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 CoconutOctopus talk at 17:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• CoconutOctopus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Iskandar323
• diff of notification Levivich

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Special:Diff/1334283996/1334391769

  CoconutOctopus's statement contains 274 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

This is not a typical caserequest ; it is also the first time I have ever filed one so apologies if I have done anything incorrectly or missed anyone who is techincally involved - I have listed the two users who were directly impacted by the original motions but I suppose "all of ARBCOM" could be considered a party. I believe there is a community consensus to seek a full arbitration case regarding the series of motions including (but not limited to) the ban of Iskandar323. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration_motions_regarding_ARBPIA5_topic_bans shows that a large number of editors, including many admins and experienced users, are confused by or disagree with the outcome of the motions and believe that a full case would be beneficial. I don't want to simply list everything brought up at the above link (nor do I have the words to do so), but multiple users state concerns around the evidence and the fact that numerous arbs switched their votes after discussion (with some feeling that more arbs would have switched their votes too given more time). There are concerns around the fact much of the evidence leading to the ban was submitted by bad faith sockpuppet accounts who themselves are now blocked. I believe it important that someone lists this as a case request to allow for a public vote by arbitrators on whether they agree they motion is not perfect and should be settled in a full case. I make no statement about my personal feelings as to which outcomes should be achieved as I don't think they matter in this case, but I do believe this should be a full case.

Levivich's statement contains 608 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

From the WP:ARM:

2) Since their topic ban in WP:ARBPIA5, Iskandar323 has been engaged in consistently non-neutral editing around the history of Judaism ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7]). This is a continuation of the misconduct that led to the original topic ban.

• Iskandar is TBANed from Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed, not history of Judaism.
• None of the articles mention PIA or have any CTOP notice.
• None of the edits violate NPOV or any other policy.

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

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

• No explanation as to how these edits are PIA-related editing.
• The second comment is an WP:ASPERSION.

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

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

• No explanation as to how these are partially covered, violate NPOV, non-neutral, or otherwise disruptive.
• The second comment is also an WP:ASPERSION.

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

• WP:ADMINACCT says unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Unexplained arb votes have the same effect.

4. Per HB. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

• HB wrote they're not TBAN violations and later struck pushing a point of view, so how does Per HB explain this vote?

5. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

6. Aoidh (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Meanwhile, the oppose and discussion sections were 8,600 words of rebuttal. Harry can't see anything ArbCom could do that would make people any happier. Addressing the rebuttals and explaining your votes would make people happier. Whether you do that at a full case or reopen the ARM or wait for an ARCA, please do it. Explanation is not relitigation. Levivich (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick point - Iskandar323 is a party to this, but can't make a statement even on their talkpage because ArbCom blocked them with TPA turned off (why?). It would be useful to give them their TP access back so that they can do this if they wish.

• HJ Mitchell People are - mostly - not yelling at you because of the decision you made per se. They are yelling at you because members of ArbCom failed to properly apply themselves to this case and justify the decision that they made, when it appears to many people to not be based on the available evidence.
• asilvering You will not like our opinions any more than you already do if we open a full case. No, actually that's the whole point - if people understand why decisions were made rather than a hastily tossed-off "Support" followed by disappearing completely, then they're far more likely to support your decision. I'm unsure why this is a difficult concept for people to grasp.

I can see that this is unsurprisingly going to be declined. However, I hope it will have the effect that in future cases Arbs will actually (a) keep up to date with evolving evidence, and (b) ensure that their rationales for voting on any contentious motion are a little bit more than "Support" or "Oppose".

Note: The only thing short of a full case I would support is a full outline, endorsed by all seven supporting arbs, of the allegedly clear pattern of POV-pushing that the seven highlighted diffs are valid and relevant examples of. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In response to HJ Mitchell: ArbCom can sometimes get it wrong, wouldn't you agree? In addition to the possibility of different people yelling at the Arbs, a fresh examination might redress an injustice (and thereby benefit the project by allowing further participation by a valuable editor), or demonstrate more thoroughly the correctness of the decision (thereby reaffirming that the editor was disruptive). ArbCom's actions are supposed to be in service of the project (that boilerplate you folks unanimously vote "aye" on at the top of every case decision page) and is not supposed to be imposed overriding our consensus-driven decision-making processes, but to be the highest-level expression of them (or something; IANAL).

Arbs: Respond to the widespread disagreement with this decision and to the indications of doubt that were evident in several Arbs' changing their votes on Iskandar323 as community members raised points in discussion about the evidence. I would prefer that Iskandar323's ban be simply vacated as a flawed close to an unresolved ArbCom process (SashiRolls' "hung jury" analogy, or a "no consensus" AfD close analogy). Since that's apparently not possible, you should accept this case despite the time and effort involved. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people are talking about this like it's simply a difference of opinions. But it's not. The "Iskandar further POV pushing" motion isn't just "unpopular", it's unacceptable, and I don't see how it isn't misconduct at this point by the arbitrators who forced it through and who still to this day refuse to give an explanation or a response to the community.

As laid out clearly at WP:ARBCOND, "Arbitrators are expected to: Respond promptly and appropriately to questions from other arbitrators, or from the community, about conduct which appears to conflict with their trusted roles." Yet the members of the committee who passed the motion have been completely ignoring the community, despite repeated pleas for them to respond.

We should not allow ArbCom to become a dictatorship able to ban anyone they want without even the semblance of reason or due process. As another editor has phrased it: "Any regular editor in any contentious topic could be banned on "evidence" as weighty as this. Nobody is safe."

Also, it needs to be asked whether or not ArbCom has been acting in this way in order to comply with some sort of pro-Israel external pressures or influences. Striking for being the wrong place for this question and to avoid causing any unnecessary controversy/distraction. 00:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what mechanisms/procedures are in place to deal with this, but this is the problem as I see it. It is not Iskandar who is disrupting the encyclopedia, it is certain members of the current Arbitration Committee. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish, if you're referring to the infamous seven diffs, I don't believe it's accurate that they were "first presented by a bad-faith sock". See my comment here. Please let me know if you're referring to something else or if any of the seven diffs were brought up prior to Guerillero doing so on Dec 19. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000, regarding: "the only proper way to handle this situation is an independent review", is there any sort of mechanism for such a thing? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Scharb, I would assume that just because a user is banned it doesn't become permissible to cast aspersions against them. You've given zero explanation as to how the edits "were destructive [...] and clearly intended to erase and minimize the history of the Jewish people". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Much has been said on WT:ACN about how the decision to ban Iskandar is unfair, harsh, or contrived. Everyone is well within their rights to give an opinion on rulings and their merits, and I think it's healthy for people to speak up when they see something they think is wrong.

That said, I'm not sure what this case request is trying to achieve. Relitigating the situation with the same people on a different page/venue isn't going to change their conclusions or votes. I should hope that the context of a case vs an ARM section would not make a difference to the outcome of a decision.

If there are calls for certain arbitrators to be more forthcoming with their vote rationales then that can be done elsewhere, but opening a case, whether to force a hand or try for a do-over, does not seem like the way forward. Giraffer (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse what Giraffer said. I think the unusual piece here is that post-FRAM ArbCom has been pretty reliably able to come to agreement and often consensus about what the facts are. There might then be a split among the committee about how to respond, but basically the only time I can think of a major split on a crucial FoF leading to a "major" public decision (which I'm defining here as a block/site ban or desyop/resysop) was the 6 in favor, 4 opposed, 3 abstain for Stephen. But there the remedy landed at 9-3 so the FoF split didn't end up mattering as much. So given what Giraffer has said, if ArbCom is going to do something here beyond provide greater insight into its thinking, I would encourage it to think about what an FoF that would pass 9-3 or better would look like and then if a majority of the Arbs, based on that factual record, remain convinced there is sufficient evidence to ban. In working on that they would probably fufill Giraffer's suggestion of the productive thing being "more insight". Ultimately ArbCom is WP:CONEXEMPT for really good reasons which includes the ability to make calls that large segments of the community disagree with it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPOL states Decisions are reached by a majority vote of active, non-recused arbitrators. So Harry's point that this is how ArbCom works is backed up by policy and Sashi is misunderstanding what WP:CONEXEMPT means here (ArbCom is unique in a lot of respects so it's not unusual for Wikipedians to not understand elements of that uniqueness). That said, the lack of something approaching consensus as we traditionally use it for the FoFs is unusual when it's used as the base for a site ban at least in the post-FRAM era. Because of ArbPol's embrace of voting, when I was an arb I embraced that ethos as well for a lot of things. However, being on the U4C has shown me the value that can be reached in trying to achieve consensus where possible because that body has operated far more through that method than ArbCom does. Part of that is because it's easier with 8 people than 11 but part of that is also genuine attempts to try and see where there is common ground. Hence my suggestion that if ArbCom could find an FoF that got more support, would that still be sufficient for a majority to feel justified in voting to site ban someone based on my belief (and direct knowledge while on ArbCom) that Arbs are basing their votes for remedies on the facts agreed to rather than starting with a sense of the right remedy and voting for facts to support that outcome. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with Giraffer's assessment of the situation, but would suggest being a little more sympathetic to the filing editor for not immediately hitting on the right process for a very complicated arena of Wikipedia. Opening what is essentially ARBPIA6 with a broader scope of evidence to hold other editors to a similar standard (or consider if exonerating evidence was missed) would necessarily take up the question of Iskandar323's ban. However, I agree with Black Kite that the FoF and related votes on sanctions in this most recent case would definitely benefit from arbs giving clearer explanations of which diffs they felt do/don't demonstrate patterns, since there's demonstrable disagreement within the committee and community on the fact of the matter. An elaboration or reconsideration on that would address what appear to be the most pressing concerns, as I don't envy the task of drawing up a scope and collecting evidence that would make an ARBPIA6 worthwhile at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Two points here:

• I effectively agree with Giraffer’s statement above.
• Can someone explain how Levivich’s statement above is a valid BANEX from their tban? It’s one thing to defend themselves at ARBM (which was a valid BANEX imo), it’s another to defend another editor in a separate forum. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Thanks for the clarification, hadn’t noticed that. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1) I was and am appalled at the two comments by arbitrators that suggested the ban was based on other evidence not identified. That is gross unfairness.

2) I was and am upset that the other arbitrators did not come back and explain their unjustified conclusion when the community pretty unanimously and the opposing members of the committee shot down any reason for the NPOV finding. So explanation, Harry is what would make me happier, and it is something that WP:ADMINACCT expects.

3) I'll adopt Levivich's statement if it means you will consider it -- it would be especially galling that the committee considers banned or LTA editors statements like it did to start off the motions, but would not consider Levivich's statement, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

4) I'll also adopt Black Kite's response to aslivering. For many of you, it's not what you did, it's what you did not do that's the problem. Unless, it was considering evidence not identified by diffs (which again, is grossly unfair). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

5) I agree with just "vacate the [site] ban" as own goal and move on, if it ever is or was truly needed, there is plenty of time for it. Also, just to be clear, I am from the uninvolved part of the community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

6) Responding to JClemens: What does not seem "objectively reasonable" is for "Arbitration" to operate on a no consideration of the arguments model. Not considering and not addressing the committee opposition and the community objections is not objectively reasonable. Saying there is other unidentified evidence is not objectively reasonable. Not responding and not explaining is also contrary to policy, so not objectively reasonable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, looking at this as well as the discussion over at WT:ACN, it's pretty clear to me that some of the ppl objecting to the decision to ban Iskandar are, for lack of a better term, passionate about their stance on this whole ordeal. Should the arbs decide to decline the case, I'd recommend they go over the various reactions and see if there's anyone among them who needs to be disciplined (whether it be by TBAN, siteban, or some other remedy). JHD0919 (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS: I don't think external pro-Israel forces were involved in getting Iskander banned, since it would be a waste of their time; they're topic banned from A-I after all. The sockpuppets that started the whole thing looked like they were seeking revenge, which we know people like Icewhiz love to do, both onwiki and off. I don't necessarily disagree with the ban, but I would highly suggest a full case since whatever happened in the motion felt rushed and sloppy. I also urge the functionaries to develop better policies when it comes to sockpuppetry in contentious topics, since it's clear bans don't really work against bad actors.

Additionally, it is disappointing when arbs simply sign a vote to ban users without commenting on why they want to do so. Banning someone is certainly no small decision, and we need transparency to ensure it simply isn't "I don't like them," or worse, "My colleagues want to ban this person, so I'm going to as well". Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think ArbCom's decision about whether or not to open this case should center on how the Arbs, currently, feel about the votes that were not changed after some Arbs did change their views about Iskandar. I would not automatically conclude that the discussion at the ACN talk page is also representative of the editing community as a whole: this is a hot-button topic area, and editors who have strong opinions disliking the recent decision may see things very differently than do those of us who looked at that talk page, and decided that we did not want to touch it without fire-resistant gloves. I went back and looked at the Iskandar diffs, and they convinced me that I'm not a subject matter expert. I think there are limits to what we can expect of ArbCom, in terms of determining the nuance of POV in this topic area, and the nuance of the boundaries of "broadly construed". But what strikes me as substantive is that evidence was first presented by a bad-faith sock, then got some incompletely explained supports from some Arbs, after which some other Arbs looked at further evidence and decided against sanctioning – and now we have some of the early-supporting Arbs reaffirming their votes and others not yet saying publicly. I obviously don't know whether ArbCom would now change the outcome of that decision, but that's what should decide whether or not to reopen the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Correction made: thanks IOHANNVSVERVS. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since I, as an editor with relevant graduate-level studies who avoids the PIA area and is previously unfamiliar with Iskandar323's editing or position in the conflict, can, upon reviewing the seven edits listed in the FOF, readily determine which faction the non-neutrality is alleged to have favored, that strongly suggests that the arbitrators finding such a pattern of non-neutrality are not objectively unreasonable in doing so. The subsequent election is the traditional time to take up issues with arbitrators' interpretations. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to fully ban Iskander is not justified, neither by the evidence presented, nor the scant arguments made by those who voted that way, most of whom ignored the community feedback exposing the diffs presented as innocuous.

This case should not have been opened in the first place, as it was mostly prompted (as was Iskander's original topic ban), by filings made by sockpuppets. Indeed, the biggest problem facing honest, good faith, productive editors with the courage and knowledge and ability to edit articles in the I/P domain are sockpuppets, operating under throwaway accounts that they make the requisite 500 minor edits on random articles outside the topic area in before coming in, most often to consistently push a singular POV. It often goes unnoticed because they are perceived as editing outside the topic area (as they continue making minor edits on random articles between their edits on I/P ones). These editors also lie low when ArbComm is reviewing the subject area.

Article mainspace in the I/P area is practically dead, with so many knowledgeable editors having been topic banned, and newcomers discouraged by the obstacles to editing. Fifteen years ago when I was very actively editing here, articles were regularly vandalized, with POV warriors often blanking material they did not like, sparking edit wars. Since my recent return, I have noticed that this thankfully cannot happen because of the many restrictions since enacted, but I can also see that articles are in desperate need of motivated, knowledgeable editors, and most of them are being topic banned, one by one, by reports filed by socks! Tiamut (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Admins at Arbcomm are not taking the issue of sockpuppet disruption seriously. Two of them here actually co-nominated a user for adminship who was revealed by User:Nableezy (according to an award on their user page) to be a sockpuppet. Nableezy was later topic banned, and has now retired after being listed in the farcical proceeding. Its punitive and chilling that admins are microscopically examining the content in the edits of long term editors who openly expressed their POVs, while being duped by people posing as neutral, gaming the system, and running sockpuppet accounts. Tiamut (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a new case with the same arbs will be useful as it will be essentially asking the committee to investigate themselves and the COI is obvious. The only proper way to handle this situation is an independent review. Zero^talk 05:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS: The committee can arrange such a review with or without an established procedure. Zero^talk 06:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to the chorus that I'm concerned with the outcome here. A new case with the same arbitrators may not be that useful, but I would like a better justification of the outcome.

There is a difference of having a certain POV which comes out in your edits and WP:POV pushing which is disruptive and can be associated with e.g. double standards, cherry-picking and wearing down 'opponents' on talk. To me, it is not clear that the interpretation of POVPUSH/CPUSH the committee used this time around, corresponds closely to the texts of WP:POVPUSH and WP:CPUSH (both explanatory essays), as the diffs mostly just seem to show Iskander's POV without showing misconduct associated with it. Is it a question of cementing this better in actual PAGs? Arbcom is not meant to judge content, it is meant to judge conduct. In these kinds of cases, the line between the two can be blurry, but I'm not sufficiently convinced the committee was on the right side of that distinction. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban violations are handled all the time at AE, so why was this case needed? The key is in the unusual FoF that Iskandar323 engaged in "POV-pushing" outside the technical limits of the topic ban. I submit that this is an absurd FoF, arrived at in an absurd way.

Let's recall the facts. Guerillero, in the AE request which led to this case, posted a bunch of diffs making this accusation. He did not tell anybody what procedure he used to collect these diffs, how these are violations, or why he went out to find the diffs in the first place. In the ARCA case, ScottishFinnishRadish also claimed to have seen evidence of non-neutral editing, again without any elaboration. None of the other Arbs gave even a semblance of any reason. The argument boiled down to: "trust me bro".

Why would anyone trust the judgement of members on ArbCom on this issue? Do they know anything about the topic? People elected you to administer Wikipedia, not to find out whether Asherath was the consort of Yahweh.

For the FoF to make sense, the NPOV violation must be blatant and easily observable by outsiders with no special knowledge of the topic. For instance: if there was an explicit consensus on a page, and Iskandar323 violated the consensus and edited in a disruptive or edit-warring way. Did anything like this happen? No.

It is way beyond the competence of ArbCom to determine the nuances of the POV of an edit. That's because every edit has a POV implication. And there are many subtle ways in which POV can be manipulated. These things are impossible to know without detailed knowledge of the topic. Unless they're blatant NPOV violations, which is clearly not the case here.

ArbCom should either get some sort of outside expert input, or stop trying to fix things which it has no competence to fix. Not every ill in the world can be fixed by ArbCom.

I have no opinion about what exactly should be done to fix this travesty. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Was Iskandar323's proposal here seen and rejected? There are a lot of words on that page so I could have easily missed responses. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scharb, without an evidentiary basis for your claims, I think you would agree that there is a risk of "just railroading a user with a different perspective" as you said at ANI about someone who has likely committed a crime by stealing an account and using it to target people on Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the outcome for a bit, I feel like some of what I am hearing here isn't necessarily asking for a case to be opened, but for the prior case to be re-opened for members of the Committee to explain their actions. @Theleekycauldron and HJ Mitchell:, as the only members to have voted decline so far, would either of you be willing to express your thoughts on this?

Regardless of what happens, I will point out what Administrators' role and expectations are according to the Contentious topics. As noted by point three, administrators are expected to explain when they take an enforcement action. This portion links to WP:ADMINACCT, which contains the relevant portions:
Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. (...) Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested. (...)
Failure to communicate – this can be either with editors (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to address concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought) There were a significant number of times where members of the committee signed onto an action without explaining why during the ARM. For one member in particular, the two longest comments made were 65 and 63 words, which were respectively used to disagree with a motion regarding emails sent to the committee and disagree with the usage of the word "standing" in the motion. Said member otherwise signed 3 times without explanation and signed 12 further times with a total of 69 words and a rounded average of 6 words. (And a decent portion of that was still concerns regarding committee emails.) That member was not alone in signing without explaining during the deliberations. I will say again that some of the statements here sound more that they want committee members to explain their actions and reasons, rather than have a full case.

Additionally, given that Iskandar323 cannot make any comments regarding this, shouldn't the "Statement by Iskandar323" section be removed or otherwise suppressed? After all, they cannot participate in this appeal since they are block here and at their talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: @Theleekycauldron: I agree that this shouldn't need a new case and thank you for fixing my mistake on motions and cases.

Question: @SashiRolls: Is it correct to assume that your position is that the banning motion should have potentially been 6-6 with Girth Summit's statement added and Guerillero's statement excluded for violating a COI or their pledge to recuse? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A few observations:

• The final bot tally of the Iskandar banning motion was 7-5-0 in part because Girth Summit (did not / chose not to) copy his statement of opposition into the appropriate section. Had he done so, the vote tally would have been 7-6-0.
• It seems that nobody has ever been site-banned before with such a slim "consensus". (searches were conducted for previous 7-5, 6-5, or 7-6 decisions)
• Guerillero both presented the disputed evidence of POV-pushing and voted as a judge/juror on the basis of this and other unspecified evidence. This non-recusal is a confusion of roles.
• In his 2024 campaign statement, SFR pledged that he would be turbo-recused (see question 3) from ARBPIA 5, yet he voted on this ARBPIA 5 motion based on unspecified evidence not presented in the case.
• Consensus is not a vote-count but an assessment of the quality of the arguments. Barkeep49 mentioned the policy WP:CONEXEMPT, which does not state (or otherwise imply) that ArbCom decisions are determined exclusively by bot-count.
• The claim that this comment on a user talk page is a concerning topic-ban violation, when it mentions neither Israel nor Palestine, requires such open-mindedness (in broadly construing) that I'm afraid there is a risk of my brain bouncing on the pavement.

Conclusion: No new case is needed, the motion should be re-closed as no consensus concerning Iskandar's banning given the problem of recusals, quality of arguments, and the uncounted vote.

I don't see how a reconsideration of the same evidence by the same people will lead to a materially different outcome. As such I see limited utility to a case. But I was surprised by the severity of the remedy vis-a-vis the evidence in the FoF. I would appreciate if the arbitrators supporting that remedy took this opportunity to comment on that, and in particular to clarify whether the ban vote was a consequence of that evidence alone or Iskandar's previous history in the topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider comment, largely in reply to SilverLocust's comments below. I didn't follow ARBPIA5 and if the arbs say that Iskander behaved poorly, I believe them. I also understand that sometimes behavior that could be trivial from a random editor can be a "straw that broke the camel's back" for an editor on their last piece of WP:ROPE. However, the topic of ancient Israel and Judah is one where valid, sourced edits can be read in sectarian ways, and there's no avoiding it. The odds are 100% that Iskander or any editor in the area will make edits that can be construed as some sort of sectarian dog-whistle, regardless of whether or not that was the intent. The supplied edits look like perfectly standard editing in the field - contestable and revertable perhaps, but not unusual or problematic.

If the arbs want to revise the outcome of ARBPIA5 as insufficient in its remedies for Iskander, fine. Ban Iskander for his actions then (rather than these diffs), or apply a topic ban to "anything involving territory in what will become Israel, broadly construed" to avoid any doubt on scope. But the provided recent diffs are just... normal editing in this space. They shouldn't be used as proof of misconduct, lest any edits at all in the field be seen as misconduct. SnowFire (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zero0000, asking the present arb.com to investigate the present arb.com is a waste of time. I suggest a group, of let's say, former arb.com members, reviewing the case, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All of the edits were destructive, not constructive, and clearly intended to erase and minimize the history of the Jewish people, especially within the land of Israel; thus, relevant to Israel/Palestine "broadly construed," as Jewish history in the land is highly relevant to that topic. (Personal attack removed) This is a user who should not be part of the Wikipedia community.

As for the origin of the complaint coming from a compromised account–– I, myself, had noticed this pattern from Iskandar for a while but not said anything because gathering diffs and creating an ARBCOM motion can be time-consuming. I don't think Iskandar should get off scot-free just because honest users like myself were beat to the punch by a troll account. Scharb (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out regarding SashiRoll's observation "The claim that this comment on a user talk page is a concerning topic-ban violation, when it mentions neither Israel nor Palestine, requires such open-mindedness (in broadly construing) that I'm afraid there is a risk of my brain bouncing on the pavement." ... I believe the comment Iskandar323 made when he mentions "one of the PW pieces", he is referring to piratewires articles, such as this one. So technically, it is topic ban violation. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• I think this is ultimately a question of whether the arbs who supported the motion to ban Iskandar would want to reconsider in light of the somewhat-late-breaking opposition. If they do, we can have a case; if they don't, well, arbitrators can make unpopular decisions. Guerillero, SFR, Aoidh, and House, and Harry reaffirmed their votes; I think it's up to Daniel and SilverLocust (who supported and didn't reaffirm), plus Girth Summit (who struck their vote and didn't re-vote) whether they want to see a full case. If enough of them vote to accept that (when combined with the five opposers) a motion to overturn the ban could pass, I'd go with them. Otherwise, I think we'd just be relitigating the exact same issue to probably the same result. (Katie and Sdrqaz could also vote to overturn, but I'm more queasy about accepting based on that because that also pushes this towards relitigation territory.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of Daniel and SilverLocust's comments, all seven arbs in favor of the ban have more or less reaffirmed, so I'm a decline for now. There's talk of opening a case for a much broader review; I'm not closed to that, but I want to see a lot more about who and what exactly we'd be looking into, first. Maybe that should be a new case request. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other rationale for a case here is to get a full accounting of how each cited diff in Iskandar's FoF contributes to the overall pattern being alleged. As someone who pushed hard for the expanded FoFs at WP:ARBTRANS, I would encourage the arbitrators in support to offer that accounting, but a case is a wholeee lot of bureaucracy just to arrive at that. I think it could be done a bit more informally if it were to happen – and the goal would only be to meet obligations of transparency, not to convince the community that the sanction was necessary. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Super Goku V: Like I said above, I'd encourage arbitrators to go more in-depth about their reasoning; I'm not sure a whole case is needed just for that, though. It wouldn't be reopening a prior case because proceedings at ARM aren't cases. (And if we were to revisit it at ARM, we should open a new thread, because the old one is quite clogged.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I still believe the outcomes were the right decision of the sanction proposals presented, based on the totality of editor behaviour. That being said and noting the feedback in particular from uninvolved editors, I will fully respect if a majority of my colleagues want to run this through a more exhaustive process, approaching with a totally open mind. If that does happen, I think there is some directly-related misconduct by other editors that could be scoped in, as well as potentially some issues with AE that would benefit from further examination. But that's a whole another ball game and we might not want to complicate A with B, given A is already complicated enough. Daniel (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I am only interested in exploring the PIA topic area for the next 2-3 months if we look at the conduct of people beyond those that were parties of PIA5 since c. 2016 or the last time they were a party to a case (call it either PIA5.5 or PIA6 depending on your mood). --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• When I ran for ArbCom, I told myself that if the community wishes to have a case (on any subject), we should hold a case. Based on the discussion at WT:ACN, it seems the community wishes to have a case. I am therefore inclined towards having a case—including both Iskandar and the topic area as a whole. Speaking for myself, I would be willing to vote against a ban, and if we have a case, the ban should be lifted in the meantime.

  Black Kite, revoking TPA is standard practice for ArbCom bans. WP:BAN says that for site bans talk page access may be allowed to appeal the ban; because we only take site ban appeals via arbcom-en, we normally revoke TPA. I definitely want to hear from Iskandar about whether they would like a case, so I support restoring TPA as an interim measure. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Arbs: would you support restoring TPA for Iskandar to allow them to comment on this case request? Regardless of one's thoughts on the underlying ban, I agree with the sentiment expressed above that they should be permitted to comment on a case request which is primarily about them. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine with me. Daniel (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline. People are unhappy with this decision but I can't see anything ArbCom could do that would make people any happier. If we uphold our original decision (as is likely and, in my view, correct), the same people will still be yelling at us; if we reverse ourselves, a different group of people will yell at us. Nothing good will come of this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't see myself moving off this position. First, because asking a group of people who just spent nearly a month making a decision to revisit that decision hours after it was finalised based on all the same circumstances is unlikely to change the outcome. Second, and more importantly, because I believe the decision was correct. ArbCom exists not to make popular decisions but to do what is necessary to keep a lid on disruption in topics that the community is unable to handle. We (both ArbCom and the community) are at our wits' end with this topic area and extraordinary measures are needed to contain the disruption. Iskandar was topic-banned in the last case because they "engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including consistently non-neutral editing". Since then, they have been blocked for violating the topic ban and—in my assessment—have continued to engage in "consistently non-neutral editing" and shown that they are not here to participate in good faith. A site ban is the only remedy we have for that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @SashiRolls ArbCom does not make decisions by consensus; a motion passes if it is supported by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Much of the response at WT:ACN appears based on a misconception that a case about Iskandar would be handled in a different way. It will not be. This misconception is in turn founded, I believe, on another misconception, one I held before becoming an arb: that there must be something more behind the curtain. So let me explain. There is no private evidence in this case. There is no private communication involved that we have failed to note. You have seen the opinions of the arbitrators and you have not liked them. Perhaps you believe there is more discussion happening behind the scenes. There has been some - less, I think, than you'd expect - but I assure you it is the same opinions, simply stated more candidly. The only thing you have not seen, and cannot see, is the full extent and nature of the sockpuppetry evidence against Nehushtani etc.
  You will not like our opinions any more than you already do if we open a full case. If anything, you will dislike them more - because a full case allows for the net to be cast wider. My read of the community response to these motions is that some editors want this decision reversed, and basically everyone responding wants to have more confidence in arbcom. I sympathize. But I do not believe a case would fix either of these things for you. What you see is what you have got. -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite, you've seen the reasons. That's all there is. I know you believe there is more. There is not more. I know you are not happy about that. I cannot make you happier about it. A case won't either. -- asilvering (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Kip, Levivich has been named as a party to this case. -- asilvering (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tiamut, what would taking the issue of sockpuppet disruption seriously look like, to you? -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm following this discussion but I want to fully consider it before making any sort of decision. @Yngvadottir: ArbCom can and does get things wrong; there are a few decisions I would have liked to have seen go a different direction for any number of reasons, but what isn't immediately clear to me is whether a case is likely to address the (valid) concerns of uninvolved editors here. We're expecting a winter storm here with the very real possibility of lengthy power outages (this is my second time writing this due to a brief outage), so I wanted to go ahead and comment now so that it doesn't seem like this isn't being taken seriously, and I'm going to comment further as soon as I can. - Aoidh (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• As mentioned at the ARCA, I am inclined towards holding a full case here (and unban Iskandar pending the case outcome). However, if such a case is held, it should extend beyond simply their participation in the PIA topic area. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I stand by the ban. One year ago the Committee concluded that Iskandar is a "consistently non-neutral edit[or]" with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, pointing to evidence of consistently favoring use of "massacre" for attacks on Arabs and "attack" for Israelis when participating in requested moves. Since then, Iskandar has violated the topic ban at least 4 times, per the evidence in our first finding. (The first three diffs plus the violation noted in Tamzin's warning, where Iskandar nominated an article for deletion just after the subject had endorsed Trump's Gaza takeover proposal, which was one of the few things noted in the article at the time.)
  This was Iskandar's second PIA topic ban, and the first one had also resulted in a block for violations. I believe that record (the non-neutral editing, two topic bans, four violations of this one and at least one violation of the previous one) is sufficient for a site ban, as I explained in not supporting a lesser sanction (as I said "I am more open to broadening a PIA topic ban to Palestine/Israel, but I think multiple violations of multiple topic bans over time tend to justify a sitewide ban or block.").
  (As to the second finding of fact, given the record of Iskandar being unable to remain neutral as to the conflict and to remain away from the topic while banned, I am more readily willing (relative to an editor without that record) to find an additional pattern of editing to diminish "Israel"/"Judah" terminology in prose/images/titles as motivated by its implications for the modern conflict. I consider the second finding supplemental to the repeated straightforward topic ban violations, not as the main focus.)
  Since I think that evidence is sufficient to ban Iskandar, I don't currently see the need for a case to seek more evidence. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that this was factually and procedurally irregular. I argued from the get-go that this should have been a full case, not a sort of semi-case done via motion. This has reflected poorly on ArbCom. With that said, I also am not sure what a full case would achieve. More evidence with which to ban Iskander? I don't see the Committee exactly changing its mind and deciding to unban him; I think it would just make the ban stick harder. This however may be one of the few situations where a future committee should, in an unban request, actually entertain that the initial action was incorrect. I don't suggest that relitigating bans should be something that happens frequently, but something to think about should Iskander appeal this next year. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

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

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

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

Information about amendment request

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

  NorthernWinds's statement contains 648 words and complies with the 650-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 650 words.

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

I again fully accept responsibility for my actions. I understand the importance of strictly on-wiki process, and using Wikipedia’s conflict resolution in order to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia. Attempts to change vote outcome, especially by using invisible means, undermine transparency of discussions, distort consensus, and weaken community trust. Consensus must be built transparently so all editors can contribute.

Prior to the sanction, I focused on adding sources and improving coverage of the British Mandate. (More info in my original appeal)

Since the sanction, I have made the following relevant contributions:

1. In May (post-sanction), I have sourced 1800 articles.
2. Discussion in Talk: International Court of Justice.
3. Correcting a mistake I made in AIC with AC member permission.
4. I have edited several AIC talk pages with email permission given on June 6th.

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

I completely understand if a full lifting is premature, and would welcome continued safeguards (e.g., edit request only restriction) if the committee believes in their necessity. I believe the sanctions have served their purpose and that a lifting will improve the encyclopedia. NorthernWinds (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HouseBlaster,

1. I am capable and fully intend to follow and uphold NPOV in any topic area, AIC included.
2. I believe a balanced editing restriction would be sufficient for my intended work, though I would prefer a complete lifting.

Best,

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

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

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

@Richard Nevell The broader context is that I was worried about a user removing the definition of holocaust denial from its page, messing with nazism-related articles, and being unable to engage in constructive discussions (the same user, btw, recently received a warning here for similar engagement). Following my report, a mutual (non-IPA) topic and interaction ban was imposed. I disagreed with the sanction, yet I complied. A closer look at the evidence presented in the report’s second paragraph would reveal that I carefully and constructively interacted and discussed changes with others.

To answer Guerillero, my subsequent block there was due to interacting under the mistaken belief that I had been given permission by an administrator. That same administrator blocked and later unblocked me after realizing the error.

Best,

NorthernWinds (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IOHANNVSVERVS I believe my responses in the linked wikiquote thread suffice as explanations, as well as asilvering's comment. Also note that I was accused of suppressing women’s quotes, not IPA-specific conduct. The allegations were dismissed by all administrators involved.

IOHANNVSVERVS I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to you publicly, following the private apology I emailed you via wikiquote several months ago. I deeply regret my attempts to canvass our discussion. I have learned from this mistake, improved, and left that behavior behind me. I am looking forward to collaborating constructively and transparently with you in the future.

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Polygnotus My UCoC case concerned Simplewiki, not you, and it cited Steven as a failure too. The only case about you was opened much later, and (unless there was an investigation I am unaware of) was not opened by Steven. So claiming I continued his behavior is beyond dishonest. Were you hoping I wouldn’t respond because I ran out of words? The rest of your statement is riddled with similar dishonesties I currently don’t have the space to respond to. It follows the pattern of personal attacks and misinformation on me. (10:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC))

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

While the ban does not extend to other wikis, conduct there in the topic area may provide useful context. Following their topic ban in early May, NorthernWinds edited the Arab-Israel conflict topic area on the Simple English Wikipedia. NorthernWinds' activity on Simple English Wikipedia led to a block in July, later lifted. The personal dispute that led to the block seems to have been related to NorthernWinds' editing activity around the Arab-Israel conflict. The caution that NorthernWinds says they will be exercise in the future does not appear to evident in July 2025 on the Simple English Wikipedia. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user was also causing disruption on Wikiquote regarding Israeli-Palestinian content: [8] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Polygnotus's statement contains 320 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I can write a long story here, and then condense it to fit some arbitrary limit, but it is probably a waste of my time and energy.

I think the essence is this quote: This is a pattern. If you show that NorthernWinds is wrong about something they ignore it and repeat themselves.

Here is when they finally admitted they were wrong. Look back how much effort it took to reach that point...

I would like to apologize for misunderstanding the edits and what I was reinstating yesterday in Big lie,[9]

Excuse me for not looking at the notes[10]

The evidence I have regarding the offwiki coordination (which they were Arbcom-banned for under their old name Someonefighter) cannot be posted onwiki.

Word limits on pages such as these are not helpful, and don't even make sense because 1 link can contain 10k words.

The fact that they lie to get untopicbanned does not inspire much confidence.

I am fine with them being untopicbanned if people are less lenient the next time this pattern occurs. And I am confident there will be a next time, though as a pessimist I'd be happy to be proven wrong for once.

If anyone needs more information, you know where to find me. Polygnotus (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus you've used 550 words (technically over the limit) to convey very little new information. Richard Nevell already highlighted the situation on Simple and we reviewed it. I agree with the general consensus there that things were blown out of proportion and that it's not a fair assessment that NW was "buddies" with Steven1991. I would suggest you and NW avoid each other after the motion passes but if you have concerns about their editing in the topic area in future, you can request enforcement at AE or (as the topic ban was imposed directly by ArbCom) here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by automatic template check at 03:40, 31 January 2023.

Motion implementation notes

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Passing	Support needed	Notes
Motion A: NorthernWinds topic ban lifted	7	1	0		.
Motion B: NorthernWinds topic ban replaced with BER	2	6	0		Cannot pass	6 second choice supports counted as opposing because A is passing

Notes

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

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

• In general, I'm inclined to extend the benefit of the doubt to newish editors. In this case, especially with the balanced editing restriction, I'm happy to lift the topic ban. It remains a dedicated contentious topic, so any future disruption can be curbed easily with existing measures. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The situation on Simple looks like a misunderstanding. I'm still inclined to lift the topic ban, with or without the balanced editing restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who has spent a not-insignificant amount of time in the past few days chasing down sockpuppets in the topic area, I can't say I'm excited about lifting a tban on someone who has IPBE, especially given the reason they were banned in the first place. On the other hand, none of my pet socks are having any trouble evading proxy blocks, so... -- asilvering (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Support lifting the topic ban. I've had a brief conversation with NorthernWinds about the nature of their proxy use and have no further concerns. -- asilvering (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  IOHANNVSVERVS, I don't think causing disruption is a fair summary of that dispute. I see one editor becoming frustrated that another editor is removing quotes that they think ought to stay; I see another editor becoming frustrated that they are being reverted without adequate explanation. So far, totally normal. Neither is disruptive; they simply disagree. From that point it escalates. I would say that neither editor comes off well in the dispute, but something like removing someone's talk page posts with a misleading edit summary and then not seeing to get how inappropriate that is is really alarming is not a quote about NorthernWinds' behaviour. -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Polygnotus, please stop editing your statement and responses. At a minimum, stop silently editing your statement and responses - use the normal method of underlining, strikethroughs, and signatures to show your changes. -- asilvering (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm somewhat inclined to lift based on the editing here, without further restriction. I also however agree about the general concern with IPBE though. Izno (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the history of off-wiki canvassing in this topic area, I'm not enthusiastic about lifting a topic ban for anyone who has been a part of that issue. However, given the circumstances for this particular editor, I'm also leaning towards lifting the topic ban. - Aoidh (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• @Richard Nevell: Did the block stem from the Israel-Palestine conflict or the much weaker seems to have been related to? One is much weaker than the other. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I granted NW 150 additional words -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. I think this is my first choice. Let's give them some rope and see what they do with it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. asilvering (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. The conduct that led to the siteban was terrible. But I take the commitment to move past those issues as genuine, and we haven't received evidence that this behavior has continued. I really hope NorthernWinds can keep her personal views on the conflict separate from her editing; again I take her at her word. If the ban needs to be reinstated, I would encourage the enforcing admin to apply the appeal only to ArbCom restriction so that we can consider the larger pattern of behavior upon appeal. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. I agree with HouseBlaster's assessment here, as well as their advice about appealing sanctions to ArbCom. - Aoidh (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Equal choice, no strong preference between A & B. Daniel (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. First choice. That old Spider-man maxim comes to mind here. Izno (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. After some contemplation, some guard rails would be best for everyone --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

Support

1. Second choice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. asilvering (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice; it's a contentious topic and the mistakes were quite early in NothernWinds's editing career, so I don't think additional safeguards are necessary. I still caution against spending excessive time in PIA articles, as a general matter but especially for NorthernWinds. I also like stepping down to a BER as a concept, and I hope AE admins can consider this if a full repeal of a PIA ban is too much. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice. - Aoidh (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. To provide some guardrails in a fraught area --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice, not a huge fan of the BER enforcement burden. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. Equal choice. Daniel (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
8. Second choice. Izno (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

Initiated by TenPoundHammer at 18:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. TenPoundHammer is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

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

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

Information about amendment request

• TenPoundHammer is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Lifting of XFD topic ban, or at least temporary relaxation of topic ban to gauge behavior before full lifting of topic ban.

TenPoundHammer's statement contains 528 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

So I know I've had multiple XFD topic-bans and multiple appeals. That's nothing new. But I think that, unlike the last few go-rounds, I have a deeper understanding of the behaviors that led me to the topic ban in the first place. I've identified the main issues as aggression toward other editors, excessive speed, sloppiness with source-finding, behavior that came close to breach of topic ban, and otherwise tendentious behavior that only lowered morale of other editors and made alternatives less fruitful as well, thus creating a vicious cycle. I have posted a longer examination of my behavior here.

My last appeal from August 2024, I snapped and accused editors of wikistalking me. I no longer feel any stress that is much of an impact on my editing.

If my topic ban from XFD is lifted, what do I plan to do to keep my long-standing XFD conduct issues at bay?

First off, I plan to slow my pace. Literally no one should be hitting triple digits on PRODs. The pace I was going at was reckless and sloppy, leaving me little to no time to engage with any sourcing that might exist. For this, one of my remedies is the aforementioned "to-do" list, as well as increasing engagement on article talk pages and/or with other editors to show what I did or didn't find in the way of sourcing.

Second, I am to keep myself from attacking other editors. If someone does find sources, great! There's no reason I can't be the one to add them in myself, instead of browbeating other editors to do it for me. If I disagree with the integrity of a source, then I can say so calmly. Again, this is another issue that stemmed from my long-standing frustration over my inability to get other editors to engage with me at all. I tried being calm before and was met with silence, and only ever seemed to get through to people at all by means of extreme aggression. That's not at all healthy or beneficial to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. And I would like to think that I've been in a much more positive head space that has resulted in far more fruitful discussions, regardless of whether or not I get the desired outcome.

Proposals I've had include a possible "trial basis" where I am allowed to file one or two XFDs and/or participate in other XFDs but not start my own, with another editor monitoring my behavior if needed. However, I've also seen the argument that a gradual reinstatement is overcomplicating things.

tl;dr: I feel like I have had enough time to reflect on the actions that led to my topic ban, to learn from any mistakes I made while it was enacted, and come up with a plan of action to keep my misbehavior at bay. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @HouseBlaster: My bad, I missed that. I trimmed this down, although I have retained the longer version in case others want to peruse it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Acknowledging ping in initial filing. I do not have the on wiki time to review this in the reasonably foreseeable future, but my perception in recent months/year is that TPH is more aware of the issues, which is also seen here. I would have no objection to some kind of trial. I'll try to circle back here if time allows. Star Mississippi 02:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strong appeal that addresses why the topic ban was necessary at the time and presents compelling evidence of self-reflection to support revisiting it. I appreciate the apology and am impressed that TenPoundHammer recreated Bargain Hunters (which they had previously prodded in 2022) as well as significantly improved Hagen (TV series) (which had been at AfD). This article work shows their source-searching skills have improved and their potential to make valuable contributions at AfD.

To add to HouseBlaster's summary, TenPoundHammer was blocked in November 2025 after they blanked-and-redirected Gambino Family (group) six times and Ghetto Organized seven times. Concerns over TenPoundHammer's AfD activity have existed since at least 2010. Given the lengthy history of deletion-related issues, I am concerned that disruption could recur over the longer term, even if it does not arise in the next one or two years. Based on the very persuasive appeal, I support significantly loosening or fully lifting the ban, provided the Arbitration Committee retains indefinite jurisdiction to reinstate it if similar issues like aggression, canvassing, or volume arise again.

Mass AfD nominations place an unfair strain on editors, leaving them little time for the work they enjoy. I wrote in 2022, "I have had several articles I have wanted to write but have not written. In the past month, I have instead spent a significant portion of my time participating in the large number of television AfD discussions to find sources so that articles about notable television series are not deleted." I experienced that again this week after 43 Olympians were nominated for deletion. I spent 15 hours finding sources for 10 Hong Kong Olympians.

In the past, TenPoundHammer made a large volume of deletion nominations, which overwhelmed the community's ability to respond to them. TenPoundHammer made numerous prods and AfDs in April 2022 and blanks-and-redirects in April 2024. I hope that any lifting of restrictions will include safeguards against this. Cunard (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• There's a limit of 500 words, TenPoundHammer. Do you want to withdraw this request before other people comment and dramatically shorten your statement? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for shortening! On the merits... I really want to vote to remove this ban. I really do. This is a great appeal, and it has been years since the ban. If this was the first time around I would firmly in favor of lifting. But I two concerns:

  • TPH has been banned from various activities related to deletion four separate times: a community topic ban from deletion in January 2018 (narrowed in August 2018 and lifted in 2019), a community topic ban from closing XFDs in June 2022, an ArbCom topic ban from deletion in 2022 (which is what they are appealing now), and an ArbCom suspended topic ban from BLARs in 2024 (expired last year).
  • Most immediately, TPH was blocked for violating their topic ban six months ago and warned for breaching it in 2024.

  On the other hand, I am glad TPH sought consensus before BLARing ~50 articles, and without being a subject-matter expert or digging deeply into the content question, the arguments they made in that discussion seem perfectly in line with conduct expectations.

  At ARBXFD, Izno made the case for a more narrow ban only concerning article deletion processes (AFD, article CSD, PROD, maybe BLAR). I don't think I can be talked into lifting the article deletion ban, at least yet; the issues are chronic (and people were saying it was a chronic issue back in the 2018 ban thread), and I think letting TPH participate in other XFDs provides a path to show they can contribute constructively. Any loosening should be a suspended removal; perhaps even indefinitely, until the suspended ban is actively appealed. I'll think some more, but I wanted to write these thoughts down. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I freely admit to having had a kneejerk response to seeing this appeal come in on the feed, but I read the whole appeal and found it, well, surprisingly good, actually. Sorry for my skepticism, TPH. I do agree that an outright lift is a lot. Maybe we can get behind that and maybe we can't. But I wonder if we might consider suspending the tban instead as a first step. -- asilvering (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a lot of history here but the appeal shows the right level of reflection. I've always believed that TPH was a passionate editor who was fundamentally here to build the encyclopaedia but went off the rails on certain areas and I'm sympathetic given that we recently loosened JPL's similar ban. I can see a path towards lifting the topic ban, but I'd be nervous about scrapping it in one fell swoop. I'm wondering if a rate limit on nomination (X AfDs per Y time frame, maybe one per 24 hours) might strike an acceptable balance? Or perhaps we could allow voting in XfDs but no replies (unless pinged)? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that we need a step between the status quo and a full suspension of restrictions -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist at 03:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Transgender healthcare and people arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

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

• Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Exception for Transgender history in Mexico, its talk page, and neutral notices relating to it to gauge behavior before full lifting of topic ban.

Hi y'all, I hope you're doing well! Or as well as we can in these dystopian times.

I haven't been editing much the past few months as I've been busy with my doctoral program and working, but during the winter break I wrote es:Identidades trans en México and just published it, largely because my studies also heavily focused on trans history in Latin America.The article maps onto Transgender history in Mexico they just have a different naming convention, ie see es:Identidades trans en Brasil & Transgender history in Brazil.

I wrote it in English then translated it to Spanish and have the original copy. I'd deeply appreciate the chance to publish it here and take it to GA, half because I think enwiki would miss out from not having it / needing to retranslate it and half because I'd like the opportunity to prove myself and get back to putting in the work to get our trans history articles to GAs.

I hope you'll be sympathetic to the request, partly due to the 5-2-2- support for WP:ARBTRANS#Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist indefinite topic ban (alt 3), which would have left an exception for Transgender history in Brazil.

P.S. I put and neutral notices in the request so I can put a notice on the LGBT wikiproject noticeboard the article has been written and ask for peer review, I wasn't sure if that would be covered without it. No worries if you'd prefer I don't post the notice there!

Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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]

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

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

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:PIA

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

[12]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Raskolnikov.Rev comment below misrepresents mine in the discussion, and while blunt and potentially uncivil it has nothing to do with AGF Kowal2701 (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Newslinger, usually I'd agree, but they've shown a serious lack of understanding of core policies on an incredibly controversial and sensitive/nuanced topic. I'd rather they honed their editing skills outside of PIA first Kowal2701 (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[13]

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.

  Rap no Davinci's statement contains 1023 words and complies with the 1024-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 1024 words. — Newslinger talk 09:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been transparent about my use of LLM, when I stated that I can continue editing without it, I meant it. The article in question was not generated/created using LLM, it’s entirely my work and took me several days to draft the initial version. For "See page history [of the article]", it would actually help you see the amount of effort it took as a person to add few more sentences. From the initial version to the final expansion, which included additional sentences and sources, I spent HOURS in reading, analyzing, and summarizing information in the sources. LLM would've taken few minutes, that's a human being behind their screen putting in real work.

Does that mean I didn't make any mistakes? Absolutely not! Especially given the sensitive nature of the subject, but working on it is me being brave (and prepared for the pushback). There are likely phrases that could seem biased or could misrepresent the original sources, of course UNINTENTIONALLY. That's why we don't own articles we create, and the community-driven work we do is what make this platform so special. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the article and make it better. (I am working on a section related to reception and criticism to address the tag of Unbalanced).

For the comment on merge, I, once again, didn't use LLM, and for the WP:SNG, (as I understand it), is for the article Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine as a very specific topic, very different and should not to be merged with Jewish pro-Palestinian activism just because they "overlap" in one singular general fact: both cover pro-Palestine activism by people of the Jewish faith.

Some of the criticism is legit (about 10% of the article needs improvement, mostly related to wording, I will address some of them) and I probably made some mistakes, please help make the article better. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rap no Davinci (talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Thanks for extending my word limit, I'll do my best to address all points raised against me/the article.

For NicheSports' comment is what I referred to as "10% legit criticism", mostly related to wording. In relation to sources and OR: "A foundational principle for many Holocaust survivors ... " As the leading sentence, this is supported by the whole subsection of '"Never Again" applies to all people', as the next line is "They argue that the slogan "Never Again" must not be exclusive to Jews." and later "as descendants, we recognize that genocide makes no one safer." and so on.

The same with "The use of Holocaust memory in discussions of Israeli military...", followed by "Holocaust survivor Agnes Kory stated that she was "outraged and deeply insulted by the Holocaust being used as an excuse for Israel's relentless war against the Palestinian people," … and much later “victims of the Nazis who were outraged that Israel used their histories to justify assaults on Palestinians.”

for "(such as siege, mass displacement, and high civilian casualties)...", I added this as explanation for readers as these are already established "facts" supported by standalone articles on Wiki Siege of Gaza City, Blockade of the Gaza Strip; for mass causalities Gaza genocide, Casualties of the Gaza war. Is this a case of OR? From my pov, this is explanation WP:SYNNOT. Still easy to fix (as has already been).

for "Many of these individuals distinguish between Judaism and political Zionism…" Again, this is supported by the whole subsection of "Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism", take "Organizations they associate with ... argue that the foundational ideology of Israel leads to the oppression of the people of Palestine" and "Signatories to the 2014 letter ... object to the characterization of pro-Palestine activism as inherently antisemitic, pointing to their own Jewish identity ..." as examples, all supporting that sentence.

for "Organizations they associate with … argue that the foundational ideology of Israel leads to the oppression of the people of Palestine." I should've clarified the ideology of "self-defense" and criticizing the state = criticizing the Jewish people = calling for another Holocaust .. excepts the source cited "victims of the Nazis who were outraged that Israel used their histories to justify assaults on Palestinians" and "Israel's self-defense is very lopsided. Gazans are a population living in a constant state of siege. They've been driven from their homes, into decades-long refugee camps." = being oppressed. (the sentence is vague more than OR, cuz “what ideology?”)

for "A German-born Jewish-American … known for her work with the International Solidarity Movement in support of the Palestinian cause." I rewrote that from her Wiki page, the lede Hedy Epstein, not OR

For "Their stance is rooted in the belief that lessons from the Holocaust demand opposition to all forms of oppression …” Not sure how is this OR, it's the article itself, multiple cited survivors used their experiences as a base to vocalize support for Palestine and opposition to Israel!!

Currently, 2 editors (R.Rev & Arcticocean) have examined the sources and found no issues. Which was the main problem with my prior LLM mis/use. For the “typical LLM” phrases like ‘rooted in’ and ‘foundational principle’, etc. As a non-native English speaker, these look very standard formal phrases, appropriate for this encyclopedia. Some of these were translations from my native language to English using Google Translate (when I was unsure how to express some info or summaries). It took me serious days to write this article. It’d be seriously unwise of me to write an article related the most debated subject in the past 2 years (on-and-off Wiki), with a warning against me, using LLM, when I expected pushback against the article as there’re editors with strong views for/against the premise.

Having a “history” of mis/using LLM makes the accusation easy to stick, but I maintain my position that I stopped using it for creating/editing on Wikipedia since the last AE, even prior to the warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rap no Davinci (talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• 2nd Reply: I didn’t know about that Google Translate update. I will disclose when I use it. For the recommendation about creating WP:CT/A-I articles, I have no objection. Thanks for handling this. (brief due to word limit) Rap no Davinci (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the source analysis cited for filing this case and wholeheartedly disagree with it. All the content is backed by the cited sources and there's no WP:OR involved or use of GUNREL that I can see. There's some improvements that can be made with attribution, particularly in one case citing a weak source that links to other sources containing the content, but that content was already backed up by other sources added to the body and not at all controversial. In my view it's all rather minor and easily resolvable via regular BRD and editing. Not sure why this was so quickly escalated to AE. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The filer responded to my providing a second opinion on the source analysis, as the original editor requested, by saying I shouldn't edit in the topic area either without substantively addressing anything I said. I don't find this helpful and it's not WP:AFG. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To briefly respond to NicheSports: As I noted on the talk, the example brought up as the supposedly most egregious instance of failing WP:V is actually the worst one to bring up: The cited NYT piece says the march Hedy Epstein participated in was organized by Gaza Freedom March, which overlaps with the Free Gaza Movement, which in turn overlaps with the International Solidarity Movement. Moreover, Hedy Epstein's BLP was linked, which states she was an activist in the ISM in the lede citing the same NYT source. And it should not be removed there either as it is entirely uncontroversial and accurate material given Gaza Freedom March being a part of the broader ISM. Here is a newsletter from the Free Gaza Movement with a statement from Epstein saying why she joined the Gaza Freedom March and a call to join the ISM at the end, and here is the obituary I added stating Epstein was active in the ISM and Free Gaza Movement. Even if NicheSport's concern that the ISM was not explicitly named in the NYT piece is valid, it could easily be resolved with this addition. This doesn't even warrant a revert, let alone an AE case. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin independently and thoroughly review my analysis [14] before this case is closed? I believe that both Raskolnikov.Rev and RnD's analyses are unreliable. For evidence of this claim, see the 6th point of my analysis (the simplest, as it documents a black and white WP:V failure). In RR's talk page response [15] to my analysis, they state that it is "uncontroversial" that the text I highlighted was supported by the sourcing. This is objectively false; the organization "International Solidarity Movement" is never mentioned in the only source [16]. Meanwhile, RnD stated at the AE thread that I rewrote that from her Wiki page, the lede Hedy Epstein, not OR. This reflects an apparent serious misunderstanding of WP:V; content in articles must be supported by in-line sources, not assertions made in related wikipedia articles. This is the simplest example; I am confident that a reviewing admin will identify other issues, especially related to WP:PRIMARY. LLM detection is almost always probabilistic in nature (unless someone leaves a chatbot prompt/response). There is a high probability that RnD has repeatedly been dishonest about LLM use: at their talk page [17][18] re Draft:Nayda and at the prior AE thread [19]. See this analysis [20], which mostly explains my thinking re: the prior AE thread. Meanwhile, Draft talk:Nayda § High likelihood unreviewed LLM-generated text speaks for itself. These probable prior issues make me skeptical of RnD's claims at this AE case to have only used machine assistance for translation purposes while creating the article in question. One more point: it is so much harder to address machine-assisted content in the PIA space because it gets edit warred back in [21][22] and people start arguing [23][24] about whether it is anti-semitic (this article isn't, of course - RR, RnD, and I all agree there). NicheSports (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger I didn't think that compliance with core content policies was a content issue, but understood on the rest and I am happy to drop this. I will also stop reviewing RnD's edits and will focus on LLM work outside of the PIA space. NicheSports (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Rap no Davinci: There are seven bullet points in the initial comment of Talk:Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine § WP:V and WP:OR issues, likely LLM-generated content that highlight seven excerpts from the text you added to the article in your first six edits ending 12:37, 11 January 2026. For each bullet point, could you please assess the text in question and explain in detail whether the content and the sources cited to support it are consistent with the core content policies and the reliable sources guideline? I have extended your word limit to allow 700 words for your response. — Newslinger talk 09:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I am still expecting a response from Rap no Davinci based on their own reasoning, written in their own words. — Newslinger talk 10:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rap no Davinci: Thank you for responding. You might not be aware of this, but as of December 2025, Google Translate uses Google's Gemini LLM to handle part of its translation process. Other machine translation tools have started using LLMs in their implementations as well. Because of this, whenever you use Google Translate or another machine translation tool for editing, please disclose your use of that tool in your edit summary. (When you use machine translation in a discussion comment, please also make the disclosure in the comment itself.)
    I see that your response here heavily focuses on whether the content you added corresponds to the sources you cited, but does not examine whether those sources are reliable or neutral. As the fourth bullet point from the article talk page comment pointed out, you cited a self-published article from Medium that was authored by an individual who does not appear to be a subject-matter expert. Please be more careful with your sourcing to ensure that your content is compliant with the verifiability policy.
    Based on the above, I believe Rap no Davinci should use the Articles for Creation process to create any new article related to the WP:CT/A-I contentious topic, which would necessitate a review of the draft by another editor before it is published in article space. I state this as a recommendation, but would also support implementing this as a requirement if there is consensus that doing so would be necessary. — Newslinger talk 18:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NicheSports: This noticeboard is only able to address misconduct, and content issues have to be resolved through the proper channels. I agree that Rap no Davinci's phrasing and source selection in the article are both opinionated and in need of improvement, but this is something that can be corrected with further editing (or, for Rap no Davinci's future article creations, flagged by an AfC review prior to publication). The standard for evidence on this noticeboard is higher than that of WP:ANI (because we focus more on specific diffs here instead of general impressions about an editor), and for reports regarding LLM misuse, I would prefer to see a higher-confidence sign of AI writing before advancing to a more serious behavioral restriction. — Newslinger talk 04:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • @NicheSports: Noncompliance with core content policies is a behavioral issue if there is a disruptive pattern, or if the edits are egregious enough to clearly show that they were made in bad faith. I do expect Rap no Davinci to continue working on the article to address the critiques that you and others have posted on the article talk page. — Newslinger talk 04:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Further to Newslinger's request that Rap no Davinci respond to the seven points referenced, a detailed analysis of the sources was posted by another user. I think it is fairly clear now that there is no source hallucination within the article, and therefore that RND had checked all LLM-generated assertions. What I think has to be addressed now is the undisclosed use of generative AI to write the prose of the article. The phrasing of the article makes clear, in my view, that it was substantially generated by AI. RND has denied this and says the article in question was not generated/created using LLM. On a close reading of the article drafted, I have to disbelieve their denial. Many of the usual signs are present, e.g. use of imprecise weasel words (A foundational principle for many is the…) and human-impersonating editorialisation (Their stance is rooted in the belief…). RND was warned after the last AE report that they may receive a sitewide block in the event of further generative AI misuse. Failing to disclose LLM use is discouraged and writing new articles with them is not permitted. I would ask RND to comment on this. Arcticocean ■ 17:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming good faith, I am prepared to accept the explanation that this article was not AI-generated, despite appearing to have been. I also agree with Newslinger's recommendation to use AfC in future. As ​RND has now accepted that recommendation, I think we can treat that as a voluntary measure rather than a sanction, and I would close this enforcement request without formal action, provided no other admins have further concerns. RND, please continue to remember your recent AE warning regarding generative AI use in addition to the advice given in this AE request. Arcticocean ■ 13:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]