. The seventh again doesn't seem problematic, it was an unimplemented suggestion based on a source and google ngram. Thus, I can't say that any individual edit was particularly egregious. If this is being used to show a pattern that Iskander cares about the ancient history of the region, that's fair. But I'm struggling to see what the POV he is pushing is. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per my comment below, I do not believe these diffs demonstrate consistently non-neutral editing. Furthermore, I went looking for more evidence and did not find it; even some edits that did strike me as possibly non-neutral look perfectly agreeable in context of the rest of Iskandar's edits, which is not what I expected to find, given the votes above. The misconduct that led to the original topic ban appears to have been a series of !votes in RM discussions about use of the word "massacre". That is not present in these diffs or Iskandar's other behaviour as far as I have observed, either narrowly or broadly construed. asilvering (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. I've thought a lot about this motion (and the expanded topic ban). Listening to the community concerns (Toadspike in particular gets a shout-out) as well as my colleagues asivlering and Eek—I can't support this. I won't rehash all of what they said, but I will call out two things.

   First, I am not endorsing every claim made in the comments in opposition to this motion.

   Second, I am not disputing that POV pushing is inherently disruptive and merits sanctions, even if done civilly. It is disruptive, period. However, I simply don't believe that these diffs are such evidence. There isn't the same selectively picking which policies and guidelines to follow when it suits your position that was identified back at PIA5 (for example, compare their distaste for independent reasons based on the nature of the event to them engaging in independent reasoning based on the nature of the event depending on what is necessary to achieve the desired outcome). As Eek thoroughly lays out, these edits are fine.

   With those understandings, I oppose this motion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think there is sufficient counterevidence now here to oppose this finding. I wasn't totally on board with it before. Izno (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'm still not entirely happy with the third edit. I think it's flawed. But I more or less accept that an editor who is not a POV pusher or fatally incompetent could have made it – especially given that it's only one edit. As for the other diffs, many were outright justified on policy and I think the balance could reasonably be read as favoring the opposite perspective (although there are certainly other readings). I could go more into this if anyone's curious what I'm talking about, but for now, I'll leave it there. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

• If this is the most damning evidence we have, I am unimpressed. This one is problematic, but not for neutrality reasons; the problem is that ngram results are not useful to decide this question in the first place. This one removes a statement that had been tagged as failed verification for nearly two years: [39]. This one fixed a sentence that presented the Twelve Tribes of Israel as historical fact in Wikivoice: [40]. If these are non-neutral edits, what would the neutral version of them have been? In any case, I think consistent non-neutral editing is much easier to demonstrate with reference to behaviour on talk pages, and I'd be interested to see that evidence if available. -- asilvering (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @asilvering: My read is that these edits are a lot more ambiguous than they appeared on first blush, but I am still pretty concerned about the third. Relegating the Twelve Tribes to wikivoice "biblical myth" status – citing no source, when the Twelve Tribes of Israel article currently treats it as contested based on decent sources – is something I have really no neutral explanation for. Yes, it probably wasn't good to present the Twelve Tribes narrative as definite fact, either. But if you're not citing a source when significantly shifting the POV of an article, and it's a shift that's likely to be challenged and not attested in the main article – combined with an edit history of pushing a very related POV – I'm not seeing a better explanation. Maybe Iskandar has one, and also interested to know what you think. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Theleekycauldron, Iskandar has answered now and I find the answer satisfactory, myself. Additionally, I'd like to push back on combined with an edit history of pushing a very related POV, since I think so much of this is leaning hard on the fact that Iskandar has been topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict and so everything they've written is being read in the worst possible light. If we're going to move to site ban someone for pov-pushing after being tbanned, we should, at the very least, be able to demonstrate that their present edits are pov-pushing. If the best we can do is "this one diff feels off", we don't have a pattern. To tban someone for pov-pushing, I'd want to see a strong pattern. I agree that, after having been tbanned for pov-pushing, the bar is much lower to decide that someone is still pov-pushing and needs to be blocked from editing entirely. I would accept a mild pattern. But I don't think we even meet that bar. What we have is evidence that Iskandar is not a Biblical literalist or an extreme right-wing Israeli nationalist. Well, good? -- asilvering (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the claim that these edits are disruptive, or does a topic ban prevent an editor from getting in editorial disagreements in non-banned pages now? "Non-neutral" editing doesn't imply misconduct, and if this is meant to be the evidence that calls for a indef block below, I'd expect it to point to or claim that this is actual disruptive editing. Should he venture no opinions? Parabolist (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Parabolist: It is worth noting that no committee members have deemed it necessary to respond to @Asilvering above, despite the requirement to "Respond promptly and appropriately to questions from other arbitrators, or from the community, about conduct which appears to conflict with their trusted roles" being a key conduct requirement, per WP:ARBCOND. Here there is a clear conduct-linked assertion: that neutral editing is being portrayed as non-neutral editing. Yet ... no response. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Some "discussion" it turned out to be. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I allowed to respond? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can respond here. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I missed it, but has ArbCom given any explanation as to how the diffs constitute POV pushing? As an experienced editor in the CTOP I didn't notice anything on a shallow inspection. Also, it would be good to know what kind of evidence/analysis ArbCom considers to be sufficient to demonstrate POV pushing, which is something notoriously difficult to prove when reporting someone for it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to know who compiled these diffs? Were these submitted to ArbCom or were they gathered by ArbCom itself?

Also I tried looking at the edits a bit closer but without any explanation I still son't see how it is POV pushing or even what POV is alleged to be being pushed.

I find the first diff confusing as, though I'm unfamiliar with the underlying content in question, Iskandar's edit was never reverted and is still the current state of the page. Same with the second and fifth diff presented. And the last diff is apparently just a question/suggestion posted to a talk page? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still curious as to where these specific diffs came from & as no one else has directly answered your question, they were originally compiled by Nehushtani in this comment further up the page. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you. That explains Zero's comment of "You let Nehushtani feed you claims matching his own POV without investigating them properly." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nehushtani was created two days after User:EliasAntonakos was blocked as a User:Galamore sock, similar timecard as Galamore socks ([41] [42] [43] [44]), same canned "added" edit summaries, and here's the EIA. I assume somebody's already CU'd them and cleared them, and that's why they've been allowed to participate here. Levivich (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich, why on earth would you assume that someone has already been investigated as a sockpuppet when no one has never so much as mentioned their name at SPI? C'mon, man. We're not miracle workers, we're not psychics, and we're literally forbidden from checking people for the hell of it. -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: sorry, I can see my comment would come across as unreasonable to you or any of the other new arbs, but it wasn't directed at the new arbs (I now realize that the incumbent arbs are hazing the new arbs by launching PIA 5.1 immediately upon the start of the new term). Here's the context: in 2024, I reported like a dozen or so of the socks from these PIA sockfarms to AE and/or SPI (almost all were blocked) using pretty much the same pattern of similarities as in my comment here. It was my AE reports that were referred to Arbcom and led to PIA5. Now, a year later, Arbcom starts this ARM on its own initiative, on the heels of one AE sock being globally blocked, and here is a year-old account who's active at AE and here, and we're using their diffs in a motion (and voting to indef someone at least partly based on those diffs), and the account has many of the common signs of this sockfarm, and the word "sock" appears 35 times on this page, and part of this ARM is about anonymous private reports... is it unreasonable to think somebody would have run a check by now? I can't imagine that none of the participants in PIA5 or the preceding AE/SPIs--many of whom know way more about socking that I do and about 5-10 of whom are participating on this page--have noticed what I noticed. I would have filed the SPI by now if I could have and I don't really understand why no one else has, maybe because they also assumed like I did that arbcom already handled it before starting this ARM or proposing the motions. Levivich (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich, consider that comment more from "asilvering, SPI CU" than "asilvering, one of the new arbs". I've also been at AE threads where editors have been complaining about sockpuppets in the topic area and yet not reporting them to SPI. We can't do anything about the sockpuppets if people don't report them! Anyway, thanks for the report, have investigated, waiting on a 2O. -- asilvering (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: thank you (and whoever gives the 2O) for following up on it! Levivich (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think 2 reasons to not file SPI reports are the 90-day CU data retention schedule and the cost imbalance between SPI report preparation vs the process of creating a new disposable account. I ran a test the other day to see what would happen in the absence of CU data. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Plot_Spoiler#08_January_2026. Nothing. And that's fine. So, for me, our inability to stop ban evasion is just a fact of the matter that changes everything, we should adapt to that, and maybe the emphasis should switch to not getting played, having a more probabilistic model of account standing rather than AGF. After all, one way of telling the story of this case is that it all started when a manipulative sociopath with a criminal mind filed a case at AE. The account getting reported and locked was just random luck. If it had been an account handover rather than an account compromise, or just a routine ban evading actor, they would likely still be editing and exploiting AGF by civilly interacting with other accounts. Yes, Nehushtani resembles a sock, but so what? Is it possible to reliably validate claims that they are a sock? I'm skeptical, but let's assume it is possible, and the account is blocked? What difference would that make really? Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland, that doesn't make any sense. The account you reported at SPI isn't even editing anymore. There's a huge difference between reporting an account that isn't active and one that is currently participating at ARM/AE. I've now blocked Nehushtani. I could have done that months ago if someone had pointed me in the right direction, and it would have saved AE a whole lot of headaches. When there's someone worth reporting, report them. -- asilvering (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That case was carefully selected, and I waited a long time to file it. It makes sense if you want to ask the question "does SPI assume that the only active possible sock account is the one that has stopped editing?". CU data is presumably available for the account that was recently blocked. CU data is not available for the account connected to the sockmaster. So that report could have gone a different way, with a sweep for active sock accounts. I would be surprised if the person who operates that account isn't already actively editing, but they don't target other editors, so... Regarding Nehushtani, what does 'if someone had pointed me in the right direction' mean in concrete terms when CU data is unavailable? Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I presume writing a checkuser or perhaps multiple about their suspicious behavior. This is probably more effective if you're an outsider in the topic area instead of a frequent participant. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So there we have it. Both the AE case and now this one, have been goaded along by two socking accounts, both now thought to be linked to the same sock master. And the second motion here even uses the 7 diffs first mentioned at AE independently, but then repeated above in the pre-case discussion by the sock. I warned the committee about Nehushtani on 30 December – noting their intense involvement: both attempting an earlier run at me at ANI and flagging down Tamzin in September (both times to no action). All of this is in Archive 8. Adding this to past CTOP incitement on my talk page, it has basically become more probable than not that an account raising CTOP issues on my talk page is a sock. Yet instead of treating me like the sock honeytrap that I am and scrutinizing these accounts raising disputes despite no past interaction with me, the committee has allowed itself to be drawn in hook, line and sinker and basically danced to the tune of a single sock master. THIS CASE is why you don't refer AEs closed due to sock interference: because when there's one sock, there are always more. I look forward to seeing more committee members recognizing what an absolute shambles this has become. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nehushtani has just been blocked as an IceWhiz/Galamore sock.

@Asilvering, with regards to "We can't do anything about the sockpuppets if people don't report them!": I reported Nehushtani and BlookyNapsta (and another account) as IceWhiz/Galamore socks in emails to multiple administrators including one current arbitrator. I was emailing admins about this as early as Dec 5. On January 2nd the current arbitrator said to me "I'm told that it's been investigated, including getting a second opinion, but that no action has been taken. I can't tell you any more than at this time."

This was so obvious to anyone knowledgeable about these accounts. I can't believe it wasn't noticed or dealt with sooner especially when these accounts were blatantly weaponizing AE and harassing editors. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS, please report sockpuppetry at SPI. Also, I did not block Nehushtani as an IceWhiz sock. -- asilvering (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question that has been on my mind since BlookyNapsta was identified as a compromised account. What if a) the real account owner hadn't reported it and instead b) it was possible show that the account was likely compromised or handed over at or near a specific point in the revision history of the account? Is it possible to report cases like that? Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While you're here, @Asilvering, something I've never understood about SPI, but never known how to ask: Nehustani was an obviously suspicious account, but I never in my life would've been able to link him to the sockmaster you did. This happens a lot, probably, where normal editors can suss out that an account is obviously suspicious, but have no institutional knowledge about sockmasters. And as far as I know (and I might be totally wrong, I'm an SPI dunce, so I'd be happy to be corrected), you need to have a sockmaster in mind when you make an report. I'm not sure how I could've gone about reporting him. Parabolist (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is the same, and I have a concrete suggestion that would help a lot without creating an avalanche of fishing expeditions. If someone is reported to AE and the admins there feel their behavior is suspicious, they should be able to refer them for CU on that basis without needing to identify a sockmaster. Zero^talk 07:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Parabolist, @Sean.hoyland, @Zero0000, happy to take general SPI questions on my talk page to save everyone from going over word limits and the arb clerks from going crazy. -- asilvering (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The committee was discussing this weeks before their comment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same seven diffs. So either ArbCom copied them from Nehushtani or Nehushtani copied them from ArbCom somehow. They're also too randomly/irrationally selected for it to be a coincidence. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As Zero has pointed out, these seven diffs were seen as early as Dec 19, when Guerillero submitted them to the AE thread about Iskandar that was filed by BlookyNapsta. Guerillero submitted them to support their statement about Iskandar that "There is also a pattern of editing in the history of Judaism just outside of the topic ban where no one edit is a giant problem, but together they show an Israel-Palestine related POV being pushed."[45] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notably Black Kite's comment a few hours before Guerillero's accurately assessed the weaponization of AE and the sockpuppet likelihood: [46] This is the kind of thing I and others mean when we say this while thing was already pretty obvious. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could I please get an answer to these questions. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish's "I know the topic area, trust me" should not be acceptable. In fact, in my experience SFR's judgement of the topic area is quite bad actually.

The idea that the diffs presented were somehow just random diffs that were not intended to demonstrate the accusation is absurd and even seems dishonest.

I would think the expectation of providing diffs to support one's claims is something that applies to all editors including administrators and arbitrators. (I would even think members of this committee should be leading by example with regards to this) Yet not only has the initial motion's claim still not been substantiated or explained, but SFR now makes another unsubstantiated claim of the accused "minimizing or removing mentions of Israel, Judea, and Jewish history". I suppose no diffs being provided for this is an improvement on misleading and irrelevant diffs being provided, but surely this still isn't reasonable.

Maybe I'm just ignorant and this is how ArbCom normally operates, but something really doesn't seem right here to me. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable that the evidence Arbcom posts to justify an siteban should be evidence of the behavior that is being cited for the siteban, and not random edits (some of which are unrelated) compiled by a non-arb. This isn't a warning we're talking about here, it's an indef. This kind of sloppiness is just disrespectful from people the community has elected to take this sort of thing seriously. Parabolist (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero it would be helpful if you perhaps took the advice that most editors are given at ANI and "Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem" when presenting a conduct issue with another user. If you've done a thorough review of six months(!) worth of edits, it would only make sense for an Arbitrator to actually collect some of the problematic diffs from that review. Parabolist (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The collection of diffs in this motion are being presented as if they are in evidence of something. As noted by @Parabolist, there is no claim that these edits were disruptive edits, bad edits, non-policy compliant edits or even edits with bad summaries. Neither has any disruption arisen from them in the form of disputes, aside from the AE case for a globally banned presumable sock. It is claimed that the edits are non-neutral, when neutrality on Wikipedia is defined with respect to policy and sources. At least half of these diffs relate to removing unsourced, OR or otherwise errant content. Is this not neutral as defined by policy? Hence why at least one of these diffs saw me thanked by an administrator. The diffs have been aggregated here to serve a narrative that is highly selective given that I have made approximately 1,500 edits since January of which these are just a slither. My editing ranges widely, including, yes, into Middle Eastern history. That's not a dirty secret; it's simply not a CTOP, and neither are (or were) any of these pages tagged as such. If ARBCOM wishes to create or expand a CTOP to cover other things, they are of course entitled to do this, as they are considering now. But isn't this also usually triggered by demonstrable disruption (of which there is no evidence here)? So, how is it equitable to retroactively treat non-disruptive editing outside of a CTOP as being somehow both CTOP-related and disruptive? No evidence has been unpacked stating how these edits are problematic; it has just been baldy asserted. This appears to be a judgement based on content (though without looking at the finer details), not on behaviour. 'Battleground' has even been invoked, but where is the battle? There have been no disputes, let alone edit wars. Out of these seven diffs, only two have been even reverted (by my count): one by SFR as part of his enforcement measure (so double jeopardy again here), and the other by a user that didn't like an image change — and that then went uncontested by me, so didn't even get to the D of BRD. Obviously, ARBCOM can do what it likes, but it would be nice to think that calls for banning editors might be a little more rooted in policy and less in what appears to be ... feels. What is going on here? Ask me about the diffs and I'll happily explain any of them if it isn't already evident from the edit summaries. It surely can't be the case that no one has any questions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I am concerned about the quality of evidence presented here. The diffs closest to POV-pushing are [47] and the Talk page comment, which got one reply and has had zero effect on the article. Maybe I just don't understand this period of history well enough to see how those two diffs and [48] are clear evidence of POV-pushing. [49] and [50] seem to be clear improvements. If you do as asked and "follow the commons chain back", you will see that the map Iskandar removed twice [51][52] comes from File:12 staemme israels.png and is cited to "the Book of Joshua, chapters 13–19". Per WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, that is original research. Further, one of the removals remains unreverted to this day, as the map did not illustrate the subject of the article.
  All this to say: If this is all the evidence there is, it feels like the Committee is about to ban Iskandar on a pretext. Maybe he is POV-pushing and committing heinous crimes against NPOV. Maybe he should be banned. But I have little background knowledge of this conflict or Iskandar's behavior. All I have is these seven diffs, to which this punishment feels entirely disproportionate. Toadspike [Talk] 09:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I too find the diffs to be evidence of nothing but editing an encyclopedia and a total site ban to be hard overkill. All editing entails representing only some of the infinite number of POVs in this world. This topic area suffers from a lack of editors that are knowledgeable and able to edit collaboratively. Don't see any evidence Iskander is a tendentious or uncollobrative editor. The articles are in very bad shape across the board as a result. Sockpuppets with axes to grind keep throwing out allegations and kicking up dust creating the impression of disruption without actually building much here, and longtime editors using only one account get harassed and restricted, and eventually banned from editing. A seriously sorry state of affairs, and content building is suffering badly as a result. Tiamut (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: I think you are asking the right questions, and I think a lack of comprehension of the content is pervasive here – so judgements are ironically being made on the basis of content in a vacuum of understanding. Taking your first example of [53], I had thought that the explicit reason for the removal in the edit summary was quite common sense and easily parsed. The page is about a period (encompassing Macedonian, Seleucid and Hasmonean rule), but the infobox was bracketing it with discrete political or administrative units on either side – so a totally different category of content not remotely on a par with it – as if equivalent. The was pure error, misleading and an inevitable source of confusion for readers. This would be like bracketing Roman Britain, which is another period page, not with the periods of "British Iron Age" and "Sub-Roman Britain", but with whatever list of discrete pre-Roman and post-Roman polities existed at the time. The issue of an infobox making a period seem like a political entity was recently hashed out on Roman Palestine and the infobox was removed entirely as a result. So the outstanding issue was plain enough, and yet, even that belies the fuller picture of how erroneous the material was. For starters, Hasmonean Judea, as already mentioned falls within the timeframe of the Hellenistic period. As for Yehud Medinata, this was a single sub-unit of the region corresponding roughly to the region of Judea, so even if we were to take Hellenistic Palestine to be somehow analogous to "Seleucid Palestine" (comprising the provinces of Judea, Samaria, Idumea and other toparchiea), this would have only been a partial match corresponding only to Judea. If the page were about the closest approximation of the Macedonian and Seleucid region-level political unit at the time (though it isn't), then the closes match would also be something else. The obvious choice would be the much larger Neo-Assyrian/Neo-Babylonian/Achaemenid satrapy of Eber Nari, as the only supra-provincial administrative unit. Beneath that, the historic region included Yehud Medinata, but also Samerina (or Shamrayn Medinta in local Aramaic) and other autonomous sub-units, as in the Greek period. I incidentally created the page for Samerina, so if I thought it was appropriate here I would have happily wikilinked my own creation alongside Yehud Medinata, but the much bigger problem was the totally erroneous alignment of non-equivalent content. I'm not sure how many of the admins here know all or any of this context, but I suspect it is few ... and why would they? But they have also not asked questions, as invited. What has presumably happened instead with the presentation of this diff is that admins with the barest grasp on the content are ignoring the edit summary and the merits of the edit, just seeing 'Yehud' and 'Judea' being removed, and jumping to wildly bad faith, errant and unmerited assumptions. The fact that the information addressed by the diff was entirely added by IP users accompanied by no sources ([54] [55]) appears not to have factored into any of the equations of what is or is not V, OR, NPOV or any attribute. I assume it is the same with the Yahweh edit, with admins seeing the removal of 'Israelite' and declaring it a POV push – this in spite of the vast conflation that it requires to jump from the parameters of the CTOP to this, but also the fact that this was an easter egg piped link to Yahwism, the monolatrist version of YHWH worship that most zealous Abrahamic monotheistic theologians would likely prefer didn't exist. This edit also came after I removed two tentative parents to the deity (so I removed one in total over the full edit arc), leaving Asherah as only a prospective consort, not mother. This tips the page further away from stating in Wikivoice that Yahweh was definitely a Hephaestus-like polytheistic deity with familial relationships and couches it with bracketed text that note the scholarly uncertainty. If there were to be any 'side' at all here, it would most closely resemble the side of anyone that claims the tradition of Yahweh as a sacrosanct part of their monotheistic faith, since scholarly ambiguity grants room for faith. This is presumably contrary to the POV this diff is being presented as indicating. I removed the Yahwism link, because the contexts in which the different iterations of Yahweh's familial relations or lack therein existed – i.e. whether Canaanite, Yahwist, Edomite, etc., and in which periods – is heavily disputed in scholarship. Yahwism is a fascinating topic, and the link to it was only removed here because the line in the infobox did not relate solely to it, but to the broader bronze and iron age uncertainties around the worship of Yahweh, inclusive of but not exclusive to Yahwism. All of this context is of course simply lost to the wind when a diff is simply posted and examined solely at a surface level without any serious further insight. The edit at Yahweh had gone uncontestes and the edit at Hellenistic Palestine has been reapplied in effect, alongside most of the others in the same batch, because they were largely the correct call and/or unproblematic. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The following does not apply to asilvering or CaptainEek. There is no way in hell that these diffs demonstrate a pattern of POV pushing. All of them are reasonable edits, and most of them are clear article improvements. You let Nehushtani feed you claims matching his own POV without investigating them properly. Zero^talk 13:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Concerning the map that Iskandar removed in the fourth diff, the removal and the reason given were correct and the immediate reinsertion on the grounds that it "seems real fine" was incorrect. Actually that map is someone's OR and no source has been found. On the contrary, there is consensus against it. Arminden's demolition of the map can be found here and other complaints about the map are here, here and here. Removal of the map was not POV-pushing, it was good editing. Zero^talk 04:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction, I was mistaken about the sock Nehushtani being the one who introduced these 7 diffs and drew a false conclusion from them. Actually Nehushtani only copied what Guerillero had written earlier at AE. That doesn't make things any more palatable; if anything it makes things worse. If Guerillero really based his conclusions on a larger body of evidence, why did he choose to present 7 diffs that don't support them? Now, after near-unanimous complaints from the community, a few arbs have spoken up, but where are the rest of you? Zero^talk 11:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Having looked at the linked edits in question, I'm extremely skeptical of how many arbitrators claiming they demonstrate POV-pushing have actually read them themselves. I second Zero's observation that these edits have obviously just been copied uncritically from a post above & that, especially considering the potential consequences, the committee's general lack of proper due-diligence here is disappointing to say the least. That most arbitrators haven't even acknowledged objections to this, let alone substantiate their positions makes me question what purpose this "Community discussion" section even serves - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• There is an apparent convergence between how assessments and decisions are made here, their opacity, and how assessments and decisions are made in the dark parts of pro-Israel social media and media. This is a bit concerning because those guys are highly unreliable agenda driven partisan actors rather than rational objective evidence and rules-based actors.

- "English Wikipedia arbitration committee passed landmark motion, banning prominent Hamas propagandist Iskandar323 indefinitely from the site, after a year of topic ban violations by Iskandar323 and continuous tendentious editing around the history of Judaism"

- "Wikipedia has site-banned Iskandar323, one of the most active editors shaping Israel–Palestine content on the platform. This wasn’t a minor account. He made 12k+ edits in just a few years, largely concentrated in a single topic area—often alongside the same small group of editors."

There will be much more of this propaganda. It is effective. It will continue to negatively impact the topic area and its editors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd abstained from commenting until now, since I don't spend much time in this topic area and figured there might be some nuances I was missing, but ultimately I feel I'd be remiss not to weigh in. When I reviewed the actual diffs, my impression was very similar to that of CaptainEek, Toadspike, et al—namely, I found the evidence of non-neutral editing to be incredibly weak, both on its own merits and as the justification for a ban. The edits all looked individually sound to me, and collectively they don't seem to inappropriately advance any particular viewpoint. I'd appreciate more detail from the supporting arbs as to exactly what they view as non-neutral about the edits, since at the moment, it feels like nobody who's spoken in detail about the diffs sees whatever it is the supporters are seeing in them. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  User:ScottishFinnishRadish, you state that Iskander uniquely minimizes Israel, Judea and Jewish history in ways he doesn't for other subjects, based on edits not represented or shown here. As a longtime editor of articles where these subjects come up, I can confidently state that many of our pages often give them undue prominence. For example, before I began editing Hellenistic Palestine, almost the entire article was devoted to a discussion of Yehud Medinata, a phrase I have never seen used to discuss the province of Judea in this period. I had to remove several mentions of it and have only just begun adding more information about non-Jewish provinces, cities and communities who were simply not represented at all in the article previously (See here for the changes I made so far). It concerns me that such efforts to improve our articles could be interpreted in such bad faith, simply because I (or Iskander, or any other editor), do not hide our own personal POVs about this topic area. It is also opaque to claim you have seen a pattern without providing diffs evidencing it (@User:Guerillero too) so others can judge if they are improvements or detrimental. Tiamut (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @SFR: Isn't I've spent a lot of time looking at Iskandar323's edits more of a reason to recuse yourself than anything else? Pennecaster recused themselves for merely touching a related AE. By contrast, in the case of yourself, you are responsible for making the original block after being personally summoned to my user talk by the very same compromised account that filed the now dismissed AE case. This was a fairly suspect account to anyone who's done a tour of the CTOP (not least in their having basically never interacted with me before (so coming out of the blue for pure hounding just like a classic sock)), and making a clearly pointy summons – that you nevertheless responded to positively. And again, even were the warning signs not already plain, we now know this was a compromised account. You speak of experience in the CTOP, and yet nothing about this (hacked) compromised account set off warning bells? Why not even ask questions first? Like: hello, probable sock (that I'm going to treat with good faith for appearance's sake), please could you explain why you are following this editor around in such a clearly adversarial manner? You have invoked battleground here, but you couldn't sense the battle-hardened sock when he waved you over? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked at your edits because of the topic ban violations, the times you were reported and I said you didn't violate your topic ban, and the the times you asked me to look into articles you had edited to make sure you could edit them or their AfD. Blooky did not reach out to me about suspected topic ban violations until weeks after I had blocked you, so I'm not sure where you're getting being personally summoned to my user talk by the very same compromised account that filed the now dismissed AE case. As far as I can recall User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 52#Question is the only time I communicated with them and I directed them to the correct venue because, as I told you at that time I had very limited time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @SFR: 07:36, 26 November 2025: Blooky Napsta, compromised account, pings you about Hellenistic Palestine edits. 08:09: I respond, offering to revert and seeking clarification on CTOP scope. 13:53: You block me without discussion based on the input and advice of said compromised account. These are three sequential diffs in my talk. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I know there's no way to prove this to you, but I have no recollection of that ping. My last 50 notifications and alerts go back 15 hours, though, so I may have missed it in the high volume. I have 6500 pages on my watchlist and using a quick find-on-page I have 147 with Palestine in the title, 178 is Israel in the title, 66 with Gaza, and many more related. I watch a lot of these pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi SFR. As I'm sure you know, to err is human, but to mark out the false stuff one wrote while erring is Wikipedian. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  (Except if you err with a TBAN, in which case, to err is to call down fire and brimstone.) Iskandar323 (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This is somewhat of a surprise — a telenovela-worthy plot twist even. You can see how this looks from the outside, and how this must look to me. It's obviously impossible to peer behind the veil on this, but AGF and assuming you missed the ping – that almighty sonar in the deep of Wikipedia – then that means you also missed my reply and a huge deal of context that has coloured everything since. It means that you were oblivious to A) having been summoned, and B) my understanding that you had been notified: an understanding that drew me into a dispute resolution mindset – immediately seeking clarification on the scope of my ban before sitting down to patiently wait for admin input. Your block then came rocketing out of the blue without so much as a by-your-leave on talk, with my query ignored in a manner seemingly very much not in the spirit of things. The sock must have also been delighted and assumed that their ruse had paid off – prompting them to go for broke and attempt an AE. The whole sequence was, as it were, the beat of the butterfly's wings that set everything in motion. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Now we have two claims that personal impressions, not supported by a single diff, are good enough. This case is turning into a real scandal. Zero^talk 04:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I was quite sure that "trust me bro" was the standard of proof here, but now people are telling me it isn't. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "There is a pattern of minimizing or removing mentions of Israel, Judea, and Jewish history without similar edits made when dealing with other religions or peoples" by the scottish whatever guy is a citation needed moment for the ages.Dan Murphy (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• To editor Theleekycauldron: The "twelve tribes" example needs explanation. In scholarly writing, "Biblical myth" means "something in the Bible which is not attested outside the Bible". It can also be a statement about the form and function of the claim within the Biblical text, especially in relation to stories that form part of a traditional origin narrative. In both cases, it is not an assertion about truth or falsity. (Search Scholar to find countless examples.) Iskandar's edit did not replace an assertion of truth by an assertion of falsity. Iskandar replaced an assertion of truth in wikivoice by a correct positioning of the claim as a myth in the scholarly sense. I would recommend against using "myth" in its scholarly meaning due to the likelihood of misunderstanding, but that's the most negative thing I can say about the edit Zero^talk 06:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Theleekycauldron: the lead provides detail further down, beginning with: According to the Hebrew Bible, the Israelites ... (including the narrative of the 12 sons), before detailing: Scholars generally consider the Hebrew Bible's narrative to be part of the Israelites' national myth (while also noting the likelihood of a historical core). So it's not unsourced in the lead at all: it's a 14-word paraphrased intro summary of well-sourced statements immediately below. The linked page, meanwhile, is not, in of itself, an RS. If there is a problem with this content in the lead, it is that none of it appears in the body, so it's currently all cart before horse. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a pattern of minimizing or removing mentions of Israel, Judea, and Jewish history without similar edits made when dealing with other religions or peoples - This is untrue. Even a casual glance at Iskandar323's edit history shows numerous diffs applying the same approach to other faiths and peoples, especially Islam and Muslims:

• Islam and Muslims: [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]
• +Christianity and ancient Greek stuff: [66]
• Others: [67][68][69]

This is just a rushed first pass since I glanced at Iskandar323's edit history and immediately saw a bunch of edits that obviously contradicted the implication being made here. But the underlying issue is that it's unfair to Iskandar323 to do this by motion; I've only had a short time to put together evidence, but it is clear even from that quick skim that ArbCom was handed a thoroughly one-sided case. By doing this by motion, accepting the diffs in the case and not giving anyone an opportunity to present any other evidence before voting begins, that allows false presumptions and assertions like the one quoted here to go uncontested until most of ArbCom has already voted. Of course your evidence only shows Iskandar323's interactions with Judaism! You were handed a one-sided set of diffs by someone who had as long as they wanted to put together a case, and gave virtually no time to put together a reply. This requires a full case - and, obviously, the source of those diffs needs to be a party so their actions can be examined for possible abuse of process. The overall focus of Iskandar323's edits is clearly on the Middle East and the history of western religion as a whole, not Judaism. In particular I think it's clear Iskandar323 has spent far more time removing excessive puffery and focus for things related to Islam, not Judaism, which completely contradicts the underlying assertion being made here and suggests merely a fastidious approach to sourcing and puffery in a controversial topic area, rather than bias. @ScottishFinnishRadish:--Aquillion (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis true. Though don't do me a discredit, I also have nefarious designs on plant life. I got Sea buckthorn moved to the common name, and Gesho. I am the bane of those that enjoy being bamboozled by Latin. I even got away with lobbying for Salt flat to be moved away from Salt pan (geology). And I conjured up Fascism in the United States with moonshine and pixie dust and no one stopped me! I even tipped the scales against the gibberish name of this unfortunate proto-deity. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh for one should know that I'm a stickler for names, sources and an irreverent approach to content on all religions, as they must surely remember from the The Buddha RM – it was a whole fandango at the time that ruffled the feathers of many of the editors more enthused by Buddhist history and in-universe terminology and/or the Noble Eightfold Path in general. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here is me purging more OR user-generated images on Islam-related pages: [70] [71] [72] [73] – broadly in line with a discussion a year ago on the proliferation of user-generated calligraphy on Islam pages and work-shopping tighter guidelines. In this discussion, I stated: Even images created by users should be based on verifiable information, e.g. usage of a phrase, existence of a certain calligraphic form or style, etc., just as user-generated maps must have an underlying set of sources. So again, that's a year ago: no one can accuse me of coming up with my horribly consistent approach to OR images recently. And here's me adding an image on Judaea due to it being fantastically well-sourced and worth repeating. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Finish Radish, et al., saying "diffs exist" and not providing them is not only WP:ASPERSION, it is fundamentally unfair. Look, Leeky raised a diff they had a question about, they could only do so because they identified a diff. So, identifying the diffs you are basing your decision on is fundamental, perhaps you will find you have a question instead of your unsupported on wiki conclusion.

The rest of the committee, please answer the questions on NPOV with diffs. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Further arb input is required here. There has been substantial arbitrator and community discussion and this merits a response. The only arbs to participate in the arbitrator discussion have either opposed or initially supported but then switched position on the motion. Two other arbs have expanded on their support votes (recalling absent evidence, but not producing it). Six arbs have not explained their vote or noticeably responded to the input in the discussions below. @HJ Mitchell gave their support reason as "Per HB", but HB has changed their vote and struck half of their original explanation. Also pinging @Daniel @Elli @Girth Summit @Aoidh @SilverLocust to check that they are aware. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would just close this review without any action against anyone at this point. We do not want to be rewarding the likes of Galamore against people who don't use sockpuppets or compromise accounts, and I'm sure the parties have learned their lesson and wouldn't try to skirt around their topic ban anytime soon. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom Clerks: It should be noted that one arb whose vote rests on another arb's vote has not yet reacted to the latter vote being struck and altered, while most of the other aforementioned arbs have had either little to no activity for several days – so many will likely not be party to recent updates to the discussion, nor have had time to absorb them. They may need some time to catch up. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has given even a scintilla of evidence for this supposed "non-neutral editing" from Iskandar323 which merits a site ban. I'll just take one diff, and analyze it myself because apparently, I'm not allowed to cite a tool which has better reading comprehension than 95% of people here.

Let's look at this diff on the page Yahweh. The earlier version said definitively, with no qualification, that Asherah was the consort of Yahweh. I quote from The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah

Scholarly opinion differs widely concerning the identification of asherah, but can be broken down into two general categories: first, that the term ‘asherah’ in the Hebrew Bible did not refer to a goddess at all, but described solely an object (either some type of wooden image, a sanctuary, a grove or a living tree); and secondly, that asherah could indicate both a wooden image and the name of a specific goddess.

So it is bleedin' obvious that the unqualified statement was an over-simplification of the scholarly consensus, and the diff is obviously correct and NPOV. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this edit in particular, it also seems noteworthy that Iskandar323's edit, rather than minimizing Jewish/Israelite identification, actually brings it more into line with (lower-case-o) orthodox Jewish historiography by minimizing the weight of polytheistic predecessors of rabbinic Judaism in the infobox. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3.1) Iskandar323 is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support

1. First choice --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. The answer to someone violating their topic ban multiple times and working at the edges of it to continue the same dispute isn't to further broaden their topic ban. It's to make it clear such behavior isn't allowed. When you've been warned, topic banned, blocked for topic ban violations, let off with time served then topic banned again by Arbcom, warned, blocked, and continue to violate your topic ban another warning or broadened topic ban isn't going to fix things. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mulling it over, I have to agree with SFR. This is not the first time around, the POV pushing has continued; given the topic ban violations, I can't have confidence that Iskandar323 will abide by the expanded topic ban. Support in addition to 3.2 and 3.3 for if and when an appeal is accepted. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   I am going to add to this rationale, especially now that I am opposing motion 2. And I remain here largely per SFR's analysis of the topic ban violations. Iskandar was given a topic ban, broke it, was warned, broke it, and was then blocked. They were then unbanned, but that doesn't retroactively grant them an amnesty for their previous actions. I am therefore giving consideration to those events.

   After one's topic ban is lifted, your behavior should be beyond reproach. That's not what happened; ArbCom had to step in and reimpose the ban. And what happened? Iskandar violated their ban, again. They were warned, again. They broke it, again. They were blocked, again. And less than a month after that block, they broke it again.

   I simply don't believe that another warning will work. Last year we said enough is enough, and I mean it. Enough is enough. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   One more comment: I don't see the latest topic ban violation as minor. It was posted on the talk page of someone with an identical topic ban, when Iskandar knew Levivich was also topic banned. That would've been disruptive even without a topic ban. But it was a topic ban violation, it was baiting someone else into breaking their topic ban, it was less than a month after a previous block for violations expired, and Iskandar still doesn't understand why it was a problem. I remain in the support column, because I have no confidence that there will not be more topic ban violations. If this does not pass, I dearly hope I am wrong and Iskandar can edit within the bounds of their topic ban. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   First choice. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Moved to oppose, see my comment at the FOF. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

5. This is the necessary and proportional response to continued misconduct after a topic ban. The pattern suggests someone who is not here to write a neutral encyclopaedia but has a blind spot in one area, but rather someone who is determined to write "their" side of history wherever they're technically allowed to. Ever-broader topic bans won't fix that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Enough is enough. - Aoidh (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   I think we're past the point of lesser sanctions, given the previous sanctions were ignored. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm striking this since the finding of fact that there has been continued POV-pushing is no longer passing. While I'm not impressed by the topic ban violations, I can't support a full ban if the finding of the committee is that they were minor violations rather than POV pushing. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   per Harry and SFR. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   striking for now in light of my change on the POV pushing motion; I've lost access to my computer and won't be able to revote for a while, so I'm returning to inactive on the outstanding votes in the hopes that we finish voting sooner rather than later. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

7. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   I might have made some of the same edits. But, I also don't have any editing restrictions that might be of interest. Izno (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Based on my oppose on the POV-pushing FoF. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. I oppose the FoF above, but additionally I would like to add that even if I agreed there was a pov coming through in these edits, I would really hesitate to support a full ban. The "misconduct after a topic ban" here is very limited - as far as I can tell, just that one talk page diff. A full ban strikes me as a really extraordinary step to take after a first tban block. (Yes, "first" - Iskandar's previous block for tban vio happened in 2021, for a different tban, which was successfully appealed.) asilvering (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. I cannot support a full ban without the "further POV pushing" FOF. Izno (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Can't get myself worked up enough about the one post-warning violation to do anything other than warn again impose a full ban; I would favor an escalating blocks approach, but I'll let someone else propose it if they second the motion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

3.2) Iskandar323 is further topic banned from any edit related to Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Antisemitism, Palestine, Palestinians, or anything else that is related to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Support

1. Second choice as a package 3.3 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   The topic ban did not stop the disruption. I support this with 3.3. I am still considering the siteban, but if I support it, it would be in addition to 3.2 and 3.3. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2. Second choice. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Insufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Insufficient. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. The very fact that the ban needs such a broad and novel definition is evidence that a site ban is necessary. I can quickly think of ways one could continue to make the sorts of edits that are problematic on this context while remaining within the letter of the ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Insufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. per my objections to this as a general practice. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. I don't like the definition of the scope, and think its unnecessary per my oppose on the POV FoF. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. asilvering (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per my comment at motion 2. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
9. Izno (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. I am more open to broadening a PIA topic ban to Palestine/Israel, but I think multiple violations of multiple topic bans over time tend to justify a sitewide ban or block. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Somewhere between insufficient and already-voted-for-a-ban. Izno (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3.3) Iskandar323 is warned for violating their topic ban imposed in Palestine-Israel articles 5. Administrators are authorized to block Iskandar323 for any reasonable length, including indefinitely, for further topic ban violations. Blocks imposed under this remedy may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee.

Support

1. Second choice as a package 3.2 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. With 3.2. I am still considering the siteban, but if I support it, it would be in addition to 3.2 and 3.3. Note that this allows editors to block for violations of the expanded topic ban. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice if the siteban doesn't pass (with or without 3.2). I see this as similar to the suspended siteban we passed for Andre in PIA5, except the difference is that I believe Andre is fundamentally here for the right reasons and the threat of a ban is a motivator to behave and not just a hurdle to be overcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. second choice to the siteban. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:36, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. I am again somewhat concerned/confused that editors aren't getting blocked when they violate their tban for like a week or a month, but a warning seems correct at any rate. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Since the committee does not agree that POV pushing has taken place, I can therefore no longer support a ban; the committee does find that topic ban violations have taken place however, which is not acceptable, and further violations will almost certainly result in blocks, so a warning seems fair and necessary. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Insufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Insufficient. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per above. Izno (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Insufficient. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Insufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. I don't see any reason to restrict avenues of appeal in the case of a block. asilvering (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

• The only diff we have in evidence for topic ban violations since SFR's block in November is this one: [74]. Is this it? Are there others? -- asilvering (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Another option not listed, and you're not going to like this, would be to vacate the topic ban. Why might that be an option? Maybe it was an unsafe conviction. For example, the verdict says Iskandar323 "engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including consistently non-neutral editing (FOARP evidence)". But if we look at the 9 samples presented, what other patterns might people see there? One pattern is that 6 out of the 9 !votes are consistent with the current titles of the articles, which presumably represents the current policy based consensus. Does this tell me that Iskandar323 is biased towards policy compliant results? No, because 9 samples don't tell me anything useful about anything. I mention this for 3 reasons - 1. consistently non-neutral editing is the norm in the topic area, 2. violating topic bans is common in the topic area, but the usual device is to use sockpuppetry/ban evasion to hide it rather than do it out in the open, and 3. the sunk cost fallacy.

id	rfc	!vote	current title	!vote = result
1	Netiv HaAsara attack → Netiv HaAsara massacre RM (10 Oct 2023 - I)	Iskandar323 - oppose	Netiv HaAsara massacre	0
2	Nahal Oz massacre → Nahal Oz attack RM (6 November 2023 - I)	Iskandar323 - support	Nahal Oz attack	1
3	Nirim massacre → Nirim attack RM (14 Nov 2023 - I)	Iskandar323 - support(nom)	Nirim attack	1
4	Nir Yitzhak massacre → Nir Yitzhak attack (10 Jan 2024 - I)	Iskandar323 - support	Nir Yitzhak attack	1
5	Holit massacre → Holit attack RM (10 Jan 2024 - I):	Iskandar323 - support	Holit attack	1
6	Kissufim massacre → Kissufim attack RM (8 March 2024 - I)	Iskandar323 - support	Kissufim massacre	0
7	Engineer's Building strike and massacre → Engineer's Building airstrike RM (7 April 2024 - P)	Iskandar323 - oppose	Engineer's Building airstrike	0
8	Nir Oz massacre → Nir Oz attack RM (1 June 2024 - I)	Iskandar323 - support	Nir Oz attack	1
9	Al-Tabaeen school attack → Al-Tabaeen school massacre RM (10 Aug 2024 - P):	Iskandar323 - support	Al-Tabaeen school attack	1

Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another option not listed… would be to vacate the topic ban.

I can’t think of a worse possible option, nor do I see the usefulness in attempting to relitigate FoFs from a year ago. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to measure whether it is actually better for Wikipedia for Iskandar323 or the other editors to be topic banned or not, so I don't rule out any option. My position is always, keep an open mind and have some humility. Nobody really knows how to make the topic area function better. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor wants a topic ban violatedlifted, they should make a good-faith effort to abide by not just the letter but the spirit of it, ideally make themselves useful on a different subject, then appeal it. I would look favourably on an appeal in those circumstances. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland: Actually, the RMs you provide here are fairly good evidence on why a TBAN is required; one can clearly see that they intend to name violence against Israelis merely "attacks" while using much stronger terms to describe violence against Palestinians. Surely this is blatant POV-pushing and should not be allowed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure how to respond to this. Let's say it's bad science if the objective is to produce true statements and minimize errors. I can't see intent. It's not possible to validate a claim like 'one can clearly see that they intend X', so for me it's not useful to think about editor intent. There are revisions and rules. For each revision you can ask 'is this revision consistent or inconsistent with the rules?'. That's all. It may be the case that 'a TBAN is required', there is 'POV-pushing' etc. for any given editor, but this kind of evidence, a small set of carefully selected samples and people using their highly unreliable pattern recognition is not enough to produce reliable results. I also question the notion that 'POV-pushing should not be allowed'. Not only is it allowed, it's the norm in the topic area. Anyone can select an editor, sample their revisions and construct a pattern that will allow a subset of people to see what they want to see. I suspect the reason it doesn't happen more often is that it's tedious work, more suited to the true believer on a mission or people who think they know how to fix the topic area. We all POV push through our source selection, what we pay attention to, how we summarize etc. It can be intentional, or unintentional, but what difference does that make? In the end, the text statements people produce for articles have to compete with each other to optimize compliance with the rules. It's an adversarial process. It needs lots of very different editors making lots of very different revisions using lots of very different sources. Even if it is the case that an editor has language bias depending on some conflict related feature, attack vs massacre, settlement vs town etc. the question should still be 'is this revision consistent or inconsistent with the rules, yes or no?' with an effort to avoid subjective judgements that can't be verified. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The text of WP:POVPUSH is: "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas." ... later clarifying: "Editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing." – so unless the extended text is horribly wrong, it acknowledges that POV-pushing is an often mundane function of editing, and that the specific bar for the breach of behavioural standards is meant to be the "aggressive" presentation of a POV, as most conspicuously demonstrated by the pushing of "minority or fringe ideas" (presumably as only possibly determined by a source analysis). Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the above exceeds the word limit, which seems likely, it can be truncated to 'bad science'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still struggling to see the rhyme or reason in these proceedings. There is repeated mention of my TBAN violations, but only one diff has been presented for this (an innocuous joke in user space) since my two-week block. @SFR says that I have continued to violate my topic ban, but in reference to what? I assume the are not calling for the relitigation of their own adjudication? I have communicated very clearly with SFR since then to avoid further missteps. My past TBAN is also brought up – presumably as a sign that I have given enough of rope over the years, but the count of the years alone is misleading. That was at 500 edits; I'm now close to 50,000 – a volume of edits I didn't make by rule-breaking. It makes for an elegant rhetorical device, but it's a poor reflection of anything else. @HouseBlaster states that they can't have confidence that I will abide by any measures short of a full ban. I would say, on the contrary, I'm very rule-abiding. I have avoided post-1948 politics like the plague and stayed away from templated pages to the best of my abilities. Where I have fallen foul is in underestimating the extent of 'broadly construed', and the room that grants for even remote topics to be construed as related. CTOPs with clear dates or more specific delineation are much cleaner. Even so, I have never edited poorly. In last year's case, the TBAN pertained almost entirely to RM comments, not any hint of POV editing in mainspace. I was also not accused of any accompanying incivility, unlike others. So I disagree. If the rules were clearer, I would not have broken them at all. As HB further notes of the second motion, We're not calling these topic ban violations, because they are not. @HJ Mitchell further adds later that I am editing where I am technically allowed to. This seems like another way of saying that my edits are technically unproblematic. So the broader consensus around my edits appears to be that they generally don't break the rules and are technically fine. There is then just the assertion of POV-pushing, as illustrated in part by diffs in which I have removed plainly OR or unverified content. Yet NPOV is source-led, so OR or unverified content is by definition not neutral. Is it truly then to be the assertion of this committee that these edits are non-neutral solely by virtue of theme and not by virtue of WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV? Or to reverse it: neutral editing is to leave OR content be? Is that the message? When you join Wikipedia, you are told that the three policies are its highest virtues. But it seems that when CTOPs are invoked, these policies all too often simply fly straight out the window. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not going to attempt to convince you on the merits of the sitebanned; that's not going to be productive. An extended back-and-forth will also not be productive. But I will address your mentions of me.

  You have twice been blocked for violating topic bans, and you have since violated your topic ban again. (While we are on the subject of the comment to Levivich, I consider that to be a particularly problematic topic ban violation because it was posted on the talk page of someone else who you know had an identical topic ban, which baited Levivich into breaching their own topic ban.) I'll assume they were not intentional violations, but we block editors all the time for consistently struggling to understand what is expected of them (c.f. newcomers getting WP:CIR blocks). That's why I don't have any faith you will follow a topic ban, whether your current one or the proposed expanded one—for whatever reason, you have consistently unable to follow your current one.

  About POV pushing: no individual diff is a smoking gun. But when you look at the full picture, it is clear that your edits systematically favor one side in the conflict, and it's the same side you went 9–0 in support of at the various massacre RMs. That is still problematic, even though it is not a tban violation. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  As Sean helpfully pointed out above, the community itself supported 6 of those RMs, for the record. Parabolist (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @HouseBlaster: Levivich is a big boy. Give him some agency. And yes, assume that no violation was intended by a user talk post that has no exoteric link to a CTOP at all – but instead solely a cryptic reference to a deprecated external media platform that produces wide-ranging content that is far from CTOP-exclusive. PirateWires has an WP:RSN entry that doesn't mention the CTOP as a key feature of its wrongdoings, but does make extensive reference to its various crimes against information, including a lack of fact-checking, which is exactly what I mocked. So I'm surely surprised that this – not anything actually content-pertinent (when the only reason to enforce behavioural rules is to safeguard content and the community) – is what is being viewed as particularly problematic. And when you say there is "no smoking gun" for the other charge – well I thank you at least for the admission that the relevant motion rests on no proper evidence, which would of course entail edits that either broke policy or were accompanied by arimonious disputes. You mention the "full picture", but that's the opposite of what's available here. Admins recognising "patterns" – not your words, but referenced elsewhere – is the point at which a known human cognitive bias is being indulged. Either there's evidence of policy violations or there isn't. No smoking gun? Look harder or be honest about the weakness of the evidence. As for the infamous archival RM evidence (the ironically repackaged research from BilledMammal), most admins should have cottoned on a year ago as to how selectively presented that was – very conveniently excluding the edge cases that didn't confirm the 'pattern': [75] (suggesting massacre titles, against 'the pattern') [76] (ignoring calls for massacre titles, against 'the pattern'). It's a bit like how, if one chops out a tiny bit of climate science data for certain dates, you can produce a neat little graph denying climate change. If this is indeed meant to be arbitration, and not unsupported, arbitrary assessment, it should stick to facts and evidence with respect to policy and not meander into the realm of speculation and bare assertion. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Does any admin dare to explain why the user talk post – the only listed violation after the two-week block — is actually a violation in of itself? I.e.: Other than by way of the response it induced? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @HouseBlaster: I thank you for reconsidering the material as presented in motion 2. For my future awareness, and that of anyone else following this case, is there any chance that could explain exactly what about the 'Bad math' post, as it was presented (not by way of the response to it), was a violation. I have noted above how PW's RSN profile does not refer to the CTOP, nor does the intro or most of the (untemplated) page about the outlet – because indeed, it covers a wide range of topics. So, how does poking fun at a factually loose (per community consensus) media platform's inability to count – in a conversational setting devoid of any further context – constitute a violation? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Talking about PW in general would be fine. Talking about a PW piece (I assume you were alluding to [77]) about editing in the Arab–Israeli topic is a violation. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @HouseBlaster: Thank you for answering. I appreciate it. You've led me to my point, which is: How can something with no explicit on-wiki mention of anything CTOP-related – but which might only be assumed to have some bearing based on linkage to off-wiki content (but in the absence of a url) – be considered an on-wiki violation? Are you saying that it would have been fine if I'd said: "PW can't count at all, can it?" But an in-joke assumed to obliquely refer to CTOP-related off-wiki content (but still rather insipidly in reference to counting errors, not anything racily CTOP-relevant) crosses the line? I would query if this is really within on-wiki jurisdiction, or if it entails excessive off-wiki interpolation. Likewise, in a general discussion of PW reliability, would I not be able to mention counting errors by the platform if those errors appeared on an off-wiki page alongside CTOP content, regardless of the subject non-specificity of the errors themselves? I think these are important questions to answer, not because it will likely change anything here, but for the sake of greater clarity for the wiki in general moving forward. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you seriously arguing that you were talking about something unrelated to PIA? Referring to news articles about PIA topics, on Wikipedia, is not permitted by your topic ban. Talking about other articles posted by PW (or any source) would be fine. Quite frankly, not understanding why this is covered by your topic ban decreases my confidence in your ability to follow your topic ban. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @HouseBlaster: Obviously I was mocking PW for reasons relating to its salacious reporting. But the joke was very much about how the website screwed up even basic counting (which is a subject-independent screw-up). They can either count or they can't. Obviously the page you mention has a strong CTOP theme (though it also goes on about Iran), but the only information actually invoked in my post was about the ability to count (or lack therein). If you think that doesn't matter, that's your perogative. But the actual joining of the dots to the CTOP is something that is being done in the analysis here, not explicitly on-wiki by the comment itself. Perhaps I would have been better off loudly and robustly denouncing it at RSN instead. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Today being the "Journée mondiale du merci" I would like to take a moment to thank Captain Eek and Asilvering for having looked at the diffs. Being an arbitrator is often said to be a thankless task, so when the mission is taken seriously, we should show our appreciation. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely. Huge thanks to Eek and asilvering for their work here. Parabolist (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to see such honest assessments, and even @User:HouseBlaster conceding there is no real evidence of disruptive POV pushing edits. Unfortunately though, the full ban of Iskander from the site, for not being able to stop himself from making helpful edits in a topic area he is fluent in and enjoys, is still strangely going ahead. I understand there is no inherent right to edit Wikipedia, but I repeat what I said earlier, articles in this topic area are in really bad shape and it won't get better if editors like Iskander are banned. Tiamut (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

4) Levivich (talk · contribs) has violated their topic ban. ([78][79])

Support

1. As far as a FoF goes, yes, this is pretty straightforwardly true. -- asilvering (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yeah, those are indeed violations, but both of them have mitigating circumstances: the first is responding to misleading claims made about them in an external publication and the second is, to take asilvering's term, a massive nothingburger. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Meh. Izno (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yes. These in specific are minor violations, but topic bans are not a suggestion and Levivich absolutely knows what he's doing here. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
8. Aoidh (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
9. Factual. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
10. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. I can't oppose because the FoF as written is true, but whatever other issues I have Levivich's editing, it would be perverse not to allow him a right of reply to criticism of him personally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. As long as an editor is in good standing on the English Wikipedia, it would be perverse to silence that editor while an outside body tries to wreck their reputation with our community. But the other edit is a violation, if not one I'm terribly upset about. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I very much reject the view that there should be allowable topic ban violations. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat surprising to me that the drafter of this section (Guerillero) failed to propose a remedy such as "Levivich commended" for having the bravery to WP:IAR in order to debunk blatant disinformation targeting himself and others. (first diff) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Although these are technically violations, that is not a reflection on Levivich but more an example of why absurdities can result from applying PIA to user talk pages. Topic bans should be about protecting article and talk space from unsuitable editors, not about forbidding editors to defend themselves against malicious off-wikipedia lies. All that is really needed on-wikipedia is permission for admins to extend TB's to own-talk if that is abused. Zero^talk 07:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

5.1) Levivich is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support

1. As a response to the two cited diffs, this would be completely disproportionate. I even oppose a warning for those two edits. Topic-banned editors are permitted an exemption to defend themselves when their conduct is discussed at noticeboards; I'm not sure responsind to external criticism is wise but I understand the urge and I would struggle to sanction someone for it.
   Nonetheless, I support a siteban based largely on Tamzin's comments which tally with my own anecdotal experience. The admission that he doesn't edit the encyclopaedia should be enough on its own for an immediate indef in my opinion. The drama boards, where Levivich spends a disproportionate amount of his Wikipedia time, are an unfortunate necessity in a large and complex community but they must always serve the encyclopaedia; they are not an end in themselves. Politicking in projectspace is not contributing to the goal of the community. As we are a goal-oriented community, anything (or anyone) that does not serve that goal needs to go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. But Levivich, please don't make me regret this vote. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. For the infractions, opposed. Izno (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. I can easily understand why someone topic-banned from an area they'd spent a lot of time and effort on would choose to pull back from editing in general, and I did enough investigating to decide that Tamzin's if he ever was, at least, is unfair. I didn't get very far into investigating the rest of Tamzin's comment before being seized by a deep "wtf am I even doing here". Are there legitimate concerns here? It appears so. But this has nothing to do with the tban, it is in no way in arbcom's remit, and I'm horrified I even contemplated it. If the community at large agrees that Levivich's behaviour is WP:NOTHERE, the community can issue a ban. If the community sends the issue to arbcom, then it's ours to handle, but not before. asilvering (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. For two tban violations? No. If we want to ban him for general behavior, I'd want a full case and proof that the community can't handle it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. If the topic ban of Levivich caused him to engage with the project unconstructively, that'd be one thing. But by Tamzin's own concession, the pattern of conduct being alleged here predates PIA5 and was largely undisturbed by the topic ban. Maybe a siteban would have been appropriate at the time, if someone made the case for it, but the argument here amounts to a permanent open season on any editor for anything that might resemble something like the conduct that got them topic banned (which, for the record, was POV pushing and battleground editing, not pointless PvP or trolling). That's an untenably wide interpretation of ArbCom's jurisdiction. I would be interested in considering the case once the community has exercised or given up its right of first response. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
8. I can't bring myself to support this for procedural reasons: the behavior in this topic area since the case doesn't merit a full ban, and other behavior is out of scope for us here, especially as the community hasn't gotten a chance to handle it yet. Without a real evidence phase, with sufficient opportunity for all parties to weigh in, we shouldn't be expanding the scope of this review. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
9. Disproportionate for this finding, and I would rather not consider non-PIA concerns here that haven't first been raised in a community process. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. Tamzin's evidence is both compelling and troubling, but it should go to the community first --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree with Guerillero here. - Aoidh (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

5.2) Levivich is warned for violating their topic ban imposed in Palestine-Israel articles 5. Administrators are authorized to block Levivich for any reasonable length, including indefinitely, for further topic ban violations. Blocks imposed under this remedy may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee.

Support

1. Doesn't really need the additional parts per HouseBlaster below and this will become second choice if someone puts that forward. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Needing a warning from the committee to stay within the bounds of your topic ban should mean that the next violation could be indefinite. First choice --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. - Aoidh (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I would need to see extreme misbehavior to support indefinite, appeal only to ArbCom blocks enacted by a single admin. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Prefer 5.4. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Disproportionate. Izno (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. asilvering (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. As written. I won't sanction someone for responding to external criticism of them personally even if it technically breaches a topic ban. Not the first time, anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

5.4) Levivich is warned for violating their topic ban imposed in Palestine-Israel articles 5.

Support

1. Proposing a vanilla warning. If there is further violations then I will be supremely unimpressed, but I don't see a reason to skip the initial block for for a month. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. it is a little whatever, but I prefer warning to not warning for a deliberate breach (not the right-of-reply edit, the other one). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
8. Second choice. - Aoidh (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Per 5.2. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. per Izno but more so, basically, and with thanks to Barkeep49 for putting into words what I was struggling to say when I tried to draft my response earlier. I think any admin would have been within bounds to block for either of these, since they were tban violations. But, with apologies to my colleagues who believe strongly in "no exceptions", I would not have blocked, and I just cannot bring myself to care even enough for a formal warning. asilvering (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Moving, came to the conclusion this was also not necessary. Izno (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Honestly, I can't even get to a support here for the infractions of interest. Izno (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I really struggle to imagine what could be more of a nothingburger than [80] while still clearly being in scope of the tban. -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I am currently at a regular warning, without the attached extra enforcement. Note that admins can already place blocks which are appealable only to ArbCom for the first year per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict § Appeals only to ArbCom. As worded, this remedy would admins to place indefinite blocks which are indefintely appealable only to ArbCom, which is not something even AE consensus is authorized to do. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The first block needs to be for a month or less and the second can be for no more than a year. If we are warning again, we should allow more admin discretion than the standard enforcement. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Why didn't Levivich get blocked when he made the edits? It'd have been totally reasonable to block for a week or a month when the violations happened. Did nobody notice? Or was it minor enough that nobody cared? If we're having to fight over it some weeks after the fact, I question if it was that problematic. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• A warning seems sufficient in this case - it's one of those situations where technically yes, the TBAN was openly violated, but the disruption/severity was, as others have put it, a nothingburger. Might be worth considering as a factor should Levivich have a more impactful violation in the future, but on its own merit it's obviously not worthy of any substantial sanction, especially when compared to the proposed FoF for Iskandar above (which IMO is far more of an issue). The Kip ^(contribs) 09:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  While I find Tamzin's evidence/statement and HJ Mitchell's vote to be convincing as to Levivich's general behavior onwiki, I think both are better-suited to a more generalized ANI case rather than this specialized review of behavior in the ARBPIA area. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• While I'm would have previously agreed with Guerillero regarding there being "no allowable topic ban violations", the edit to their user talk quoting what an external source has said about them, is not at all the sort of conduct or content that the topic ban was intended to cover and does not harm the project in any way. Accordingly, if that were the sole diff brought here I would say the appropriate remedy would be acknowledging it as technical violation and no other action. However, that is not the only diff and the other one cannot be excused in the same manner. A block at this point feels punitive rather than preventative, so I would go for a warning that any future violations will (not might, will) result in blocks of increasing duration. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• This was not disruptive. Even a warning feels disproportionate here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Got to agree with the sentiments above. One can maybe nit-pick over the scope of the TBAN, but frankly I can't see how Levivich complaining about the way an external source has misrepresented him constitutes anything that is going to have a material effect on Wikipedia content. Likewise, the nothingburger. TBANs are supposed to prevent harm to the project, not act as gotchas for griping. Possibly a warning is appropriate. Certainly nothing more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• This reminds me of a similar situation with Eric Corbett in late 2015, involving critical coverage of him in an Atlantic article. The article involved a subject he was topic banned from; see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2#Discussion_following_The_Atlantic_article for further context. Corbett disputed parts of the article and wasn't sanctioned for doing so, but was blocked when he started talking about the topic instead of the article. Obviously this isn't a 1 to 1 comparison-- and it's been 10 years since then, and Wikipedia culture has changed a lot since-- but I think it's worth thinking about in this context. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the idea that Levivich should have no opportunity to defend himself onwiki against allegations from a major source feels contrary to the spirit, though not the letter, of BANEX. Given that so much of this review is about people's relationship to the spirit and not just the letter of things, I'm surprised to not see that get more thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• No warning. I think I disagreed with Levivich on that very page in the map discussion (a different ongoing discussion on that page), and I know I have disagreed with their account on other occasions. But when an editor (as Levivich was) is on a page and he is even obliquely accused of disruptive "coordination" and an argument that we should accept that report of coordination as reliable, they deserve a right of reply. And his reply was not itself disruptive. But an accusation of disruptive coordination is a serious matter, as this committee's cases show. So, I think, even a warning is unjust no matter how you read 'the rules' and will not improve the project. I would go so far as saying, his reply is a benefit to the project, because now we know the other side on this internal-Project-disruptive-coordination accusation that has apparently arisen abroad. But do yourself a favor, Levivich, and know you've had your reply. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[Adding, having read the statement below. I would suggest, the author should go to dispute resolution before seeking a site-ban here based on a post-Arbcom-case NOTHERE behavior allegations unrelated to the topic ban, and a claim that Arbcom got the topic ban wrong. I assume you already know this, but that generally involves a discussion with the target laying out the points for the site ban and then moving to AN, if the discussion is not satisfactory. I would suggest you may want to explain why you don't point to any of this assumedly disruptive behavior being discussed for remedy at any of the proper forums before. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)][reply]

• I think the approach so far here misses the forest for the trees. The core issue with Levivich' conduct since his TBAN is that he is no longer here to build an encyclopedia, if he ever was. Last month, while he was using a made-up definition of "plagiarism" to defend an administrator for copyright violations that ArbCom subsequently saw fit to desysop and block that admin over—which were themselves partly a result of Levivich encouraging these edits two years before—I observed that he has essentially contributed zero content to the encyclopedia in the past year, with only 6% of his edits to mainspace and almost none of those substantive. His defense—not of the made-up definition of "plagiarism" or the fact that someone was about to get desysopped and blocked for following his obviously wrong advice, which apparently are not things that bother him, but just of his complete lack of recent experience in content editing while nonetheless pontificating on nuanced (and completely incorrect) points of verifiability and NPOV—was that "I'm not making any mainspace edits; the community said I engaged in consistently non neutral editing, so that was the end of that." It boggles the mind that someone could conclude the community does not trust them to make any mainspace edits (which is in fact the opposite of what a TBAN conveys, but it's Levivich' right to misinterpret it that way) but still see themself as fit to not just stand in judgment of their peers at the dramaboards, but to, I reiterate, actively mislead someone facing sanctions based on a misreading of V that no competent editor would be capable of.
  Am I being unfair? Is Levivich actually dispensing great wisdom in projectspace despite being by his own appraisal unfit to edit the encyclopedia? Well I have 90 minutes to kill at a bus stop so let's see. To take just a few of Levivich' recent comments (and I would encourage arbitrators to look further on their own, but I'm on mobile and getting eaten alive by mosquitos):
  • Absolutely shameless, Ed. in the HEB ban thread.
  • Then Doubling down? Absolutely shameless. Funny how you didn't have any such questions for the editor with 600 edits who proposed the indef you supported. One might conclude you have double standards. I think it's time for both of you to disengage with each other
  • But no response to the editor with 600 edits when asked what the issue was.
  • Then a few days later, on that same user's talk page, Please stop voting to cban editors and find something more useful to do on this website. Wikipedia is not a PvP game (or at least it shouldn't be).
  • Drop the f'ing shade already, gawd. in the recall RfC discussion
• If there is an outcome in ARBPIA5 to be criticized, it is the decision to TBAN Levivich. That's because a TBAN conveys two things: That an editor is disruptive in one area and that they are constructive in others. The first was established here. It's understandable that ArbCom assumed the latter given Levivich' tenure, ubiquity at noticeboards, and long list of wikifriends. Levivich would certainly like people to make those same assumptions: Just as he insists someone with 600 edits should not !vote on bans, he cites his 40k edits, most of which are arguing with people about policy, as content editing bona fides. But ArbCom did in fact assume incorrectly. Despite his invocation of Wikipedia not being a game, I don't think there has ever been an editor who played the game harder than Lev. A telling mask-off moment came 3 years ago when he cited an admin's 300+ support at RfA as evidence that they were right. (Somehow I suspect he won't apply that same standard to this comment.) To Levivich, Wikipedia is a game of leveling up, collecting coins, and lots and lots and lots of PvP. He already had little to no interest in building an encyclopedia when ArbCom TBANned him; it just happened that he decided to bring his battleground mentality to a content arena for once and found less tolerance of his antics there. His TBAN and his subsequent boycott of content work have removed any question of what he is here for: winning arguments and playing the game.
  ArbCom has sanctioned a user so that he could edit constructively elsewhere. He has instead continued his longstanding pattern of gamesmanship and incivility. The minimum remaining sanction to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia is a siteban. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• While I substantially agree with Tamzin's characterization of Levivich's editing, I disagree that should factor into the descision at hand. Arbcom's remit for now is PIA-specific actions taken by Levivich and remedies against them, not thier general behavior. Imo, the concerns expressed should go to WP:AN(I?) (unless the community explicitly decides that they want to kick it back to ArbCom). -- Sohom (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not aware of recent events, but I have always found Levivich one of the most rational and well-spoken voices in many discussions. Tamzin's if he ever was remark is uncalled for, as is misrepresenting the diffs. – SD0001 (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I commend the cautious approach asilvering has taken here and agree with the wise words of Barkeep et al. Neither diff was disruptive, neither attempts to influence discussions of the conflict onwiki, and one was strongly justified by the right of reply. Toadspike [Talk] 08:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no right of reply on Wikipedia, and, even if something of the sort existed, such a right would be superseded by the topic ban -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh I don't know. In a world where someone reacts so gently and with humor to defamatory lies by people, including journalists, who support uniformed armed groups that have engaged in mass killings of civilians, including hundreds of journalists, razed an entire city and other shenanigans with the line '...next thing you know, the papers are saying you're the leader of the Encyclopedia Wing of Hamas.', (comedy gold in my opinion), I don't think it should be superseded by a topic ban. Ban evading actors/socks make many orders of magnitude more topic ban violations in the PIA topic area than Levivich could ever dream of making and absolutely nothing happens to them. There are no consequences. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea that one is prohibited from defending oneself against new accusations of misconduct when they have a topic ban is not a concept I am familiar with. Indeed this very case review suggests that ArbCom agrees with me that it's not the case. If the right reply was superseded by a topic ban ArbCom wouldn't have induced Iskandar323, Levivich, Nableezy, Selfstudier, AndreJustAndre, and Nishdani into breaking their topic ban during this case review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Ban them all! nableezy - 15:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  <stricken> Andre🚐 17:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes that's how I see it too. But crucially that's not what Guerillero wrote, which was instead an absolute There is no right of reply on Wikipedia, and, even if something of the sort existed, such a right would be superseded by the topic ban. I think the RSN discussion was an appropriate forum for Levivich to make such comments, but can appreciate that reasonable people can disagree about that and can also disagree about the extent to which any violation is significant enough to cause further sanctions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  An article made serious allegations of onwiki misconduct against a Wikipedia editor, including explicitly mentioning his topic ban. That article and its allegations – including those made against Levivich, who was named twice before he posted – were being discussed by other editors onwiki. Responding to those allegations is "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" under BANEX. If the allegations had been made directly on-wiki, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because that fact would be so glaringly obvious. Toadspike [Talk] 00:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Moneytrees is right, there are echoes here of the Eric Corbett situation, in which I played a role. But even if that were not so, collaboration requires editors to treat each other with respect as human beings and as people who bring differing perspectives and experiences to the table. Wikipedia's discussion spaces are not a sweatshop. Both of Levivich's edits are technical violations; warn him, and SFR has already educated him above on what ArbCom has come to mean by its wording. But if you ban editors from civilly rebutting untruths about them, particularly those published off-wiki, you're treating those editors unacceptably and you shouldn't be surprised if they stop editing, or become embittered gadflies. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course there is a right of reply, that's the whole basis for our dispute resolution. Arbcom itself does not and would not even exist without a right of reply. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a right to respond to allegations against you in a Wikipedia process (which happens on-wiki, and which can lead to sanctions here) and a theoretical right to use Wikipedia as a platform to reply to allegations made against you elsewhere. The former is necessary for our procedures to work; the latter isn't and could potentially become a distraction or even disruptive if it actually somehow turns into a back-and-forth. I think a brief response like that it is reasonable and understandable and doesn't require sanctions (partially because the spirit of the topic-ban is about not influencing article content and not disrupting Wikipedia, neither of which a brief reply on a user talk page did), but I think it's still technically a violation and I don't think we should create a formal exception for stuff like that. If, hypothetically, Levivich had kept responding and responding and wrote huge essays rebutting the piece part by part even after people were like "alright stop this is a topic-ban violation", that would require sanctions. --Aquillion (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich did not bring the allegations onto Wikipedia, others were discussing them on Wikipedia. And no one has suggested the right of reply means endless replies. Rights are not endless, like the right of free speech does not mean you can speak fraud or true threats. We are not dealing with a hypothetical, we are dealing with two comments in reply, and unless there has been a lacuna in the evidence, no "stop" statement was given for them. There is no theoretical right to use Wikipedia, but there is a right of reply. There has to be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

6.1) Violations of sanctions on a specific editor imposed by the Arbitration Committee as a remedy of an Arab-Israeli Conflict-related case may be reported directly to the committee. Reports may come via Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee, by accounts with 1 year tenure and 1000 edits, or to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (AR/CA), by any user who is extended-confirmed. Emails sent to the Committee through other channels or by users who do not meet this requirement about sanction violations will be discarded without a response. Valid reports received via email will be posted at AR/CA by a member of the Committee.

Support

1. Second Third Updated with creation of 6.4 & 6.5 Fourth choice, somewhat weakly. All of the same comments apply as 6.3 to the concept of ArbCom assisting with enforcement of our own topic bans. The part about emailing was based on general commentary that some long-term editors do not want to insert themselves into the dispute, especially against established editors that we sanctioned with topic bans, for fear of reprisals. Allowing emailing (ie. anonymous reporting) is definitely going to cause some consternation I imagine, but if topic ban violations aren't being processed due to this, that's equally concerning. Trying to find the balance between these two things might not result in this, but it's a conversation worth having. The restrictions placed on who could use this potential new process was designed to prevent it being abused by drive-by sockpuppets and similar. As with 6.3 again, the statement about discarding without a response emails that don't come from people who meet the requirements to report them correctly is key to prevent abuse. Daniel (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   The corollary to this vote potentially failing is an inferred statement of opposition to the concept that the Committee will accept (and take action against) such reports in our inbox in the future. That's something I am personally very willing and happy to see (and a position I've strongly held over the past 12 months). Daniel (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Onwiki stuff stays onwiki, in the interest of transparency. I am not interested in playing telephone for the arbitrary user who sees an issue, and I know it's left ArbCom with egg on its collective face before when it's initiated proceedings onwiki as the result of offwiki requests. Izno (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Izno. Onwiki ought to be onwiki. If this does pass, note that it mandates the use of Special:EmailUser so we know who is making the report. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. per my comments in discussion below. asilvering (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. "Tattle via email" is not something we should encourage. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Izno. - Aoidh (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. incompatible with community expectations of transparency. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
8. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

6.2) Violations of sanctions on a specific editor imposed by the Arbitration Committee may be reported directly to the committee. Reports may come via Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee, by accounts with 1 year tenure and 1000 edits, or to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (AR/CA), by any user who is extended-confirmed. Emails sent to the Committee through other channels or by users who do not meet this requirement about sanction violations will be discarded without a response. Valid reports received via email will be posted at AR/CA by a member of the Committee.

Support

Oppose

1. I originally thought it might be better for 6.1 to apply across all cases, if it was indeed to pass, hence 6.2. On reflection, given the somewhat extraordinary situation that PIA5 creates, I now think it's better that (if 6.1 passes rather than 6.3), it be restricted only to that scope. Consider it another "enough is enough" moment, where the Committee may, as a last resort, be compelled to adopt robust measures. I think there's an argument that 6.1/6.2 would benefit maybe one or two other topic areas, but it would be strange to have it apply to 2-3 topic areas and not all of them. I think, when presented with 1 topic area vs all of them, 1 topic area is the better of the two options. Daniel (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Onwiki stuff stays onwiki. Izno (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Izno. Onwiki ought to be onwiki. If this does pass, note that it mandates the use of Special:EmailUser so we know who is making the report. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. per my comments in discussion below. asilvering (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. "Tattle via email" is not something we should encourage. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. While slightly better than version 1, it's still not ideal. - Aoidh (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
8. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

6.3) Violations of sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee as a remedy of a case, on a specific editor may be reported directly to the Committee via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (AR/CA) by any user who is extended-confirmed. Emails sent to the Committee about topic ban violations will be discarded without a response, unless there are privacy or other factors that are unsuitable for public discussion.

Support

1. First SecondUpdated with creation of 6.4 & 6.5 Third choice. To be clear, this would only apply to topic bans which we specifically have placed, not topic bans placed by administrators under CTs etc. These are 'our' topic bans that we voted to place, normally placed against long-term contributors, and I think we should be another avenue of hearing reports of their breaches by these established editors. This will also help with workload to a small extent at AE. The sentence about people emailing us with topic ban violations is also critical - it establishes firm restrictions that, yes, people can report topic ban violations to us (through AR/CA), but it can't be done anonymously via email. Daniel (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice to 6.4. If it is our restriction, we should have the ability to directly enforce it. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Added , unless there are privacy or other factors that are unsuitable for public discussion. to the end per Tamzin's point. Pinging Daniel (who voted) and Guerillero (who wrote this originally and I don't think intended this to prohibit reporting off-wiki WP:PROXYING). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Confirmed, all good thanks. Daniel (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Per comment below. Izno (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per my comment below (Direct violation reports IV). - Aoidh (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Undecided whether I want 6.4, but either way I don't see myself supporting this one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. per Aoidh, supporting 6.5 instead. asilvering (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. Same concerns about 6.4 (this would be a second choice otherwise). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

6.4) Violations of restrictions imposed by the Arbitration Committee on a specific editor may be reported directly to the Committee via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (AR/CA). Emails sent to the Committee about violations will be discarded without a response, unless there are privacy or other factors that are unsuitable for public discussion.

Support

1. Proposing and supporting as a first second choice. There are the following differences:
   1. Instead of sanctions, it says restrictions per Thryduulf's comment
   2. The limitation to restrictions from cases is removed; I see no reason to place this off limits for restrictions imposed by motion (such as the ones we are considering above!)
   3. The requirement to be XC is removed per my comment below
   Wordsmithing welcome. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Before others have voted, adding another difference: the no email apply in all cases unless there are reasons to keep it private. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2. First Updated with creation of 6.5 Second choice, per comments at 6.3 and below. Daniel (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. This is the best of the options. Often, when something has reached the level of a case it is because it is difficult for the small number of admins to take action against long-term editors or those with significant social capital. It can also be difficult to comfortably invoke WP:BOOMERANG when there are 2-4 admins looking at something at AE. Arbcom can help with both of these issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Second choice to 6.5. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

5. I'm ambivalent about hearing enforcement requests at ARCA but I'm very happy with establishing that we don't take action on anonymous poison-pen letters. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Per comment below regarding the first line. If the point of these proposals was to put it on record that we don't take emails about violations about onwiki matters, then that should be proposed instead, and I would support making that public rather than a usually-self-controlled private. Izno (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. For me it's the Emails sent to the Committee about violations will be discarded without a response line I have an issue with. If they haven't seen this Emails sent to the Committee about violations will be discarded without a response verbiage when sending in the emails, I would much rather respond to good-faith submissions with a comment that ARCA or another venue is more appropriate than to just ignore emails without a response and have them think we're looking into the matter if we're not. - Aoidh (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. per Aoidh, supporting 6.5 instead. asilvering (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. I like this, but I'd rather have a canned "we won't accept this privately" response than no response. I'm much more amenable to something like Emails sent to the Committee about violations will be directed to post on-wiki, and not acted upon in private, unless there are privacy or other factors that are unsuitable for public discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

6.5) Violations of restrictions directly imposed by the Arbitration Committee on a specific editor may be reported directly to the Committee via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (AR/CA). Unless there are privacy concerns or other factors that are unsuitable for public discussion, emails sent to the Committee about violations will not be acted upon and may be discarded without a response by the Committee. As a general principle, good-faith reports will be directed to AR/CA, and other reports will be ignored.

Support

1. First choice, to hopefully address Aoidh and Elli's valid concerns about good-faith reports. Regarding Izno's point, a good number of people who make it to ArbCom are unblockable, and I want to have a pathway for us to take the heat from issuing a necessary warning or sanction. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   They already have that pathway: AE can always refer a matter to us, see WP:ARBPRO#Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee. If AE doesn't want to issue the remedy, administrators already have the power to respond. Izno (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Last time that was done in ARBPIA it was a 2.2 tomats (not counting the motions and discussion on them) discussion that took over three months. This entire page is about 0.9 tomats (including all the motions) right now and we're well into wrapping things up. Seems there could be some efficiency gained in just letting people come straight to ARCA without having the intermediate stage. Like I said above, we're better equipped both to deal with established editors and to hand out boomerangs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   "We want a system where things can be directly reported" is not the same as HouseBlaster's at-least-formerly-said "we have no system to report issues to us". We have the latter.

   Seems there could be some efficiency gained in just letting people come straight to ARCA without having the intermediate stage. Yes, but also inefficiencies gained when everyone starts reporting here instead of AE. CTOP's "here's the standards of review" is not relevant here, so it could be trash, it could be a couple weeks of us staring at ARCA wondering what to do, it could be the same three months of discussion at AE that someone around week 3 or 4 should have said "okay, we're being dumb, let ArbCom handle it".

   You're also conflating evidence of issues from a topic area under CTOP with what is being proposed here, which is direct topic bans. When has AE last seen requests for enforcement of such, and how quickly was that settled (I would guess a matter of some weeks, on the large side)?

   I generally see a lack of evidence to need a change here. Izno (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2. Better than 6.4. First choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Much better. asilvering (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice. Daniel (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. I can join this one as well --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. I'm somewhat doubtful of a need for any of these 5 alternatives, but sure. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Continuing to oppose per rationale. Izno (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm not clear what problem this solves. AE exists. AE can refer to ARCA if admins feel it necessary. Having two competing paths for reports seems likely to add to the confusion and potentially produce inconsistent outcomes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. I don't outright oppose this wording, but I see Izno's point and so I'm landing here. - Aoidh (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if any of these are good ideas, but they are certainly interesting ones. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we remove the word 'sanction' if at all possible, given its double meaning (which is why it's generally not a good word to use onwiki at all)? "Violations of sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee as a remedy of a case, on a specific editor may be..." -> "Violations of remedies imposed on a specific editor by the Arbitration Committee as the result of a case may be...". (This also fixes a grammar issue in the prior version.) Izno (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  (And I see Thryduulf was also concerned about this wording.) Izno (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather than transparency (since there's no email aspect here), I lean toward opposing 6.3 as effectively duplicating the support we already provide to admins at AE. I am not really interested in being the first group of people to be approached for enforcement when the rules are already laid out, and that pathway to ARCA from AE already provides a reasonable minimum set of permissions (namely, being an admin). If we need to loosen the level of consensus required to account for, say, a low-activity AE, we can, but that is not this proposal. Izno (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I am apprehensive about introducing yet another thing you must be XC for—note that this requires XC to file about violations of remedies from any case, not just PIA—without direct evidence that this will end poorly. We already have means to dismiss frivolous complaints, ECR would still make this apply to PIA reports, and the community firmly said no to introducing this concept ("standing") in 2024. (As a sidebar, I would like to get back to that 2024 refresh.) I might propose this, without the XC provision, as an alt if there is appetite for that. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-XC can go to AE, that option is still available. That being said, I would also support a version that removed the XC requirement but maintained the rest of it. Daniel (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but we are still blocking something off from XC editors without direct evidence they will be, by and large, unable to behave themselves. Anyways, I have proposed IV above. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to be XC to touch PIA, so adding XC here is really just restating other restrictions --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this allows reporting violations in non-PIA topics. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I do worry about how editors may avoid reporting others at AE for problematic behaviour, because of the various on-wiki social dynamics that can make that uncomfortable, and how that can lean to undesirable behaviour continuing where AE could have stopped it if only a report had been made. I think that is a particularly dangerous problem in this CTOP, of all of them, and that's additionally compounded by off-wiki considerations. So in principle, I'm sympathetic to a proposal whereby an established contributor could alert arbcom or AE to an issue without needing their name attached to it, provided the rest of the discussion happens on-wiki. But this is also a topic area where the most recent AE filing came from a compromised account - one with more than 1000 edits, and more than five years' tenure. -- asilvering (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I have similar worries to Asilvering. I wonder if making AE easier to use would increase the number of reports? For example, if someone could just drop a diff and ask "is this a topic ban violation", that might be less intimidating than filling in the whole form. That said, I have no doubt that the majority of the anonymous emails we've received asking us to take action against individuals in this topic are have been bad-faith attempts to avoid scrutiny rather than genuine "concerned citizens". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @HJ Mitchell, I have some hope that the new "quick requests" at AE will help with the "making it easier" end of things, but it'll take some time for people to get used to that, I think. Regarding the emails, I can't say I'd be too surprised to learn that all of them were bad-faith attempts to avoid scrutiny. Would we get more good-faith reports if they were actually encouraged? Well... maybe. -- asilvering (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm. Typing it out like that has convinced me against. "Will certainly cause problems, benefits uncertain" is not great math. -- asilvering (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• In regards all three, Violations of sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee as a remedy of a case, on a specific editor may be reported would I think be more clearly worded as Violations of sanctions imposed on a specific editor by [...] of a case, on a specific editor may be reported. In 6.1 and 6.2 or by users who do not meet this requirement should be set off with commas. Generally, it's not immediately clear to me what restrictions other than topic bans are likely to be imposed on specific editors meaning the wording using a mix of "restrictions" and "topic bans" is slightly confusing and 6.3's final sentence seems to imply that (nearly?) all reports received will be discarded without a response. As that would be pointless, I suspect that either I'm misinterpreting something or 6.3 is missing some words? Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Interaction bans come to mind, so I will make some fixes; however, 6.3's last sentence says exactly what it should say in light of what is missing from it compared to 6.1 and 6.2 -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Some less common restrictions might have off-wiki components (e.g. off-wiki evidence someone is operating what would be a WP:GOODSOCK but is in violation of an one account restriction). I suspect most of the time we would not take action, but there's more room for shades of gray. I am really struggling to see how a topic ban violation could involve off-wiki evidence, and given that we regularly get reports from anonymous editors attempting to stir up trouble, firmly establishing that this will get no response seems like a good idea. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Users have been blocked before per off-wiki evidence of proxying TBAN violations. ZaniGiovanni, memorably. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a great point. I know 6.1/2/3 were written to prohibit "look at these naughty diffs [1][2][3]" (those diffs may or may not be actually problematic; if they are problematic, they may or may not be topic ban violations). Mentally I would consider the block to be for proxying around the tban rather than the tban, but that is entirely academic. I'll think on it, but I suspect I will switch to oppose on 6.3 for that reason. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Recently, I noticed that an unregistered user had been repeatedly violating ECR by using numerous temporary accounts to participate in conduct disputes within WP:CT/A-I. They asked various administrators (including me) to perform arbitration enforcement against certain editors (e.g. in Special:Diff/1328730103 and Special:Diff/1329090403, as well as Special:Diff/1324244034 for which the linked U4C case refers to Talk:Antisemitism on Wikipedia and a related Commons deletion request) while opposing sanctions against another editor in a noticeboard discussion (e.g. in Special:Diff/1324759095). As they have ignored my logged warnings, I have blocked ~2025-36583-02 and all of the temporary accounts listed in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ~2025-36583-02 and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ~2025-36583-02; see the enforcement log entries for more information. I suspect that some of the email reports described here have been sent by the same individual. — Newslinger talk 07:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Izno that there is an existing mechanism for admins to refer enforcement to the arbitrators, and it's not clear to me what problem is resolved by having two paths to request enforcement, at the choice of the requestor. (If there were a good reason to let the requestor decide which path the request should take, personally I would still prefer that the request come through the enforcement page, to keep the enforcement aspect separate from clarification and amendment requests.) isaacl (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding trying to save admins' time in discussing a request for enforcement: it's not clear to me that the requestor is the best one to decide if a request can't be handled by admins. I think the current referral mechanism is better suited to sort through requests and direct them to the best place to be handled. isaacl (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

7) Remedy 1 of the Palestine-Israel articles 5 case ("ECP by default") is rescinded and is replaced with Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles strictly covered by WP:PIA.

Support

1. Reaffirming my support for doing this, which is aligned with my vote in October 2025 at this same page. Daniel (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. per my comment below --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Sdrqaz at the previous appeal attempt, and my comments over at ACE. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Adding the word strictly per discussion below; cc @Daniel, Guerillero, and ScottishFinnishRadish. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Confirmed, thanks. Daniel (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

4. Per my vote when I raised this motion last year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. asilvering (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. As stated in October and in December. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Slightly opposed largely per Eek's oppose on the motion from 3 months ago. Plus, the balanced editing restriction relies on PIA ECR articles being ECP'd. The initial wave of protections already happened. Logging is no longer an extra burden with the creation of WP:AELOG/P. And if RFPP admins don't want to deal with these requests even at this point, they can take up the suggestion at WT:RFPP § Should ECR page protections be deferred to AE? to refer these to AE (e.g., via the new quick requests section). But if some admins start declining these even though the article topic is strictly within the topic area, that will just mean that the requester will need to go ask again of some admin (e.g., at AE) willing to implement the ECR and BER based on disruption to the topic rather than inspecting each particular article for disruption. Or some such admin(s) will just go check through RFPP archives from time to time for PIA requests declined as preemptive. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose, slightly per prior Eek and more per my own comment at the same ACE. This is a systems problem and it will be a net negative of resources to take some apparent pressure off RFPP and effectively put it on SPI or ANI instead. And I feel a lowercase reminder is warranted that ECP is called for in the relevant remedy for only those topics which are strictly within the scope of PIA. I am also not a fan of asking practically the same question all of 2 months down the road. Izno (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Izno. Protecting a lot of pages is not a particularly big burden compared to investigating and unwinding socking. And, as mentioned by SL, the big wave is already done. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per CaptainEek and Izno. - Aoidh (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC) Should have clarified, per CaptainEek's prior rationale. - Aoidh (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. As I said the last time this came up: this is instead an outright rejection of one of the central findings of PIA5: ECP is a must everywhere. We voted 13 to 0 to implement global ECP for PIA topics. It would be nuts for us to undo that. Sure it may have created some extra work, but once all PIA topics are protected, the work goes way down--folks can't create that many new pages in a day about it. If we need to do some technical work to fix the logs, lets do that rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most importantly, this restriction is aimed at raising the cost for socking. Before we implemented this, 13% of PIA edits were from non-ECP accounts, and 7% were from socks. By releasing pressure, we are only going to invite trouble in our most troublesome topic. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Largely per Eek. I generally dislike remedies that don't allow for flexibility but we are at our wits' end with this topic area. Given the findings from the last case (the fifth with that name, not counting several predecessors and the numerous amendments, motions, etc), ECP is essential on articles that predominantly deal with the conflict. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. I don't like pronouncements from on high, but as Harry says, there's a '5' after this here ARBPIA, and that means we need to do some pronouncing. This one we need to leave as it is. Katie^talk 00:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Eek. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

• After answering his question at ACE, I think Daniel Quinlan is probably correct that we made a bit of a mess at RfPP by introducing a must into the process. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Ironically this change is both a reduction and an expansion in scope. Articles covered by PIA is an enlargening and preemption of protection is a reduction. It does differ from the previous attempt in that you don't have to suspect an issue, you just can make the protection. Izno (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Izno, what's the enlargening? I don't follow. Possibly I'm misreading something. -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The current text requires the topic to be strictly within the scope of PIA. The text suggested... does not. Izno (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, so it does. I expect that's an oversight. @Guerillero? -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. I have no problem with adding strictly -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• if remedy 1 is rescinded, are we risking triggering an admin re-review of all the pages that got protected to see whether they fall in the "should be presumptively protected" bucket? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If anyone wants to try to argue that's what this means, I would strongly encourage them to do literally anything else with their time. -- asilvering (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that this is a good change, though now that most of the topic area is protected and CTOP logging is automated I'm not sure it'll have a large effect. Toadspike [Talk] 19:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• As someone who spent a lot of time proactively protecting ~900+ articles this is a welcome change. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Users are subject to ARBPIA rules regardless of whether there is a technical ECP. There are some edge cases, where an article shouldn't be locked, because it has a broader scope, but in most cases ECP is the logical outcome. SilverLocust's comment on balanced editing makes little sense without ECP by default for relevant articles. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• As a regular these days at RFPP, I don't quite understand the process behind this: there doesn't seem to be a glut of PIA-related articles flooding RFPP. Also, since this doesn't remove the ECR from the topic area, a note that Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:PIA strikes me as pointless, as ECR is de facto ECP, and thus making it de jure by 'pre-emptively' applying ECP to articles covered by ECR is already cromulent (and widely done in all ECR coverage areas). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You're not wrong @The Bushranger, I think this just prevents us from having to protect pages that aren't really covered by this in spirit. Like every stub article about every geographical feature ever involved in this area. It felt kind of silly to ECP those when I was doing a big chunk of them awhile back. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  True, but it strikes me as "should just strike completely" instead of replacing with this, if we're going this route. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I invite the Arbitrators to look at the history of WP:RFPP/E and WP:RFPP/D with regards to Gaza genocide and Zionism over at least the past six months, if not the 2025 calendar year. Then ask, "When will the next PIA ideological flashpoint emerge?" —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems ECP by default mandatory for PIA articles works. And the hard work is done already, and ctop restrictions are autologged. would prefer to know there is a significant reduction in spurious attempts to enter the topic area. Jéské Couriano above is right, they haven't. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would call them less "spurious attempts" and more "drive-by ideological virtue-signalling". There are legitimate edit requests on RFPP/E for Gaza genocide at the very least, but 100% of Zionism-related and 95% of Gaza genocide-related edit requests (and literally every single RFPP/D request for either) are just grousing that the article does not comport to their weltanschauung. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The motion isn't a proposal to stop protecting articles in this topic area. Disrupted articles and articles likely to be disrupted will still be protected as needed. And the revised remedy is still much stronger than WP:ARBPIA4 was. I think it's important to restore trust in administrators' judgment rather than requiring any action by default. This will allow administrators experienced in handling page protection requests to make better decisions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

8) Based on an explicit finding that a topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict has been insufficient to prevent disruption, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may extend an existing topic ban to include other topics related to Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs. They should cite at least one diff pertinent to each area into which the ban is extended.

Support

1. When I was an AE admin, last week, I think I would have found the extra tools to be useful --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. One may notice my name on all four of Tamzin's examples. This kind of thing can already be done with a rough consensus at AE, but it's nice to explicitly state it. Could also remove the Arab/Israel qualifier, or rewrite as a general reminder to admins. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Won't always be preferable to a block, but it's a lesser alternative that I think worth considering. If someone is unable to remain neutral and constructive as to the conflict between Palestine and Israel, I wouldn't expect them to be neutral and constructive as to Palestine and Israel generally. Diffs confirming that should be sufficient for at least a broader tban. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per SFR. Daniel (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. If an alternative is proposed, I might switch this vote. But enough admins think something like this would be helpful, and I'm happy to give them an additional tool. (And that applies more generally, too: AE admins, if you ever think ArbCom can be doing something to better support you, please reach out!) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per SFR and HouseBlaster. - Aoidh (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. I suspect we'll have to refine this, I also think that there will be a lot of cases where a block or siteban would be preferable, but giving AE more latitude to deal with disruption is a good thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. A bit wordy and I think subject to gaming. I'd prefer something along the lines of Guerillero's suggested "Israel and Palestine, broadly construed, including the Arab-Israeli Conflict." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per my comment below and asilvering's response – since this motion only triggers when there's a finding that an A–I conflict tban has been insufficient to curtail disruption, it's not even usable as a first resort anyway, which is only situation in which I'd maybe be open to supporting this. Not as a last-last chance for someone who's still trying to nibble around the edges, as SFR put it.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think this misses on my earlier wording concern, and also a less-general concern that AE cannot generally be sought for issues in the nearby areas, only for disruption directly in the area banned (modulo "broadly construed"). For which the usual remedy is a block. If a case ends up discovering additional issues, I think AE should employ its power to raise the issue at ARCA (or potentially AN(I) noting a desire to give the rest of the community review as well, which does not require any formality). Izno (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. I agree with the opposes, and stand by my comment below about adding bureaucracy, but I don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. asilvering (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't anything that AE can't already do per WP:CTOP: A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose ... any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. I would prefer to put this in PIA's standard set of restrictions (for imposition by individual admins or AE) for an editor already topic-banned who "nibbles around the edges"/continues problematic behavior in topics adjacent to the modern conflict (such as historical or religious disputes used to bolster either side of the conflict). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I might suggest the relevant line was intended to be read for extraordinary remedies inside the topic area (e.g. a remedy like a limit on words in a discussion levied on a specific user), not extending the consensus of AEdmin's powers outside the topic area. I would not hang my hat on that line for such a use as you suggest. Izno (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Izno. If we want to let admins topic ban around the edges, we need to do so -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, the other failure with referencing this line is that it's not in the context of a topic ban levied with the powers we provided as part of general enforcement, it's in the context of a CTOP (so there may be a separate hole to be plugged/considered). Nothing similar appears to exist in WP:ARBPRO when you remove the CTOP procedure's transclusion. Izno (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I get why Based on an explicit finding that a topic ban from the Arab-lsraeli conflict has been insufficient to prevent disruption is included, but where it currently sits makes it look like there has already been a finding rather than that being the process by which admins at AE might issue a wider topic ban. This motion needs rewording to remove "we found" case as a possibility.

  That aside, I'm open to an adjustment here; I'd like to hear from AEdmins first to see if this is a knob they would appreciate having access to, and whether they would appreciate something like this in the specific topic area or in all named contentious topics administered by ArbCom. (And if it should be explicitly granted/rejected in the context of the line that SilverLocust has noted.) Izno (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking as an AEdmin, I quite like that WP:CT/SA has this effectively baked in. I think in WP:PIA specifically we're seeing that this would be useful, given, for example, the suggested motions about Iskandar above, and the Roman Palestine AfD question. -- asilvering (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with Izno: If AE admins think this would be helpful, I am more than happy to support some iteration of it; I have dropped WT:AE a line to get their opinions. I disagree with SilverLocust—AE admins cannot already do this. That line didn't fall out of a coconut tree; it exists in the context of all that came before it, including the fact that the previous sentence is about enforcement. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The sentence I quoted is also about enforcement. I don't think AE can or should impose other restrictions not meant as enforcement – namely of PIA (or other CTOPs). Rather, a PIA+ topic ban would be appropriate enforcement when the editor has been continuing PIA-related disruption in adjacent topics/pushing the limits of the topic ban in contravention of the topic ban broadly construed. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Restrictions might be the wrong word, though I am not sure what the right one is. The standard set is all about restrictions within the topic, so I read that line to refer to bespoke things within the topic. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I generally like encouraging AE admins to act, but I'm not convinced that this is a helpful power to give. A topic ban is only a good sanction if it seems likely that doing so will allow an editor to focus on more productive editing they do (or likely would do) in other areas. If an editor's reaction to being topic-banned is trying to find sneakier ways to push the same POV... well, then trying it again is probably not a good idea. See the Asshole John rule. It's just not possible to ban someone from "changing the POV of any article in a way that might influence coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict" – without giving away exactly what for BEANS reasons, extending a ban like this to Iskandar wouldn't be nearly comprehensive enough to stop them from subverting it yet again to influence coverage of the conflict, if that is their intention. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Theleekycauldron, in a situation where someone is acting as you describe, sure, that might not be useful. But I can easily imagine situations where someone has been caught because they were editing in PIA, but their actual problem editing is something like "Jewish history, broadly construed" or "fiqh" or whatever. -- asilvering (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I hesitate to support this one as written mostly because it looks to me like it's adding extra bureaucracy (diff requirements, a specific list of allowed topics) for no reason. If what we mean is something like "AE admins are encouraged to consider whether a topic ban that extends beyond the conflict itself (for example, "Jewish history", "human activity in Palestine", "Islam") is necessary to prevent the disruption", we should just say that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Another way to do this would be to make the area of conflict Israel and Palestine, broadly construed, including the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The downside is that you would expand everyone's topic ban overnight without telling them --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If we expand the topic (either just the CTOP – which I've been considering – or also the ECR), I would prefer to leave existing topic bans with their current scope (cf. Thryduulf). (As to just expanding the CTOP, most ECRs are subsets of a broader CTOP – "super contentious subtopics", to borrow a HouseBlaster coinage.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason Judaism is included but Islam is not? Toadspike [Talk] 18:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Toadspike: No, just oversight on my part. I have no problem with adding it. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Since some editors here may not have seen it I will link to my 2025 AE report and also share the PIA observations I made there: The number of PIA (the number 1 topic area by a lot since it basically equaled #2 and #3 combined) reports dropped from 81 to 62 but unlike last year those reports were statistically different from the overall reports, being open longer than other kinds of reports. When filtering out PIA from the totals you get an average length of 10.1 and and median of 8 meaning PIA averaged 2.1 days more and had a median of 3.5 days more than other cases. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• AE rough consensuses have at times enacted sanctions that went slightly broader than the relevant topic area's scope. If, say, AE TBANs someone from trans topics under GENSEX, well, not everything related to trans topics is a "gender-related dispute or controversy", but I think it's well-understood that AE can do that, or even an individual admin. I can try to find instances later but I think I've also seen a few sanction scopes lacking a date- or region-based restriction from the underlying CTOP. But, despite wording arguably allowing it, AE has so far resisted passing any sanctions that would go leaps and bounds beyond a CTOP's scope. Perhaps that informal status quo is sufficient; perhaps ArbCom should clarify the limits here going forward. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, looking through every rough-consensus TBAN from 2024 and 2025, I see four that I would say nontrivially exceed the CTOP scope (where I would consider my trans/GENSEX example as only trivially exceeding). Only the fourth is a major broadening of the scope, however.

  • Southasianhistorian8's IPA TBAN that adds Sikhism
  • ThatBritishAsianDude's IPA TBAN that adds Hinduism
  • Lemabeta's AA TBAN from the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage
  • Dustfreeworld's CAM TBAN from medical topics

  (Iljhgtn'sA TBAN technically qualifies too but would not if it were recategorized under CT/BLP, of which the user was aware at time of sanction.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Historically, the predecessor to contentious topic designations gave admins the flexibility to enact sanctions at their own discretion that they deemed would best fit the situation, without any predetermined limits. (The counter-balance was for the restriction to be appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.) My understanding of the progression from the discretionary sanctions framework to the contentious topics framework is that bespoke restrictions are still authorized, when determined through a consensus of admins at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. I appreciate that the logistic difficulties in remembering and enforcing custom restrictions has resulted in admins favouring well-known restrictions as much as possible. isaacl (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• The downside is that you would expand everyone's topic ban overnight without telling them this is not necessarily the case. Arbcom could expand the topic area without expanding the scope of any topic bans issued within the topic area unless specifically noted. This is what happened with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history for example. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Anecdotally it feels like it's often the case at AE that brief, obviously problematic behavior in PIA (and less frequently, AP2) is often accompanied by additional problematic conduct relating to Judaism more broadly or American politics more broadly. This has sometimes caused cases to languish while admins ponder jurisdiction limits, and I think that clear license to issue broader related topic bans will be beneficial. There is a similar phenomenon for topics relating to the Ottoman Empire as well, with editors often being reported for AA and KURD violations that end up highlighting problem behavior in relation to broader areas of Persian and Turkic history. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Talk:Textbooks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested action: Just a quick request that an administrator remove the duplicate ARBPIA talk notice. I imagine this could probably be done myself, but the template technically says any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator., so if someone could do so, would be appreciated. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done asilvering (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closing without action. Tyler will be held to his promise to do better in the topic area. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning TylerBurden [edit] User who is submitting this request for enforcement TurboSuperA+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested TylerBurden (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/Eastern Europe#Final decision Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 4 January 2025 Incivility/PA, "Do you speak English?" 4 January 2025 Misuse of edit summary to get around NOTFORUM 1 January 2025 Misuse of edit summary 26 November 2025 Misuse of edit summary 12 November 2025 Assuming Bad Faith 9 November 2025 ABF 5 November 2025 ABF 12 June 2025 ABF 12 June 2025 ABF 29 September 2025 ABF/misuse of edit summaries 17 September 2025 Misuse of edit summaries 12 August 2025 Misuse of edit summary and ABF 20 June 2025 Treats legitimate concerns about an article as bad faith; the article was later deleted at AfD 10 June 2025 Misuse of edit summary 12 April 2025 PA because I changed the colour of my signature: Perhaps you think changing your signature would make people not see how hypocritical you are. 15 September 2025 Reverts an edit that added content from already cited source and calls it "disruptive editing" Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 30 July 2022 ArbCom block (can't find case/reason) 31 July 2022 ArbCom TPA block 13 November 2025 Permanently banned from discord. Again, no idea why, but shows a pattern of problematic behaviour. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) They posted a CTOP notice to the talk page of an Administrator and 20 year editor, after the Administrator deleted their article at AfD: diff Additional comments by editor filing complaint   TurboSuperA+'s statement contains 938 words and complies with the 950-word limit. Y Extension granted to 950 words. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] They were already brought to ANI once for personal attacks and accusing editors of lying (thread). Examples of POV pushing: Removed a reputable source (harvard.edu) because he didn't like what it says. Removes content and references and says a source that is widely used in the topic area is not reliable because he doesn't like what it says. Adds content about Russia, then removes similar content cited to a reputable source (The Economist) about Ukraine. Reinstates NOTFORUM comments by an IP with a single edit when those comments are critical of Russia, then tells other editors to "dismantle it". No one has actually engaged with it, it just clutters up the Talk page. Examples of tendentious editing: Here they removed sourced content from an article because it was seemingly critical of Ukraine, but after an editor spent time explaining how it is actually debunking Russia's claims TB was satisfied with inclusion. Adds content from a non-RS because he likes what it says. Editors had to spend time explaining why the source is not reliable. Content and source was eventually removed. Disclosure: I have had content disputes with this editor, most recently here. Further comments after filing: First of all, if I could choose a sanction for TylerBurden it'd be a logged warning and reminder that civility is expected in a CTOP, per Principles #2 and #4, not a TBAN. Repeated "snarkiness", as Black Kite puts it, is not acceptable for a collaborative project, let alone a highly contentious topic area. Second(a), I am glad Mellk brought up the discussion in his second post. I will admit my comment was not constructive. It was before I learned about the {{jk}} template, and even then, a CTOP is no place for sarcasm or jokes. Second(b), that comment was made on 4 May 2025. After that I was brought to ANI, and even though the thread was closed without any action, I voluntarily took a break from the topic area. My next edits in it were a few edits between 1-5 July, pause, then editing 20-25 July, pause, two edits 1-2 August, pause... you get the idea. I took the warnings, advice of other editors seriously and learned from them. I reevaluated my behaviour in the topic area and, when I was ready to, approached it with a different attitude. This is what we should all expect from editors, not only in contentious topic areas, but in all areas. I am afraid that if this report goes without even a logged warning, then TylerBurden will feel emboldened and just continue his behaviour. Like Mellk said I also try to avoid discussions [Tyler Burden] is involved in because they quickly become toxic. This has been my experience as well. Most recently here, where I simply said that The word "busification" needs to be featured more prominently in the article and provided sources. Then TylerBurden responded Well go on then, be bold and create an article for it if it's so featured [81]. I thought to myself "it's not worth it", and I dropped the issue just so I don't have to have a long, drawn out discussion with TB. An editor commented just today: There is not much point of trying to talk with TylerBurden here, trust me. Is that the kind of place we want the CTOP to be? You decide. Regarding Helpful Cat's first point: In the edit summary TylerBurden says: Still Russian state propaganda, but actually EUvsDisinfo is a flagship project of the European Union. It is also cited over 60 times. Content TB removed even said The CIT analysis questioned the veracity. Hence my use of "seemingly". Had TB read the inserted content carefully he would have seen that it is questioning Russian claims and sourced to an RS. On its own is not a big deal, but it happens often. Like here: Jesus christ, I know you're doing your utmost to move Wikipedia away from this phrase, but this is ridiculous. The phrase was eventually removed from the article, after another lengthy discussion TB begdrudgingly allowed it: Then I wonder why it took you so long, I guess it's more fun to violate WP:ONUS and edit war sensationalized and unencyclopedic wording into the article than it is to provide sources. And as this thread shows, it's not about sources. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [82] Discussion concerning TylerBurden [edit] Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by TylerBurden [edit] Since TurboSuperA+ has evidently spent a lot of time on this, I should probably address at least some of their report, let me know if there is anything else that needs clarification. I'm going to start with their inclusion of my block history, not once have I been blocked for any actual editing, yet this is being used as evidence as a ″pattern of problematic behaviour″. You can't even access the last one, because it's an unblock request of the Wikipedia Discord server, which also happens to be related with the first two. It has nothing to do with any actual editing and not only do I find it strange that you are keeping up with me to this extent, but trying to use it to get me topic banned. There is not enough room to address all the diffs, but let's take one for example, TurboSuperA+ says I am POV pushing because I added a foreign personnel subsection to Russian Armed Forces (an article specifically about the Russian military) while I removed content focusing on South American mercenaries joining the Ukrainian military to gain experience with drones, not on the article about the Ukrainian military, but the main article about the current war Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). To me, this seems like following basic WP:DUE policy. I would suggest people take a look at the linked content dispute, because it's a pretty perfect example of the type of content disputes I find myself in with TurboSuperA+, which is probably the motivation behind this report. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] As requested, I will try to address comments made by Mellk and Kelob2678. It seems the main issue here is addressing other editors, I think it's clear that some of the types of comments I made is not helpful or productive, so I'm going to to try to steer clear of them in the future. I can also admit that I was not aware of the WP:RSHEADLINE guideline (though if the individual hand picked by Vladimir Putin to conduct negotiations with Donald Trump is not a Kremlin agent, I'm not quite sure what he is, he is also explicitly called a Kremlin operative in the source, which the intention of changing the wording was not to misrepresent, but avoid exact copying of the source, if there is some meaningful difference between ″agent″ and ″operative″ , I am not aware of it.) so even though I would argue it seems slightly nitpicky in this instance, I will keep it in mind going forward. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Mellk [edit] TylerBurden already has a logged warning for edit warring but there was already a long edit war at Olenivka prison massacre not too long ago where they kept restoring recently-added text cited to a dubious website.[83][84][85][86][87] This was despite an ongoing discussion that was started by another editor. Note this edit summary where in response to the other editor simply stating that the source is unreliable, they wrote: Rich coming from a guy whose majority of Wikipedia contributions seems to consist of ″Russia announced something″. I also try to avoid discussions they are involved in because they quickly become toxic (too much WP:BATTLEGROUND). This recent discussion also turned into squabbling with another editor, which was unsurprising since in this edit summary they suggested that the editor included a fraction in combination with a percentage because I suppose 20% doesn't sound as impressive and in the discussion they later wrote it is obvious how you spend your time editing Wikipedia and what narratives you approve of. Some time ago an admin reminded them about the policy on civility but I do not think this has improved. Mellk (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I think this discussion from some months ago also summarizes quite well how TylerBurden approaches the subject. An IP starts a discussion at the Russo-Ukrainian war article suggesting to include Russian civilian casualties in the table. TylerBurden's first response is to comment on the motivations of other editors supporting the inclusion of Russian civilian casualties in the table: The only reason this is being pushed is because the alleged victims were Russians. Another editor tells them they are not AGF after TylerBurden asks them: What happened with WP:AGF?. This is because the other editor said: You aren't raising a legitimate concern, you're asking for Wikipedia to discriminate by nationality under the guise of policy. Despite this, TylerBurden doubles down on this later on: it's almost as if the reason this is being pushed is because the victims are Russian. TurboSuperA+ also left some unhelpful comments in this discussion but I don't think I've interacted with them before so not sure how much of a problem this is. Mellk (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by LordCollaboration [edit] I have now gone through most of these, looking at the actual context, and this seems incredibly misleading. Take number 12, described as Reverts an edit that added content from already cited source and calls it "disruptive editing"[88] It was actually the complete opposite. Tyler restored content that was deleted without explanation (and marked "minor").[89] The same user had previously removed it (also with no edit summary)[90] and Tyler reverted it then too, as an unexplained content removal,[91] as well as giving them an unexplained content removal notice[92] and a Contentious Topics notice[93] on their talk page. Clue Bot had also previously given them a warning for unexplained content removal,[94] and again after Tyler's first warning (calling it "vandalism")[95], so this was the fourth time. It is not a personal attack to label this behavior as disruptive, it is disruptive. If you add or remove content, you should give a valid edit summary, such as "Russian deaths hitting new highs" if you are adding content saying Russian casualties are hitting new highs (number 2 on the list). (Edit: This one was now struck, but with no explanation for how items like this are making the list in the first place. Even if it was the opposite (a content addition), a simple check of that user would show literally every edit reverted, a plethora of warnings, and the "addition" being previously reverted. Was there no context check at all here?) LordCollaboration (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Kelob2678 [edit] On 4-5 November, TylerBurden edit-warred at Mariupol theatre, making four reverts in a 24-hour span[96][97][98][99]. On 21,27 December, he edit-warred at 155th Guards Naval Infantry Brigade, removing a statement from the infobox that was cited in the body[100][101]. On 26 December, he added content calling Kirill Dmitriev a Kremlin agent[102]. When the label was challenged[103], he reverted and labeled Dmitriev a Kremlin operative[104], he justified it with the title of the piece, despite the title not being a reliable source (WP:RSHEADLINE). On 7 January, he added scare quotes to the term local state fund, despite them being absent in the source[105], when another editor complained about it on the talk page, TylerBurden dismissed him[106]. On 20 November, he argued that content not present in the body cannot be included in the lead[107], but on 17 November, he didn't object to content being inserted directly into the lead[108]. On 24 November, he argued that content from a Russian analyst interviewed by the Russian Forbes cannot be included even if attributed[109], but on 12 October, he told me that recently added content from a Polish think tank cannot be removed[110]. WP:CIVIL is a policy. In the above linked ANI thread, he was told consider this the final warning to both of you by Lourdes (now blocked as a sock, but was an administrator back then[111]). Kelob2678 (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by caeciliusinhorto [edit] The diffs cited in the section §Examples of POV pushing seem to me to be remarkably uncompelling. TurboSuperA cites this edit with the comment "Removed a reputable source because he didn't like what it says". TylerBurden's edit summary is pretty clear that their objection to this is in fact that the source didn't say the thing it was being used to support, and indeed that seems to me to be true. The text TB removed said Since it's formation, the International Legion has allowed criminals to join its ranks; the closest text in the source is In the past, the Legion served as a haven for many with a criminal past seeking to start a new life. This is a misrepresentation on several levels: most fundamentally it is talking about the French Foreign Legion rather than the Ukrainian International Legion; secondly the fact that in the past criminals joined the FFL is not exactly the same thing as the FFL "allowing" criminals to join; thirdly the removed text implies that allowing criminals to join is an ongoing practice whereas the cited source says that this happened "in the past" and the FFL has since improved its vetting for recruits. says a source that is widely used in the topic area is not reliable because he doesn't like what it says That's not what TB's edit summary says, and the fact that a source is widely used does not make it reliable. Whether or not ualosses.org is reliable, the fact that TSA has twice characterised TB's objection as "because he doesn't like what it says" when TB has provided a facially policy-based objection, with no actual evidence for that is not exactly compelling. TSA contrasts TB's addition of content here with removal here. It's not clear to me that the two cases are really analogous: the paragraph TB removed is cited to an article not about Russia and Ukraine but primarily about Colombian drug gangs; TB's invocation of WP:DUE seems reasonable on its face. On the other hand the text they added is cited to articles about Russia's use of foreign soldiers in Ukraine. (As an aside the text they removed also misrepresents the cited source, though TB did not comment on that in removing it) If TylerBurden is engaging in Russia/Ukraine-related POV pushing, there's surely more compelling evidence than these diffs. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Jeppiz [edit] I have read through this report and I do not find it convincing. In particular, I find that quite a few of the examples given are either trivial or taken out of context. Quite a of the edits presented as problematic seem to be correct edits, as others have pointed out above. Alos, having come across TylerBurden on many different topics over several years, I have normally found him to be both polite and constructive. Jeppiz (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by AlexeyKhrulev [edit] I would also like to comment on several points regarding TylerBurden’s conduct. I first encountered issues with his editing in the articles Tikhon Dzyadko and Ekaterina Kotrikadze, where I attempted to add well-sourced information that they had been designated as foreign agents in Russia. TylerBurden reverted these edits. This was followed by a prolonged discussion in which reliable sources were repeatedly provided, but TylerBurden chose to disregard them. Only after the matter was taken to WP:NPOVN was the issue resolved, and my edit was ultimately accepted. The entire process took more than than half a month. Given that TylerBurden is an experienced editor, it was surprising that such a relatively straightforward and policy-supported issue took so long to resolve, and that he actively obstructed its inclusion. More recently, I have repeatedly encountered him in articles related to Russian–Ukrainian relations, where his actions often lead to extended disputes and frequent allegations of policy violations, for example at Talk:Ukrainian attacks on the Russian shadow fleet. I am nevertheless glad to hear from TylerBurden here that he is willing to acknowledge concerns about his conduct and make adjustments. I hope this will help prevent similar issues going forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexeyKhrulev (talk • contribs) 08:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Helpful Cat [edit] I echo the concerns raised by editors above me that many of these diffs have been misrepresented. The example raised by caeciliusinhorto, where TurboSuperA+ apparently disapproves of TylerBurden rightly correcting a blatant error (confusing the Ukrainian International Legion with the French Foreign Legion), is probably the most glaring case. Here are some others: This diff, which TSA+ calls "remov[ing] sourced content...because it was seemingly critical of Ukraine". This misrepresents TB's initial rationale both in the edit summary and the talk page discussion TSA+ links, where TB is clearly arguing that disinformation only notable for being debunked is not WP:DUE. TB changed his mind not because another user "explain[ed] how it is actually debunking Russia's claims" as TSA+ wrongly says, but because that other user pointed out that the disinformation had been covered by a WP:RS and was therefore not only notable for being debunked. Including the other examples highlighted so far, that is at least the sixth diff in the complaint that TSA+ presented in a biased or actively misleading way, only one of which has been struck, which I find deeply concerning at WP:AE. This diff, which TSA+ calls "treat[ing] legitimate concerns about an article as bad faith". Here, TB was directly responding to TSA+'s assertion that a subject matter expert's statement - that the 2024 Russian presidential election was fraudulent and significantly exaggerated Russians' true support for Putin (with that expert's estimate of their true level of support), and that the Russian government is a repressive authoritarian regime - was somehow an extraordinary claim. TSA+ made this assertion repeatedly but never elaborated or explained why this claim was extraordinary, and TB's response in the cited diff that "the idea that an expert said something (that numerous other reliable sources also happen to agree with) is an 'extraordinary claim' is bizarre" and "it seems more likely that your idea of reliable sources do not line up with Wikipedia's" is direct but (in my opinion) does not seem unfair. Helpful Cat {talk} 11:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] TSA+'s reply regarding this diff is still incorrect. TB's edit summary acknowledged the source was "a site dedicated to dismantling misinformation". TB wrote "if the best sources we actually have are the claims being debunked, then it doesn't seem notable, it's just giving a platform for propaganda debunking included or not. Do we have any mainstream WP:RS reporting on this? Or is it just within this bubble of propaganda and counter-propaganda?" After someone noted that AFP had covered the original disinformation, TB accepted it was WP:DUE, because "it has been covered more than just Russia shouting into the void and getting debunked[...]My primary concern was that the coverage was limited to the aforementioned". TB did not object because he didn't realise the source was an RS debunking Russian claims, as TSA+ has wrongly said twice now. TB argued that disinformation only notable for being debunked is not WP:DUE; he accepted the inclusion because the claims had coverage beyond being debunked. Sadly, TSA+ continues to misread their own evidence. Helpful Cat {talk} 13:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username) [edit] Result concerning TylerBurden [edit] This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I have to say that at the moment on the vast majority of those diffs I'm only really seeing snarkiness rather than anything sanctionable, and some of the diffs don't even rise to that level. I'd also note that the ArbCom block was lifted on appeal (after only 12 days, so you can work that one out) and we really don't care about blocks from Discord servers. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I agree that the evidence presented by TurboSuperA+ is not convincing and most is largely irrelevant; and for that reason, TurboSuperA+, I am declining your request for additional words and diffs. Having said that, the statements from Mellk and Kelob2678 do suggest that there might be a current issue, and I'd ask TylerBurden to respond to those. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Noting TB's commitment to improve his editing in this area, I am comfortable with closing this with no action on the understanding that this won't happen again. If it does, it's likely that TB will be topic banned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No action. — Newslinger talk 15:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Tiamut [edit] User who is submitting this request for enforcement ADeeperUnderstanding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBPIA5, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POVPUSHING Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Confrontational, battleground behavior 3 January 2026 Telling an editor who raised concerns about a source being non-mainstream: "You not liking his interpretation of history does not disqualify him as a reliable source" (emphasis mine). 3 January 2026 Threatening the same editor: "Be warned I will not allow superficial, lazy biblical propaganda to permeate these articles just because you want to dismiss Palestinian scholars or those who dug deeper" (emphasis mine). 25 December 2025 Assuming bad faith: describing my edit as "a shifty page move scheme" (emphasis mine). 25 December 2025 Confrontational tone in edit summary: "the ancient history of the site still belongs to this town despite your moves" (emphasis mine). 7 January 2026 On a discussion regarding historical details, telling an editor that "Did not ask you for a history review", and continuing to insist that thier position "[s]eems self-evident actually" and is "very obviously" correct. Possible POV pushing 3 January 2026 At Roman Palestine: Using fringe, admittedly advocacy-driven source for ancient history issues (abstract explicitly says: This paper examines the possibility of constructing an alternative national narrative of Palestine's past ... that would affirm the Palestinian people's continuous existence in their land and offer a more constructive approach to their identity.). It's okay of course to present fringe sources as part of a discussion, but the editor does far more than that. As shown above they warned editors who disputed this source as non-mainstream, telling them they do so because they want to dismiss Palestinian scholars and warning them they will not allow them to ignore the source. The source quoted says: "the Jerusalem temple used by different religionists among them Yahwists" (recasting Roman-era Jews as 'Yahwists' is extremely fringe as opposed to the biblical period, Romans, Greeks, Jews, all speak of Jews in this period (and as an ethnic group, not just members of a religion). And, saying that different religionists rather than Jews the Jerusalem temple used by "different religionists", not Jews, worshipped in the Second Jewish Temple, is a denial of Jewish history.) 2 January 2026 calling the ancient Israelites, whose existence is an undisputed historical fact, "any supposed "ancient Israelites". (emphasis mine). Split out our article on Hebrew Alphabet, creating a new one, Aramaic square script about the same topic, when the only language we have sources for it using this script is Hebrew (not just modern Hebrew, as the new article says, but also classical period Hebrew (post-biblical) and languages derived from it / other languages used by Jews). Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 26 February 2007 24 hour block for 3RR violation on Arab citizens of Israel 8 July 2007 24 hour block for 3RR violation on Flying checkpoint 19 August 2007 one week block for 3RR violation 6 September 2007 five day block for edit warring at Arab diaspora 15 February 2010 one week block for edit warring 5 March 2012 asked by an uninvolved admin to remove polemic material including the words "the Europeans have already destroyed the Jews". If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Have been invovled in contentious topics since 2006. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [1] Discussion concerning Tiamut [edit] Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Tiamut [edit] Where is the disruption? Writing a lot of reliably sourced content that expresses opinions? Having opinions? Please see Slipper lamp for an example, written from scratch last month. Aramaic square script was also written from scratch, and every sentence is sourced to scholarly reliable sources. Not sure why it is claimed to have been split out from Hebrew alphabet. Tiamut (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] 3) was an incorrect description on my part. Because I misunderstood the history of that article. Thought it had been split out of Tuqu', as Khirbet Tuqu' (Tekoa (ancient town) is a part of that wider municipality. Sorry if it offended ADeeperUnderstanding, but its not disruptive. Tiamut (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Newyorkbrad: I can commit to be being nicer. I would appreciate though for admins here to take a closer look at what is being done at articles like Tuqu'. For example this edit removed information on an artifact found in the town, claiming it doesn't belong to it. Please note that Khirbet Tuqu', which ADeeperUnderstanding created a separate article for Tekoa (ancient town), is part of the municipality of Tuqu' and there are still Palestinians living in that old part of town. This idea that the ancient history of the site doesn't belong to them reflects an Israeli political program to dispossess them of it. There isn't a nicer way to say that, sorry. Tiamut (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Dan Murphy [edit] I think the complaining account here, and the other newish account further up on this page (nehushtani) should be commended for the close, close attention they are paying to the editing practices of other accounts working on pages they are not interacting with at all. Their zeal to ferret out even the smallest infraction - clearly ignited by a passion for neutral and accurate encyclopedia content - may drive them to make plenty of unsubstantiated accusations. But inspiring nonetheless.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Sean.hoyland [edit] Is the ADeeperUnderstanding account in good standing? The account has resembled a possible Tombah sock to me for a while, but since the account wasn't targeting other editors, I didn't pay much attention to it. Now that the account has reported the only? Palestinian editor active in the topic area, it would be helpful to know whether they actually have the right to file an AE report. Unfortunately, I assume no CU data has been retained, so filing an SPI would likely go nowhere, but for what it is worth, here are page intersections with Tombah. A more detailed look at page intersections is available at User:Sean.hoyland/ADeeperUnderstanding_vs_Tombah where you can see many improbable (but entirely possible by chance) intersections at pages with the following properties: low revision count low unique actor count low page views count low watchers count (blank when less than 30 watchers) There are similar improbable intersections with other Tombah socks e.g. Rajoub570. If history in the topic area is a guide, Tiamut will likely be targeted repeatedly now that she has returned, with much of it utilizing disposable ban evading actor accounts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Al Ameer [edit] Can’t remember last time I posted here (if ever), but none of what a ADeeperUnderstanding has reported warrants intervention by Arbitration Enforcement. I am much more concerned that the filing user is strikingly similar to a banned sock, but it seems Sean.hoyland beat me to the punch on that. —Al Ameer (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Result concerning Tiamut [edit] This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. The first thing I notice is that all of the diffs under "POV Pushing" and 2 of the 5 diffs under "Confrontational, battleground behavior" are on articles not covered by ARBPIA; even on those that are, I don't see anything majorly problematic. And I'm unsure why you thought that bringing up a block log that has no entries for 15 years was useful, but here we are. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I don't see much of a case for a sanction here, but I would prefer to see a somewhat less confrontational tone in future edits. I'd appreciate if Tiamut can acknowledge that. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] The diffs show that Tiamut should be reminded to focus on content instead of conduct during content disputes, when possible. As Tiamut has accepted Newyorkbrad's suggestion to be less confrontational, I consider this matter adequately addressed for now. The concerns brought forth by ADeeperUnderstanding and Tiamut regarding the Hebrew Alphabet, Aramaic square script, Tuqu', and Tekoa (ancient town) articles are content-related, and interested editors have the option to engage in content dispute resolution processes to present relevant arguments; I do not see an obvious behavioral issue that needs to be addressed here based on the information provided. — Newslinger talk 15:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Sean.hoyland and Al Ameer son: While I see the interaction overlap, that in itself is not sufficient to justify taking action against ADeeperUnderstanding before this enforcement request is closed. If you have additional supporting evidence, please file a sockpuppet investigation case, as this enforcement request (which is about to be closed with no further action) cannot be put on hold to accommodate a detailed behavioral analysis of the filer in relation to Tombah. — Newslinger talk 15:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kowal2701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:56, 17 January 2026 (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

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

See page history of Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine, an article they created 11 Jan. Also see NicheSports' analysis of the content added [112] which indicates either a violation of WP:NEWLLM, or big WP:CIR issues re WP:V and WP:RS. They were informally warned about LLM-use on 11 Oct 2025 and then received a formal warning at AE on 22 Nov 2025.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 22 November 2025 Warning for problematic LLM-use in PIA

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

[113]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This comment in the merge discussion also seems LLM-generated and cites WP:SNG for some reason (?) Kowal2701 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[114]

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

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