Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Arbitration Committee

Shortcuts

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.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

More information Case name, Links ...

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
SchroCat	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	15 Apr 2026	29 Apr 2026

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

More information Case name, Closed ...

Case name	Closed
Maghreb	28 April 2026

Clarification and Amendment requests

More information Request name, Motions ...

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5	none	(orig. case)	26 April 2026
Amendment request: Various "indefinite ban" remedies	none	none	30 April 2026

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

About this page

Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget and this report may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

This page is for statements, not discussion.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a direct violation report of an editor who has violated a restriction directly imposed by the Arbitration Committee.
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget and this report may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

Initiated by Makeandtoss at 14:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Statement by Makeandtoss

When I was ARBPIA topic banned in early 2025, it was explained to me (don't remember by who or where, maybe one of arbs) that the topic ban involves:

1- specific content related to ARBPIA within a non-ARBPIA article (such as Hussein of Jordan)

2- ARBPIA articles which is defined by a ARBPIA template based on the criteria whether it relates primarily to ARBPIA (such as Black September).

2 is easy to identify via the ARBPIA template on the talk page, but what if the template is not present there and the article is ambiguous such as Arab Orthodox Movement which deals with the conflict in a number of issues but not as a whole? What about Al-Maghtas which also doesn't deal with the conflict directly?

And as for #1 it is clear what content is ARBPIA, but am I allowed to even marginally edit to say that the "Miss Jordan competition continued until the 1967 war"? Or even just link the words "Jordanian-controlled West Bank" there? Or say "the migrations from the 1948 and 1967 wars contributed to the drying up of Seil Amman"? Marginally say content "it included pro-Palestinian protests" at Grand Husseini Mosque? Casually add footage of Jordanian troops passing through King Faisal Street in 1948? Or do I avoid every word related to the conflict like the plague?

I would appreciate some guidance here, in response to these specific examples so I can extrapolate to the bigger picture on my own, as I am largely unaware of the boundaries of this sanction? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, it was a clarification request, just remembered.

In that case, my last few important questions: what if I edit the sentence in a way that doesn’t touch the conflict’s plaguey words that were marginally mentioned? E.g. it already says “Miss Jordan featured contestants from both Transjordan and West Bank which was at that time under Jordanian administration.” And I want to change that to “Miss Jordan featured Palestinian and Jordanian contestants from both Transjordan and West Bank which was at that time under Jordanian administration”? (Assuming that “West Bank” is a conflict word but “Palestinian” isn’t)… And am I allowed to say on this article’s talk page: “Hey, I’m topic banned, can someone fill the gaps in the lede I just created”? Makeandtoss (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by The Bushranger

Or do I avoid every word related to the conflict like the plague? Not an arb, but chipping in as an admin who protects pages in that area on a regular basis: yes, yes you do. If you have to ask "does this relate to the topic?" then yes, yes it does. A topic ban is just that: a ban from the topic. Unless it includes specific exceptions, it is from the topic in toto. Every last word of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

In this case, I'd say that is questionable - yes, the specific words changed don't directly touch on the topic area (not everything Palestinian is PIA, just like how not everything Israeli is), but it's still skirting close to the edge. And to answer the second part, your topic ban is a topic ban that applies on all pages in every namespace barring questions about clarifying the scope of/appealing the topic ban. Speaking as an admin, I'd suggest trying not to Wikilawyer around your topic ban.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion

Any edit including (adding/changing/removing) text mentioning the conflict (such as wars/occupations/protests) would be an edit related to the conflict and so covered by the topic ban. The previous clarification request you filed about Hussein of Jordan and such was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 131 § Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 (April 2025). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:12, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
What SL said. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Agree with Jenson also. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
The answer to am I allowed to say on this article's talk page: "Hey, I'm topic banned, can someone fill the gaps in the lede I just created"? is a flat "no". I also don't believe that touching a sentence related to the conflict is allowed—the ban is about a topic, not individual words. For the rest, I agree with Jenson. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Amendment request: Various "indefinite ban" remedies

More information pretty clear consensus not to act per snow. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC) ...

pretty clear consensus not to act per snow. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by JHD0919 at 18:36, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Various "indefinite ban" remedies

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Various "indefinite ban" remedies

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

JHD0919 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Various "indefinite ban" remedies
- Said remedies are standardized to make it clear they're only banned from enwiki

Statement by JHD0919

During the proposed decision phases of the recent Maghreb and SchroCat cases, I noticed that arbitrators have drafted remedies in both cases mentioning editors that are indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. The reason this stood out to me is that some other ArbCom remedies that mention this sort of thing do not specify a language, only mentioning that the editors are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Remedies 1 and 4 of SmallCat dispute, Remedies 3, 4.3, 5.3, and 7.3 of Historical elections, Remedy 5a of Article titles and capitalisation 2, and Remedies 6, 11, and 16 of Transgender healthcare and people are prime examples of what I'm referring to, though of course I'm certain there are others that I'm drawing a blank on.

Given that none of the various-language Wikipedias have no jurisdiction over each other, and that banning one editor from all Wikipedias for conduct on exactly one Wikipedia would be considered excessive, I request that all "indefinitely banned" remedies that do not specify a language be standardized to clarify that the editors are only banned from enwiki, similarly to what ArbCom did with the standardization of the wording of the CTOP designations a few months back. JHD0919 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Various "indefinite ban" remedies: Clerk notes

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

Various "indefinite ban" remedies: Arbitrator views and discussion

Nah, these are fine as is. Context is enough. Izno (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Haven't our poor clerks suffered enough... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:41, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
I think readers are bright enough to assume the disambiguation, here --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:41, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
This isn't really ambiguous. It goes without saying that the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee imposes remedies that apply to the English Wikipedia. Other wikis have other processes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:48, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Context is enough. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Not an issue. Daniel (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Motions

Shortcuts

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.

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
For quick requests: use the Quick enforcement requests section.
See also: Logged AE sanctions

More information Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions, Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions ...

Important information

Shortcuts

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 (including community-designated contentious topics),
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics,
request enforcement of, or appeal sanctions arising from, community-imposed general sanctions (per 2025 RfC), or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements, 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 at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed according to the standard appeals and modification procedure for arbitration enforcement actions, with two exceptions:

Contentious topic restrictions, except site-wide blocks, imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may not be modified without a successful appeal (i.e. they do not become ordinary administrative actions after a year); and
Renewed page restrictions do not become ordinary admin actions until a year after they were last renewed.

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Enforcement relating to modifications and appeals state:

Enforcement of arbitration restrictions

Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the arbitration enforcement log.

Appeals and modifications of enforcement actions

All active arbitration enforcement actions may be appealed. Only active restrictions may be appealed, and all labelled enforcement actions (including ones alleged to be against policy) must be successfully appealed under the applicable arbitration enforcement appeals procedure before they can be modified.

Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, the following procedure governs arbitration enforcement appeals. An editor may:

ask the administrator who first issued the enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); or
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. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

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.

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 other period the Committee may specify.

Changing or revoking an enforcement action

An administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[1] or is no longer an administrator;^[2] or
The restriction was issued more than a year ago.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, or
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes an enforcement action 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 an arbitration enforcement action on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with 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 an arbitration enforcement action only if:

the action was inconsistent with 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.

References

[1]
The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
[2]
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.

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.

Arbitration enforcement archives (index)

Quick enforcement requests

Shortcut

WP:QUICKAEWP:QUICKAE

Page protection

More information Protection request declined. Left guide (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC) ...

Protection request declined. Left guide (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Talk:2021 anti-Pakistan protests (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested action: Related to Pakistani military intervention, should be extended-confirmed protected per WP:CT/SA Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 15:35, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I should note that the person who made this request has since been indeffed for violating their PIA topic ban. JHD0919 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Not done: The military history of Pakistan is only included in the WP:CT/IMH subtopic for years when Pakistan was considered part of India. See WP:CT/SA#Clarifications and amendments. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:42, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Masare012

Blocked from article-space by Black Kite. Left guide (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Masare012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Requested action: Block for violations of GS/KURD after multiple and final warning. User was issued a couple of warnings about GS/KURD edits. They were then issued a final warning on April 7. They then edited List of Ayyubid rulers 8 times after that final warning. While they did undo several of their edits, they still did make multiple changes to the page. Separately, they're trying to bump their ECR threshold edit count through poorly executed RCP and RFPP requests. CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

They are making dozens of reverts of TA accounts, many of which are perfectly good edits. I have removed their ability to edit articlespace until they address this issue, but anyone else can change the block to an indef if they wish. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I understand the GS/KURD restriction and I did not intend to edit restricted-topic pages after the final warning. I misunderstood that the List of Ayyubid rulers page was included in the topic area. After realizing this, I reverted several of my edits and I will avoid Kurdish-related pages until I meet the extended-confirmed requirement.

Regarding RFPP requests, I understand now that I should be more careful before making protection requests and will follow the guidance given to me.

Thank you. Masare012 (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Najibuddaulah1752

Blocked indef by asilvering. Left guide (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Najibuddaulah1752 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Requested action: Block for violation of WP:CT/IMH with this edit. Previously blocked twice for this, and despite the discussion at User talk:Najibuddaulah1752#March 2026 they've gone and done it again. FDW777 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

For Pete's sake. Indeffed. -- asilvering (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

ToughTerty85

Indef-blocked by Mfield as a regular admin action in response to ANI report. Left guide (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

ToughTerty85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Requested action: No idea, I'm horribly out of my depth in the CTOP/AE field. I dropped this new user a CTOP/GG notification when they started editing Women's Declaration International. Their edits didn't sit well with me, but I have no wish to blunder in to a CTOP article with both feet and start reverting. However, my CTOP notification to them did not work and the edits have gone from 'uncomfortable' to 'just plain bad'. Could someone with more experience in editing in these areas do whatever it is we do when people get worse after being told about trying to edit better on gensex topics? • a frantic turtle 🐢 20:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

They are an SPA engaged in edit warring and trolling. Their edits to the article are POV and defamatory, in one case adding transphobic slurs to the article (diff). They have made a personal attack on the Talk page which I had to remove (diff). This is even after they got the CTOP notice from a frantic turtle and a final warning from me. They posted a rant that I had to remove completely (diff). Their behaviour is almost bad enough for an indef now but they seem to have paused and I'm almost intrigued to see what nonsense they come up with next. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

He's doubled down pretty extensively since. Snokalok (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm involved, so take this as you will, but I think it has to be a block, probably an indef. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

After continued disruption, I raised it at ANI and they were blocked. No further action is needed here. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

They have a (pretty unpleasant) unblock request open as I type. • a frantic turtle 🐢 00:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Bogdanov accounts

This is more strange than anything else, but I noticed that the accounts listed in this old Arb case seem to all be totally blocked for an injunction rather than pblocked: EE Guy (talk · contribs), Laurence67 (talk · contribs), Luis A. (talk · contribs), ProfesseurYIN (talk · contribs), and YBM (talk · contribs). It probably doesn't matter these days given the details of the case but it is odd. Sesquilinear (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

CatherineV (talk · contribs) and XAL (talk · contribs) are also mentioned in the remedy in question, and they aren't pblocked either. JHD0919 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

XAL is now XAL~enwiki and still blocked. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Huh, that is strange. Pestering HouseBlaster since you helped clean up some of the other detritus from this case recently: can these be unblocked? It seems like the temporary injunction expired of its own terms when the case closed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

By the terms of the injunction, yes, they can be unblocked. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

As background, the reason the injunction was enforced by full rather than partial blocks is that partial blocks did not exist when this case arose in 2005; they were not available and enabled until 2020 (see Wikipedia:Partial blocks). Perhaps these editors should have been unblocked, subject to what we'd now call a topic-ban, when the arbitration case was resolved; but is there any evidence that any of them have ever requested an unblock to edit other topics, either then or at any point in the ensuing twenty years? As a point of information, the Bogdanov affair remained contentious and litigious for many years, although not so much on-wiki, but the dispute is less active now as both of the Bogdanov brothers have died (see Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff). I understand the rationale for noting an oddity here, but it is not clear to me that any action should be taken at this late date. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

You know, I'm beginning to wonder if this should've gone to ARCA instead of here? JHD0919 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:CT/GMO editnotices

More information Answered and resolved. Left guide (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC) ...

Answered and resolved. Left guide (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As I understand it, WP:CT/GMO applies the 1RR restriction by default to pages in scope (1, 2). However, I've noticed that many pages to which I believe the restriction applies do not feature the relevant editnotice; in the spirit of awareness (3) I'd like to be able to create them. Since enforcement is typically a job for (uninvolved) administrators, and since similar issues related to scope (4, 5) and editnotices (6) have been relevant before at AE, I figured checking in here was a good idea.

1. Do the pages at Special:Permalink/1350665997 (all currently missing editnotices) fall under the scope of the contentious topic, currently defined as [a]ll pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them? If so, I will create editnotices for these pages.

2. Is it necessary to post here to clarify whether a specific page falls within scope in future? If not, how should the scope of the CTOP be assessed?

Thanks for your time. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 09:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Staraction, any page directly about GMOs would count. You have a lot of articles in there that start with "Genetically modified" - those are all obviously in scope. Go ahead and add the notice wherever relevant. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

ECP for The Memoirs of Naim Bey

The Memoirs of Naim Bey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since this entire article directly relates to the Armenian genocide, my understanding is that it all should fall under WP:CT/A-A#Extended-confirmed restriction, which means it would make sense for the page to have ECP. Cadddr (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

(AE page stalker) That's a community sanction, not an Arbcom one. But you're right, so

Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! It says above that this page can be used to request enforcement of, or appeal sanctions arising from, community-imposed general sanctions (per 2025 RfC), so I thought this would be the right place. So I know for the future, would it have been better to make the request somewhere else? Cadddr (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

It's reasonable to do it here, especially if there's an ongoing breach of sanctions which appears to be the case for this page. If there wasn't active disruption, WP:RFPPI is probably better, or WP:BATCH for a bulk request. Just one admin's perspective though. Left guide (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I do need to recall that this has become increasingly the one-stop shop! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Magnificentry ECP gaming

On 26 April, User:Magnificentry made a series of repetitive minor edits to 1981 Pontins Professional, taking them past 500 edits. They then made enough edits to their userspace that these edits did not show up on the first page of their contributions. Today, they edited Kash Patel, which is ECP'd under post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Nothing wrong with that edit per se, save the gaming. Riposte97 (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Revoked. Left guide (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

ECP for Tsunduru massacre

Tsunduru massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page is about a case of caste-related violence. Since it falls under ECR per WP:CT/SA/SG, I think it should get ECP. The page just had an instance of caste-related disruption. Cadddr (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Done. Left guide (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Gotitbro

There is a rough consensus of administrators that Gotitbro is formally warned against edit warring. WP:3RR (and the similar 1RR in certain areas/pages) is a brightline but a user can still edit war without exceeding it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Gotitbro

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Wisher08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Gotitbro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/SA

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

18:02, 27 March 2026 - Clear failure to WP:AGF with the comment "you deliberately falsified the consensus result, synthesised a false status and labelling of a source at RSP and are still defending that hoaxing".
01:14, 28 March 2026 - Continued failure of WP:AGF and actually violation of WP:BATTLE, given User:ActivelyDisinterested had already concluded "I can't see any deliberate attempt to mislead. Discussion needs to return to the reliability of the source." Even the editor (the one with whom Gotitbro was interacted) had acknowledged his misunderstanding. Now instead of letting things go, Gotitbro continued to derail the discussion with continued battleground mentality by writing "You falsified a consensus and status (apparently merely a color according to you), and are still treating it as a no big deal."
01:24, 28 March 2026 - continued WP:IDHT with WP:BATTLE. Worse is that it is written in response to another editor who told him to avoid this battleground behavior and another editor merely had a "misunderstanding". User:ActivelyDisinterested had to finally hat the discussion to avoid further derailing of the thread.

These diffs came after he was already warned for incivility by an admin just a day ago.

19:43, 29 March 2026 - Continued uncollaborative behavior. Asking "SNOWCLOSE" of a properly initiated RfC without any valid basis.
Violation of 1RR (page notice) on Dhurandhar: The Revenge on 26 March 2026:
Another violation of 1RR on Dhurandhar: The Revenge, this time on 29 - 30 March 2026:
05:51, 29 March 2026 More of the same WP:BATTLE and failure to WP:AGF.
Made 4 reverts on Muridke during 8 March - 10 March:

13:32, 08 March 2026 (+727)

20:35, 10 March 2026 (+727)

20:40, 10 March 2026 (+727)

20:44, 10 March 2026 (+727)

Talk page messages during this period were also similarly hostile and lacked AGF.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

: "warned to provide full and clear justification for any reverts in their edit summaries, and to follow WP:BRD rather than making multiple reverts."
Multiple blocks for edit warring until 2025.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Rosguill: Could the disruption be ignored if the report was not filed in timely fashion? Muridke is not the only place where Gotitbro has edit warred since his last AE warning. These are some more pages where he has edit warred in last few months:

Asim Munir, 3 reverts over the same content: 9 February, 9 February, 9 February
Hindutva, 3 reverts over the same content: 13 January, 13 January, 13 January
Sangh Parivar, 4 reverts over the same content: 14 December, 14 December, 16 December, 7 January.

There is no doubt that Gotitbro has regularly edit warred despite last AE warning over edit warring. Wisher08 (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Gotitbro already has received one logged warning for edit warring a few months ago. Wisher08 (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Gotitbro

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

Statement by Gotitbro

This is barely worth responding to, considering that it is a baseless retributive filing stemming from content disputes at one particular article (I have never interacted with this user before nor at the article where this stems from either). Dubious or worse malicious is the only way to describe this (trawling through editor histories to find something to nail at AE).

RSN: An editor when asked to clarify why they faked RfC results and reliability status when editing the RSP list doubled down claiming it was only a change of color and nothing to be bothered about. The comments followed after. At the same RSN thread an RfC was initiated for another source (which I too agreed wasn't really reliable) for which there seemed to be general agreement about its unreliability, opined a snowclose as the RfC appeared unnecessary and non-specific.
Dhurandhar: The Revenge (the article from where this retributive filing stems from) [the 1RR pertaining to the lead]: of the first these (, ) only the latter is a "revert" for addition of unsourced info (with no editor ever having challenged this basic edit then or since); of the second of these (, ) the first of these was challenging a contentious label which I followed with a discussion at the Talk page (discussion ongoing), the second of these pertained to an edit marked as a revert () but which wasn't actually so. 1RR was neither intended nor I believe manifested in either case and would/would've retract[ed] any of these if so informed.
Muridke: The first of these was reverting a vandal blanking of content by a new account. The latter pertain to another editor who restored that blanking without any valid explanation () then continued doing so asking for consensus despite there being one very well against their prior attempts at blanking (discussions can be seen at Talk and at NPOVN). The user then took this to ANI with no further engagement with that baseless report. Should've been more calmer and somber here with the edits but basic neglection of prior discussions and consensus to double down on vandal blankings by new accounts was debilitating.

Though the previous blocks are hardly relevant, will address. Two of the previous blocks came while dealing with blocked IPs and sock accounts. The last one (at an article for an extremist publisher) from my own report for an editor acting against sources and consensus (see Talk). This is not a defence against those blocks but the context should be seen. Gotitbro (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The filer here just looks to pile on "dirt" in an attempt to barely a string a case to boot off an editor, without looking at/engaging with any prior discussion.

But addressing some points below. Past discussions for Hindutva referred to this and this. For Asim Munir, at the RSN discussion my contentions were unanimously supported (i.e. "majority of editors backing Sheriffisintown's reading" isn't correct), I further took it to BLPN again garnering majority support; despite this never bothered with the article again at all for not wanting to partake in the dispute any longer (much like all of the other cases cited here).

Nonetheless, I agree that in these cases the discussion should have been much more prompt not reverts (however valid that I might've initially thunk they were). Gotitbro (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gotitbro

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

Across the evidence presented here, the only thing I see that warrants concern would be the edit warring, particularly at Muridke. Note that the 1RR restriction at Dhurandhar only applies to the lead and short description--it does not appear that the diffs displayed here show any violations of that. The 26 March diffs only include one edit to the lead (the other is to the Critical response section of the article), whereas the March 29-30 edits appear to have occurred over the span of 31 hours, so 1RR does not apply. I think that the SNOWCLOSE !vote was ill-considered in context but I'd be hard-pressed to consider a sanction on that basis. The comments at RSP seem understandable in context, even with some room for disagreement, and the final few diffs of supposed lack of AGF on the 10th and 29th do not in my view rise to the level of disruption. In general, this report also suffers from a lack of timeliness, what with the reporting of supposed edit wars that had already died down weeks ago. At most, I could see issuing a logged warning for the edit warring at Muridke, but even that may be excessive. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Wisher08, the lack of timeliness doesn't excuse it entirely, but it is a mitigating factor, and I will say bluntly: when a few untimely edit warring diffs are included alongside a grab bag of other essentially unrelated allegations, it gives the impression that this is an attempt to get an opponent sanctioned, rather than a sincere attempt to address disruption in a topic area. But edit warring can be a serious issue, so let's look at the further examples you provide:
At Asim Munir, it looks like the chronology is: at 21:34 GMT on 9 February, Bravo786 removed content with a somewhat misleading edit summary (Special:Diff/1337495959). Gotitbro reverts 9 minutes later on the basis of the edit summary. Sheriffisintown then reverts Gotitbro about 11 minutes later, with an edit summary arguing that the sources used for the content Gotitbro restored are not reliable, as well as some comments about BRD that don't really seem to relate to anything relevant in context. Over the next half hour, Gotitbro and Sheriffisintown each revert two more times, before Gotitbro lets Sheriffisintown have the last word on the article and moves to open a discussion at RSN (with discussion on the article talk page indicating this course of action). The RSN discussion ends somewhat inconclusively, with a majority of editors backing Sheriffisintown's reading but no formal closure. At any rate, the edit warring at Asim Munir never restarted, with the status quo favoring Sheriffisintown's preferred copy

At Hindutva, it looks like EarthDude made an edit at 19:57 GMT, which was then reverted by Gotitbro, resulting in both editors rapidly reverting up to 3 times. At first Gotitbro pointed to a past Talk page discussion, although I'm not able to find which discussion that referred to. Eventually both editors made their way to the article talk page. I'm not terribly impressed by Gotitbro's engagement in the discussion, where they (and others) essentially handwave at a past consensus without clearly identifying it. Nevertheless, the dispute appears to have been resolved (after extended discussion) by EarthDude modifying their proposed inclusion of references to fascism to more closely follow sources, with no further dispute apparent.

At Sangh Parivar, EarthDude makes a unilateral change, Gotitbro quickly reverts, EarthDude reinstates it, Gotitbro partially reverts, this repeats one more time before talk page discussion commences. The Talk page discussion is not very impressive, as most of it is mired in wikilawyering rather than addressing the substantive issue; it's also muddled by the participation of a sockpuppet who gets blocked during the discussion. The edit warring briefly flares up again a month later on Jan 6/7. Ultimately, a 3rd opinion is summoned, and they largely support EarthDude's view, seemingly ending the dispute.
So, overall, I do think there is an issue on display of Gotitbro taking 3RR as an entitlement, and I don't like the amount of wikilawyering-to-substantive-content-argument ratio on display in the latter two discussions. I think this puts me squarely in "logged warning against edit warring" territory, but would appreciate other admins' input. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Gotitbro, regarding my characterization of the RSN discussion, my view was colored by the article's status quo being what it was. Reviewing them again now, I would characterize both the RSN and BLPN discussion as "inconclusive", although I think that in the BLPN discussion in particular you come across as being significantly more constructive than most of the editors arguing against your point. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Ok, this has languished without attention for far too long. I've requested more admin attention to this page generally at WP:AN, but given that this discussion has already sat inactive for nearly three weeks, I intend to close with my suggested logged warning if no admins comment otherwise in the next day or so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Rosguill has done an admirable job of summarizing and evaluating this request. The one advantage to a thread on this page sitting for awhile is that it allows time to see whether an editor may have improved his or her behavior since being reported. If there have been no further issues in the past three weeks, I am okay with closing with either an informal or a formal warning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

TryKid

Request concerning TryKid

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ratnahastin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:00, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: TryKid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia

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

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

Diffs since this report

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: None applicable

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning TryKid

Statement by TryKid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TryKid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nyxaros

More information Detailed talk page addition and other issues of the submitter (over limit), Response to Buidhe ...

Nyxaros is topic banned from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Nyxaros

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nyxaros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

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

1 October 2025 Removed cited genocide information
1 October 2025 Made same edit again after being reverted, personally attacked a user ("You clearly have not written a good article") who actually helped promote many GAs and FAs. Nyxaros received warning for incivility
15 February 2026 Returned with now outright genocide denial negationism, claiming "neutrality"
22 February 2026 More massacre censoring, replaces 'massacre' with 'suppression of rebellions" and calls it a "fix"
15 February 2026 removing mention of genocide from another article, calls a reliable historian "undue" without ever explaining why
15 February 2026 rephrasing to push a Turkish nationalist POV (ex. "role in justifying the establishment of a single-party autocracy" becomes "functioned to legitimize the political order that emerged under single-party rule")
15 February 2026 After rephrasing text to diminish controversy, removes 'and controversies' from the header because "where is the actual controversy?"
21 February 2026 removes Armenian cuisine Çiğ köfte. It was lacking a citation on the Kofta page, but Nyxaros then edits the Çiğ köfte page's lead and Armenia sections, which does have a source. The following edits show a further habit of removing Armenia from cultural articles.
21 March 2026 removes Armenia from the countries list ("NPOV & UNDUE issues") despite there being an entire cited section on Armenia
6 April 2026 moves Armenia in both the template regions and sections to be after Turkey and adds an origins paragraph about the Armenian tradition being a "related form" to the Turkish one, but the source makes no mention of "related form" and is original research.
2 April 2026, 3 April 2026, 3 April 2026 edit warring and return to personal attacks (Oxford? You don't even know what you are talking about, "lol".)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

20 May 2019 blocked for 3RR edit warring
10 August 2019 blocked for being incivility toward other editors after being warned
14 February 2026 warned about edit warring by an admin

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 7 April 2026 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I had posted on Nyxaros's talk page about the Ashure changes, explaining the issue with switching the order of Armenia and Turkey and that "related form" lacked verification, and asked Nyxaros to self-revert. Nyxaros replied without addressing the original research problem and then just removed the earliest origins header.

I'm requesting WP:AA3 to be enforced, but I would note that Nyxaros' problems go outside AA3, and his edit warring problem goes beyond Turkey (Marty Supreme article, for example). KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Nyxaros

Statement by Nyxaros

Nyxaros's statement contains 554 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

First of all, I clearly warned this editor on my talk page about making baseless accusations against me. So, to address the matter directly:

The information in parentheses was removed because its placement disrupted the flow of the article, and no source was provided alongside it (I know there is at least one source that can be used for that unnecessary and long parantheses explanation but that was not cited there). What I had actually added to the article, as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk&diff=1338545969&oldid=1336053915

I am not ”denying genocide” in this edit; my edit summary and the talk-page discussions make that clear. This user is the only editor opposing these changes, which remain in the article because they are, contrary to their assertions, neutral and verifiable.

Again, the material I added/changed remains in the article without any issues, and there is clearly no ”massacre censoring”. The sentence beginning “His critics denounce…” was an instance of WP:SYNTH, whereas my addition is less verbose and more neutral and verifiable than the previous wording. I find it difficult to understand why this user is presenting the POV-pushing version as though I had done something improper by removing it. In my opinion, it should be unacceptable as an editor the defend the non-neutral language. Their response suggests that they see nothing wrong with such biased wording. If I were actually biased in the manner this editor alleges, I would not have added statements such as “the origin of the dish is disputed” or “kataif has Arabic origins” with aeveral refs, along with the many other edits I have mentioned or not mentioned here. Rather, I would have made tendentious changes to Armenian–Azerbaijani articles where issues relating to these countries are more directly relevant, for example by recasting such matters in relation to Turkey.

Exactly the same issues continued on the Nutuk article. I hardly need to explain them, since I simply removed material that presented NPOV and UNDUE problems, yet this editor claims that I did the opposite. They should review the sources and recognize the distinction between biased and neutral wording. I also referred to the text as undue, not the historian; we do not describe historians themselves as undue.

Unsurprisingly, no one else objected to these edits, and they remain in the article months later. No one has even questioned these additions, because they are not POV-pushing, problematic, or whatever this editor may claim. Also, if you are going to title a section “Controversies”, you should ensure that the section explicitly identifies and discusses controversies…

I have grown increasingly weary of this sort of conduct from both IP and registered editors. While I have been accustomed to dealing with such behavior over the years and, when necessary, reporting it, I have been encountering it more frequently than usual. As I explained in my response to this editor on my talk page, I noticed a number of issues in articles of this kind and chose to work on them. However, these topics appear to attract strongly biased editing, and hostile responses with accusations have become increasingly common. For that reason, I am no longer interested in contributing to these articles. The editors may continue adding regionally biased material to the lead or filling articles with synthesis as is shown here, but I no longer wish to spend time dealing with it. ภץאคгöร 09:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Detailed talk page addition and other issues of the submitter (over limit)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Adding my detailed talk page explanation as well, just in case:

“The additions on the page are not WP:OR; they rely on information and sources already present on the page and cited in those sources. "Ashura (Arabic: عاشورا ˁāşūrā), meaning 'tenth day'": That is literally what is stated in the source, so I corrected it. The justification lies in the old and newly added, source-supported information: ashura is associated with several regional and religious traditions and sources especially document its place in Turkish/Anatolian culture, but Armenian sources usually discuss anoushabour in a Christmas/New Year context. They are not exactly the same forms of ashure.

The previous wording/order suggesting that Armenia is the primary or most prominent region associated with ashure requires an explicit comparative claim that is not directly supported by the cited sources. Per OR and NPOV, we are of course avoiding synthesizing conclusions that are not clearly stated in reliable sources. The sources I have reviewed support a narrower and more verifiable info. Academic literature describes ashura as a multi-regional dish known across Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the Caucasus, and the Balkans, stating its strong place in Anatolian/Turkish culinary culture. At the same time, Armenian sources typically discuss the related form under a different name (anoushabour), often in the specific context of Christmas and New Year traditions. For example, a 2024 Gastronomica article published by University of California Press describes ashure as especially significant in Anatolian/Turkish culinary culture, while Sweet Treats around the World: An Encyclopedia of Food and Culture describes anoushabour as an "Armenian Christmas pudding". That is sufficient to support neutral wording distinguishing the Turkish/Anatolian ashure tradition from the Armenian (holiday) form, without making stronger comparative or synthetic claims. The ordering was adjusted accordingly and an explanatory statement was added. Why was priority given to Armenia and to content that is (still) problematic?“ ภץאคгöร 10:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I am aware that the limit was exceeded, but I felt it necessary to respond before the situation escalated. As a side note, I would also point out that the reporting editor appears to focus exclusively on articles related to Armenia, and one of the two articles they have created has been tagged for independent sources and tone issues. I have not examined their actions or editing history, but even this is consistent with the concerns I described above. ภץאคгöร 20:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Response to Buidhe

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is plainly incorrect, so I am commenting in response. My apologies.

I did not write "Scholar X asserted that the Armenian genocide happened". Instead, I changed "According to some accounts, he expressed disapproval of the events to foreign audiences." with one source cited to "Taner Akçam also states that Mustafa Kemal expressed disapproval of the events...". There is no "some accounts" claim found in that one reference. Where does one get "according to some accounts" as an unverified fact? On a side note, the principle that "an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil" clearly does not apply in this editor's case.

In edit 4, the previous text, which means before I changed it, doesn't even state that the goverment was responsible for the massacre, it states it was one person who gave the order. There is no justification for synthesizing information from a source in an article, only to then provide incorrect examples here that cannot be found in the previous text and my edits. It is therefore evident that I did not "present facts as opinions". Please do not misread the texts. It would be preferable for someone, or several people, who have reviewed the matter and do not bear any prior grudge against me to comment. ภץאคгöร 20:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Buidhe

Along with other behavioral issues highlighted above, in diff #3, Nyxaros incorrectly watered down statements cited to many reliable, scholarly sources and added attribution. These facts are well established in many scholarly sources and there is no real dispute about them, nor did Nyxaros present any evidence or contrary sources. Therefore in it's equivalent to changing "The Armenian genocide happened" to "Scholar X asserted that the Armenian genocide happened", which violates NPOV by stating a fact as an opinion. In diff #4 the editor does the same thing with Turkish and Kurdish history; there is no reasonable dispute that the Turkish one-party state was politically authoritarian and that the government was responsible for anti-Kurdish atrocities such as the Dersim massacre. Such edits make me question the editor's ability to edit these topics to Wikipedia standards. (t · c) buIdhe 15:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nyxaros

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

I have reverted one reply to Buidhe, as Nyxaros is way over the word limit already. I've also hatted some of the initial excess. -- asilvering (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Re-adding your over-long response after having it reverted by a patrolling admin sure isn't going to help beat the edit-warring accusations, I have to say. -- asilvering (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Frankly the repeated walls of text and edit warring with a worker here at AE with an edit summary of yes I already stated that I know it's over the word limit, but since the other party's claims are clearly inaccurate and the response was provided to point out this evidently, my response can still be combined in this way (or at least linked together before being withdrawn) makes me wonder if Nyxaros is really suited for work in contentious topics. Valereee (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Despite my distaste for the lengthy parenthetical insertion - which is indeed poor writing, regardless of the message conveyed - the POV intent here is clear, and I would endorse a topic ban. Honestly I wonder if we are in indef territory - there's previous concerns at ANI, two previous blocks, and an unnecessarily combative and dismissive attitude on talk pages outside this CTOP. But we should start with the lesser sanction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
And adding (during which around 1 million Armenians were killed by the CUP government, largely via direct killings and deportation to areas where survival of such large numbers of people was impossible) directly behind a linked Armenian genocide isn't just poor writing, it's pointy. I'd have removed it, too. Valereee (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
I generally agree with the above: not every change highlighted here is immediately problematic, but there is a concerning pattern. I find that Nyxaros's response to Buidhe, while also over the word limit, underscores the problem here: Nyxaros focuses on the changes to the claim relating to the claims attributed to Taner Akçam, but Buidhe's concern clearly applies more significantly to the change in how claims by Kevorkian and Nichanian are presented. Incidentally, I have some concerns about the propriety of the Taner Akçam change as well, as in their haste to attribute that claim, they don't appear to have confirmed whether the text was supposed to suggest that Taner Akçam is one of "some accounts", or whether Akçam 2006 itself claims that there were "some accounts". Without having confirmed the citation's page number, this seems like guesswork, not careful editing. Ironically, it is diffs 8 and 9 that I find most blatantly and unjustifiably engage in POV warring, despite the significantly lower stakes of food topics compared to genocide. I would agree with a topic-ban from Armenia-related topics; I think that the blocks were sufficiently long ago that jumping straight to a full indef here would not be appropriate._signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:45, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

M.Bitton

More information That's enough of that. There is consensus among responding administrators that this can be addressed if necessary after the Arbitration case is complete. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC) ...

That's enough of that. There is consensus among responding administrators that this can be addressed if necessary after the Arbitration case is complete. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning M.Bitton

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kowal2701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: M.Bitton (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

16 April 2026: Bobfrombrockley assesses what is clear consensus and makes the corresponding edit , M.Bitton reverts
See the discussion at Talk:Zionism#Drawing to a conclusion?, more on this below
16 April 2026 M.Bitton starts a WP:POINTy RfC

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Made a statement at AE on 4 March 2026

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Yes, I rolled my eyes too, but there's ongoing disruption. To summarise the discussion, there is clear consensus for a change; M.Bitton states there is no consensus with no reasoning; they dodge a question re what their reasoning is; M.Bitton starts a subsection workshopping an RfC, while simultaneously the local discussions are listed at WP:CR ; M.Bitton ignores a request to wait for the local discussions to be assessed, despite WP:RFC being clear RfCs should not be held if issues can be resolved locally; M.Bitton feigns collaboration re the RfC question; M.Bitton starts the RfC while ignoring Bobfrombrockley's input. I can add more about aspersions, specious/fallacious reasoning etc. but I'd recommend people read the short discussion.

Though my behaviour isn't technically under scrutiny here, re my first comment , it was uncivil and unnecessary, while I consider it verified by the evidence provided in the ongoing ARBCOM case about M.Bitton (specifically see re PIA), it's still a violation of WP:FOC. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I guess admins can decide whether saying "if it’s ascertained that there’s no consensus, we can have an RfC" is me trying to "win", me "strongly opposed to an RfC", or simply tautological and following basic procedure. I don’t oppose an RfC, I oppose M.Bitton stonewalling and attempting to bypass possible consensus by unilaterally starting an RfC on his terms, wasting community time in the process. I don’t even have a strong opinion on the issue, just trying to limit disruption in the short term. If M.Bitton withdraws the RfC and workshops with the other editors (or at least doesn’t disrupt that process), I don’t see a need for sanctions right now given the arbcom case is a few weeks away from concluding. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

What despicable mudslinging at Bob, a model editor who's never even commented at AE before, while several here show up time and time again defending 'ideological allies' and attacking 'ideological enemies', without exception. Warnings or at the very least cautions need to be handed out, it happening a few times can be chalked off as "providing useful context", but after a while it flies past WP:PACT and turns AE into a charade. As an example, see Smallangryplanet's statements at AE (this is all of them, sorry but had to pick on someone): . Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning M.Bitton

Statement by M.Bitton

M.Bitton's statement contains 526 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

Given that the issue has been the subject of various discussions without a clear consensus in sight, I proposed a RfC. Kowal2701 opposed it and suggested WP:CR instead (based on a head count of three discussions, including archived ones). I started a RfC workshop (even though I didn't have to since the RFCBEFORE threshold has been met multiple times over). Kowal2701 listed the discussions at WP:CR (proving that the WP:POINTY that they are referring to applies to them). As if that wasn't enough, they made it clear that they will support a RfC only if the close of the discussions doesn't go their way (in other words, they see the RfC process as a way to win, rather than solve the long-standing issue).

Their system gaming aside, what makes Kowal2701 think that their behaviour isn't technically under scrutiny here? Are they under the impression that admitting to their uncalled for incivility here somehow absolves them of any wrongdoing and gives them carte blanche to weaponise AE? M.Bitton (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley's misleadingly claim is factually incorrect and shows their bad faith assumption: there was nothing misleading about what I said since the RfC tag was removed at the time (it was reopened hours later and the editor who closed it without a valid reason has now !voted in the RfC). Contrary to what Bob is claiming, they used head counts (including from archived discussions). They are wrong about Kowal2701's view of the RfC process (Kowal2701 listed the discussions at WP:CR after I mentioned the RfC). Bobfrombrockley also has a habit of dismissing scholarly sources that don't align with their POV, while refusing to take them to RSN (see my previous response), hence my recent answer to their repeated unsubstantiated claim about the same source (months later).

Once I realised that I was about to be taken on another merry-go-round ride, I started a RfC that deals head-on with the issue (proposing the stable version and the one that they claimed there is consensus for). Why would any good faith editor have a problem with that? What's preventing them from !voting for the the option that they claim there is consensus for? M.Bitton (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Wh1pla5h99 (who was canvassed to this case) response to me (for stating my opinion): How Trumpian of you. Obviously, their opinion is held to a different standard. M.Bitton (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

this sounds rather like an emotional outburst (diff) is another response of theirs. Basically, personalising the discussions seems to be their modus operandi. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hampering the progress of the RfC workshop.^{1, 2, 3} M.Bitton (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Pre-emptive grave dancing. They also doubled-down on it. M.Bitton (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

NorthernWinds (the editor who canvassed Wh1pla5h99): see this discussion. Note: their PIA topic ban was rescinded in late January. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: sure thing. M.Bitton (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37: I will note that your main editing focus is PIA related: your first ever edit was an ECR violation, and you went straight back to editing PIA as soon as you became extended confirmed (literally). M.Bitton (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

What isn't obvious is the fact that over the last three weeks or so, I have been provoked non-stop by a bunch of editors who are aware of the case against me. M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

This report has been made because someone started an RFC? Seriously? TarnishedPath^talk 22:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Note, that the WP:CR request referred to by Kowal2701 above has been declined. See Special:Diff/1349383055. TarnishedPath^talk 02:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Noting that contributions to date to the RFC indicate that any consensus claimed by Kowal2701 or Bobfrombrockley is illusory. This undermines much of Kowal2701's arguments. Kowal2701 claims that their conduct is not under scrutiny, which is far from the case. This and other behavioural noticeboards can and have handed out sanctions to those filing disruptive complaints. I feel that is entirely appropriate in the current circumstance. TarnishedPath^talk 07:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Please see the following for some of Kowal2701's recent activity at Talk:Zionism:

04:44, 17 April 2026, labels M.Bitton starting an RFC as WP:POINTy sans evidence. This is casting WP:ASPERSIONs about an editor's conduct on the article's talk page.
03:16, 17 April 2026, threatens to bring M.Bitton to AE on the article's talk page. This is WP:INCIVIL.
02:20, 17 April 2026, accuses M.Bitton of WP:STONEWALLING on the article's talk page. This is INCIVIL and an ASPERSION lacking in sufficient evidence given the current state of the RFC.

Some of these discussions may have been appropriate for M.Bitton's talk, presuming that Kowal2701 dropped the incivility and the aspersion; however the posting of these comments on the article talk page of one of the most highly charged articles on all of Wikipedia does nothing more than raise the temperature in one of our most heated topic area. Frankly we can do without it. TarnishedPath^talk 08:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by EaglesFan37

The whole entire Talk:Zionism page at this point is impossible for any changes to be made to the article. If 14 in favor of a change to 6 for the status quo isn't enough for a change to be made without being reverted, then I'm not entirely sure what the point was for lifting the moratorium. As @M.Bittonsaid in this comment, , if consensus is what matters, then the change shouldn't have been reverted.

Since the ongoing Maghreb case involving @M.Bitton, the vast majority of their wikipedia edits (asides from discussion of said case) has been to either the Zionism article or talk page. The revert and creating an RfC when the discussion on the topic wasn't even closed as an attempt to maintain the current version of the article regardless of consensus does appear to be an attempt to delay making changes to the status quo despite existing consensus for changing it does seem to be disruptive and an attempt to prevent the change from being made. Given the ongoing Maghreb case, it does appear like the allegations made in that case could be carrying over into PIA as well. There are also WP:UNCIVIL comments in the thread from the user in question . EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Darouet Most of the users involved in the new rFc was either in the previous workshop or were actively involved in another rFc on the talk page. There are only two users not previous involved in either that conversation that were participating in that RfC: @Polygnotus and yourself (a few hours after you commented on this RfC. Most of the discussion was originally suggesting that it be closed, and when that didn't happen, then the same users answered the RfC. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The whole situation appears to be spiraling at this point. I'm not sure why @NorthernWinds removed comments from the ~~friend~~ (meant talk page, not sure where friend came from), and I'm not sure why @IOHANNVSVERVS is being pinged by @M.Bitton on Northernwinds talk page..

The whole dispute is at a point where it's a WP:BATTLEGROUND between several users on multiple pages, and, for the sake of the project, cooler heads need to start prevailing. EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@SuperPianoMan9167

It goes beyond those two users at this point (there are at 4 others involved at this point). Honestly, there are two users involved in the whole dispute who should probably be topic banned, a third that's borderline, and four more that should be warned, which would hopefully allow the situation to cool down/able to be resolved by other users. EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 Respectfully, I disagree about not issuing a temporary injunction.

I am convinced they are not able to edit collaboratively in that area. Their talk page contributions fall below the required standard both with respect to substance (identification and interpretation of sources) and tone (toward other editors). A PIA TBAN seems necessary.

Over the past two weeks, @M.Bitton has made around 65 edits on the Talk:Zionism page, and many of their comments would have been WP:UNCIVIL. The article topic is already very contentious, and the user in question has been WP:STONEWALLING progress and is treating it like a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I can only speak for myself, but I stopped commenting on the page because it was apparent that no resolution was going to appear because no changes that weren't explicitly approved by M.Bitton would end up emerging. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Looking at @Sean.hoyland's SPA-gaming tool, under 20% of my edits since being granted ECR have fallen under PIA. Almost all of my editing in PIA has been about the Gaza War hostages.

When I was getting started on Wikipedia, I was not familiar with ECR and its full boundaries (aka included talk pages on pages where there wasn't an ECR notice). Once I was made aware that editing unprotected pages or participating on talk pages could be considered violations, I ceased any possible violations until after reaching ECR.

The vast majority of my contributions after meeting ECR were things like adding photos, citizenship, or birthdates for the List of Gaza war hostages article, expanding articles on individual hostages, adding hyperlinks, and requesting page protection on unprotected PIA articles (so other users couldn't make the same mistakes I had made). EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

This is now the second time I've had to refer to somebody involved in this discussion as far too hasty. Kowal2701 says that there was a clear consensus that was being acted upon but this was only really their assertion. And, frankly, it really seems like them attempting to use AE to prevent any RfC from happening as they have been very clear they do not want one and threatened to take M.Bitton to AE if one was created. I strongly support the RfC as it is abundantly clear that there is not a consensus in the discussion. While one opinion holds a numerical superiority in the discussion, the whole thing is, frankly, mostly regulars who have entrenched views and who have been disputing the topic of how to describe the relationship between Zionism and settler colonialism for a very long time now. In such a circumstance, a formal discussion that is designed to solicit a broader set of views among eligible editors would absolutely be best practice. I described M.Bitton's RfC as too hasty here: and entreated all parties to work toward a more thoroughly framed RfC here: . Despite Kowal2701 pointing to Bobfrombrockley as identifying a clear consensus Bob has, themself, advocated for an RfC since then . M.Bitton's RfC was posted in haste and with insufficient workshopping and I suspect the reason why is because they saw Kowal2701 trying to move to head off any RfC at all. It's more difficult to say "an RfC is not needed" when one is in progress after all. However, while I think M.Bitton should withdraw the current RfC and return to the drawing board to construct a more thorough one, I think any sanctions to them for this incident would be excessive. I would suggest Kowal2701 should be cautioned about using AE as a cudgel in content disputes and that this be closed with no more sanctions for any party than that. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Samuelshraga

I think AE admins should ask arbs to reopen evidence for a couple of days so that editors can add anything narrowly connected to this to the ongoing Maghreb case, which is also looking at M.Bitton's behaviour more broadly. There has already been a temporary injunction passed on M.Bitton based on behaviour during the case. It seems silly to have AE admins look at this at exactly the same time as arbs are looking at M.Bitton with much more context. I already asked at the case myself. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet it's not forum-shopping in that the evidence phase of the Arbcom case has been closed, so Kowal didn't have an alternative forum to report disruption in the last few days. The CTOP question isn't relevant - M.Bitton's behaviour across the project is within the scope of the case, hence my suggestion to adjudicate this there.

I'd just tell AE admins this - the Arbcom case has included lots of evidence about stonewalling and frustrating dispute resolution so arbs looking at the evidence there have a lot more context for examining this complaint. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Smallangryplanet

Hastily opening an RfC is not a crime and it was handled or is being handled on the talk page by the editors in the discussion, which is what is supposed to happen. As admins of course know very well, AE is for when we are unable to resolve a dispute with community discussion. I will note that this is not the first time Kowal2701 has attempted to use AE to resolve a content dispute that was being discussed in the community - a couple of months ago they argued that I should be indeff'd because they disagreed with my interpretation of sources, claiming without evidence that I am a SP or somehow doing offsite coordination. It's also worth mentioning - as Samuelshraga points out - Kowal2701 (and Samuelshraga!) are apparently involved in Maghreb-related proceedings concerning M.Bitton, which makes bringing that case into this AE filing feel like forum shopping, even though different CTOPs are at play. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Darouet

98% of the edit (assessed by byte size) that M.Bitton reverted removed text that wasn't even discussed on the talk page. M.Bitton's revert was therefore correct and the decision to open an RfC is the right one. For a sensitive topic like this it's important to produce a consensus through input from the larger community. -Darouet (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The immediate contribution of many editors to the RfC demonstrates how important it is to get larger community involvement, and also shows that M.Bitton's insistence on consulting the community was - once again - the correct decision. -Darouet (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by SuperPianoMan9167

SuperPianoMan9167's statement contains 140 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I'm seeing a lot of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in this report so far, from both M.Bitton and Kowal2701. In their statements, they take turns sniping at each other:

(Kowal2701) I can add more about aspersions, specious/fallacious reasoning etc. but I'd recommend people read the short discussion.
(Kowal2701) Though my behaviour isn't technically under scrutiny here, re my first comment , it was uncivil and unnecessary, while I consider it verified by the evidence provided in the ongoing ARBCOM case about M.Bitton (specifically see re PIA), it's still a violation of WP:FOC. Additionally, the initial assertion is wrong, as reporters' behavior can come under scrutiny. (Additional comment inserted at 15:34 UTC)
(M.Bitton) Kowal2701 listed the discussions at WP:CR (proving that the WP:POINTY that they are referring to applies to them). As if that wasn't enough, they made it clear that they will support a RfC only if the close of the discussions doesn't go their way (in other words, they see the RfC process as a way to win, rather than solve the long-standing issue).
(M.Bitton) Are they under the impression that admitting to their uncalled for incivility here somehow absolves them of any wrongdoing and gives them carte blanche to weaponise AE?
(Kowal2701) I oppose M.Bitton stonewalling and attempting to bypass possible consensus by unilaterally starting an RfC on his terms, wasting community time in the process.

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Darouet: It is still not helpful to revert a change with little explanation beyond "no consensus", even if the edit was correct. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet: I concur with @Samuelshraga. In fact, I was considering mentioning this AE filing at the Maghreb case as well. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37: Agreed. The battleground behavior is incredibly obvious even in this report alone. Since my initial statement, Kowal2701 and M.Bitton continue to snipe at each other and at other editors:

(M.Bitton) What Bobfrombrockley said is factually incorrect and shows their bad faith assumption...
(Kowal2701, in response) What despicable mudslinging at Bob, a model editor who's never even commented at AE before, while several here show up time and time again defending 'ideological allies' and attacking 'ideological enemies', without exception.
(M.Bitton) @Wh1pla5h99 (who was canvassed to this case): some editors have to learn how to respect other people's opinion and refrain fro imposing theirs.

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Bobfrombrockley

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

I don't think I've contributed to this process before and I hesitate to do so now but feel I need to as I've been directly involved in this dispute. This is a long-running content discussion in the PIA area (an area where temperatures often run high and where both parties edit a lot). The disputed sentence was i) inserted in 2024, discussed with consensus to remove, ii) inserted again in 2025, discussed again with consensus to remove but left in, iii) discussed again earlier this year, at which point onus had shifted and no consensus was reached, and then discussed again on the current talk page. 24 hours ago, I spent a long time reading through three of those discussions (I wasn't aware of the 2024 one). Contrary to M.Bitton’s assertion, this wasn't just a head count, although the numerical majority was clear. I felt that, although I was involved, it was clear there was consensus for change across the discussions, so I edited and notified the talk page. Ten minutes later, M.Bitton reverted me, and said we need an RfC. Kowal2701 made a close request and M.Bitton started a workshop on RfC options. All that seems legitimate behaviour to me. What wasn't legitimate was only allowing the workshop to run just 40 minutes before starting an RfC with options that didn't reflect what the content of the workshop (while the close request was still active). (~~Bizarrely~~, despite having started the RfC, M.Bitton several hours later ~~misleadingly~~ informed the close request page that "A RfC regarding the issue is being workshopped".) A range of editors (e.g. Simonm223) called for the RfC to pause, but M.Bitton ignored these calls, reflecting behaviour noted in the Maghreb case: simply disengaging from attempts at compromise. We now unhelpfully have a live RfC with options that aren’t going to generate a real consensus. M.Bitton is wrong to say Kowal2701 supported a RfC "only if the close of the discussions doesn't go their way"; rather Kowal2701 said an RfC was only needed if the close request found no consensus. M.Bitton’s manner in the discussion is consistently dismissive and uncollaborative (e.g. in response to “Do you mind quoting?”: “Yes, I do mind.” In response to a criticism of a source: “That's your irrelevant opinion”). If this was a standalone case, it would not a disciplinary matter, imho, although frustrating, and it would be wrong to bring it here, but if this is part of the same pattern as the Maghreb case it should be considered there.

@Darouet – it’s not right that my edit removed text that wasn't even discussed on the talk page. As I reported to the talk page, I removed the three words where I thought there was clear consensus to remove, plus two references that had been disputed in the previous discussion and not supported there. My edit was based on a careful reading of all three discussions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton the RfC was open when you said it was being “workshopped”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by NorthernWinds

NorthernWinds's statement contains 499 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

@Darouet If many editors made immediate contributions it further proves that it was wrong to launch this RfC before the options could be discussed. It was a waste of time to make them contribute when the matter could have been solved by a discussion closer ruling that there is no consensus.

Incidentally, the options that M.Bitton chose to impose on the community did not include replacing 'colonial' with 'colonization,' an option favoured by multiple contributors who've previously expressed their opinion. This, I believe, could indicate that M.Bitton tried to truncate the discussion specifically to prevent such an addition, which he presumably (as understood from his support of the status quo) does not like. This may be taken as an attempt to preserve a POV as much as possible; in other words, this aggressive, hasty, and unilateral creation of an unrepresentative RfC could be seen as a POV push. The outcome of this request cannot be divorced from M.Bitton's history of POV pushing; this RfC is a continuation of the disruptive tactics previously detailed in his ArbCom case's evidence page. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton and suggested WP:CR instead (based on a head count of three discussions, including archived ones) If only the most recent discussion was counted, it would still be about 4 to 2, which is about the same ratio we got from counting the previous discussions as well. Also the closing request would have directly solved the head counting issue. The "they" who made it clear that they will support a RfC only if the close of the discussions doesn't go their way refers to Kowal, the only one who said this. The first response was my response, which said I think it would be better to first have an uninvolved editor assess consensus then start an RfC if the result doesn't satisfy you. Others, like Bob, also cooperated. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Vice regent While Kowal and I "stalled," Bob suggested options to be narrowed down. Bitton neither included any of Bob's suggestions nor waited for the refined options workshops are intended to produce. I wouldn't have these suspicions if he hadn't opened an RfC workshop only to preempt further discussions with an RfC which ignored the feedback he had already received. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Noting that contributions to date to the RFC indicate that any consensus claimed by Kowal2701 or Bobfrombrockley is illusory: At the moment, 10/17 contributors voted for closure and further workshopping. Unsurprisingly, the only !votes who weren't unhappy with the RfC were the ones siding with Bitton's opinion on preserving the term "settler colonialism". At least to me, this reinforces the feeling that this RfC was designed in bad faith. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Bitton's behavior was disruptive and requires administrative evaluation. Regardless of the filer, the need for review remains; as AE is not a vote, the outcome depends on the behavior, not the messenger. Either way it would've found its way here, either in my statement or someone else's.

Following IOHA's comment, I struck mine, recognizing its incivility. I regret the delivery, but suggesting to report in a discussion where a user (as I see it) engaged in disruptive behaviour is not canvassing, and it is appropriate that administrators evaluate the dispute here.

Bitton appears to be retaliating. This short conversation speaks for itself.. I am having a hard time interpreting this comment as anything other than an an attempt to lure more harmful words out of another editor. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vice regent

Bob tried to assess consensus by pinging all previous participants, and while it did attract some new users, ultimately I see no consensus among users in this discussion – which is an indication we needed an RfC.

I find the comments by Kowal2701 and NorthernWinds to be less than reasonable. M.Bitton did ask what options they wanted in the RfC, twice, and both Kowal2701 and NorthernWinds both initially stalled. That said, M.Bitton also needs to slow down a bit.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:42, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by إيان

As yet another editor with whom Kowal2701 has disagreed on content and then brought here—after pinging me and another admin in a complaint on an admin's talk page without having ever discussed anything with me or even interacted with me and after I had already acknowledged my mistakes and apologized on my behalf for stooping to the same level of incivility as that other editor, with whom Kowal2701 happened to agree on content (conspicuously, Kowal2701 did not bother to file a report for incivility against that other editor, or complain to an admin about them, or even discuss their conduct with them, apparently)—I share some of Smallangryplanet's concerns regarding the abuse of A/R/E. That I was singled out and subjected to process ending with a logged civility warning, singled out apparently because I had the misfortune of disagreeing on content with an editor with a demonstrated proclivity for bringing their colleagues to A/R/E at the drop of a hat or an RfC they appear to disagree with, is an absurd injustice.

M.Bitton and I have had many protracted disagreements over the years, but I can only say that they are an excellent editor who rigorously engages with the sourcing and meticulously applies policies. I also have to say I have seen them be exceedingly charitable and patient with—quite infuriating, honestly—editors who refuse to get the point even when presented with abundant contradictory evidence/policy. Though we often disagree, they are an editor from whom I have benefitted immensely and through my interactions with them I have grown and improved as an editor.

This complaint against them is of no merit and appears to fall into an observable trend in need of curtailment. A/R/E is not for trying to punish or silence editors with whom we disagree on content. إيان (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Second Cinaroot. PIA TBAN is a shocking proposal for M.Bitton given the preponderance of disruptive PIA editors that are far worse, many of whom don't even concern themselves with sourcing. إيان (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Iseult

With the understanding that my previous actions coupled with this statement conservatively conflict me from closing the mentioned RfC or any others stemming directly from the discussions originally listed at CR:

I declined to close the two discussions Kowal2701 originally listed as one was well stale and closing the other would, so I understood, short-circuit an RfC in the making, as noted by M.Bitton. I saw no harm and in fact a benefit for the community in this.

The first discussion was, at the time of my decline, 470 days old. As this is not Kowal's first rodeo at CR, the inclusion thereof is bemusing. Closing this would be patently inappropriate.

As for the second, far be it from me to stand in the way of an RfC. It would/will be more representative of the broader community, come with 1000-word limits (making both the close and discussion easier), and yield a consensus more durable. The notion that WP:RFCBEFORE preempts RfCs if a consensus can be found in informal discussion is to me remarkably strict; there, it is said that it's not required. If an RfC is premature, the community will make it known. As of writing, I see no consensus for a procedural close with regards to the RfC in question.

Also, if M.B felt that Kowal was trying to head off the RfC, speaking from the point of view of a CR regular, we are backlogged. This discussion is long, tense, and in a difficult topic area. It's not hard to imagine it sitting for a few weeks without formal closure.

Perhaps M.B jumped the gun. The RfC train has long since left the station. But premature RfCs have, to my knowledge, always been for the community to resolve. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 08:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Wh1pla5h99

My only interaction with this editor has been in this ORN discussion, about whether the following quote in the Zionism article constitutes original research, or whether sources for it can be found: The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs. M.Bitton responded with two sources that he claimed support the statement. In my reponse to him I carefully analysed them and argued why I thought that they fail to do so. His responses to those arguments are why I am making this statement. To quote some of these, he said:

I think these speak for themselves. I don't think it is productive for these already contentious discussions to involve an editor who is so clearly unwilling to engage in dialogue and respond to arguments. Claiming that something "is a fact", without making any attempt to demonstrate how; dismissing other people's carefully formed responses as "pseudo-analysis"; and claiming that there is no need to seek the approval of other editors, are, in my opinion, antithetical to what this website is about. If someone is not willing to participate collaboratively in these discussions, then I don't see why they should participate in them at all. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: For what it's worth, I was well aware of this arbitration request prior to being "canvassed", but at the time I had had no interaction with M.B. and therefore no reason to participate. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

In attempting to actually fairly workshop an RfC, I was met with this from M.B.: Of course I want a RfC, but since you insist on workshopping one, we will do it properly. This isn't a game of "let's add all the silly options we can think of". This snide, belittling tone, as well as being strange and uncomfortable, is nothing but a hindrance to discussions and merits serious consideration in the case. Cheers. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

More of this belittling tone: "I'll keep it simple for you". Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Attempting to derail the RfC workshop, rather than engage with it. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: On "grave dancing", as I said in the thread, I was stating that I did not see it necessary to respond to yet another flippant response. That is my opinion; it is certainly not "dancing". Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Super Goku V

@TarnishedPath and Vanamonde93: As silly as this report is for being about opening an RfC, there was a recent AE case brought against a user for closing a good article review as a quick fail because the article was under full protection due to an editing dispute. (Still, this case is best left unresolved until WP:ARBMAG is closed.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Cinaroot

@Vanamonde93 Please provide some diffs of contributions that fall short of community expectations and more clearly articulate the rationale for a topic ban. This helps the community understand your reasoning and is warranted given the editors involved and the level of community interest. Regarding tone, conversations in this topic area can become heated. The tone of other editors should also be considered when evaluating M. Bitton’s tone. 🐈Cinaroot 06:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Working in this topic area is not easy. It is stressful and takes a toll on you. You may have been attacked elsewhere, and that can have an effect— it may show in your tone or contributions in other places. I wonder if administrators fully understand this. People want to see you blocked— they will dig up something, and without full context, it’s easy to misunderstand what happened.

I would like all admins to clearly articulate their reasoning supported by evidence. I have deep respect for @Newslinger, who handled AE case against me— they conducted an in-depth investigation, identified exactly what I did wrong, and supported their conclusions with evidence from my contributions. Without them, I would probably have been topic banned. 🐈Cinaroot 08:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Good to see the Gaming Check tool getting a shout out (and note that the 'Verbose' option of the Recent Grants part was upgraded yesterday to include some more topic area related stats). Since 'main editing focus' was mentioned along with an 'under 20%' rebuttal, and having spent too much time staring at EC related data, I have a few comments about this kind of stats based argument.

The extent to which an account focuses on PIA pages doesn't really tell you much about them. For example, M.Bitton has only made less than 4% of their edits strictly in topic area, so the fact that they are relentlessly targeted and will continue to be targeted until they are either topic banned or blocked, and people are willing to write a lot about them here and elsewhere, is not obvious from that number alone.
Also, is a number like 20% a lot or a little? How does it fit into the big picture? We can look back one year from today and see where EaglesFan37's 18.9% fits in as an example.
- 4,679 accounts have been granted extendedconfirmed.
- 867 of these accounts have made at least 1 revision strictly in the PIA topic area (totaling 22332 post-grant revisions).
- Out of these 4,679 accounts EaglesFan37 comes in at #63 based on post-grant PIA percentages and #10 based on post-grant PIA revision counts. Just made it into the top ten. Congrats.

So, while these lengthy discussion about long-term experienced editors happen here and in ArbCom decisions/amendment requests etc, with all the concerns about state variables of the topic area that are often mentioned, like temperature, charge, etc. despite us not measuring them, it's worth remembering that hundreds of accounts with newly acquired EC grants are flowing into the topic area as the experienced editors flow out. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning M.Bitton

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

slightly off-topic, but isn't there a topic-wide 1k-word limit per person per discussion in arbpia? It seems on a cursory scroll like several people have breached it in the discussion linked. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Note that that remedy is limited to formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc), not all discussions. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 01:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
ah, gotcha, thanks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
M.Bitton, can you please provide a diff of the canvassing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
The opening of an RfC I do not find sufficiently improper to be actionable. But I have now spent quite a while reading through all of M. Bitton's extant contributions to that talk page, and I am convinced they are not able to edit collaboratively in that area. Their talk page contributions fall below the required standard both with respect to substance (identification and interpretation of sources) and tone (toward other editors). A PIA TBAN seems necessary. That said, ArbCom is currently considering evidence of M. Bitton's conduct outside the Maghreb topic area. I don't want to create an overlapping sanctions regime. I think we should hold this open until a Maghreb decision is posted, and handle whatever remains as necessary. The disruption does not strike me as so urgent as to need a temporary injunction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Given the proposed decision in the current ArbCom case, I don't think any action will be needed here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

JJNito197

JJNito197 is indefinitely banned from editing about the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning JJNito197

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Samuelshraga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: JJNito197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:PIA

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

23.03.26 You are speaking passionately because it is what you BELIEVE, due to your BELIEF SYSTEM... You are clutching at pearls, and it is obvious to see. And Don't piggy back on the Canaanite reality in attempt to separate and exalt yourself from others.
24.3.26 Suggested I was a Biblical literalist and couldn't edit neutrally, andsaid their opponents were reinforcing antiquated pseudo race science, using mythology, for some politicised goal.
27.3.26: Accused me of passionate NPOV beliefs (I think they meant POV) because I don’t hold their view and accused me of denigrating the religon [Judaism] for the sake of ideology and racial pseudo science.
31.01.26 It's only problematic if you view the position from the lens of Israel/USA.
08.03.26 If you believe that Golan belongs to Israel, feel free to read the Hebrew Wikipedia page.
20.03.26 Of course Israel would call it part of the Southern Levant
1.4.26 I will continue adding content with AD/BC on this article regardless, and editors that feel it incumbent to change to CE/BCE can clean up after me if they feel the need. This was after failing to get support at AN and being told to go seek consensus on article talk.
1.4.26 Makes clear that the context for 4 is that they think the AD/BC system is being opposed from an Israeli viewpoint.
9.4.26 adding a template asserting the whole section was written in Hebrew over 3 Hebrew bible quotes out of several paragraphs in English.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 21 June 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

WP:PA/extreme WP:UNCIVIL: diffs 1-3
WP:BLUDGEON: (including diffs 1-3 at Talk:Ashkenazi Jews#Pronunciation of Ashkenazim, pushing a fringe position - that Israelites never existed (36 comments to the RfC). Similar bludgeoning at Talk:Israelites. Dozens of comments across multiple discussions at Talk:Golan Heights (including diffs 4-8)
WP:BATTLEGROUND: diffs 1-3, 7 but pretty much all of them really.
WP:ABF: diff 1, diffs 4-8 (accusations that their opponents are editiing from an Israeli point of view)
WP:POINT: diff 9 - massively overblown template compared to the scale of the issue.

Given the ANI thread JJNito launched was auto-archived without action despite recognition of their behaviour and support for a boomerang , and that the disruption has continued since, I would appreciate it if AE admins would take this in hand. If JJNito can be made to see where they've gone wrong, I don't ask for more than a warning - otherwise I'd ask AE admins to consider a topic ban from Jewish history, and probably a p-block from Golan Heights. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

My response to JJNito197 is mostly that the diffs stand for themselves. I'll just clarify, in case admins aren't familiar, that the issue in diffs 1-3 is not adherence to or dissent from religious doctrine. The theory that Israelites never existed is a WP:FRINGE one - so much so that I don't believe it has any academic proponents. JJNito goes well beyond Biblical minimalism. JJNito was pointed to academic sources affirming the historical existence of the Israelites including from historians and archaeologists multiple times , but rejected these as insufficient to their personal standards of evidence. JJNito, like myself and any other editor, is entitled to their beliefs, but not to impose them without regard to our PaGs. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning JJNito197

Statement by JJNito197

JJNito197's statement contains 1245 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

The most recent ANI by me (with these above points being raised and dealt again, as if I should be ashamed or disavowed for having a position that deviates from religious inclination), was opened regarding concerns I had pursuant to my editing abilities which were being inhibited and hindered by a troupe of editors (one being exposed as a prolific sock puppet Iljhgtn with 95k edits and banned at last, and the other Mikewem banned from editing within the Arab-Israeli topic), who became in tandem slighted by positions articulated in unrelated places (WP:NPOV; connotations of WP:Wikistalking), and stopped me from editing in good faith. Issues editors raised as concern in the ANI I understood as being inappropriate but not sanctionable, and admins helped me understand through procedures I wasn't aware of prior. That was then. JJNito197 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

How dare you think I should be exempt from editing topics relating to Judaism. Are you presuming I am not following Wikipedia tenets and my own principles when editing articles? JJNito197 (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

The response to editors: If anyone wants to see WP:SYNTH in action, my personal opinions aside and the only reason for my objection to anything, anywhere, here in the RFC I list CATEGORICALLY evidence for WP:SYNTH being used to claim that modern-day groups descend from the 12 tribes of Israel through genetics. Does anybody actually think I had no ground to stand on from the point of Wikipedia principles and it's readership. It's patently WP SYNTH until I've been told otherwise. And bear in mind, this is all because of a subheader and editors refusing to see objectively. I don't see the big deal with a word switch on the penultimate sub-header of the article either. I respect people's beliefs, but don't force positions on me as truth, especially as WP SYNTH is being used and OR. JJNito197 (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

To Cdjp1, every citation that was presented had nothing to do with my openings regarding WP:SYNTH being used to link modern day groups genetically with the Israelites. I was engaging with multiple people that could not see my position fundamentally. I stated multiple times that my issue wasn't whether Israelites existed to no avail. I do now understand I was wrong by saying Israelites didn't exist for the sake of good manners but I was being bombarded by sockpuppets and others who would not seek compromise nor recognise patent SYNTH. JJNito197 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

To the editors that commented, I understand how I was editing initially was the wrong way to conduct myself and debate in good faith. I have since corrected how I dialogue since the ANI that was opened, and took the advice of the admins and others present. My recent RFC was meant to draw uninvolved editors into the salient point I was making. Also the "clutching at pearls" comment was meant to be "clutching at straws" apologies for this typo. JJNito197 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Valereee, can I seek clarity on what I am actually being penalised for. I expressed my opinion, yes. I am wrong, to some. But what have I done exactly to damage the project. I was dealing with a sock puppet with 95k edits alone, and nobody came to my rescue. No admin or editor saw what I saw. Saw how this editor was damaging the project, cliquing up. I had NOBODY. JJNito197 (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I was wrong when I said that thing about the mos era style. But I wasn't going to act on it? Don't really care. I've edited many articles with this mos era system, and didn't bother me. Please don't act like I was going against consensus when it wasn't even formed in talk yet, and the consensus you are talking about was formed in the 2001 stub article. Sorry, I wasn't aware of it. And neither were the people editing the article since 2001. My comment was directed to the sockpuppet that instigated it, and I knew it would catch them out. JJNito197 (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Valereee. I am just an editor, with opinions. Why should I be punished for expressing them. I thought NPOV was an essential component to this project. What I've instead found is that majority rule wins, no matter if you are right or wrong. It doesn't matter if you obey by the rules in place. See the comment section, where editors who believe Israelites existed are holding this against me. Sorry, I'm never going to believe someone just because they tell me it is true. I make my own judgement, and I think our readership does too. Thanks for the links, I wasn't aware of it prior. JJNito197 (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill how about SYNTH and the evidence I've provided for it. That was my main objection to anything, can you at least see where I'm coming from? It's not my burden, it's on the person defending it. None of the sources link genetically to Israelites. If you or anyone would actually acknowledge this fact it wouldn't be a problem. The burden is not on me, I am not the one defending patent synth. Do you acknowledge what I am showing above is WP SYNTH? That is my main objection. And how can I elevate an article like Arab Christians to GA status and this cause me to be banned off Levantine history? You can P-Ban me and I won't come back if this injunction is issued. This was my main reason for editing in the first place. JJNito197 (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

And Darouet's 'observation' was admitting that the user only viewed large sections of one RFC, whatever that means. This is where clutching at pearls makes more sense. Getting offended at comments made on a public forum, which is laughable if you ask me. Comments that only a scientist or adherent to NPOV would make. Or someone that doesn't understand what WP:SYNTH is. Either/or.

JJNito197 (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm defending myself and my position. I am not being labeled as not complying with Wikipedia rules when that is all I've done. Block me, show everybody how this wikipedia really works. Just bear in mind, I've been editing this topic for over 7 years and had no problem. It's not me that can't recognise WP SYNTH where it is evident. I leave knowing I followed every rule in place, satisfied. JJNito197 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Mikewem, you've been banned from editing in the Arab-Israeli topic. I suggest you retreat, lest someone calls you up on your flagrant disobedience. JJNito197 (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee, it was bait. I knew people would react and as a result it led to the sockpuppet being identified shortly after. There were multiple socks I was engaging with. It showed me and everybody else how convicted some editors were about this, hence them reverting back to a 2001 article to prove consensus. I really couldn't care less about MOS ERA if I'm being honest with you. I only use BC/AD because it is common in the UK. Thats where the buck stops. The sock even followed me to Levant where I eventually reached consensus with an editor after them being blocked. JJNito197 (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee, I should have left them and made them hit 100k edits as a bona fide sock. Surprised they weren't dealt with sooner- they were clearly not a good faith actor. And in a way you just baited me, as an editor looking out for the best interests of other editors. JJNito197 (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Alansohn

Alansohn's statement contains 204 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

The comment here that "You are speaking passionately because it is what you BELIEVE, due to your BELIEF SYSTEM. But it's is not what ACADEMIA AND DNA STUDIES suggest. You are clutching at pearls, and it is obvious to see." is but one example of the BATTLEGROUND mentality here by User:JJNito197.

I tried to encourage JJNito197 three times (here, here "accusing other editors of engaging in "conspiracy theories" and of having a "fundemental misunderstanding of the region" are distinctly WP:UNCIVIL and constitute clear personal attacks" and here), with no success. Things only got worse.

All one has to see the problem is to look at JJNito197's comment above "None of my edits on articles are mentioned here, and it seems the only concern is the immalleable way I talk. I edit and create other religious topics with no problem, how dare you think I should bizarrely be exempt from Judaism."

The editor has no recognition that there is a problem here. It's not just that there are concerns with edits, it's that edit summaries and talk page comments are an endless flow of uncivil personal attacks. Nothing changes, even after warnings.

At a minimum, JJNito197 should not be editing these articles. Alansohn (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Darouet

Darouet's statement contains 108 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I read through large sections of the RfC where JJNito197 has made these offensive comments. If there were any merit to what JJNito197 has argued, it would be impossible to know: after countless retorts often in ALL CAPS, I have not seen JJNito197 link, quote, or analyze a single scholarly source. Their overall attitude is offensive and demeaning towards other editors. I understand that Samuelshraga has kindly suggested just a warning. But I am skeptical that from the meagre basis of their contributions so far, JJNito197 will somehow learn to become a productive scholar and editor on anything related to genetics, Jewish history, or archaeology. -Darouet (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Cdjp1

Cdjp1's statement contains 287 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I am involved in the RfC that this has stemmed from, but have not interacted with JJNito197 in that RfC or elsewhere. Their arguments about the purported motive and reasons why other editors have argued as they have in that RfC leave a lot to be desired. JJNito197 declares that their position is correct while presenting no evidence that such a position is that held in any sources, let alone the majority. Then when others have provided sourcing showing scholarship in this area that goes against JJNito197's position, they disregard it as simply incorrect research.

Now, they repeatedly insinuate (though at points this seems more like an overt declaration) that ancient Israelites did not exist, claiming them to be purely based in myth, which is at odds with the scholarship across multiple disciplines. We even see an example of this in their comments here, where instead of choosing to link to the Wikipedia article on Ancient Israelites where the historical record and the evidence of their existence is discussed, they choose instead to link to the Twelve Tribes of Israel article that focuses much more on the biblical record of the Twelve Tribes as mentioned in the Abrahamic holy books and the potential existence specifically of the Twelve Tribes, as opposed to the Ancient Israelites as existed.

The behaviour and the position that JJNito197 takes does not seem to be just limited to this RfC either, as at Talk:Israelites#Modern Levantine groups with Israelite ancestry they try to initiate a RfC to pre-phrase the groups with evidence of such ancestry as "claimed" ancestry, and in responding to others who oppose such an action engages in the same rhetoric that has concerned editors in this enforcement request. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by GordonGlottal

GordonGlottal's statement contains 128 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I've been involved in recent discussions at Talk:Golan Heights. I've actually been pleasantly surprised by this editor in my own interactions with him. They came in very hot and were certainly uncivil, but they also apologized later after realizing they were wrong on the merits (diff). I think this is someone who is interested in truth and can contribute to our encyclopedia productively with the right guidance. I leave it to admins to provide that guidance in whatever form they decide is appropriate. With regard to ARBPIA violations, I think I have to note that I did just warn this editor (diff) for contributing well over 1,000 words about Israelites to an RFC at Talk:Ashkenazi Jews. But I assume they didn't know about the sanction. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Mikewem

I’m prepared to describe the recent comment on this thread You can P-Ban me and I won't come back if this injunction is issued. as characteristic of WP:HIGHMAINT. I support an indef block due to the recent behavior in this thread. Mikewem (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Even as I was typing this, we got a second flouncy comment. Mikewem (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning JJNito197

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

JJNito197's behavior at Talk:Ashkenazi_Jews and Talk:Golan_Heights falls considerably short of our expectations for contentious topics or, indeed, any discussion on Wikipedia. They are failing to assume good faith and engaging with the editors not the content. In plain language they are shouting. Their behavior is partially mitigated by the disruptions of a blocked sockpuppety, but that only goes so far. A warning is the minimum I would consider here, and I would prefer a topic ban. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
I agree that tJJNito197's behavior is below what is expected and they do not seem to be taking on the advice they are getting on how to improve. I lean towards a topic ban in hopes that editing away from a contentious area will help them better understand what is expected of editors. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
I find diff 7 maybe the most concerning of all. JJNito197, I see you're approaching your word limit. You may take 100 words to explain what you now understand about this type of approach w/re working in a collaborative environment, especially at a CTOP. Valereee (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
The response didn't actually address what was concerning to me: continuing to insist on using the language they preferred against apparent consensus and other editors could just "clean up after" them is an indication of unwillingness to comply with consensus they disagree with, which is incompatible with collaborative editing, especially at a CTOP. A formal warning minimum, will not object to a tban. Valereee (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry you felt you had nowhere to turn. I'm sure you felt very frustrated. I don't know whether you tried seeking help at Teahouse, help desk, 3O or, in this case, perhaps WT:MOS; those are good places to try to find help when you're having a dispute over language. If you're working in CTOPs, we expect you to be able to go find help rather than await rescue. Here at AE, we deal with behavior, and simply deciding you're going to keep using the language you prefer and ignore whether that language has consensus especially in a CTOP is disruptive, which is considered damaging.

FWIW, sanctions aren't for punishment. They're to prevent further disruption. In this case, a formal warning would (we hope) make you more likely to try to find a solution other than being disruptive. A tban would prevent you from disrupting within a certain topic. Valereee (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
JJNito197, you didn't express an opinion. You said I will continue adding content with AD/BC on this article regardless, and editors that feel it incumbent to change to CE/BCE can clean up after me if they feel the need.. That is LITERALLY a statement that you don't care what consensus is, you're going to edit your own way because you make my own judgement. You're telling us, right here at AE, that your own opinion is more important than consensus. I'm not sure how you think it's unfair that we would take you at your word. Valereee (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
First law of holes. Intentional baiting at a CTOP is one of the few behaviors I can think of that is maybe more disruptive than intentional editing against consensus at a CTOP.

Support tban. This editor's style is not compatible with editing at a CTOP. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
I'll respond to the accusation at user talk, no need to further bloat this discussion. Valereee (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
If they were presented in isolation, diffs 4-6 seem like small potatoes and I wouldn't consider them basis for a sanction, with only #4 beginning to flirt with being a personal attack. But the other diffs, as well as JJNito197's further responses to Valereee, are quite concerning. This could have been mitigated somewhat if JJNito197 was otherwise providing solid arguments with clear RS to back it up, but Darouet's observation appears to be correct: JJNito197 does not appear to have made reference to a single identifiable source throughout these discussions, whether their own or provided by someone else. This is clearly not constructive behavior and does nothing to advance discussions or improve article content. No one is asking JJNito197 to believe someone just because they tell [them] it is true--what we're identifying here is that it's patently not ok to dismiss others' arguments in the absence of RS that actually back your position directly, or in other words, "no one should be expected to believe JJNito197 just because JJNito197 tells them it's true". The hypocrisy here is unbelievable, and their holier-than-thou attitude towards "following the rules" is in flagrant contradiction with their own conduct thus far. I think a topic ban from Levantine history, broadly construed, is warranted. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
JJNito197, in addition to noting that you are once again over the word limit and demonstrating your inability to comply with clear rules: no one is proposing sanctioning you for saying that an argument was SYNTH. I am in favor of sanctioning you for repeat ad hominem, explicit disregard for consensus (now retroactively justified with a meaningless But I wasn't going to act on it?) , BATTLEGROUND behavior, underlined by the fact that you really didn't bring anything meaningful to the table in discussions. Notice that no one is suggesting sanctioning إيان, Kowal2701, Corriebertus, or any of the other editors that also opposed the adopted wording at the Ashkenazi Jews RfC. The problem at hand is your complete failure to adopt an appropriately collaborative attitude. You have demonstrated that you do not work well with others, and apparently have no intent to change that. At this point, if there's any further flouting of AE rules, I would be inclined to just move forward with a block. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
@Rosguill: I would default to a PIA TBAN here. Could you elaborate on whether you think the more specific ban (Levantine history, presumably where it intersects with PIA) is preferable? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 on reflection I don't object to defaulting to PIA. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

FarFromTheMiddleEast

Request concerning FarFromTheMiddleEast

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Dr vulpes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict

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

April 10 Added contentious material to Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
April 10 That text was reverted
April 10 Then challenged by another user on the article talk page. This is the start of the active dispute.
April 12 Announced intent to do some edits
April 12 Went was contested by Yr Enw
April 13 and then again by Butterscotch Beluga
April 13 Continued editing instead of standing down.
April 14 Then went back and added similar content that had been reverted
April 14 After some warnings on their talk page they stop editing the article
Warning concerning conduct in the dispute.
Warning concerning bludgeoning.
April 17 BrechtBro brings a complaint to WP:ANI

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

none

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

Was warned about contentious topics on January 20, 2026

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I request a topic ban from the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area, broadly construed, for no less than three months.

As an uninvolved administrator I could have imposed a topic ban for this behavior. I came here instead because this issue was brought up at WP:ANI and the discussion there did not produce a clear consensus. A few people called for this to be sent to AE so that’s what I’m doing.

The concerns that were raised are a repeated pattern of battleground conduct in a contentious topic. This includes reinserting disputed material during active dispute, continuing after warnings, arguing repetitively across related discussions, and bulging other editors instead of trying to reach consensus.

As an aside Zero0000 has called for an indef ban of FarFromTheMiddleEast for attempting to out him. This is outside of the scope of this complaint and if he wishes to have action taken against FarFromTheMiddleEast then I believe there are other ways for him to address that issue. As someone who has also been in the news for actions done on wiki I understand their concerns and I want to make sure we all know that I am not trying to minimize the issue. This whole thing is messy and I just want to address this part of it the best I can.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notice April 23, 2026

Discussion concerning FarFromTheMiddleEast

Statement by FarFromTheMiddleEast

FarFromTheMiddleEast's statement contains 496 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Some mistakes and clarifications to the above:

2,3 & 6 are the same user Butterscotch Beluga
4 is not a diff to my change
7 was only adding citations to aid the discussion in talk
8 was me trying to address what I though the objections were in talk before realizing what the other editors misunderstood
10 and 11 addressed below

My view:

To me the issue that needed correction was that other editors confused a letter from the Lancet correspondence section, which was a essentially a political editorial, with an article from the peer reviewed research section. I didn't understand their confusion and it was only only after several days of discussion that I realized that this misunderstanding had occurred and I had misunderstood their objections. I was suggesting citations and suggesting language to balance out a political article, trying to explain it was a political article, and the other editors thought it had some type of academic exemption to political NPOV because they did not realize it wasn't an academic Lancet article.

Consensus Reached:

I'm not sure it was bludgeoning, but there was time wasted because I should have gone back and looked at the pre-April 8th text. I should have done better

User Cjp1 removed the text I was trying to balance out here, which was one of the remedies I proposed, but was wasted time because it was a description of a citation I had broken out previously: [here]

User Yr Enw stated that "For what it’s worth, I’m fine with the removal too" [here]

User Zero0000

I was not attempting to "out" user Zero0000. I have no knowledge of user Zero0000 other than what has been publicly stated by others. I referenced what I thought were already public statements because I thought he had been very widley accused of what he was accusing me.

Edit Warring

I misunderstood the one revert rule on contentious topics as being allowed to make one revert of a user within 24 hours. I switched to using the dubious and citation needed tags.

Wadi Hilweh

I'm not the only user on the talk page raising an issue about location. The (excluded) map key had certain lines as undefined. The source map should be cited.

Update - Response to User Zero0000:

Claim of Threatening to Out

The diff user Zero0000 provided contains a typo that was fixed a minute later. It was not a pejorative, it was a typo. [12:06 instead of 12:05]
The statement was referring to increasing the precision of the citation of Lewis to which they objected. It was not meant to imply citing material about them or knowledge of them. I only know what others have said publicly, and I don't know if its true or not.
(Edit: I also blacked out all discussion of what other people have publicly said about Zero0000 since they objected to the references. I had though it was already public given the prominence of the information.)

FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

To be clear, FarFromTheMiddleEast (FFTME) did not try to out me, but they threatened to out me. This diff is very explicit on that point. The context is that they didn't like it pointed out that they had misquoted a source and then denied it. Whether or not this is specifically a matter for AE, I don't think that anyone should be able to make such threats without consequences. Zero^talk 12:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Admins should check the discussion at WP:ANI#Disruptive_editing_by_User:FarFromTheMiddleEast, and Talk:Battle of Haifa (1948), to get a sense of what it is like to work with this user. They combine poor understanding of the topic with a bad case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a willingness to argue forever with a newly minted response to every point.

An example is FFTME's obsession with a map uploaded by me. It is an extract of 1943 official maps, with one line that is on the map highlighted by me in green to make it easier to see, and a small line in blue traced from an official Israeli map. First, FFTME claimed without evidence that it is a "modern recreation", then later that the green border was "proposed". The 1936 "authoritative Survey of Palestine" didn't exist and the first citation given there, copied from Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem is entirely irrelevant in addition to not supporting it. This seems pure invention. When I restored the correct image caption, FFTME took it up at ANI (start at "You also just reverted..."). Almost everything they wrote there is nonsense. It is fine to not know things, but endlessly stating falsehoods is not fine. Accusing me of copying from Palestine Remembered, i.e. of lying, is a personal attack. Then they started up again on the same thing at Talk:Wadi Hilweh. Unable to get their way on this, FFTME added two tags.

This change to the lead of the key article Arab-Israeli conflict is a very severe NPOV violation, and FarFromTheMiddleEast's effort on the talk page to justify it included such gems as quoting the sentence "In sharp contrast Ibn Saud's anti-Semitism approached the pathological" without the words I have put in bold, thereby turning an exception into the rule.

This defense of the lead includes shocking statements such as that the expulsion and flight of Palestinians in 1948 (the Nakba) is not a key aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict, contrary to almost every, perhaps every, source on the topic. Frankly I don't care if this is due to POV or just ignorance; what I care about is the quality of articles and this editor is an active hindrance. Zero^talk 14:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

For interest, out of the 2,376 accounts that have become extendedconfirmed in the last 6 months, 380 of which have made at least 1 revision strictly within the PIA topic area (based on templating), FarFromTheMiddleEast has made the most edits, 720 revisions since the grant on 2026-03-12. If you look back a year, they come in at #2. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by BrechtBro

On March 25, I noticed low quality edits to Wadi Hilweh made by FarFromTheMiddleEast (FFTME), at which point I informed them about original research. When an edit war notice left by إيان came across my watchlist, I looked into it, and seeing how they responded and the on-going dispute, I also left a warning about disruptive editing. At this point I had not engaged in the content of the dispute. As FFTME not only discussed content in their response, but asked me my opinion on it, and as I was concerned about article quality, I looked at it and said my piece. As further discussion at Israeli–Palestinian conflict with FFTME continued to be unproductive and increasingly repetitive, and seeing a pattern on other pages in both content and discussion, I brought this to ANI.

After my initial post at ANI, I looked more into similar behavior at Arab–Israeli conflict which included a denial on April 17 that they had added disputed content to the article on March 31. This content had initially been disputed, reverted with a note saying to seek consensus and FFTME quickly re-implemented parts of the changes without discussion. Seeing this POV insertion and that a discussion about the problems had begun that showed there was no support for it, I reverted to more neutral language, to which FFTME responded with repeated comments both at the ANI and at the article talk page . In addition to not engaging with others' points, there is a pattern, including here at AE, where FFTME asserts that a discussion has resulted in a consensus (Note the heading here, "Current After Talk") that doesn't exist.

Above, FFTME states, User Cjp1 removed the text I was trying to balance out here, which was one of the remedies I proposed, when the text removed was FFTME's own insertion to the article.

FFTME was first warned about editing warring on February 16.—BrechtBro (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)—BrechtBro (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning FarFromTheMiddleEast

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

This diff does indeed appear to be a threat of outing, which within PIA is extremely concerning. Valereee (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Even if I assume complete sincerity of FarFromTheMiddleEast's claims regarding the text interpreted as an outing threat, it's still completely unacceptable to respond to valid sourcing concerns (the confusion of an assertion pertaining to 1986 for by the 20th century; not a huge or unforgivable mistake, but clearly a mistake nonetheless) with ad-hominem, much less ad-hominem based on allegations on off wikipedia forums that include threats of harm to the target. I think a tban from PIA is necessary. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Christ. What a way to prove that you can't edit civilly even if it wasn't a threat of outing. Not to mention that at ANI (archive), under nearly every single concern was a numbered list to argue why the other person was wrong with their point. If there's no objection here, I'm going to close in 24 hours with a PIA topicban. (courtesy ping Valereee and Rosguill) Sennecaster (Chat) 18:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
No objection. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

IvanScrooge98

IvanScrooge98 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from Moroccanoil, broadly construed. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning IvanScrooge98

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: IvanScrooge98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict

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

Repeated incivility on talk page, some of which is towards an editor who previously vandalised the article and was blocked for it, but much towards other editors as well: , , , , , ,
Subsequently, on their user talk, doubling-down on incivility against editors they perceive as allowing vandalism to happen: ,
In summary, a complete WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWNERSHIP mentality, with repeated incivil comments.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

8 November 24h block for edit-warring with false accusations of vandalism by ToBeFree
1 March 1 week block for personal attacks and bludgeoning at Talk:Moroccanoil by Toadspike
12 March 1 year page block from Moroccanoil for continued edit-warring, ownership behavior and incivility by The Bushranger
20 March 48h block for attempting to proxy edit by The Bushranger

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 28 December 2023 and 8 August 2025
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 28 February 2026.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Follow up from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive366#IvanScrooge98, whereupon IvanScrooge98 was blocked for a week for personal attacks and bludgeoning; IvanScrooge98 was subsequently page-blocked from Moroccanoil and given a short block for attempting to proxy-edit the article. I have !voted in favour of IvanScrooge98's viewpoint at the ongoing RfC, but the battleground tactics are extremely egregious and an obstruction to productive collaboration. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

As you can see, IvanScrooge98 is incapable of moving on from previous vandalism of the article—any editing he disagrees with concerning that article must be disruptive, any editor he disagrees with must be helping the vandal. Textbook battleground behaviour. I think IvanScrooge98 has said all that needs to be said, so I will not be commenting further. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning IvanScrooge98

Statement by IvanScrooge98

IvanScrooge98's statement contains 658 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

Moved from filer's section
(In response to AirshipJungleman29's claims) And the only user who actually vandalized the page ( and ) is still around there trying to disrupt it and you aren’t doing anything about it. Not a personal attack when you describe what is going on. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

See above. I’m being persecuted for being the only one who is confronting the user who vandalized the article in question. I never vandalized it and yet I’m blocked from it in protection of the vandal. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I will comment further. Helping out Julian to still be around an article they vandalized is not simply a matter of “disagreement”. We should first ban the vandal from the page they vandalized, and yet we’re allowing them to open discussions to distort or remove content they dislike, even though we know they are not there to improve the page, based on the blatant vandalism they never apologized for. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC) (Moved from Request section by Toadspike [Talk] 12:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC))

Also, anyone can check and see this is the only article in the topic area where I’ve been having all this trouble, because the problem is not me in the topic area. It would be yet another injustice to ban me from the entire topic area after already punishing me unjustly over an article I greatly improved. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2026 (UTC) (Moved from Request section by Toadspike [Talk] 12:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC))

Supporting a vandal is vandalism. I never vandalized anything and yet I’m being treated far worse simply for the language I use. Treat the vandals they way they should be treated and none of this would be happening. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC) (Moved from Rambling Rambler's section by Toadspike [Talk] 12:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC))

@Toadspike: the point is Julian still there attempting to further disrupt the article. This is what I’m engaging with. You wouldn’t need to ban me if I weren’t the only one confronting them. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

moved from administrator's section, response to Toadspike

Because I haven’t been listened to. I’m still not being listened to. The only thing I regret is that someone took offense for feeling dragged in something they weren’t involved in. I don’t have much else to say. I tried being civilized long ago, and the result was a slap in the face of my contributions. Go on and block me, I’m sure you will get a great article from this. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

moved from administrator's section, in response to Ealdgyth
I’ve almost never behaved like this on Wikipedia in 11 years of contributions, except on rare occasions with users who disrupted the project. Draw your conclusions, I’ve drawn mine. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

moved from administrator's section, response to StarMississippi

Yeah, surely the edits of a user who greatly improved the article and never once vandalized it are far more problematic than those of the vandal who has gotten away with having an entire section they disliked removed, and whom the improving user has tried to stop. Totally. Go ahead and block me, come on. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

moved from another editor's section, response to SovalValtos

Fair enough, I misused the word vandalism in that case – though I was involved in heavy editing at the moment of that edit summary and I might have placed it too absentmindedly. I apologize for that one. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: yeah, but moving replies around makes the whole thing messy and readers of the sections will have a hard time getting what messages I’m replying to. But at this point, will all these accusations I’ve tried to defend myself from, you forced me to exceed the character limit. Go ahead, block me and make it quick. You really tried every way to make me end up in the wrong. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I have little to be concerned because whether it had been you or another administrator, everyone else has chosen to ban me anyway. Please go ahead. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Rambling Rambler

Rambling Rambler's statement contains 348 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Leaving a contribution here as I had taken part in attempting to get IvanScrooge98 to understand their actions during the attempt to block evade by proxy . Even at the time on their talk page it was pretty clear they didn't accept they were in the wrong (repeatedly demanding Bushranger unblock them) and insisted everyone else was at fault. Having seen the messages they are leaving both on Talk:Moroccanoil and their talkpage in relation to the current RfC, it's unfortunately clear they are incapable of editing in a collegial way, most egregiously the repeated accusations that everyone else is a vandal, and therefore a block from CT/AI is warranted as this seems to be the one area of Wikipedia this issue is occurring in. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Addition, given what Soval has shown below and this edit summary here, I wonder if there's a further civility problem more in general than just at CT/AI in particular. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree & @Black Kite if I may add seeing your most recent comments, reading through Ivan's comments here, at Moroccanoil and their talk page while yes a singular user at one point did undertake edits that could be regarded as vandalism (though said examples appear to be more non-malicious WP:POINTY attempts to highlight their view regarding the labelling of nationality) they are persistently using that to call everyone else who doesn't agree with them vandals.

Also I feel the fact the person who made the vandalism/POINTY comments was blocked over them at the time and hasn't repeated them is still being used by Ivan months later as an excuse for their own repeated and ongoing misbehaviour feels exceptionally close to bad faith at this point and renders whatever "point" they may have once had moot. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Probably final comment here, but I do wonder if this unfortunately has simply now reached indef territory following this comment:

"Apparently not, since I made the mistake to trust one of them in spite of previous disagreements and I was stabbed in the back hard. I demand an independent reviewer."

Really don't think there's any chance now that this user will be able to contribute collaboratively if they're at the point of using such language. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Avgeekamfot

Avgeekamfot's statement contains 95 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I briefly participated in discussion on this page after I was alerted to an RfC by the Feedback Request Service. IvanScrooge98 was hostile at every turn (I am one of those he called a "vandal" when I implemented talk page consensus) and he repeatedly bludgeoned discussion. I looked at his edit history at that time and this seems to be a pattern for him on anything Israel related, even when contributing positive elsewhere (particularly on Italian history-related topics). I agree with Rambling Rambler and would suggest a topic block from Israel-related topics. Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by SovalValtos

SovalValtos's statement contains 30 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Is this edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canterbury&diff=1350531694&oldid=1350528724 relevant? I am not sure that I have ever been accused of being a vandal by anyone, let alone by an established editor.SovalValtos (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by The Bushranger

A bit late to the party, but I think IvanScrooge98's reactions in(/moved to) the section above to the proceedings here make it abundantly clear they are not compatible with a collaborative encyclopedia. When I handed out the AE pblock I hoped that would allow them to focus on other areas; in hindsight, not also pblocking them from the article's talk page (which I chose not to do in hopes of allowing them to participate in a 'throttled' way that would allow them to return to productive editing the article itself at some point) was a mistake. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning IvanScrooge98

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

Many similarities to the last thread about Ivan. Deflecting from his own behavior to that of a third party, which is out of scope for AE requests. Posting all over the thread, including outside of his section. Continued bludgeoning and personal attacks. I warned him against all of these in the last thread. Just because Julian in LA made inappropriate edits back in January (which they got blocked for ) does not give Ivan free license to label them a vandal for the rest of time. In the last thread I invited Ivan to file a report against Julian to discuss his concerns; it appears this was never done. I propose an indefinite topic ban from Moroccanoil. Toadspike [Talk] 12:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
I also ask that if Ivan's behavior gets him blocked as an individual admin action while this request remains open, we leave the thread open to complete discussion of this topic ban or any other sanction proposed, as it is clear a lasting solution is needed. Toadspike [Talk] 12:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
No, we wouldn't need to ban you if you behaved yourself. If you only made accusations that you supported with evidence. If you used de-escalatory language when dealing with others, rather than attacking them. If you restrained the volume of your posting in RfCs and other discussions. All of that is entirely within your control. You have instead repeatedly chosen to flout the rules, which puts us where we are now. Toadspike [Talk] 12:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
I think a topic ban from Moroccanoil is the least that should happen. For information - "supporting a vandal is vandalism" is incorrect and not a wikipedia policy or guideline. I'd like to warn IvanScrrooge98 that if they continue this behavior or similar behavior, they could find themselves banned from wikipedia. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
IvanScrooge98 - please stop replying in this section or in other user's sections. See the instructions "Statements must be made in separate sections" and (the instructions for this section) "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above." Ealdgyth (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
The one thing that needs to happen is removing IvanScrooge98 from Moroccanoil completely. They were blocked last month for bludgeoning and personal attacks, and they're doing exactly the same thing right now on that RfC. They've already commented 21 times on the RfC, 13 times in the last 24 hours and it's mostly stuff like this and this. An IA topic ban would also work, but I'm not sure it's necessary as this seems to be the problematic article. I really wouldn't want to block an editor with so many useful contributions completely but they're not making it easy. Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Support topic ban from Moroccanoil at a minimum with clarity that this prohibits it anywhere or he's going to be blocked more broadly. Disclosure, semi involved as I was the admin who blocked Julian for the disruptive edits earlier this year. Ivan's edits have been a larger problem than Julian's were. Star Mississippi 13:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Hello IvanScrooge98, we've had a discussion on my talk page together with another editor about IPA. May I act as an uninvolved administrator or would you be concerned about this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
IvanScrooge98 is blocked site-wide, and from editing their talk page for other purposes than requesting an unblock, for a month as an individual ~~WP:AE/WP:CTOP~~ action for using Wikipedia as a battleground and persistently describing disagreement as "vandalism". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Regarding the topic ban, I'm fine with any sanction but I'd like to note my personal skepticism towards any idea that this behavior may be limited to a specific topic, as my initial 24-hour block for the same behavior was outside of any topic area I have seen proposed so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm going to say that's a little harsh IMO. I would have removed them from the Moroccanoil area and then gone for more stringent sanctions if their behaviour continued. This is, after all, a user with 150,000 mostly productive edits, even if their current behaviour is sub-par. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  Perhaps it's less sub-par next month or there is a very convincing unblock request. Lack of action in such cases just ends up at WP:ARC. The user had been blocked site-wide for exactly "false accusations of vandalism" in November, then for personal attacks in March, now they're here and double down on describing non-vandalism as vandalism. To me, a point has been reached where editing needs to stop entirely until that problem is resolved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  To be slightly fair, they're describing an editor as a vandal, which they've taken too far but that editor did indeed vandalise the Moroccanoil article on more than one occasion . Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  Yeah, that is vandalism. The conclusions drawn from that are a battleground mentality. We've had a 24-hour block, we've had a week-long block, which increments are we going to use, two weeks instead of a month? A topic ban for behavior evidently not limited to the topic? That there has actually been vandalism so that IvanScrooge98 has a bit of a point makes things awfully complicated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  @Black Kite@ToBeFree I covered that in my first post. Yes, there was vandalism, and that user got blocked for it. This does not justify calling them a vandal today, four months after the fact, nor does it justify calling them "disruptive" without presenting any evidence of that.
  
  Regarding the block, I think a one-month sitewide block is harsh, but not unjustified. The real question is what sanctions can prevent this behavior reoccurring. Since I see older block log entries about edit warring , maybe a 1RR and word count cap in all talk page discussions? Despite all the trouble Ivan has been as of late, I do think sitewide blocks/bans should be the absolute last resort. In some areas, like Italian music, Ivan seems generally able to edit productively. Toadspike [Talk] 21:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  Thanks. Yeah. I have prepared a detailed explanation of the sitewide block decision for the apparently-upcoming AN appeal. 1RR and word count cap sound like useful measures to be in place when the block expires (or is removed). As they are not limited to a topic, I have much larger hope in these than in a topic ban (which I do not oppose, though). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  After a quick discussion with asilvering, I have removed the AE/CTOP part from the block; it's a regular admin action now and can be addressed through normal unblock requests. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  
  The Jovian/Andromedan are bizarre, and I agree that's vandalism. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
With the change of the block into a normal admin action, it feels like this can close with a topic ban? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that, but I think TBF wants some kind of sitewide sanction like 1RR as well. Toadspike [Talk] 09:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
And Black Kite is suggesting something milder while Star agrees with you. So on the whole I read as a rough consensus for a topic ban, which doesn't strike me as an outrageous outcome. I likely would have also been OK with something a little lighter. I don't think I'm on board with something like 1RR. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm fine with whatever the outcome is here. My concern with a topic ban is whether they have any interest in honoring it, or whether we'll just end up with a block if/when they violate it since they seem unable to let it go with the other editor and subject. Star Mississippi 14:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'd be okay with only closing with a topic ban. Toadspike [Talk] 20:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Ditto. WP:ROPE applies here, it is down to IS98 to show that they can follow it. Black Kite (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

As pointed out by SovalValtos above, the behavior is simply not limited to one topic area. It isn't even limited to one Wikipedia. Something happened before July 2025; after 10 years of empty block logs the user managed to get blocked on itwiki 8 times up to indefinitely before moving their disruption to enwiki and people think a topic ban will solve problems. But I did take the sitewide action I view as needed and the 1RR/word-count ideas aren't mine. I'm fine with the AE being closed with anything including no further sanctions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Manasludamase

Request concerning Manasludamase

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: InfernoHues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Manasludamase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia

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

April 18 "Hey dont talk like uneducated," "Read carefully instead of making your iwn imagination theories."
April 18 "its sad when you ignore the reliable source and behave like kids just to forcefully win."
April 23 "now we know who really modifying our history. its people like you offcourse," "We know ehat you trying to do ....we know it better."
April 23 "Because of hates, you can not modify others history and origin."
April 24 "i am not racisist but you cant put this information on kirat page what i think about them....
April 24 "You are just making your own views and editing the page," "thats shows your bad faith as a editor."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning

Statement by Manasludamase

Statement by (username)

Result concerning

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

InfernoHues, first, I'd like to commend you on your near-saintly patience. Second, it looks like Manasludamase may have had some kind of epiphany in their most recent post (may be i need to learn a lot about wiki.), so my initial response is "oh my god, nobody touch anything". But everything that came before is, uh, quite bad, so, standing by... -- asilvering (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Maybe we can close with a logged warning? I agree that they seem to finally be understanding what a reliable source is and that InfernalHues is not out to get them, but it might still be helpful to clearly state that their earlier behavior was unacceptable. Toadspike [Talk] 09:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
I'd kind of like to get a response from Manasludamase so I know they at least know this is here and/or they're being warned, but I see they haven't edited. Maybe give it a few more days? +1 on your patience and willingness to sincerely engage with a problematic new editor, IH. Valereee (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Wh1pla5h99

Request concerning Wh1pla5h99

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wh1pla5h99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/PIA

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

Talk:Zionism

00:50, 21 April 2026 Calls another editor's comment an "emotional outburst"
01:44, 22 April 2026 "What where did C come from? Please don't sneak WP:SYNTH into the options without discussing."
07:55, 23 April 2026 "While I would respond to you, I believe that your behaviour on this project, particularly in this and adjacent areas, have led to a recent decision to ban you from it completely. Therefore I think there is no need to take the bait."
08:06, 23 April 2026 "I was stating that I did not see it necessary to respond to a flippant response."
08:20, 23 April 2026 GRAVEDANCING about another editor's upcoming ban. "What is uncivil is the behaviour that has led to such a decision, my friend."
00:33, 25 April 2026 "Misusing logical fallacies is perhaps a worse crime than the piss-poor provenance of this edit"
~~03:27, 25 April 2026 comments that they are at their word limit, yet there are further comments from them in the RFC~~
00:30, 26 April 2026 Responds WP:DENY to another editor, thus labelling them a troll.
06:15, 26 April 2026 "And we can state it unattributed and with total neutrality because of... the psychic powers of these (very likeminded) scholars? Hmmm. How magical."
07:56, 26 April 2026 Accuses another editor of "engaging in blatant mind reading".

User talk:Wh1pla5h99

10:29, 23 April 2026 In response to being warned for incivility on their talk "Thanks for your advice, but that was and is my position with regards to flippant comments from certain quarters."
17:52, 23 April 2026 Again in response to being warned "I simply see no reason to continue engaging with an editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE."
01:36, 25 April 2026 Again in response to being warned by multiple editors "In all honesty I think you are completely bombarding my talk page with nonsense, and if you don't stop you can be sure I will take it to AN."
07:55, 25 April 2026 As above responds "The provenance is, I maintain, piss-poor"
01:14, 26 April 2026 More GRAVEDANCING
08:07, 26 April 2026 In response to be warned by yet another editor responds "Have you nothing better to do?"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

15:29, 12 January 2026 Indefinitely blocked for WP:GAMING.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 22:54, 17 April 2026 (see the system log linked to above).
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 7:58, 20 April 2026.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Wh1pla5h99 has been warned by multiple editors for incivility, aspersions and gravedancing. See User talk:Wh1pla5h99#Incivility, User talk:Wh1pla5h99#Aspersions and User talk:Wh1pla5h99#Continued incivility; however, they have repeatedly responded to other editors doubling down on their aspersions, incivility and gravedancing. They are a net negative to the topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 06:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Ps, 55.6% of their edits within the last 30 days are within the topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 06:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Wh1pla5h99's statement below is full of justifications for repeated behaviour which is obviously subpar and assumptions of bad faith about the motives of others. They fail to mention that no less than 6 editors went to their talk to leave comments that their conduct was inappropriate. I don't see how someone in such a situation can continue to act that they're doing nothing wrong and still continue to edit in this topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 11:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga, whether some, all or none of their responses were to M.Bitton is irrelevant. A level of decorum is expected in this topic area, as detailed in the CTOP notification that I previously left for them. Wh1pla5h99's behaviour has fallen well short, as evidenced by six editors going to their talk page to warn them about their behaviour. Further, their responses here indicate that they see nothing wrong with the majority of their behaviour, which demonstrates that the behaviour will likely continue if limits are not imposed on them. TarnishedPath^talk 11:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Ps, my apologies for diff 7, I misinterpreted what Wh1pla5h99 meant. TarnishedPath^talk 11:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37's statement is full of aspersions lacking in sufficient evidence. They should strike their comments. TarnishedPath^talk 00:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Admins, please see Special:Permalink/1351179765#AE against me where Wh1pla5h99 attempts to WP:CANVASS another editor to this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 01:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Admins, please also see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Canvassing. The tone of the comments by Wh1pla5h99 in that discussion indicates that contrary to their statement that they are taking @Valereee's council onboard, that they are in fact not. TarnishedPath^talk 08:26, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Wh1pla5h99

Statement by Wh1pla5h99

I will respond to TP's... list of quotes, one by one, and offer some thoughts afterwards:

"emotional outburst" was in response to M.Bitton's dismissal of my suggestions in the workshop as "silly": . I was in fact restraining myself, as I found it extremely belittling and disheartening to try to find a way forward and be spat on in that way.
After carefully workshopping the RfC for a couple of days, VR added 2 undiscussed options and completely rewrote a third: . I backed down from the "sneak" accusation after someone mentioned that it had been an option in the previous RfC (although that RfC had been very flawed and thus closed). Perhaps I was a little defensive here, as I felt my hard work on the workshop was being dashed.
I stated my reason for not responding to MB's usual antics. Perhaps I could have stayed silent and allowed others to bear the brunt.
see 3
see 3, spinning this as "gravedancing" is nonsense. In the same comment I stated "I am going to move on from this now", as I was being made to repeat myself for no reason.
As I responded on my talk, the provenance of this sentence in the article (see here for details) is piss-poor. That is not an insult to any individual, but to the process that led to its inclusion. As no one involved was responsible for it, I think we could all be a little thicker-skinned. If I am in the wrong here and should just refrain from profanity on here in general, then ok.
I did not comment that I was at my word limit (but nice spin attempt). I simply did not wish to keep responding in that particular thread, as eventually I will reach it and am on about 750 by my count. I could have explained all this I suppose, but... there is a word limit.
I stand by telling another editor to not feed the troll, which they did until they hit their word limit, to no avail. You can read the mind-numbing interaction, about whether "characterize" and "call" are synonyms, which started about here: , and see if you think my attempted intervention was ill-begotten.
Sarcasm. I'm guilty of it. It is a rhetorical device, but if I am to let it go then so be it.
This comment I soon toned down after SuperPianoMan questioned it on my talk. It was mildly spicy, and unnecessarily so.

Talk

Stand by it. Why should I have to respond earnestly to someone who is engaging in the very behaviour that led to a ban decision against them.
Stand by it, obviously.
Stand by it. Is TP just copy pasting all of my attempts to defend myself? Maybe I should have let his narrative go unchecked. The "bombarding" comment was specifically aimed at TP, not others.
I maintain it is. Have a look.
I can't accept that TP thinks I'm this bad of a dancer.
This is the one I rethought soon after, as can be seen just below .

The sanction for gaming can be explained by the appeal (immediately accepted).

I do think that this is petty and perhaps some attempt at retribution for M.Bitton's recent AE, or just to shut me up. See the AE and my statement here for context. I understand that I can be blunt and perhaps could be a bit more gentle with people, but in all transparency I have zero dog in this fight, and simply think that this area of the encyclopedia is deeply flawed. It sometimes feels like if I take my foot off the gas, like with the recent RfC workshop (which was begun in response to a one-sided manipulation of the previous RfC options by one editor), then some of those most active in the topic will steer it back to biased and subpar editorialism.

What I want to stress is that my passion comes from the conviction in what I believe this project should be (neutral, reliably sourced etc.), and how far certain articles fall from this standard - not any particular investment in a topic area. In fact I have not even responded to the other RfC on the talk page, having not had the chance to do my due diligence. This is the only discussion I have been involved in there. Some amount of firmness is necessary or else you get blown out. As it stands people seem to be coming to their senses in the RfC, perhaps spurring on this AE request.

TP has been abusing my talk page, and I would appreciate it if he was restricted in some way from doing so. Ever since I entered the IP topic area my talk has received a stream of notices from Tarnished for even the slightest of perceived missteps, which to be quite honest come across as an attempt to build a case rather than genuine concern. This AE confirms that suspicion. During the very first interaction we had (at ORN), presumably to scare me away from this contentious topic area, he slapped me with two big F off notices (), one about something completely unrelated (I guess I added a wikilink on a dead guy's bio), and told me at ORN to "go and read WP:BLP. All of it", for pointing out what I think anyone can see was circular reporting. Since then he has made a couple of comments that sound less like genuine concern and more like a conscious attempt to build evidence: "you've been warned about this behaviour on a number of occaisons" (this pile-on came hours after the dispute in question had resolved, and I'm not sure what "warning" this refers to), "You've been repeatedly warned about incivility... Are you at any point going to stop?" (in response to me using the word "piss", I guess).

This is I think a waste of everybody's time, but if admins believe I ought to tone it down somewhat then I will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wh1pla5h99 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@TP: Yes that particular dispute naturally takes up a lot of focus. Check my edit history as a whole to see how single-purpose I am. I mostly write about old churches and stuff. As for the comments on my talk page, most of them were I think a somewhat ill-placed defense of a now banned editor. The other ones, on the contrary to continue to act that they're doing nothing wrong, I took heed of and changed tack, as explained above. P.S. apology accepted. Friendsies? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee: I will take your note on sarcasm. You are right that the intended goal is bring out the silliness in an argument that is perceived as silly, but I will try to use more friendly methods of getting my point across in future. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

On that thread on my talk page, each of those accusations made it onto TP's list, and I responded to them all there. I will accept that ignoring MB was the way to go, in spite of his continued disruption. I won't accept that I need to tolerate being mocked and having me ideas called "silly" without calling out an outburst for what it is. The rest of it relates to use of "piss-poor provenance", which was enticing for alliterative reasons if nothing else, and again directed at no one in particular. But if it is unwarranted incivility then I retract it and will go over my mouth with soap. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

On believing other editors, I think the evidence of this exchange proves that I am more than willing to do so. The Zionist talk page was a belligerent one at the time I entered it (about a week ago), with a minority of editors bludgeoning others into silence, and refusing the normal consensus-building processes. In truth I was probably overly concerned that the same would happen to me if I did not stand my ground early doors. In hindsight I could have bent a bit more to some of these concerns. Will strive to be more amenable in future. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I can promise to avoid profanity, but I'm not sure if I can promise to avoid ever writing for effect, or to impress, as that is one of the joys of writing to me. Nonetheless I have noted these concerns. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

You can simply tell an editor you don't want them to post to your talk In that case @TarnishedPath consider this your formal disinvitation to my talk page (except on extra special occasions like birthdays). Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I apologize and can promise I am not being deliberately obtuse @Valereee, but if what was disruptive about that comment was not the profanity that I'm not sure I see what it was. If I had simply said "Misusing logical fallacies is perhaps a worse crime than the bad provenance of this edit" would it still have been disruptive? Was it perhaps an inappropriate place for humour in general? Apologies for any frustration I am causing; I am happy to just concede the point if it prevents further agitation. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I accept your note that there is a time and a place for witty zingers, and they are to be avoided in contentious topic areas; I will also try to tone down the wittiness in AE space. I don't know if it's entirely relevant but by "provenance" I didn't just mean the bad sourcing, but that there was a clear effort to make the sources fit the desired content. In spite of any tone you may detect I can assure you that I'm taking things on board. As for keeping my reputation for witty repartee intact, I'm afraid that such a reputation would have to exist first. Gah, another word limit! Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Samuelshraga

Whiplash did cross the line into incivility more than once - diffs 2, 6, 9 and 10 at least raised the temperature of what was already going to be a difficult discussion unnecessarily. They also shouldn't have taken M.Bitton's bait in diffs 1 and 3.

I hope that Whiplash can recognise they missed the mark here and learn a lesson or two, in which case they'll be able to participate productively in the topic area.

TarnishedPath didn't mention this, but I can't help but notice that Talk:Zionism diffs 1,3,8 are responses to M.Bitton. 8 raises questions about TarnishedPath's judgement here. Is it inappropriate, given WP:ARBMAG, to invoke WP:DENY to M.Bitton? If only Whiplash had done it sooner. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I think admins have addressed Whiplash, I want to provide evidence relating to this filing (and beyond) about TarnishedPath per this suggestion from ARBMAG. I'll need 500 words to do so, may I have them? (If admins would rather this be in a separate filing that's fine). Samuelshraga (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by EaglesFan37

A lot of the diffs for @User:Wh1pla5h99 seem to be in reply to M.Bitton, who has since been given a temporary injunction for continued disruption.. However, Wh1pla5h99 has been warned about incivility repeatedly over the past two weeks and the Talk:Zionism page is contentious enough as is. They have been warned by enough users at this point.

@User:TarnishedPath's conduct has not been impeccable either. , , , . TarnishedPath has an extensive interaction history with M.Bitton, , , and have been the two main editors in the current Talk:Zionism discussions.

TarnishedPath says that A level of decorum is expected in this topic area . Despite M.Bitton's decorum being egregious enough (across wikipedia) for a site wide ban and a temporary injunction, in the recent AE about M.Bitton here, TarnishedPath did not mention M.Bitton's own incivility, and hand waved it away. .

I do think that Wh1pla5h99's conduct does deserve to end up on here, but I also feel that TarnishedPath would not have filed this/ever addressed it if it was coming from a Wikipedia user they agreed with in a discussion (such as with M.Bitton).EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Riposte97

This filing is a storm in a teacup. Wh1pla5h99 has been repeatedly goaded (along with many others) by M.Bitton, who is now under injunction. Pointless waste of time to come running to this board with a report of behaviour that: (a) wouldn't exist without extenuating circumstances; and (b) is highly unlikely to cause future disruption. That's if the behaviour in question was even outside bounds to start with, which I'm not really sure it was. Riposte97 (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by fiveby

When it appeared that consensus was against the status quo TarnishedPath (in support of M.Bitton) gamed a "consensus required" restriction to override WP:V and WP:NPOV. This was done to keep an equivocal, anachronistic and non-neutral reference to "settler-colonial", inclusion of which has always been disputed and has never met the verifiability requirements.

In multiple talk page sections TP pushed hard for an RfC to maintain an option without any supporting sources, only vacuous argument. When sources were called for the response was such as this:

Both M.Bitton and myself have addressed this in our comments. No additional sourcing is required.

I find no sources presented on the talk page by TP, and only one irrelevant primary sourced quote from M.Bitton.

WP:CT Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  - WP:5P2 All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  - WP:ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content.
  - WP:BURDEN All content must be verifiable...The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material...The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.
- refrain from gaming the system.
  - Filibustering the consensus-building process by reverting another editor for minor errors, or trying to enforce a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected.
- WP:DISRUPTSIGNS
  - 1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors.
  - 2. Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or performs original research.
  - 4. Fails to engage in consensus building:
    - repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;

While RfC's are the standard consensus process, i believe TP has been tendentiously editing within that process, attempting to disrupt a consensus against his preferred content option. fiveby(zero) 17:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Kowal2701

Just FTR, I'd support a page block for Wh1pla5h99 for treating discussions like twitter threads, and a gentle recommendation to do some encyclopedia building.
While we're here, TarnishedPath's editing around hot button topics generally appears problematic, see PositivelyUncertain re Imane Khelif (Asilvering's response), myself re Zionism. This could be a mini case itself Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

I've been following the discussion here, but was actively avoiding participating in the hopes this request wouldn't be derailed by general mudslinging, as is common in this topic area. However, after @fiveby's statement accusing TarnishedPath of "gaming" for following the page's consensus required restriction, without any reference to Wh1pla5h99's conduct, the actual case at hand, I see that derailing was inevitable.

Several editors here have excused Wh1pla5h99's conduct due to M.Bitton also acting poorly, while simultaneously taking the chance to cast aspersions & accuse TarnishedPath of wrongdoing for bringing this case here. As such, may I request admins apply WP:AEPR to this thread to keep this request in scope? - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by NorthernWinds

Although I said I won't get involved (since this was posted on my talk page) I still want to comment on this report, primarily due to the realization I came to following @Fiveby's statement.

Wh1pla5h99 I don't have much good to say here, and for their sake Wh1 should've thought twice before commenting on my talk page. I think my concerns have been described here well by the others. One thing I believed is missing here is this suggestion that TarnishedPath is engaging in bad faith. That said, any consideration of the accusation must be complimented by an evaluation of the below section.

TarnishedPath Considering I just spoke of assuming bad faith some might find this section ironic. Nevertheless, I believe there were violations here on TarnishedPath's end.

At WP:ORN, I've shown that a historian (Gorny) he previously thought cited x (perceived superiority of rights) as the basis of y (Zionist claim to Palestine) actually said that y implied x, and that y was actually "in the name of" (based on) z (perceived historical right). TarnishedPath did not respond to this (or to any of the sources in that comment at at all; sources whose volume surpassed that of the statement he was defending) and later insisted that any changes must be made through RfC (to be fair though, prior to that comment I've already opened then procedurally closed an RfC on the matter).

This is not the only instance. Here and here I have shown that 2 more of the authors made direct statements on the basis without mentioning the perceived superiority of rights. I was ignored. Instead, he brought forth another source (later challenged by several editors), leaving the original concerns unaddressed and not elaborating further. Even now, he has yet to comment on any of the evidence I brought regarding the original authors we were discussing.

It was frustrating to have to search through all of the authors' articles and finding impeccable evidence only to be met with.. nothing. The discussions following the 2 changes I made to the article (one with a running RfC and one awaiting an RfC) were so time consuming that almost all the time I had for Wikipedia was spent just on them in the past few weeks. This is abnormal. All editors who addressed the concerns at WP:ORN (except M.Bitton) agreed with my position. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga Not an admin (obviously) but I think that it would be best if you open a new report for TarnishedPath for the sake of organization (the title of this thread is "Wh1pla5h99" after all). If you have evidence related to this report just copy-paste it from there to here (or the other way around) بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by SuperPianoMan9167

After I warned Wh1pla5h99 of their continued incivility in diffs 9 and 10 (User talk:Wh1pla5h99#Continued incivility) they toned down their comment in diff 10; they have since promised to improve their behavior. I don't think anything else needs to be done here besides a warning; I would recommend filing a separate AE request against TarnishedPath if they have behavioral issues. This way, such a filing would stay on track. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wh1pla5h99

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

Wh1pla5h99, I haven't gone through everything, but I'm going to address your statement: Sarcasm. I'm guilty of it. It is a rhetorical device, but if I am to let it go then so be it., Sarcasm is rarely a persuasive rhetorical device anywhere and is more commonly counterproductive. Sarcasm may delight allies and an audience, but it seldom convinces opponents of the correctness of your argument. If your motivation for joining a discussion isn't to persuade, why are you even in the discussion? And if your motivation for joining a discussion is to make your opponents feel or look stupid, which is what sarcasm used effectively does best, that's disruptive to a collaborative process. You are fairly new here, and you're working in one of the most contentious areas on the entire project. Stick to sincerity. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Ai yi yi...and Why should I have to respond earnestly to someone who is engaging in the very behaviour that led to a ban decision against them. In future consider not responding at all.

Agree that Zionism diffs 3 and 5 are gravedancing.

Agree this entire convo is very concerning. 4 different experienced editors come to your talk over a period of several days to complain about the same behavior, and you keep dismissing their concerns.Valereee (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

One point of information, @Wh1pla5h99, re if admins believe I ought to tone it down somewhat then I will do so: If multiple experienced editors -- not just admins -- are telling you something, believe them. Admins aren't some sort of special authority on what is or isn't acceptable behavior within a CTOP. Editors decide that. The reason for bringing it here is not to bring the issue to some ultimate authority. It's to get attention from someone uninvolved who has the tools to do something about it. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Re:TP has been abusing my talk page, and I would appreciate it if he was restricted in some way from doing so. You can simply tell an editor you don't want them to post to your talk. That necessarily limits them from being able to try to discuss an issue with you before bringing it to a noticeboard. Valereee (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Re: The rest of it relates to use of "piss-poor provenance", which was enticing for alliterative reasons if nothing else, and again directed at no one in particular. But if it is unwarranted incivility then I retract it and will go over my mouth with soap. I'm not sure you're getting it. "Enticing for alliterative reasons" still indicates to me you are making these comments for their effect or to try to impress people with your ability to turn a phrase. The problem with "piss-poor" has nothing to do with profanity and everything to do with the way you're interacting with other people. This is a CTOP, not some game of dozens. This particular article is one of the most contentious on the entire project, a place even highly experienced editors get themselves in trouble with their behavior. Your interactions right here at AE are making we wonder if you really have the maturity to work at Zionism. Valereee (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Re: I can promise to avoid profanity, but I'm not sure if I can promise to avoid ever writing for effect, or to impress, as that is one of the joys of writing to me. You still aren't getting it. This isn't about avoiding profanity. If you can't avoid succumbing to the joy of writing for effect when it's disruptive, you shouldn't be working at CTOPs. I was going to suggest a warning, but now I'm wondering if this should just be a p-block from Zionism in the hopes editing somewhere less contentious will give this editor a chance to figure out what we're doing here. Valereee (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

More joy of writing for effect. Sigh. Valereee (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

In general, humor within a passionate debate is risky. In Misusing logical fallacies is perhaps a worse crime than the bad provenance of this edit, you seem to be trying to do two things:

Reject the straw man characterization as incorrect
Reject the source as supporting the suggested content.

But instead of just saying "I don't think this qualifies as a straw man argument because X. The source being used for Y does not support it", you decided to go for what felt like a delivering a pithy zinger. There are millions of discussions here where humor is fine, even at a highly contentious article talk. You happen to be using it counterproductively at Zionism. Even your approach here at AE seems to be treating this concern as a bit of silliness you need to get through, hopefully with your reputation for witty repartee intact.

FWIW, you're formally limited to 500 words here, and you're nearing triple that now. I haven't bothered with it because much of it has been answering me, but for the sake of other workers here, try to be brief and avoid discussing anything extraneous. There's no need for you to address the other party or any commenters, just respond to workers here. Valereee (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Based on this I am willing to take this editor at their word and just give a warning to be careful in CTOPS as it's a cesspool. Valereee (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Wh1pla5h99, there's no need for you to talk to other commenters or even to the other party. Just address workers here; if they need clarification from you on something someone else has said, they'll ask. If you think there's something in someone's remarks that workers here might not even realize they don't understand, I'd recommend a simple "I'd like to clarify X's remarks/diffs, if workers will give me a little more space." Valereee (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Ooops, I see you were reverting just as I was writing that. :) Valereee (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I fully endorse what Valereee said above re: writing for effect. We have blocked several editors for doing so, because it fruitlessly raises the temperature in a CTOP. That said, I am inclined to think the message has been received here, and would prefer a logged warning over a block. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)