Wikipedia Arbitration
Arbitration directory About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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

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

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

Initiated by The Bushranger at 01:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log

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

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

So I have a conundrum regarding the requirement to log arbitration enformcement actions, with regard to unregistered IP addresses now that temporary accounts are a thing. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections, must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Now that we have temporary accounts, WP:TAIV notes Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed. I performed a rangeblock of an IPv6 /64 for GENSEX-related disruption; therefore, I need to log this. However that - necessarily - discloses the TAIV-access-provided IP address on this page. How does this circle get squared? (Note, I also blocked the most recent TA used by that range and logged it, for now, to deal with the reporting requirement until the above question is answered). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Ahh. Well, I did mark it as 'Arbitration enforcement', before going "and to log - hmmmm", but I'll keep that in mind in the future. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Appreciated. So, note it in the log, but without a link to the IP/range's Special:Contributions page then, I presume. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, after the discussion below, I've logged it per [1]. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are exceptions built into the policy for this kind of case. The issue does come to something like the revision deletion clause, which is clearly prohibitive. I suspect the people who wrote that into the TAIV policy actually just simply don't understand how revision deletion works (and that we'd have to revision delete... a lot... rather than I suspect the imagined "single revision" where the item was introduced). I put something in the ear of the WMF a couple weeks ago about that provision being dumb and needing rethinking, but this would be a good on-wiki use case specifically to reference. I agree that this all is also relevant beyond the "I need to block someone in the area" suggested above as enforcement also needs to consider "I need specifically to block someone using the powers prescribed in an arbitration case or in the contentious topic procedure" (consider as an example the old ban on Scientology IPs). Izno (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I think your analysis is the best way of looking at this. I'll note that I reached out to WMF Legal a few weeks ago about expanding the consecutive-block rule to all admin actions (after finding myself in a gray area on disclosure by unblocking an IP on request from a TA on that IP). Last I heard from Madi Moss (WMF), the plan was to change it to "blocks, unblocks, or performs other administrative actions", although I don't know where that plan stands as of now. Of course it's the current policy that's binding, but even by the current wording I agree there's no issue with consecutive logging at AELOG (and Madi did not seem inclined to de-TAIV me for my consecutive-unblock :P).

All that said, yeah, the "appropriate venues" clause should work here if for some reason consecutive logging isn't enough to get the point across; if someone wants to do that, I'll repeat the suggestion I included in a footnote at TAIVDISCLOSE that they do the disclosure on a transcluded subpage, so that it can later be cleanly revdelled without taking out a bunch of unrelated history. So something like I have also blocked the TA's IP range, {{WP:Arbitration enforcement log/TAIV disclosure/1}} <small>([[WP:TAIVDISCLOSE|intentional disclosure]])</small>, for 180 days. Then at the end of those 180 days (or later if there's continued IP abuse at that point), redact and revdel. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Hello The Bushranger, the following premise is not factually correct: I performed a rangeblock of an IPv6 /64 for GENSEX-related disruption; therefore, I need to log this. You don't need to. Blocking someone for disruption, no matter in which topic area, is a simple administrative action that doesn't need logging. If you do something you could else not do, or if you don't want the rangeblock to be undoable without an appeal to WP:AN, then you can make it a formal contentious topics action. You can; you are not required to. The simplest practical answer to the question is thus "don't mark it as a GENSEX CTOP action". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's all good. To answer the actual question regarding IP addresses and logging, though: To my personal understanding, just as blocking an IP address creates a public log entry, it can't be a problem to log a ban or any kind of sanction on an IP address. Making a connection to specific edits would be a problem, even making a connection to a specific page may be, but simply stating that you are applying sanction X to IP a.b.c.d should be as unproblematic as the existence of a public log entry of a block on a.b.c.d. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Linking to a page that can only be viewed by people with the needed access should be fine too. I assume this is about Special:IPContributions. Linking to it doesn't provide additional information to the wrong people; try opening that link in a private tab. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That won't work because the contribs are gone in 90 days. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Now we're mixing whether something is allowed from a privacy perspective and whether something makes sense from our ArbCom logging desires. If the logs are gone after 90 days, the logs are gone after 90 days and reviewing the IP block is tough. This is just one additional reason why applying CTOP sanctions to IP addresses, just as bans, was always an unusual and rarely meaningful thing to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Logging the IP or range allows quicker or escalating sanctions, and that's an issue that comes up with ECR enforcement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ScottishFinnishRadish, there are so many unrealistic assumptions that come with this ... including formal awareness through a CTOP template that had to be sent to the IP address before that IP address can be sanctioned for continuing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The editor has to be aware, not every IP address or temporary amount they use. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah right. So if someone edits disruptively, we perform a checkuser lookup and log a sanction against their IP address range because that helps with escalating sanctions and they're known to be aware through non-public information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So yeah, even the concept of awareness is broken with IP addresses since the introduction of temporary accounts. Can we ... perhaps just apply sanctions to accounts only, and avoid placing formal CTOP sanctions on IP addresses? Because that's highly impractical? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At a quick glance I see a dozen logged sanctions on IPs and temporary accounts in ARBPIA this year. Seems like it works fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  None of the currently-28 AELOG sanctions placed in November 2025 are against IP addresses. Temporary accounts are treated like accounts, their IP addresses might have been blocked in the background but not as logged formal actions. Which is fine. Beyond bureaucracy, academic privacy discussions and links to information that is now deleted after 90 days, there is no point in formally logging a sanction against an IP address obtained through TAIV, just as noone would have had the idea to do so for IP ranges obtained from checkuser results before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To provide a practical example, let's say temporary account ~2025-F has edited an article about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and similar edits came from ~2025-A, ~2025-B, ~2025-C, ~2025-D and ~2025-E. A quick look reveals that all of these accounts were created from the same /48 IPv6 range. All of the edits were in violation of the extended-confirmed restriction in this topic area and not otherwise problematic. The usual response is protecting the affected pages as a CTOP action. No measures against temporary accounts or IPs are needed. However, if an administrator wants to apply a sanction such as a formal CTOP block, they can do so to the latest account (or all of them, as a symbolic measure).
  The administrator can additionally {{rangeblock}} the /48 IPv6 range: admins are allowed to make blocks that, by their timing, imply a connection between an account and an IP.^{[WP:TAIVDISCLOSE]}
  And if all of that is really not enough and a formal sanction has to be applied to the IP address range, well then, that too can still be done and logged as before. Yes, it will create two log entries directly below each other with the temporary account's name and IP address. Just as the blocks did in the block log. It's completely avoidable and rarely helpful but not formally prohibited as far as I understand. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• While in this case it could have been a standard block it can't be for an ECR block, so this is definitely going to come up and now is a good time to stew our noodles on how to handle it. WP:TAIV says And when "reasonably believed to be necessary", exceptions can be made at appropriate policy-enforcement venues. Then it goes on to say However, the disclosure should be revision-deleted as soon as it ceases to be necessary. It's necessary to maintain a log of submission enforcement actions for a number of reasons so maybe we could sneak it in under that? What a clusterfuck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't like using AE sanctions against non-accounts either, but wouldn't forbid it . If the sanction is against an IP, log it with a link to the IP. If it's against a temporary account, log it with a link to the temporary account. That shouldn't result in an "extra" disclosure simply based on the logging action. Let me know if I missed something ... Sdrqaz (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Ideally, just log the sanction on the temporary account. It shouldn't normally be necessary to log a block of an underlying IP/range. The only reason I can think of is that you want to mark it as an AE block to avoid it being overturned without proper consideration, in which case I suppose it has to be logged and the exception applies, but I'm sure an informative summary in the block log would be enough to prevent that in most cases. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• We currently have a policy that might infringe upon a global policy. It might make sense, until we get clarification from Legal, to amend our procedures to explicitly keep IP blocks out of the log (e.g. amend the quoted statement above to "All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections and IP blocks, must be...". Primefac (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Taking a swerve on the AE aspect initially, and unpacking the issue from the other end, what confidentiality do we owe Temporary Accounts? For regular accounts the user is given anonymity which can only be seen through by checkusers (ArbCom appointed, NDA required). Temporary accounts can be seen through by Admins and by viewers, neither group needing to sign the NDA.
  For us to protect TAs to the same extent as user accounts, and to allow the two-handed case handling of CU blocks, in which one CU blocks the user account and another CU blocks the IP, we'd need an NDA-controlled forum for admins and TAIVs to discuss the connections openly. That doesn't exist, nor (AFAIK) has the foundation even hinted that they'd like us to go that route.
  Until/unless Madi (or someone else in Legal) tells us otherwise, we don't need to escalate the privacy of an artificial account generated by the Wiki software to the same level as the privacy of a human-generated account which may contain PII in the username.
  To return to the AE aspect, we're primarily here to build an encyclopedia, a principle that ArbCom has long upheld, and our social policies are not a suicide pact. If it's necessary to log TAs and their IPs at AElog (e.g. an IP user burning through multiple TAs to a disruptive end), and the logging is well considered, I'm not going to criticise or censure. Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Came here to close this, but I don't see a consensus here yet; I agree with ToBeFree's approach. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I also think that's a reasonable approach. - Aoidh (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also aligned with Tobias' comment here. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Chess enjoyer at 06:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Chess enjoyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beland (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• 45dogs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CommunityNotesContributor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Springee's notification
• TarnishedPath's notification
• Beland's notification
• 45dog's notification
• M.Bitton's notification
• CommunityNotesContributor's notification

If I were to frame this request as an RFC, I would probably write something like, "When should comments that an editor has struck/hatted count toward the 1000-word limit of WP:CT/A-I, if at all?" This situation is not currently covered, which leaves a potential loophole open, wherein an editor can make comments that cross the limit, strike/hat some of their other comments, and then continue to comment, effectively bypassing the limit. This would appear to go against the spirit of the word limit. I was inspired to make this request by discussion at AN (Starting with this comment by me and ending with This comment by TarnishedPath), and also by this discussion on Springee's talk page. If it were up to me, I would modify the word limit so that struck/hatted comments that an editor has genuinely taken back would not count towards the limit, but comments that an editor struck/hatted upon being made aware that they breached the limit would still count, and that editor would be barred from further participation in the discussion. I'll leave the exact details to the Arbitration Committee. This is my first time making a request for clarification, so I apologize if I have made any procedural errors.

I would also appreciate clarification on what other editors can do when they notice that another editor has breached the limit. Is it appropriate for them to strike/hat that editor's comments to enforce it (as I did with Springee here)? Chess enjoyer (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR/ In other areas where there is a word count limit, the existence of the limit is clear up front and there is a mechanism for requesting additional words. How does that operate here were not all editors are going to be aware absent someone telling them after the fact and who can grant more words when needed?

As the person who was over the limit I think it would make sense if the rule is 1000 words and you only get words back in limited circumstances. However, editors are likely to post/reply differently if they know there is a word limit upfront. How do people who are unaware of this rule know about it in advance? As an example, at ARE I think it's basically standard practice that editors are made aware of the word limit up front. As someone who wasn't involved in the ARBCOM case in question, how would I know the limit is there? I don't think it's fair to just tell someone after the fact that they are over the limit as knowing there is a limit does change how editors may reply. Also, at ARE discussions extensions are frequently granted by the admins who are running the discussion. What is the mechanism used for requesting extensions here at less formal discussions such as a RfC, close review etc? Springee (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TarnishedPath, I understand your point about 1RR but it's not the same as a word limit. Ideally we all should operate as if there is a 1RR limit. Sometimes a clear argument on a talk page may need more than 1000 words, especially if there is some level of back and forth. However, I think my concerns would be addressed with a clear word limit appeal process such as exists at ARE. Extensions are frequently granted in cases where an editor has significant new information or should be reasonably allowed to reply to something said about them/their comments. Springee (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the 1,000 word limit in formal discussions, is that once it is passed, there is no going back. That an editor must cease once they are made aware that they have passed the word limit, and that there are no givesies backsies. Clarification of this is apparently necessary. TarnishedPath^talk 08:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On @Springee's comment "I don't think it's fair to just tell someone after the fact that they are over the limit as knowing there is a limit does change how editors may reply."

Being someone who does some editing in the topic area, it's not uncommon to be advising a editor who is new to the area that WP:1RR applies when they have crossed it, and requesting that they self-revert. We're not going to go seeking sanctions against them as long as they do self-revert once they have been made aware of expectations. Just because they weren't aware of 1RR previously it doesn't mean that it is acceptable to not self-revert once they are made aware. I think the same principle applies here. Yeah it might suck that because of lack of knowledge you weren't able to economise, but it's only one discussion and you are aware now. TarnishedPath^talk 21:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement was largely to note how at WP:AE, the template that counts words doesn't count struck comments. Like Chess enjoyer says, the issue is gaming the system. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 07:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm party due to this commment, The spirit of the restriction is as important as the letter, also understood more simply as No givesies backsies.[2] It is ultimately the 'bludgeoning, unbludgeoning, and rebluegeoning' cycle that is the concern which the restriction does not explicitly forbid. I otherwise don't see allowing exceptions to this as very productive either, it'd only provide room for gaming. Editors should just try harder to avoid exceeding word count, ideally admins would also do a lot better by providing the word count discussion notice for such discussions (especially on their patch) to prevent such infractions in the first place (prevention is better than cure). Also, will admins consider logged warnings for editors repeatedly exceeding this restriction, for those that are aware but repeatedly 'unintentionally' breach them? As it turns out a bludgeoned discussion isn't any better when half of a conversation has been struck, it just further disrupts the discussion, making it disjointed and unappealing. Striking is thus not a solution here, ideally editors just walk away leaving comments unstruck to avoid further disruption instead, rather than pandering to the notion that such damage can be undone by striking, which isn't the case. CNC (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here since I became involved by thanking Chess enjoyer for their clerking. I feel like this limit was put into place to discourage the bludgeoning that is endemic with CTs. We should not allow HATTING purely to enable more words. Participants should say less/speak more concisely. This discussion is inspiring way too much Hamilton from me Star Mississippi 17:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What hasn't been mentioned previously is when someone is genuinely unaware that a word limit exists. In that case, in addition to what Daniel says, I would add that in this case striking some of what you wrote so that it is within the limit is acceptable. Striking it all to rewrite it within the limit in the same circumstance can be okay, but only once.

Obviously the onus should be on those imposing a word limit on a discussion (and secondarily on those participating in such a discussion) to make that limit as clear as possible to everyone, especially those who are new to the topic area, so as to maximise the benefits of having the limit and minimise the issues caused when one person is carefully sticking to a limit someone else doesn't know exists (including such things as taking terseness as a sign of rudeness rather than of being careful with word count). Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here for the record that I was a participant in the Israel RfC closure review. I had breached the 1000-word limit, was notified of this by M.Bitton, and subsequently removed excess words from my own comments to bring my word count down. There was also a brief discussion in excess of my limit that was removed by mutual withdrawal. I am currently at 990 words by my own count, including collapsed comments and not including quoted material. I have refrained from making further comments on the closure review. See also this discussion on M.Bitton's talk page. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you are only slightly over the word limit, is it acceptable to remove redundant words from your prior comments to comply with the limit as long as you do not make any further comments in the discussion (to avoid gaming the system to allow for new comments)? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Striking because you retract what you're saying due to making a statement that is in error? Sure, that can not count towards the word count. Striking to come under the 1,000 limit so you can double-down and post again? A totally unacceptable form of gaming the word limit restriction. The spirit of decisions is important. Consider the principle in the case that this was trying to fix, and ask yourself if striking to game the system, reduce under 1,000 so you can post the same sort of material again is aligned with this principle. (Hint: it is not.) Daniel (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The trick is not make off-topic comments that push you over the word count. In the case of genuine errors, I wouldn't expect admin discretion would fall on the side of counting the words, but striking earlier comments to free up space in your word limit is gaming. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• +1 to the above (disclaimer: i did make a comment in the thread for the limited purpose of addressing a point made about BADNAC, but I wasn't interacting with Springee and it doesn't influence my thoughts here one way or the other). All the more so when it's comments other people have already responded to. It wrecks the discussion and subverts the point of the word limit. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, getting to pick and choose what you strike is really pushing it. It should really be full redactions in reverse chronological order when you're that far over. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:54, 18 December 2025 (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.

Important information Shortcuts WP:AEWP:AE WP:AREWP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against a previously alerted editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only registered users who are autoconfirmed may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by temporary accounts or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests, appeals, and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Administrators may remove or shorten comments that are overlong or unconstructive, and may instruct users to stop participating or impose AE sanctions in response to disruptive contributions such as personal attacks or groundless complaints. The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each, unless AE admins waive this rule. Any uninvolved admin may further restrict participation by non-parties at their discretion. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Word counts may be added using the following template: {{ACWordStatus|page=AE|section=REQUEST NAME|user=USERNAME}}. Extensions may be granted using the following template: {{ApprovedWordLimit|words=NEW TOTAL|sig=~~~~}}. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. Hatted requests will later be archived by an admin (often after a few days to a week). Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

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

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

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

• 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]

• National Iranian American Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Banned editor making Israel/Palestine edit: This editor is banned from the topic yet they made edits to this article: [3]. At the time, the top news item on the organization's website was this statement on Israel-Palestine which clearly indicates their motivation given their shared position: [4] jwtmsqeh (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, the content of the edit does not touch upon the conflict, even when broadly construed. Also noting that Iskandar323 is currently already serving a short block for a different edit that did violate their sanction, and which post-dates the edit to the NIAC article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weaponization of antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Revert inappropriately restored material: CT in question is Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Material was added, removed in contention, and then restored. Talk discussion initiated; editor who added and restored the material has ignored repeated requests to self-rv. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: there is talk page discussion, which doesn't seem to be going your way. An experienced editor said, on the talk page, "This topic area gets too ugly and noticeboard-happy"--and yet here we are. No, I see no violations of the agreed-upon set of behavioral and editorial practices; that the editor does not wish to self-revert is not a violation. I do, however, appreciate this, but I urge you to take that wise editor's words to heart. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I brought this request to the quick ER section (unless I'm forgetting something, my first time coming to AE) because I was not seeking sanctions against any editor; when I referred darkly to noticeboards I was talking about where people go to get others blocked. I have no aversion to boards seeking uninvolved third parties to make procedural content edits. WP:ONUS is an agreed-upon editorial policy, and I would be surprised to learn that immediately restoring one's boldly-introduced new material after it is contested is standard editorial practice, let alone in a contentious topic area. Moot now, but I wanted to clear that up. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what were you asking for then, on this board? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A revert. It's bolded at the beginning of my request. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drmies, was this a misunderstanding? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary, can you give us diff of the added/removed/restored content you're talking about? Valereee (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s now moot, thanks. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• RfC: Herb Keinon's comparison to Nazi Germany

Enforce ECR: I'm not sure how extended-confirmed enforcement is supposed to work, but there are a couple of IP editors who have taken part in the RfC, and I assume that their contributions should be struck? The RfC plainly involves Israel-Palestine issues. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 18:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk:~2025-41257-91 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested action: Attack page targeting pro-Palestinian activists, user should be blocked immediately. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverLocust: Looks like you got here first, but the user clearly deserves zero tolerance and the creation log entry still needs RD2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, there's no need to RD here. -- asilvering (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is meant to exclude requests for blocks (though I can understand that not being a high concern when dealing with a current issue). I deleted the page, but instead of blocking have just been watching for further disruption from this person. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nehushtani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA5

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

1. Edit warring during consensus building efforts on Jerusalem Day: this editor is edit warring "In recent years, there have been anti-Palestinian chants of "death to Arabs" and "May Your Village Burn" in these parades." into the lead. They first added it on 16 November 2025. On 17 November 2025 I reverted them saying to seek consensus, after which on 21 November 2025 another user added it back in, on 23 November 2025 I again removed it per WP:ONUS, on 23 November 2025 they again edit warred it in and on 23 November 2025 were reverted by another user telling them to stop edit warring. On 25 November 2025 they edit warred it back in, falsely claiming "Per current talk page consensus", when taking a look at the talk page will indicate that there is an ongoing discussion and no consensus, and this the user is clearly violating WP:ONUS, for which they have been previously been cautioned throughout this whole discussion.
2. Uncivil behavior and violations of WP:AGF on Talk:Jerusalem Day: On 23 November 2025 they inaccurately described what had happened, because the previous discussion had been only about including the contested material in the body of the article (to which I acquiesced) and they had never until that point discussed it in the lead. On 24 November 2025 they claimed that those disagreeing with them and saying something is WP:UNDUE is "not policy based" and then later on 24 November 2025 doubling down on these claims. This seems to violate WP:SATISFY. On 24 November 2025 BlookyNapsta told them to start an WP:RFC to include the contested material, but on 24 November 2025 they insisted that "I don’t think we need to go to an RfC to establish consensus". On 24 November 2025 they wrote that those who disagree with them are WP:Status quo stonewalling.
3. WP:BLUDGEONING: On Talk:Six-Day War#Requested move 16 November 2025, this user has been WP:BLUDGEONING and repeating the same claims over and over again, 19 November 2025, 19 November 2025, 20 November 2025 and 23 November 2025.
4. WP:BLUDGEONING: In the Talk:Six-Day War#Requested move 13 November 2025 previous RfD (now replaced by the previous one) they were similarly involved in WP:BLUDGEONING, asking every editor who rejected their proposal based on WP:COMMONNAME "by what metrics" they call it the common name. 13 November 2025, 14 November 2025, 14 November 2025 and 15 November 2025. A few months ago, at Talk:Gaza Genocide, the user was also WP:BLUDGEONING, questioning any user he disagreed with "based on what sources?" or a similar reaction. 4 August 2025, 18 August 2025 and 24 August 2025.
5. WP:SYNTH: On 23 November 2025, the user was warned on their talk page that they had violated WP:SYNTH, in one case on a WP:BLP page. On 23 November 2025 they insisted that these edits "seems like useful context for the reader". (Although on 23 November 2025 the user did eventually say that they will be more diligent on the matter, implicitly admitting that they had made a mistake.)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Logged warning on 25 October 2025 "to remain civil, assume good faith of other editors, and avoid inflammatory remarks".

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

1. 24 January 2025 received the standard CTOP warning on their talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Butterscotch Beluga - The claim that "They asked you to come to talk to discuss & but you didn't respond until other editors got involved" is inaccurate. The discussion started on the talk page was open 08:01, 16 November 2025 about whether it was due in the body of the article. Their arguments convinced me that it is widely enough covered to be due in the body of the article so I did not respond. Later that day, on 10:09, 16 November 2025, they began edit warring the contentious content into the lead with no discussion whatsoever. Nehushtani (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinaroot's claim that I did not participate in the talk page discussion is once again inaccurate, as there was no discussion about the inclusion in the lead, as I explained above. Also, although they were uninvolved in this specific discussion, it does not seem to be a coincidence that they posted this commont shortly after I have informed them of a 1RR violation. Nehushtani (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee - I fixed the diff you asked about; something went wrong with the formatting, but it should be ok now. Also, should I respond to Drmies's comments? They are an admin, but I'm unsure if I should respond because they wrote their comments outside of the admin section. Nehushtani (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies - I don't understand your argument that "this isn't edit warring". WP:ONUS states that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Since إيان was trying to add disputed content, it was their responsibility to achieve consensus, and trying to add the contested content multiple times before achieving consensus is edit warring, not the other way around. Regarding the discussion on the talk page - My main argument is that mentioning the chants is undue for the lead as it is only tangentially related to the holiday. I said early on in the discussion on 11:29, 23 November 2025 "I have consistently insisted (and still believe) that it is undue for the lead." We did digress briefly into a discussion about another page, but that was never my main contention. Whether or not something is a false equivalence is a content dispute and is not what it is being discussed at AE. Nehushtani (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

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.

  إيان's statement contains 959 words and is within 10% of the 925-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 925 words. — Newslinger talk 16:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The disagreement appears to be about the content of my edits rather than my conduct, as evident in these contrived, shoehorned, and misrepresentative accusations:

• The first accusation of edit warring is ABSURD, especially coming from the accuser who, reverted by two editors, refused to discuss in the talk page discussion on the matter after being pinged, and was the one engaged in edit warring. There is a summary of this here.
• The accusation of uncivil behavior is also contrived. I followed WP:BRD and I was magnanimous with the two out of five involved editors that disagreed and did not offer any proof beyond a vague gesture to UNDUE. To accuse me of edit warring without bothering to discuss for a week is disingenuous to say the least. The accuser alleges they wrote that those who disagree with them are WP:Status quo stonewalling, which I did not. I placed the link to the explanatory essay there for the benefit of all without making any accusation about anyone doing it.
• The accusations of bludgeoning are again contrived, appearing to exploit a shoehorned accusation of conduct violations because the accuser disagreed with the substance of the edits. Also, the two RMs are the same discussion. When the likelihood of approaching the word limit was brought to my attention, I made my final points and stopped.
• The SYNTH accusation is again content-based and not conduct-based and was already addressed and resolved. The accuser was not involved at all, and I'm curious why the accuser brings it up again here.

Per WP:Dispute resolution: If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request arbitration. It would have been appreciated if the accuser had, for example, discussed their grievances with me at any point directly on my talk page before bothering everyone here with these flagrantly frivolous and vexatious accusations and this unnecessary bureaucracy. I take the Wikipedia policies very seriously, and it is inappropriate to try to weaponize Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to silence editors contributing in good faith with whom we might disagree on content. إيان (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Originalcola, if you thought that I was clearly engaging in bludgeoning, why didn't you say so? I admittedly engaged a lot, but I thought I was engaging politely and in good faith, and there was good discussion happening in response to my arguments and questions. It didn't seem to me from the way the conversation was going that I had been doing something wrong. And as I said in my statement, when it was brought to my attention, I stopped. Regarding the false claim regarding case-sensitive searches, I did indeed make a mistake in seeing the "case-insensitive" tab as "case-sensitive" which I later realized and fixed from then-on.إيان (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QuicoleJR's accusations also appear to be rooted in a disagreement on content rather than conduct. The claim The editor in question, after the content was removed from Jerusalem Day, added it to anti-Palestinian racism is wrong and deceptive. The thoroughly sourced content—perfectly WP:DUE where I placed it per sourcing—is based on this understanding, not the information removed from the lede.

That I should be penalized for contributions such as translating "May Your Village Burn" from Hebrew is absurd. Improving articles and getting the encyclopedia closer to WP:NPOV with high-quality contributions introducing drastically underrepresented voices and citing the highest quality scholarly sources, while being engaged and responsive on talk pages, is not WP:disruptive editing, whereas reverting without discussing to maintain a POV status quo is disruptive behavior. As for expanding on controversies and negative coverage of Israel and their supporters, WP:Wikipedia is not censored and—though I apologize for where I have made honest mistakes—it is unfair and inappropriate to attempt sanction me on contrived accusations here in an attempt to censor me and my contributions. إيان (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe BlookyNapsta’s most recent comment helps clarify what this really seems to be about—content and not conduct. I have responded to their questions on their talk page. إيان (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have acknowledged that I engaged more than I should have in the RM. Part of it was a substantial irregularity caused it to become a second RM, which Nehushtani framed into a doubled bludgeoning accusation. Anyway, I won’t engage in that way again.

I have no problem acknowledging my mistakes when I make them. I wasn’t sure how to take if you're not familiar with how to interpret or use this kind of search tools for specific topics like this then you can ask for help from other editors—it looked like a possible taunt. If Originalcola would like a formal apology for it, I'm happy to do so, as I have for my misunderstanding the ngram case-sensitivity. I have apologized for comment taken as an insinuation of bad faith. 08:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC) I would have apologized at the time if they had made it known then that they took offense. (I now realize that it was genuine, but it is hard to tell through text sometimes.) I thought responding with this appears to be condescension, which is inappropriate and I remind you to maintain WP:Civility was an appropriate, diplomatic way to both address that possibility and maintain the assumption of good faith. Same for Talk:Jerusalem Day, where I—then aware of the need to economize my words—was more terse than would be ideal, and I see how it could be misconstrued, and I can apologize there too. إيان (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhornsg, my heart is indeed in the right place—thank you—and I emphatically disagree with your characterizations and conclusion. My contributions in the topic area, for example, are of immense value to the encyclopedia. إيان (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is not resorted to accusing me of WP:BADFAITH.

I explained my thought process and defended my opinion on content on the talk page. إيان (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Ayan's response goes to show exactly the problem Nehushtani complains about: a total failure to understand Wikipedia rules when it comes to this extremely sensitive topic. As someone involved in the same discussion, I saw the same issue: Ayan is trying to promote a very controversial piece of information to the lead of an article about a public holiday in Israel, but when the conversation doesn't go the way they wanted, they seem to have decided to force their version despite clear opposition. Wikipedia has enough bias issues and this kind of behavior just makes it worse. Ayan's denial of the issues that appear here, which I learn they are not doing for the first time, having already been warned by this very forum, require a good answer. BlookyNapsta (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR's comments about POV pushing are really disturbing. If Ayan's behavior includes not only edit warring and bludgeoning but also activist-style edits meant to distort our coverage of ARBPIA topics, that should be remedied asap. I saw more examples of this happening just yesterday on 30 November 2025 to Talk:Six-Day War. After two failed attempts to change the article's name because of alleged "POV title", Ayan now claims that "the occupations and displacements" are "the most prominent features of the war". The very suggestion that "displacements" were "the most prominent" feature of the war goes directly against any serious coverage of the topic in scholarship.

Another article - Zionism in Morocco - written from scratch by Ayan also shows clear bias. "Zionism ... the 19th century ethnocultural nationalist movement to establish a Jewish state through the colonization of Palestine" - Calling Zionism "colonization" reflects a specific political framing which is not agreed about in academic literature. Similarly, the article refers several times to Zionist activities as "propaganda", but does not use this phrase for other political actors. The article also states that "Initially, Mossad Le'Aliyah agents exploited poverty to motivate Jews to leave"; using the word "exploited" is clearly POV and judgmental.

These actions around the articles on the Six-Day War and on Zionism in Morocco, which seem to try to rewrite historical events to serve a clear agenda, seem to be just a few examples of a wider attempt to expand the bias that is ruining Wikipedia's credibility (which are not noticed only by me, but also by Wikipedia's founders). BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@إيان - I don't see this as an issue of content. The possible violation at hand is POV pushing, which is an issue of conduct. BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing more of this happening. Yesterday, on 3 December 2025, at 1948 Palestine war, they reverted a constructive edit without even attempting to explain why they were reverting. This constructive edit did justice with the article, and seems to have fixed the very activistic "Zionist forces... established Israel" - as if it was established by a militia - with the facts: "The Jewish Yishuv... established Israel", and added a mention of atrocities against Jews in the war to improve NPOV since the lead did not mention these. According to WP:REVERT: "Rather than reverting entirely, consider improving the edit to enhance the article's quality. .. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." That may suggest that Ayan is not interested in the improvement of the encyclopedia, as constructive editing is not in their head. In itself, this wouldn't require a severe sanction, but this clear stonewalling, alongside the other examples provided here of POV pushing, edit warring, bludgeoning, synth and BLP violations, all connected to the promotion of a certain POV on Wikipedia, point to an editor who is WP:NOTHERE (see "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia") and should be driven out of this topic area. BlookyNapsta (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee - I find the suggestion that a page ban for Ayan would solve the much broader issues reported here, including bludgeoning, edit warring, synth BLP violations, and possibly also POV pushing, not helpful. This would not improve the situation in ARBPIA at all. An editor that acts this way consistently, as the diffs here clearly show, should be held accountable. This editor already received a logged warning here, on WP:AE, asking them "to remain civil, assume good faith of other editors, and avoid inflammatory remarks". This kind of recurring behavior is clearly not something we can solve with a page ban. That behavior would continue everywhere else. 13:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC) BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC) (edit: I've just noticed Valereee's comment regarding participation, my bad, sorry. though my thoughts still stand). BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your description of "Uncivil behavior and violations of WP:AGF" seems rather inaccurate. They asked you to come to talk to discuss & but you didn't respond until other editors got involved.

The comment you're quoting for "not policy based" actually read "Not a source or policy-based argument." The comment they were replying to was in response to my comment saying it was WP:DUE & backed by sources, so saying you disagree without supplying your own sources is unhelpful.

I don't believe asking for someone to explain their reasoning or cite a source for their !vote is WP:BLUDGEONING as long as they don't badger them further.

The issue regarding WP:SYNTH is both settled & not a conduct-issue. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(un-involved)

If there was edit warring in this situation, the sequence of events indicates that it is Nehushtani who have engaged in edit warring. إيان opened a talk-page thread on 16 November immediately after the first revert, but Nehushtani did not participate in that discussion. When another editor reverted the Nehushtani on 21st, Nehushtani edit warred with them. إيان then reverted Nehushtani and requested to engage on the talk page. Nehushtani engaged after this.

Rather than using the existing talk-page discussion to seek consensus, Nehushtani continued reverting. It is not appropriate to revert repeatedly without participating in discussion, and then characterize the other party as the one edit-warring. Editors are expected to collaborate and engage in talk page discussions in a timely manner, in line with WP:CONSENSUS.

The evidence does not substantiate the claim that إيان was the party engaged in edit warring. Accordingly, I ask that the enforcement request be dismissed. Cinaroot (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak to any of the other claims made, but with regard to the 3rd and 4th charges إيان was clearly engaging in bludgeoning. They replied directly to the majority of editors who had cast oppose votes, and repeatedly insinuated that editors, including myself, were either acting in bad faith, arguing in bad faith or that editors that opposed the proposed name change were ignoring his arguments deliberately. They also made a false claim regarding case-sensitive searches in an argument to try and sway an editor by convincing them that they had made a misatake that they then repeated multiple times, although I did initially think it is more likely than not due to a lack of familiarity with using ngrams.Originalcola (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding @إيان's response to my statement, I just chose to disengage as I didn't think it was productive to continue. I had pointed out the mistake you made regarding case-sensitive searches and issues with some of the metrics you had been using in a reply to you somewhat early in the conversation, and I didn't want to continue that line of discussion at the time given the lack of acknowledgement and the aforementioned incivility accusation. Honestly I expected that either you would withdraw your request or someone else would close the discussion early given that there seemed to be a clear-cut consensus. Originalcola (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question, after the content was removed from Jerusalem Day, added it to anti-Palestinian racism. They have also added the chant to the See Also section of globalize the intifada, and are the creator of the May Your Village Burn article which they are trying to add content about to other articles. Furthermore, upon reviewing their recent contributions, it would appear that most of their recent editing consists of expanding on controversies and negative coverage of Israel and their supporters, as can be seen here (see also this related POV edit), here, here (which was another insertion of content related to an article they created), and here. Nehushtani's conduct has also been subpar in this topic area, but adding this to the OP's report shows that the user in question is a clear POV pusher, which the topic area certainly needs less of. IMO a topic ban is unfortunately warranted to avoid further POV pushing, although I could also see a balanced editing restriction being passed as a lighter sanction. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I wasn't trying to imply that we shouldn't cover negative information about Israel, just that you seemed to be expanding on it as much as possible in as many places as possible, and that it seemed to be your primary purpose on Wikipedia. I also don't think there's anything wrong with you writing that article, but it was helpful context to you adding mentions of it to three other pages. I think your invocation of Wikipedia:Systemic bias shows the issue here; pro-Palestine POVs are not systematically underrepresented on Wikipedia, and trying to remedy that non-existent bias by adding a pro-Palestine bias is POV pushing, which is a conduct issue. For the record, I was not involved with any of this before finding this AE report. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I participated in the Six-Day War RM. I think إيان probably did enter bludgeoning territory (there was a lot of repetition the same arguments). The bludgeoning was about WP:COMMONNAME[5][6][7][8], then about the article naming policies of WP:CRITERIA and WP:POVTITLE[9][10][11][12]. I think there was also a certain measure of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - إيان was corrected on both issues repeatedly by multiple editors over the course of weeks. That said, إيان did (finally) accept that their case about WP:COMMONNAME was flawed[13], and did ultimately stop engaging when told they were approaching a word limit.

In isolation, I wouldn't consider the conduct in the Six-Day War RMs worthy of sanction, especially not if إيان understands where they went amiss. Based on the statement above that the accusations of bludgeoning are contrived, we're not quite there. @إيان, you said above on this issue: I thought I was engaging politely and in good faith. You were! But that doesn't mean you didn't bludgeon, and when OriginalCola pointed out where you went wrong, you accused them of being uncivil.[14] I think you should reconsider doubling down on this - making a mistake like this is not the end of the world, especially not if you can recognise it.

No comment either way on the rest of the evidence, other than the response to 2: I placed the link to the explanatory essay there for the benefit of all without making any accusation about anyone doing it. Erm... no, that's not how anyone would have read this, it's clearly an accusation - more an explicit than an implied one. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their heart is in the right place, but I've had a number of interactions with this user in PIA that do not give me great confidence that they can contribute productively constructively to this topic area without the exertion of a substantial amount of community time to rectify policy violations.

My experiences aren't content disputes. WP:SYNTH is a violation of policy. SYNTH on a BLP is worse. See the examples and conversation at Talk:Jordana_Cutler#SYNTH-y mess as an example, with the editor as the offender. This came after I had to warn the user for additional SYNTH violations in PIA. Concerningly, while the editor perfunctorily acknowledged the issue, they defended their use of SYNTH and resorted to accusing me of WP:BADFAITH. This is exactly what the user was warned not to do by AE consensus just over a month ago. Longhornsg (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And a bit of WP:CIR. This edit mispresented the source and just made up the responsible cyber unit. And this edit represented a source as being from 2025, when its clearly written in 2023, and would make no sense to be written in 2025. All told. I've had to remove more than 5,300 characters, one-third of the total article, from a BLP because of SYNTH violations. This is not acceptable in this topic area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving my comments to the section below, since I'm an uninvolved administrator and we need resolution here. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @إيان: In response to your request, your word limit has been extended to 850 words. I have removed the subheading "Additional comments by editor against whom the complaint is being filed" to fix the edit counter for your section. — Newslinger talk 18:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @إيان: Per your talk page message, your word limit has been extended to 925 words, which grants you 200 words for your response. — Newslinger talk 16:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any reason we haven't restricted participation here? I feel like seven commenters, causing the subject to feel like they have to address every comment, and then the commenters are responding to their responses...I feel like it's exactly what the participation restriction was created to prevent. I haven't been working at AE since that was put in place, though, maybe this doesn't feel like too much to others here? Valereee (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No more from anyone except the subject and filer per this. إيان and Nehushtani, no more responding to anyone but admins working here who ask you a question. No further additional words will be granted except to answer questions from admins. Any uninvolved admin should feel free to adjust this. Valereee (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone who wants to ask a question about this, do it at talk and ping me. Valereee (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• All right, as best I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't need either of these editors at Jerusalem Day. I propose an indef p-block of both from that article, allowing them to continue to discuss at the article talk. I will wait for other admins to chime in. Valereee (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @BlookyNapsta, this discussion is participation restricted, please see my statement above with link. Valereee (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Drmies, إيان is not restricted, nor is Nehushtani, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people#AE_participation_may_be_restricted_by_an_administrator. Filer and subject aren't restricted.

  Is there any reason you commented in your own section rather than in the results section? Do you feel you're involved here? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Drmies, oh, sorry, I thought (and another editor asked me about it my talk) you were saying you objected to the participation restriction, not the proposed pblock! Valereee (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to other admins working here: see above that Drmies is commenting as an uninvolved admin objecting to the pblock for إيان. I'm assuming comments outside of the results section by uninvolved admins aren't excluded by the participation restriction. Valereee (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Nehushtani, I am confused by diff 7 in point 1. It wants to go to Marshall Plan and Jerusalem Day, which isn't an article, and clicking to the article history takes me to Marshall Plan, which إيان doesn't seem to have edited? Not sure how you're making your diffs, but maybe check out User:Enterprisey/diff-permalink. Valereee (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nehushtani, yes, you can reply to Drmies, as they're an uninvolved admin who mentioned you (and thanks for asking first, this exact situation wasn't something I'd thought of. In future I'd make it "uninvolved admins" rather than "admins working here".) Valereee (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[I've moved my comments from the "other editors" section to the "uninvolved administrators" section: I am uninvolved, after all, and AE matters need resolution. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)][reply]

I'm only looking at items 1 and 2 now. The charge of edit warring on Jerusalem Day is--well it's not even weak. Nehushtani has "edit warred" as much as the other editor has, meaning, meh, this isn't edit warring. The charge in 2. is more exciting, because Nehushtani argues that the editor has been disrupting the regular process--yet when I look at the discussion I see inane comments like "According to this logic, we should mention antisemitic chants in the leads of articles about pro-Palestinian eve...". But the "logic" was that it was well covered, extensively covered, in this article. So إيان says "UNDUE"--and this is predictably followed by "you're UNDUE". "False equivalence" says Butterscotch Beluga, and they are correct, but Nehushtani pushes this argument for Land Day as well, as if all those things are equal. If anyone is stonewalling, it's them, and that's what this AE request seems to be about as well: tying up editors with vexatious procedures. I may still have a look at the other items but if 1 and 2 are the strongest ones, then it's clear to me that if anything, Nehushtani might well deserve a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Valereee, I hate disagreeing with you, but I'm sorry--I do. I see no reason to restrict إيان . Drmies (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Valereee, you proposed p-blocking them from Jerusalem Day, didn't you? I disagree with that. As to your other question--no, I'm not INVOLVED in any sense, it's an area in which I rarely edit (I wish I knew more languages), but since my ArbCom period I've sort of lost track of how all these arbitration procedures work, so I prefer to be on this side of the fence in many cases, unless they're pretty straightforward. (Honestly I don't know how so many people are able to navigate these arbitration waters--my ship has sailed.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Nehushtani, in my opinion the other editor's action in that article did not amount to edit warring in any meaningful sense, and if a hammer is to be brought down on those edits, that applies to yours just as much. Edit warring is a two-way street. The false equivalence I and others signaled on the talk page is a bit more than, what did you call it--a side step? A brief digression--but such digressions easily become disruptive, and that's what happened here: you were in fact using another example as an argument for this article, and so other editors had to go look at that, respond to it, etc. You said it was about content: no, it was derailing and stonewalling, and this AE request, it's hard not to see it as a means to get an editor out of the way. Yes, I think the project would benefit from a partial block on Jerusalem Day and its talk page for you, with a warning to not extend such lines of arguing elsewhere. And one more note for User:إيان : I chastised your opponent for saying "you're UNDUE", but I urge you to use more words, to respond/criticize in complete sentences with a bit more decorum, as unnecessary as this may seem to you. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Newslinger, you asked about SYNTH--what I see is indeed a case of synthesis for which إيان was rapped on the fingers and apologized. To me, that's enough. It rather seems like the filer was pulling in as many complaints as they could. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Nehushtani: In the future, would you please list the diffs one by one, with each diff in a separate list item? It would be easier for all participants to refer to the number of the list item than to link to the diff itself. — Newslinger talk 00:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The activity on the Jerusalem Day article does constitute edit warring, but I count three reverts from Nehushtani (07:05, 16 November 2025; 07:18, 17 November 2025; and 06:34, 23 November 2025) and two reverts from إيان (‎09:00, 23 November 2025; 04:13, 25 November 2025). Nehushtani's first revert is not considered edit warring, but that leaves two instances of edit warring for each editor, which means that any sanction tied specifically to the edit warring should be applied evenly to both editors. In my opinion, Valereee's proposed partial block for both editors and Drmies's decision to disregard the edit warring are both reasonable outcomes for the edit warring. Please remember that revert rules are "not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times".
  I do not believe the diffs of the discussion on Talk:Jerusalem Day are actionable. إيان's activity on Talk:Six-Day War does constitute bludgeoning, and warrants a reminder or warning; although "Editors [are] limited to 1,000 words per formal discussion" within this contentious topic, this word limit is also not an entitlement and you could have raised the same points with far fewer comments. The claimed violations of WP:SYNTH may be actionable, but the first comment in Talk:Jordana Cutler § SYNTH-y mess also invokes WP:BIASED ("reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective"), which makes the argument unclear. — Newslinger talk 00:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had a chance to take a closer look at Talk:Jordana Cutler § SYNTH-y mess. (Regarding Arcticocean's comment below, I did not say that it was out of scope, but I had not fully examined it at the time of my previous comment.) Longhornsg's comment in the article talk page discussion objects to three sentences that were in the Jordana Cutler article. After reviewing the nine sources cited for these sentences, I can confirm that the first two sentences contained improper synthesis. The third sentence could be considered extraneous detail about a different subject (WP:COATRACK), despite being adjacent to content directly related to Cutler that cited the same source.
    Addressing Nehushtani's point #5, the first diff labeled "23 November 2025" mistakenly links to [15], but refers to the user talk page discussion at Special:Permalink/1323804486 § November 2025. At Special:Diff/1306408783/1323583115, إيان inserted content about Canary Mission on the Jewish Federations of North America article, which is a second instance of WP:COATRACK. As Arcticocean mentioned below, إيان's 09:43, 31 October 2025, edit to the Jordana Cutler article failed verification, as there is a distinction between the Ministry of Strategic Affairs receiving intelligence briefs based on surveillance and the ministry conducting surveillance. When considered in addition to the edit warring and the prior logged warning in the topic area, these incidents form a persistent pattern of issues that lead me to support an indefinite topic ban of إيان from the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic. Alternatively, because 40.48% of إيان's edits in the past year (in tracked namespaces) were within WP:CT/A-I, I would also support the balanced editing restriction as a lesser restriction, if there is consensus that إيان "has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive". — Newslinger talk 01:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Arcticocean: My apologies for the misreading. I have corrected my comment. — Newslinger talk 15:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Longhornsg: Your claim "I've had to remove more than 5,300 characters, one-third of the total article, from a BLP because of SYNTH violations" is misleading because 2,101 of those characters were a citation template for an academic publication that did not need to be removed from the Jordana Cutler article. — Newslinger talk 00:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There is actionable misconduct in this request for enforcement. Dealing with the allegations in turn: 1.) The chant-related edits amounted to edit warring. These breaches were particularly serious in view of the attempts at discussion ongoing on the talk page. 2.) I agree with the filer's characterisation: the talk page comments were significantly inaccurate as descriptions of Nehushtani's earlier comments. While that may have been a legitimate misunderstanding, the user doubled down when corrected. WP:DR#Discuss with the other party is Wikipedia policy and is incompatible with this sort of approach to discussions. 3.) If this crosses into the territory of bludgeoning, it does so only briefly and I don't consider it actionable. 4.) There are two allegations here, neither actionable. The comments at the RM do not cross into bludgeoning. The Gaza genocide talk page comments do not do so either, not even remotely. 5.) Contrary to what the user said above, the Jordana Cutler edits are within the scope of this complaint. WP:OR is a content policy but there is also a conduct expectation that users make proper use of reliable sources. Responding to this allegation's inclusion in this complaint (the relevant paragraph begins with The SYNTH accusation), the user demonstrated a concerning tendency towards WP:IDHT. As the user has admitted that the edit violated policy, I do not think we require to look behind the allegation. For completeness, I did review the Nation source and found it lacked any support for the article's assertion that the MSA itself surveils overseas protesters.

  In view of all this, while I support at minimum the p-block proposal above, I would go further and support a topic ban of the user, based upon allegations 1, 2 and 5. I do not think that the proposed WP:BOOMERANG sanction for the filing user is necessary, but I would not oppose should others feel it appropriate. Arcticocean ■ 12:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Newslinger: "Contrary to what the user said above" refers to إيان (and their comment linked in the sentence immediately after), not you. You may wish to reword "I did not say". Arcticocean ■ 12:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Newslinger! Arcticocean ■ 19:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is a need to remove them from Jerusalem Day, I would strongly prefer a page ban to a pblock (especially an indefinite one that could only be lifted via CT-restricted appeals), since a block is much more of a scarlet letter (due to, e.g., fairly common use of the markblocked gadget by prolific/extended-confirmed editors) and since there isn't reason to believe these editors wouldn't comply with a page ban. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection to a bespoke page ban rather than a pblock. Valereee (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has stalled after being open for over three weeks. From the comments, it appears that not everyone in this section has addressed the claims about WP:SYNTH. Valereee, Drmies, and SilverLocust, would you like to take a look at this to help reach a consensus here? — Newslinger talk 13:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

White Spider Shadow is page-blocked from Talk:Zak Smith. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning White Spider Shadow [edit] User who is submitting this request for enforcement FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested White Spider Shadow (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:CT/ZS Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 04:35, 25 November 2025 Posts an edit request, while not extended confirmed 18:54, 25 November 2025 After having the edit request being rejected with a clear explanation, reinstates the edit request 19:08, 25 November 2025 Starts a discussion on my talk page about Zak Smith. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Specifically notified here on 08:12, 30 September 2025. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Unclear why White Spider Shadow wasn't blocked at the same time as all the other meatpuppets on Zak Smith, but it's clear they are intent on flogging the same dead horse the community has had enough of. White Spider Shadow says I also see no practical point in topic-banning a non-EC editor from an EC-protected topic that has been closed to discussion by non-EC editors for a while now. I do see a practical point, since it prevents future disruption should they become EC at some point in the future. Their history on Zak Smith to date has been essentially identical to others who are already blocked and/or topic banned. FDW777 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] As mentioned by various editors below, the edits by White Spider Shadow don't exist in a vacuum. Their editing history is best summed up by Newslinger here stating As FixerFixerFixer (talk · contribs) and Slacker13 (talk · contribs) are both currently blocked, White Spider Shadow should be warned that continuing to litigate Zak Smith–related disputes on behalf of blocked or banned editors is a violation of the policy against proxying (WP:PROXYING). This current arbitration case request filed by White Spider Shadow mirrors the litigation strategy used by Slacker13, which can be seen in Slacker13's 29 August case request before it was declined by the Committee. Likewise, White Spider Shadow's conflict of interest noticeboard report at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 225 § Morbidthoughts replicates the line of argument used in a January 2023 noticeboard report submitted by Jehmbo (talk · contribs), a blocked sockpuppet of FixerFixerFixer. FDW777 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] The activities of a different editor in a different case are wholly relevant per WP:MEAT, "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." All your behaviour is the same as Slacker13 (unsurprisingly some might say) so you should be treated as simply another Slacker13 sockpuppet. FDW777 (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified here. Discussion concerning White Spider Shadow [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 White Spider Shadow [edit]   White Spider Shadow's statement contains 662 words and exceeds the 500-word limit. Hi. The request made by FDW777 contains several untrue statements. "Posts an edit request, while not extended confirmed" is not an edit that violates the sanction. It's specifically noted at the talk page in question that posting an edit request is an allowed exception (Quote: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss the topic of Zak Smith on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive). "After having the edit request being rejected with a clear explanation, reinstates the edit request" is untrue as well. There was no clear explanation regarding my request, which is why I proceeded with the reinstating. "Starts a discussion on my talk page about Zak Smith." is untrue as well. I did not discuss the topic of Zak Smith on FDW777's talk page. I pointed out that none of the reasons for my request were addressed, and asked if this is a normal practice. It's a discussion about edit requests, not about Smith. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FDW777&diff=prev&oldid=1324131549 The additional comment "Unclear why White Spider Shadow wasn't blocked at the same time as all the other meatpuppets on Zak Smith, but it's clear they are intent on flogging the same dead horse the community has had enough of." is untrue as well, and sounds like a personal attack. It is clear why I was not blocked. My activity on WP was checked several times, and no reason for blocking me was found. Here's one link from my Talk page, more can be easily found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:White_Spider_Shadow#c-ToBeFree-20250825232200-White_Spider_Shadow-20250825231600 As for "flogging the dead horse", I doubt that improving the quality of WP articles should ever be called that. The part about myself being notified about the request is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by White Spider Shadow (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Regarding Statement by NekoKatsun: I do not believe that requesting to bring the article to the standard worded in RFC is disruptive. Neither do I believe that an edit should be judged based on the editor's previous actions, as opposed to the edit itself. Reopening the request certainly can be criticized, but since it was immediately reverted by a different editor, I don't think any harm was done by it. The comment about reliability of Law360 is exactly what I asked for in my request, and it was not posted by the respondents. That's why I stated, and stand by my point, that it had not been addressed by the respondents. (Not going to discuss the other point in details, since, while I believe it, too, was not addressed, it relates to the EC-protected topic). I also see no practical point in topic-banning a non-EC editor from an EC-protected topic that has been closed to discussion by non-EC editors for a while now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by White Spider Shadow (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Certainly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MilesVorkosigan#c-MilesVorkosigan-20250902194100-White_Spider_Shadow-20250902193700 White Spider Shadow (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] That was the reason why I wrote that they lied about me, in the instance mentioned by Aquillion. White Spider Shadow (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Regarding Statement by Aquillion: The claims about my edits at the Zak Smith talk page seem to be manipulative. A) The editor whose behaviour I had addressed had since admitted that their claims about me were baseless, and agreed to remove them. I provided the link, as requested. B) Those edits have no relation to the current request, and no action against me was taken when they were made, despite the Talk page being quite active at the time, with some administrators participating in one way or another. White Spider Shadow (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Regarding comment of Drmies Leaving the reasoning itself aside for the moment, I would like to point out that this section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Drmies was involved in the Talk page in question. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=966675159 White Spider Shadow (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Regarding statements by 45dogs and FDW777 Redacted, since 45dogs agreed to strikethrough their statement. Since my statement as of now exceeds the limit, I would appreciate an administrator's help with shortening it in a sensible way. Statement by NekoKatsun [edit]    NekoKatsun's statement contains 438 words and complies with the 500-word limit. You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) (emphasis mine). WSS is the fifth most prolific editor of the Zak Smith talk page, with a whopping 73 edits since August 21. Given this, and their repeated attempts at escalation to admins and arbitrators, I would consider this request disruptive - especially reopening it with no comment at all in the edit summary or on the article's talkpage. Stating that their reasons for the edit request were not addressed is disingenuous at best. The respondents clearly explained why their removal of text is not appropriate given the outcome of the previous RfC. Also, a simple search for Law360 on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard turns up three different topics, one specifically about BLPs, all agreeing on reliability. "I was unable to find information" implies that they looked, so I'm a little curious as to how WSS missed the most basic of resources here. The vibe I'm getting is that this discussion didn't go the way they want, and there's a refusal to accept that (via continual challenges on technicalities and the picking of nits). At this point I can't help but suggest a topic ban at the very least; Wikipedia is built on collaboration and consensus, and while they may be a great editor for other articles, it may be best if they keep away from this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NekoKatsun (talk • contribs) 20:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @White Spider Shadow: I actually would like to see your mentioned diffs regarding "A) The editor whose behaviour I had addressed had since admitted that their claims about me were baseless, and agreed to remove them." Also, with all due respect, I believe that the diffs provided by Aquillion (and Aquillion, please let me know if I'm misinterpreting) are intended to demonstrate that "the current request" is not an isolated one-off - it (the request) cannot be considered in a void. The issue is not if this specific request is a problem, it's if this request is indicative of a continuing and/or escalating pattern of behavior on your part. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! "...[a]dmitted that their claims about me were baseless, and agreed to remove them" is a very generous interpretation - the user in question, MilesVorkosigan, agreed to "stop pointing out that you're supporting a sex creep, you're correct that I don't have explicit evidence that you're doing it on purpose" and struck through a portion of a comment on the article talkpage. Regardless, I appreciate the clarification. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Am I actually seeing an attempt to argue that one edit from five years ago makes someone involved? Really? My flabbers are gasted. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by CoffeeCrumbs [edit]    CoffeeCrumbs's statement contains 206 words and complies with the 500-word limit. I think the infraction here is pretty clear-cut. The edit request was answered; the proper thing to have done would have been to ask for clarification, not simply reverted the decline. And the edit request wasn't a particularly good one. Simply not being disruptive isn't enough; an edit request must be non-controversial or be a modification that includes an agreed-upon consensus. Children Will Listen's comment, specifically invoked for the edit request decline, directly stated that there was no agreed-upon consensus. This being said, I personally feel a warning would be sufficient. While I share the community's unhappiness about the brigading that has taken a real toll on this topic and been a drain on the community's time and patience, this isn't a particularly egregious violation. In addition, I think WSS's behavior reflects a good faith attempt to try and follow the EC policy: they immediately stopped discussing Zak Smith once it became EC-restricted. Unlike many other involved editors, they've also edited on many topics unrelated to Smith, and edited other articles on completely unrelated articles since the EC restrictions. Anything more, I feel, would be needlessly punitive. I think this editor's history indicates that they're unlikely to intentionally repeat this less-than-ideal edit request interaction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Aquillion [edit]    Aquillion's statement contains 227 words and complies with the 500-word limit. For context, between their first contribution to the recent controversy at Talk:Zak Smith and the page getting an extended-confirmed restriction a little over a month later, White Spider Shadow posted 71 times on the page, around 12% of the total. This continued even after an RFC intended to settle the issue; in fact, the extended-confirmed protection itself was imposed after White Spider Shadow went to ArbCom after the RFC, effectively asking them to overturn it. Those edits included accusing editors of lying[16] and general incivility or presumptions of bad faith: [17][18][19][20]. Much of their replies were also repetitive or sealioning, eg. [21][22][23]. More examples of the repetition: [24][25][26][27] [28] [29] [30][31][32] - honestly this was the worst part; they stubbornly refused to WP:DROPTHESTICK, despite multiple RFCs reaching the same conclusion, despite dragging the matter to ArbCom and getting a result that functionally removed them from the page, and despite having almost no new arguments, they'd just constantly repeat the same thing over and over and over, demanding that everyone answer their questions to their satisfaction. A topic-ban from Zak Smith seems like the bare minimum, especially since in retrospect (looking at contribution numbers, and keeping in mind the most prolific contributor in that timeframe was already topic-banned) the extended-confirmed restriction can reasonably be described as having removed White Spider Shadow specifically from the article's talk page. --Aquillion (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by 45dogs [edit]    45dogs's statement contains 16 words and complies with the 500-word limit. The assertion that editors are WP:INVOLVED in the dispute in order to limit them has been a routine point brought up in this topic area. It was used by Slacker13 twice, here and here. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 15:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] White Spider Shadow; fair enough, I have struck my original comment. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username) [edit] Result concerning White Spider Shadow [edit] This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I see no reason NOT to p-block White Spider Shadow from that talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] All yours, @Drmies. -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] asilvering, please do me a huge favor, and file the paperwork: I know I'll get this wrong. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cinaroot is blocked for 2 weeks for 1RR violations. Gaza genocide is placed under the consensus required restriction. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments in this thread are restricted because an administrator has placed this enforcement request under an Arbitration Enforcement participation restriction (AEPR). Comments violating the restriction may be moderated or removed and may result in sanction of the commenting user. Further information on the scope of the restriction is available at WP:AEPR. This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Cinaroot [edit] User who is submitting this request for enforcement Nehushtani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Cinaroot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:1RR Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 03:24, 22 November 2025 - Edit including removing material, which is considered a revert. 07:19, 22 November 2025 - 1RR violation 02:00, 23 November 2025 - 1RR violation I asked them on their talk page to revert, they insisted that it was not a violation, after I and another user told them that it was indeed a violation, they admitted that the third revert was a violation but still refused to revert. I asked them a third time and said that if they did not revert, I would take it to AE, but they have yet to revert. 09:24, 29 November 2025 - They wrote a statement against me on a complaint I had filed in AE against another user and claimed to be "un-involved". They were in fact uninvolved in the dispute that they were writing about, but they should have disclosed that we were involved in a dispute in the talk page, and I do not believe this was a coincidence. 6 November 2025 They tagged only "people they like" on a talk page discussion. I warned them on 6 November 2025 and another user warned them for the same edit on 7 November 2025 for WP:CANVASSING. While it may technically not be a violation since it was an informal discussion, it seems inappropriate to tag only certain users to a followup on a discussion on a contreversial topic. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Not applicable. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) [1] Additional comments by editor filing complaint @Newslinger - The first edit from 03:24, 22 November 2025 is a revert of this edit from 00:00, 10 November 2025, where @Cinaroot removed the two paragraphs previously added in the previous edit. Nehushtani (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Cinaroot - The claim that this filing is retaliatory is incorrect considering that I told you the day before 08:34, 28 November 2025 that "This is the third and last time I will ask you. If you do not revert, I will have no choice but to take it to AE." Your support for إيان was only after this warning. Nehushtani (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Newslinger - There is an ongoing talk page discussion about whether to include the phrase in question. As per WP:ONUS, it should not be included in the article until there is consensus. Cinaroot violated 1RR to restore the contested content, violating both 1RR and ONUS, it was removed by Coining at 15:37, 23 November 2025, and then restored by M.Bitton less than an hour later at 16:15, 23 November 2025; this is the version that currently stands. Cinaroot wrote on 06:08, 28 November 2025 that "I do not believe it is appropriate to revert it solely to comply with 1RR, as that would only create further disruption." But on the contrary, the disruptive behavior is that of the editors who were violating WP:ONUS and edit warring contested material despite an ongoing discussion. Either way, now that we have determined on 01:38, 3 December 2025 that the first edit at 03:24, 22 November 2025 was considered a revert, the second revert at 07:19, 22 November 2025 was only self-reverted at 02:54, 3 December 2025, after I had opened this case. Nehushtani (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Newslinger - Can you please clarify where the line is between WP:TITFORTAT and asking somebody to revert their 1RR violation? I simply saw that @Cinaroot had violated 1RR in their original third edit, and I asked them to revert. Does the fact that another pair of editors had reverted and restored the contested version in between mean that it is no longer a 1RR violation that they're supposed to revert? Or does that mean the person restoring the contested content is responsible for edit warring? Thanks in advance for the clarification! Nehushtani (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Newslinger - Thank you for your explanation here. I did not realise that and I will be careful about this in the future. Nehushtani (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @M.Bitton - My understanding is that ONUS applies whenever there is an ongoing discussion. And in this case, there was no stable content; it had been edit warred in and out several times over the previous week. As far as I know, restoring disputed content that has been removed multiple times, without achieving consensus is a textbook case of edit warring. Nehushtani (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Cinaroot - please stop casting aspersions on me. I have had Al Jazeera on my watchlist for a long time, and the fact that I reverted you was totally coincidental and unrelated to this AE case. You then asked me to participate at the talk page, so I added sources in the discussion there. Please assume good faith. Also tagging @Newslinger because they were tagged below on the accusation. Nehushtani (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [1] Discussion concerning Cinaroot [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 Cinaroot [edit]   Cinaroot's statement contains 705 words and is within 10% of the 650-word limit. Y Extension granted to 650 words. — Newslinger talk 21:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Nehushtani appears to be attempting to weaponize AE and target editor(s) they disapprove. The 1RR issue cited here is between Originalcola and myself, not Nehushtani. Nehushtani was not involved in the discussion on the article talk page — where I clearly stated that Originalcola was free to revert me. Originalcola also explicitly responded with Ideally I’d like you to self-revert, but if you don’t see this that’s fine After Nehushtani targeted me and inserted themselves into the situation on my talk, I again asked Originalcola on my talk page whether they wished for me to self-revert. Their reply was: I am not entirely sure if you need to self-revert the third revert, right? — which confirms that there was no clear expectation that I revert myself. Another reason I did not revert is that multiple editors had already reverted it [33] [34], and a talk-page discussion was underway. Reverting again would only have led to further disruption and 1RR policy shouldn’t be applied through an overly rigid or literal interpretation without considering the underlying principles and context. I also do not think my first edit qualifies as a revert. I asked about in admin noticeboard. No one has responded. Edit_or_Revert Removing or relocating content can be a normal part of editing, and in this case the purpose was to create a new section while retaining most of the material from the original one. Regarding the statement i made in the case against إيان: I am indeed an uninvolved editor, as I was not part of that dispute. I did participated in the RfC today, after submitting my statement. My dispute with Nehushtani does not prohibit me from making a statement on any AE and nor does it relate to AE against إيان. There is no requirement that you must disclose all prior disputes or disagreements with another editor in unrelated discussions. My statements here are in good faith. The canvassing accusation is baseless. It was an informal discussion that could not result in any change to the Contentious topic article title. I am free to notify or tag any editors I choose, as I have already explained here and here. Please also note that - i tagged 2 editors who opposed and supported from previous discussion. Cinaroot (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @BlookyNapsta You were currently involved in the dispute with إيان and engaged in an edit war with them. Yet you submitted a statement about me without disclosing that involvement, while also arguing that I should have disclosed my active dispute with Nehushtani when I commented in support of إيان. Should the same disclosure standard not apply to you as well? Cinaroot (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Originalcola I only formed the view that Nehushtani is weaponizing AE after they filed the request against me — not before. My statement in support of إيان was made prior to the AE request concerning me. Cinaroot (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Newslinger In this edit, Nehushtani stated that I “didn’t tag any pro-Israel editors,” which implies that the editors I did notify are “pro-Palestinian.” In another edit, they accused a different editor of “taking the pro-Palestinian side.” Assigning political identities to editors is inappropriate in ARBPIA, constitutes a personal attack, and violates WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. Furthermore, they opened an AE request against me immediately after I expressed support for إيان, and 6 days after my 1RR violation and after i agreed to self revert. The timing makes the filing appear retaliatory rather than a neutral enforcement action. Cinaroot (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Newslinger Nehushtani is engaged in WP:HOUND - See talk Cinaroot (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Newslinger Can I have more words? Nehushtani has now used 800 words. Why are they not respecting the 500-word limit? Cinaroot (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Metallurgist Please do not allege serious conduct issues like POV-pushing without providing solid evidence. Impressions based on my poor choice of words and insinuations are not valid evidence. Admins are reminded to avoid unwarranted or disproportionate sanctions based on unsupported claims. Cinaroot (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Note: Out of the ~25 people who opposed - at least 10 opposed as per @Cdjp1 So my decision to tag @Cdjp1 is also based on weight. Cinaroot (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] 1RR violation reverted here Cinaroot (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Newslinger I’m taking a break because of increased conflict - it’s time to step back - If not I might make the situation worse. Ty Cinaroot  💬 02:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by BlookyNapsta [edit] Violating 1RR is an affront to the community as a whole. It is not averted when the party being reverted agrees for the revert to stand, much less when they say that they would prefer that the offending editor reverts. Similarly, the claim that Nehushtani isn't a party in this dispute is misplaced, since 1RR is a community standard and not a method for resolving disputes between specific editors. Cinaroot should have self-reverted as soon as they were informed of the violation, and that they didn't should be grounds for sanctions. Regarding "weaponizing AE" - If legitimate CTOP violations brought to AE are labeled as "weaponizing", we are in big trouble. The other two edits may not have been technical violations of policy, but they add to the evidence that Cinaroot should not be participating in in CTOP if this is reflective of their behavior. Pinging only editors who share similar views on the IP conflict to a follow up discussion is inappropriate, as is writing a note on AE against an editor with whom that they are currently in the middle of a dispute without disclosing that. BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @M.Bitton - @Cinaroot violated 1RR while also adding contested content which is still under discussion. Wikipedia:ONUS states that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." In keeping with the combination of Wikipedia:1RR and Wikipedia:ONUS, I believe that they should revert - as in, remove the content in question, which currently appears in the article - until there is a clear consensus to include it, and your own restoration of this disputed content is in itself edit warring. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Valereee - Can you please explain how a two-week long ban would solve something that a week ban did not? BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] This recent discussion on @Cinaroot's talk page from 11 December 2025 may be relevant for this case. Adding as per "Users providing links to relevant past discussions or administrative actions, without any editorialization" as allowed by WP:AEPR. BlookyNapsta (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by M.Bitton [edit] @BlookyNapsta: given that Cinaroot was informed of the violation long after their edit was reverted, I don't see how they could have "self-reverted". M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @BlookyNapsta: since self-reverting means reverting one's edit and not someone else's, asking them to "self-revert" in this instance is akin to asking them to edit war (a request that should be ignored). As for the stable content: it's there because someone else restored what was removed without a valid reason. M.Bitton (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Originalcola: you only pointed out the violation after their revert had been reverted. M.Bitton (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Newslinger and Nehushtani: my understanding of WP:ONUS is that it doesn't apply to sourced stable content (i.e., content that already has implicit consensus). If it did, editors would blank anything they dislike and cite it as a reason. M.Bitton (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Nehushtani: not only was the content stable, but the reason given for its removal was based on a misunderstanding of an unrelated discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Newslinger: that sentence was added before Cinaroot's edit on the 8th of November. While the editors keep fiddling with he wording, more or less the same sentence can be seen in the 7 October 2025 permanent link. M.Bitton (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Cdjp1 [edit] As I am involved in the claimed canvassing by Cinaroot, having been tagged by them, I have to say, it doesn't seem to be a clear cut case of potential canvassing. The discussion that Cinaroot started on the talk page for the article (Open (Transparency)) was an informal discussion about a future potential RfC. This informal discussion was off the back of a previous RM started by Cinaroot to rename the article, which saw a conclusion that the article would not be moved to Cinaroot's suggested new title. As most people who opposed this specific move were open to and even suggested potential alternate move targets, Cinaroot wanted to explore potential alternatives further before starting any more formal process in the future. In this informal discussion Cinaroot chose to tag four people from the previous RM for potential input. Of these four people, two had supported the move, and two had opposed it (including myself). As can be seen in the archived discussion, I was strongly against the suggested move. So while picking people [you] like may indicate partisanship (Partisan (Audience)), the choice to pick an equal amount of individuals who supported your position and opposed it, suggests the opposite (Nonpartisan (Audience)). The last two categories we have at WP:CANVASSING for an inappropriate notification on Scale and Message I also don't think are inappropriate as it was the single message on the article talk page (Limited posting), and while the message that is the start of the informal discussion details the bias that is Cinaroot's position, Cinaroot is explicit that this is their opinion, and they want input from others as to what potential future formal discussions could be (Neutral (Message)). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Originalcola [edit] I find the assertion that this is an issue between 2 editors to be extremely misleading, given that he had also reverted the edit of @IOHANNVSVERVS in his first WP:1RR violation. The issue involving me specifcally refers to his reversion of a revert that I had made on the page following [a discussion on the Gaza Genocide talk page]. I am still unsure about what the resolution of the discussion was meant to be, or if it was an RfC or not. The mod who had closed the discussion offered to give an explanation but was injured in a car crash and unable to respond to comments as a result, and many editors who were not involved in the original discussion suggested that the conclusion of the discussion differed from what I thought it was which left me confused. The editor proposed that I could revert their edit in their edit summary and in the talk page. I had not noticed at the time that they had made multiple reverts in a 24 hour time period, so I did not initially insist that they self-revert in the talk page. I was kind of taken aback when they suggested that I should revert their edit and break the WP:1RR myself, which made me think that the request was not sincere. When I was asked again I stated that they should've done so earlier and that I was presently not sure if they needed to revert given that intermediate edits had been made since then. Cinaroot did say that he would revert the edit if I made an explicit request, but this shouldn't have occurred to begin with. I stated that they should have reverted as soon as it was pointed out to them(by both me on the talk page and Nehustani) that they had broken WP:1RR, stating i don't see a point in reverting it just for the sake of 1RR and that While we should follow these rules, it’s equally important to understand why those rules exist. Policies shouldn’t be applied through an overly rigid or literal interpretation without considering the underlying principles. This is also not the only time that this editor has broken the WP:1RR on this page, as they did so around one month prior: [35] [36] [37]. The justification that was given to me when I raised this concern was that the content was removed as part of talk discussions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_20#Are_protest_images_relevant_here?, but this is only not true for all the content removed but also irrelevant to this issue. I also find it concerning that they claimed to be an uninvolved editor in another AE, which seems to be directly contradicted by the seperate claim that Nehushtani appears to be attempting to weaponize AE and target editor(s) they disapprove. The fact that they held this view after earlier claiming to have accidently violated WP:1RR is weird, since it appears to be an extreme assumption of bad faith towards Nehushtani. Either way they should not have portrayed themselves as uninvolved given that the 2 editors were involved in a dispute. Originalcola (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @M.Bitton - But you then reverted the revert of their revert didn't you? His second edit also wasn't reverted and could've been when I pointed it out. Originalcola (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Metallurgist [edit] Cinaroot has seemed to be POV pushing and trying to force their views onto articles all over PIA, which has been concerning. They seem heavily focused on that area to the point of bordering on WP:SPA. The instance where I felt they were canvassing was not directly canvassing for support, but did give an unsavory appearance. Even tagging for and against, they still mentioned tagging editors they liked, which was selective and entirely unnecessary. I did agree with the discussion proposal, but to not include all involved editors is disingenuous. I would have made it myself, but I knew it would involve tagging a large number of people. In light of that, it would have been best to just tag no one. Im also wondering why they archived the entire talkpage of Palestinian genocide accusation [38] [39] [40]. As it is, that issue is still unresolved. The RFC on Israel also looks like an attempt at POV pushing. In a lot of these cases, what they want is already mentioned, and they are trying to push it further along beyond what is reasonable. I think some sort of PIA restriction for awhile might be in order, at least to see if they are willing to broaden their contributions. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Sean.hoyland I had the same thought of looking into edit counts and it is indeed somewhat difficult to evaluate. But I noticed the top edited pages include Gaza genocide, Al Jazeera Media Network, Palestine, Gaza war, al Jazeera English, List of companies involved in the Gaza war. What did you use for those percentages? Feel free to reply on my TP to save words. ← Metallurgist (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Sean.hoyland [edit] re: They seem heavily focused on that area to the point of bordering on WP:SPA. 'seem' is probably not very reliable. I don't know how to test whether an account qualifies as single purpose, but we can label revisions and count them. If you do that for Cinaroot using the strictest possible model of the topic area, pages where ECR applies to the entire page (and talk page), Cinaroot has made 32.3% of their post-extendedconfirmed edits in the topic area. A few comparisons for interest: Originalcola: 37.4%, Nehushtani: 24.3%, BlookyNapsta: 16.3%, Cdjp1: 7.4%. I am an SPA, as it states on my user page, or at least that is my intent, to only carry out PIA related actions, and my post-extendedconfirmed percentage is 55%. Metallurgist, you are 17.3% for interest. These are all undercounts somewhat in that they don't include edits to pages only partly covered by ECR, but it gives you some idea of the numbers. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Iljhgtn [edit] I worked with Cinaroot on Elon Musk and found them to be a thoughtful and helpful editor. Couldn’t just a warning be sufficient here? This seems purely punitive with no clear benefit to the encyclopedia. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username) [edit] Result concerning Cinaroot [edit] This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. @Nehushtani: Could you identify the original edit for which the 03:24, 22 November 2025, diff would be considered a revert of? — Newslinger talk 18:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Nehushtani: At 08:34, 28 November 2025 07:28, 28 November 2025, why did you tell Cinaroot that "If you do not revert, I will have no choice but to take it to AE", when Cinaroot's "third edit" at 02:00, 23 November 2025, had already been reverted by another editor at 15:37, 23 November 2025? — Newslinger talk 01:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC) Fixed diff — Newslinger talk 09:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Nehushtani: Based on your response, your comment at 07:28, 28 November 2025, told Cinaroot that you would file an AE case against Cinaroot if Cinaroot did not revert content that was most recently restored by M.Bitton at 16:15, 23 November 2025. That comment crossed the line into tit-for-tat behavior and was inappropriate. If you wanted to have the content removed from the article, you should have asked Cinaroot without tying your request to a potential filing of an AE report, asked M.Bitton to remove the content, or participated in the discussion at Talk:Gaza genocide § Result of the previous RfC yourself. This problem is limited to your demand for Cinaroot to revert their "third edit", not their second. — Newslinger talk 09:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Nehushtani: We have identified that Cinaroot's first edit (03:24, 22 November 2025) is a partial revert, so it was acceptable for you to tell Cinaroot that you would file an AE report against them if they did not undo their second revert (07:19, 22 November 2025), because that second revert violated WP:1RR and was still present in the article at the time of your comment. However, it is not acceptable to tell an editor that you will file an AE report against them unless they undo someone else's edit. Cinaroot's third edit (02:00, 23 November 2025) had already been reverted by another editor when you posted the comment, which means that Cinaroot was no longer obligated to remove the content at that point, despite it still being another WP:1RR violation. The content was then restored by M.Bitton, who assumes responsibility for the content. M.Bitton's restoration of the disputed content was not compliant with WP:ONUS, but that is out of the scope of this enforcement request ("The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported"). — Newslinger talk 10:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Correction: I retracted my comment about WP:ONUS, because the content restored in Cinaroot's third revert was originally added by Cinaroot at 04:31, 8 November 2025, before it underwent a series of changes by three other editors at 15:28, 8 November 2025; 02:45, 9 November 2025; and 20:53, 10 November 2025. Per the edit summary of that second change, the statement was discussed at Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 32 § Israel's denial of genocide in lede, so WP:ONUS may have been satisfied for this content. M.Bitton's editing history is outside the scope of this enforcement request, so I have not examined it closely. — Newslinger talk 17:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @M.Bitton: Corrected again. I have traced the content addition slightly further back to this 22:04, 5 October 2025, edit by another editor. Based on the age of this content and the fact that it had been discussed on the talk page, I would consider WP:ONUS to be met, although I am noting this observation solely to ensure that the record here is accurate, as it is of limited relevance to this enforcement request. — Newslinger talk 18:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Cinaroot: There is no need to specify whether you are "un-involved" when you are offering a statement in a "Discussion concerning..." section on this noticeboard (as done in your 09:24, 29 November 2025, edit), because it makes no difference to the result. — Newslinger talk 18:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Cinaroot: Your word limit has been extended to 650 words to allow you to substantiate your claim. — Newslinger talk 21:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Cinaroot: I consider your edit at 03:24, 22 November 2025 to be a revert of another editor's edit at 00:00, 10 November 2025, regardless of the extent to which you agree or disagree with the content in the latter edit. When you remove content from an article covered by the one-revert rule, you need to refrain from further content removals on that article for 24 hours. See Wikipedia:Reverting for examples of what is commonly considered a revert and what is not. — Newslinger talk 01:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Noting user talk page discussion at User talk:Newslinger#AE - revert for the record. — Newslinger talk 02:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Cinaroot: Pinging only four editors in your 07:32, 6 November 2025, edit was inappropriate. This is mitigated by your selection of two editors who supported and two editors who opposed the move request at Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation/Archive 3 § Requested move 26 September 2025, which is proportional to the "~28 editors" who supported and "~28 editors" who opposed the move request (per the closing summary). Nevertheless, whether you "like" an editor is not a neutral criterion for selecting editors to ping. If you wish to ping editors who participated in a related discussion, you should ideally ping all of the editors or none at all. — Newslinger talk 09:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Metallurgist: In Talk:Israel § RfC: Whether to state that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians, although you posted a comment with "Strong oppose" in boldface, other editors expressed a range of views including both support and opposition in considerable volumes. In light of this, why do you believe Cinaroot's creation of the request for comment is "an attempt at POV pushing" that supports a sanction to curtail Cinaroot's editing in the topic area? — Newslinger talk 01:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Ditto here about the the participation restriction. Literally commenters are discussing amongst themselves. Sorry if I'm sticking my oar in unhelpfully. I just feel like you're working really hard here, Newslinger. Valereee (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] No more from anyone except the subject and filer per this. Cinaroot and Nehushtani, no more responding to anyone but admins working here who ask you a question. No further additional words will be granted except to answer questions from admins. Any uninvolved admin should feel free to adjust this. Valereee (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Anyone who wants to ask a question about this, please do it at talk and ping me. Valereee (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Okay, I'm proposing a two-week block of Cinaroot for violating 1RR, as they've previously been blocked for a week for the same issue. I will wait for other admins to chime in. Valereee (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @BlookyNapsta, this discussion is also participation restricted. Valereee (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I'm thinking Gaza genocide needs a consensus required restriction. I will wait for other admins to chime in. Valereee (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Originalcola: The three diffs you provided do not show a WP:1RR violation, as consecutive reverts count as a single revert for the first two diffs (06:45, 21 October 2025, and 06:47, 21 October 2025), and the third diff (16:36, 20 November 2025) is dated almost a month later. — Newslinger talk 08:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I also support a two-week block of Cinaroot for breaching WP:1RR in light of the prior block. Additionally, as part of the claims in the filing are valid, Cinaroot should be either reminded or warned not to cast aspersions (i.e. claiming that an editor "appears to be attempting to weaponize AE and target editor(s) they disapprove"). I do not believe any of the other presented evidence is actionable against Cinaroot specifically. WP:1RR has failed to prevent edit warring on the Gaza genocide article, which is high-profile enough for multiple editors to engage in excessive back-and-forth reverting, sometimes over an extended period of time. I also support implementing the consensus required restriction on the article to reduce the level of disruption. Participating editors may be interested in maintaining a list of points on Talk:Gaza genocide that constitute the current consensus, as seen in the example Talk:Donald Trump § Current consensus.​ — Newslinger talk 08:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] On my user talk page, Cinaroot suggested that their prior block (16–17 months ago) was too far in the past to warrant a block. When I asked if they had an alternative restriction in mind, Cinaroot offered to "take a logged self article ban, whether for one or two weeks" instead of a block. I am posting this here for consideration, although I believe that a 1–2 week block would be a more typical outcome for this case. — Newslinger talk 22:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] The earlier block was also for a 1RR vio with refusal to self-revert in the same CT, it looks like. I'd be willing to consider alternatives, though. Maybe an indef tban for PIA, liftable by any admin; I prefer indefs generally as they require the editor to discuss, but tbans are hard. Maybe an indef 0RR, liftable by any admin; that's easier on the editor because it basically requires them to open a talk page section on a given change before they make it. Maybe an indef requirement as an AE action (so not liftable by a single admin) to comply with any request to revert themselves. (The reason I suggest this one should be liftable only by the community is that this is what Cinaroot should be doing anyway at any CT, it's not that onerous a requirement, and I'd want to see the discussion of why it's no longer needed.) Cinaroot, FWIW, we aren't trying to be harsh, and we certainly aren't trying to be punitive. We're just trying to prevent disruption in this highly contentious area. If you're going to work in this area -- and especially if you're going to work in some of the most highly contentious articles within the CT, which you are -- your behavior has to be pretty much perfect. For heaven's sake, when someone asks you to self-revert in a CT, do it and go talk. I'd self-revert at List of volcanoes if someone asked me to. Valereee (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] WP:0RR can be burdensome because tracing the addition or removal of content through the edit history is a time-consuming and error-prone process, as my above comments show, and this would need to be done for every single edit Cinaroot makes in the topic area. However, when the entire contentious topic is already under 1RR, the only revert restriction available is 0RR. The originally proposed two-week block would be the least onerous result for Cinaroot at this point, with the block serving as a deterrent against future 1RR violations. — Newslinger talk 15:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hate to suggest bespoke, but 'required to open a talk section before making any edit in a 1RR article'? Valereee (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] All of WP:CT/A-I is under 1RR, so I would consider this requirement to be almost as severe as a standard 0RR restriction in the topic area. In my opinion, the two-week block with the consensus required page restriction on the Gaza genocide article should be sufficient. — Newslinger talk 18:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Okay. In general I think timed blocks are not as useful as indefs. This editor can just wait out a time block. But I know edit warring usually goes for lengthening timed blocks. What I'd like to see if this editor not doing this again rather than simply arguing that it's been so long two weeks is overharsh. But I'll get on board with what others think is best. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I disfavor timed topic bans for that reason, but because indefinite sitewide blocks prevent any editing (aside from appealing the block), I reserve them for urgent or persistent issues, or for editors who are WP:NOTHERE, to minimize attrition for editors whose edits are mostly constructive. I would also appreciate a third opinion, as it has been almost two weeks with only the two of us commenting in this section. — Newslinger talk 20:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I'm not suggesting a sitewide indef. I'm suggesting a tban for PIA, or a 0RR, or a bespoke "revert when asked". Valereee (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Sorry for misunderstanding. Among these three options, 0RR scoped to WP:CT/A-I is my preference, although I favor a two-week sitewide block over all three options. — Newslinger talk 21:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I'll go along. The editor had asked for other options, and I feel like any of the three I suggested would be less onerous for them, but I'll go with the flow. Valereee (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] BlookyNapsta, I see the link and have read the diffs. I don't see much there. If you think I'm missing something, you can have 100 words to explain what it is you think we should be paying attention to. Valereee (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] This enforcement request is already 2.5 weeks old, longer than the two-week block that is being proposed. If no other administrators comment in this section within the next 1–2 days, then the proposed two-week block of Cinaroot and the proposed consensus required restriction on the Gaza genocide article should be implemented. — Newslinger talk 13:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] +1 Valereee (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] That looks reasonable -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Lf8u2's statement contains 430 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Lf8u2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA5

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

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

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

Some diffs/edit summaries:

• Rome Statute Totally in scope
• United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 Related to the article
• Geneva ConventionsAn example of Geneva Conventions violations, related e of Gen
• Human Rights Watch Related to Human rights
• United Nations Human Rights Council Has everything to do with Human rights
• Amnesty International Related as Amnesty published a report about these crimes
• Rape during the Sierra Leone Civil War - no reason cited
• Rape during the Syrian civil war - no reason cited
• Rape during the Rwandan genocide Rape is a sexual crime, related
• War crime Sexual abuse is a war crime
• Violence against men Violence was inflicted on the hostages
• Violence against women Female hostages experienced violence, surely related
• Gender-related violence GENDER is in the headline
• Wartime sexual violence It happened during war time, for sure relevant
• Prisoner of war Complete relevance

Conduct issues

WP:CANVASSING / WP:POINT

While no explicit notifications were made, the addition of links to multiple pages during an active AfD may constitute indirect or effect-based canvassing. The edits appear likely to increase visibility or perceived notability of the article during the deletion discussion, which is discouraged under canvassing guidance, even if framed neutrally.

WP:NPOV

The editor knows we also have a page on sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians as they also recently linked their newly created article to its See also. The only difference here is that victims and perpetrators are reversed. Yet they did not include a link to this article alongside their newly created one to any of the other pages, which indicates a double standard and editing in violation of NPOV.

WP:SPAM / WP:NOTADVERTISING

Adding links to a newly created article on loosely related pages, particularly during AfD, risks being promotional rather than encyclopedic. Links should be added only where they clearly improve reader understanding of the target page, independent of the linked article's deletion status.

WP:UNDUE / WP:WEIGHT

The insertion of links to a new article across multiple pages may give the subject disproportionate weight relative to its demonstrated coverage. This is especially problematic when the article’s notability is actively being evaluated at AfD.

Additional notes

ShoBDin has engaged in the same behavior with other articles they created, such as Hamas external European operations and Hezbollah's drone smuggling network. Their additions have been reverted by other editors, yet the behavior persists. Some were also immediately promoted to DYK, despite being new and unreviewed. This is not limited to PIA.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 7 July 2025 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested