Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive363

Request concerning Har1MAS1415

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Har1MAS1415 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons

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

1. 18:34, 15 March 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a random person's video on Youtube as a reference
2. 18:42, 15 March 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a random person's video on Youtube as a reference
3. 00:26, 16 March 2025 Amends content at a BLP using a forum post as a reference
4. 13:48, 16 March 2025 Adds forum posts as references at a BLP
5. 14:33, 17 March 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a random person's video on Youtube as a reference
6. 12:58, 18 March 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a random person's Facebook post as a reference
7. 18:40, 18 March 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a forum post as a reference
8. 18:22, 16 April 2025 Dismisses objections to using forum posts as a reference (see entire thread also)
9. 18:24, 16 April 2025 Dismisses objections to using Youtube videos as a reference (see entire thread also)
10. 21:49, 17 September 2025 Adds a forum post as a reference to a BLP
11. 16:08, 16 September 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a forum post as a reference
12. 15:53, 16 September 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a forum post as a reference
13. 11:45, 10 November 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a forum post as a reference
14. 19:37, 10 November 2025 Adds a forum post as a reference to a BLP, claiming These people wouldn't say these things if they were making it up.
15. 16:01, 27 December 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a random person's Facebook post as a reference
16. 16:20, 27 December 2025 Adds a random person's Youtube video (of them unboxing a plastic model kit!!) as a reference to a BLP
17. 19:36, 27 December 2025 Adds a forum post as a reference to a BLP
18. 19:45, 27 December 2025 Adds a forum post as a reference to a BLP

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)

Notified at 19:47, 10 November 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I could have added a lot more earlier diffs starting with them originally adding constantly unreferenced content before continuing to add lots and lots of badly referenced content, but figured a few examples would be sufficient especially with the 20 diff limit in mind.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Har1MAS1415

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.

Result concerning Har1MAS1415

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

• While these sources are clearly inappropriate per WP:BLPRS, the claims being cited aren't particularly controversial or damaging, so this is not a matter for AE. I would recommend bringing this to WP:ANI instead, where other editors can help with the cleanup and offer relevant editing advice. Closing without action. – bradv 16:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Request concerning إيان

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA5

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning إيان

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 إيان

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content
:::I think I'm over my word limit. Could I have permission to say a few more words in response to Samuelshraga? إيان (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC) Samuelshraga, thanks for your statement here and thank you for acknowledging that I was engaging politely and in good faith. It means a lot to me. I appreciate your input here as I appreciated it at the RM.

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning إيان

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Newslinger, sorry, I've had limited time this week. The SYNTH to me seems like something إيان does in fact need to learn, and that by 13K edits they should have learned. I'm not sure it's something that needs to be dealt with here and now other than to let them know that this is a competence issue. Valereee (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

• Closing without action. The complaints about edit warring are tainted by virtue of one of the participants being a compromised account. The complaint about SYNTH has been resolved with إيان committing to do better, and since there has been no report of continued violations we can take them at their word. As this thread has been open for over a month with no administrator taking action, it is appropriate to close this and deal with future issues as they arise. إيان, please review the feedback presented here and make the appropriate adjustments to your editing habits. – bradv 18:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Request concerning Avidanalyst

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TryKid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Avidanalyst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block 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

1. Edit warring: On the "December 2025 Bangladesh violence" article"; three reverts to add back a tag:
   1. 19:07 20 December
   2. 19:12 20 December
   3. 20:50 20 December
   4. They were then warned (21:40 20 December) on their talk page.
   5. But on 4:00 21 December, they add the tag back a fourth time.
2. Edit warring: On the "2025 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence" article:
   1. 20:48 21 December
   2. 14:13 22 December
   3. 20:46 22 December
   4. 21:26 22 December.
3. Misrepresentation of sources: 20:45 21 December, they make a false claim about the sources, and double down when asked about it on talk: 16:08 22 December.

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)

2:01 20 December

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Avidanalyst been making edits in the contentious Bangladesh politics subject area right from the very first edit, including controversial 1:37 20 December page moves that lead to the article being move protected. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: I don't think the whole of CT/SA is under ECR, only Indian military history and caste are. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:34, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Avidanalyst seems unusually familiar with Wikipedia jargon and my talk page history from a year ago for someone who just joined two months ago. It's possible they have had a previous undisclosed account and/or there's some sockpuppetry going on. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Avidanalyst

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.

Result concerning Avidanalyst

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

• I've EC protected the article, added an article editnotice and talk page notice referring to SASG, and dropped a note at the talk page to emphasize that this is covered by ECR in SASG. I think it's clear that there are enough difference between this major dispute between social groups and the routine election pages Bushranger asked ArbCom about. Avidanalyst, you are now technically prevented from editing the article, and you should not discuss this topic further except here (watch your word count) and in uncontroversial edit requests at the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Request concerning StopRejectingMyUsername

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA

WP:ARBECR vios, and not really listening to warnings to stop.

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

1. 25 Nov 2024 Earliest diff of SRMU editing in the PIA topic area without WP:XC permission. this triggers a user to welcome them and put the PIA alert explaining not to edit before 500 edits. Note, this is a year ago, perhaps user forgot.
2. 15 November 2025 14 November 2025 1 December 2025 1 December 2025 14 November 2025 Clear PIA vios, all edits in the topic area before 500 edits, all in articles that were tangentially involved in topic area. SRMU jumps directly into part of article that is covered by the restriction. A few users appear to have placed warnings for SRMU (see below), on their talk page. I gave last.
3. 23 December 2025 A edit about a conspiracy theory around a Palestinian being accused of the 2025 Brown University shooting, and this inserted text One of Neves Valente's victims, MIT professor Nuno Loureiro, was also wrongly identified by Maguire as Jewish and a supporter of Israel.

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)

Multiple users have given warnings not to edit in the topic area at this point:

• 25 November 2024 Alert/first is given for that first diff a year ago
• 17 November 2025 Admin explains clearly a restriction that applies to all content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You may make any edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except to make formal edit requests. That includes a prohibition on general talk page conversation.
• 12 December 2025 I make the last warning. Arguably could have made a full subsection instead of commenting underneath that alert/first. Note that the last diff in evidence is after my warning.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

don't know if Wikipedia:IGNORANCE can be plead, but some of these vios are possibly borderline. the three warnings feels excessive enough anyone would have reported by now, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluethricecreamman (talk • contribs)

In general, statement by SRMU suggests WP:IGNORANCE could be plead. I do still believe the brown university edit is probably gaming towards the ctop area, but acknowledge that one could argue these edits were not in the topic area. a simple admin warning only as an outcome of this report could be an acceptable outcome.
personally, I feel some of these earlier edits before warning are definitely PIA vios, though the one after my warning, on brown university shooting, feels like gray area, after further reflection. would like admin clarification myself if the edits fall into topic area, or if this AE report was overkill. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[]

Discussion concerning StopRejectingMyUsername

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.

Result concerning StopRejectingMyUsername

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

• StopRejectingMyUsername, this one is very obviously a PIA restriction violation, and it doesn't have anything to do with the Brown shooting. Can you comment on this, please? -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

  @StopRejectingMyUsername, I've reverted your response to The Kip because it took you way over the word limit. It is not necessary that you respond to everyone. If you'd like to respond to The Kip, you're welcome to use parts from the page history, but please keep it within the limit and please respond in your own section. -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

  @StopRejectingMyUsername, it seems to me that you have misunderstood how CTOPs work, and you think that whether an article is in a CTOP or not is a) a property of the article itself and b) the thing that restricts your participation in the topic. But it's the topic that is a CTOP. You cannot engage with the topic in any way until you are extended-confirmed. For the purposes of your editing and your general talk page participation, the Arab-Israeli conflict does not exist. -- asilvering (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

• StopRejectingMyUsername, your edit removed statements about Israeli shooting victims with an edit summary of Where's the controversy about her dismissive attitude towards Palestinian journalists, which earned her criticism even in peer-reviewed academic journals? You had removed the same content the previous day with an edit summary of These were not major events or controversies — they're here because of Wikipedia's tendency to over-record grievances from Israelis and their supporters. I'm having a hard time reconciling that with your statement here that I had no way of knowing [this would be] covered by ARBPIA. I feel like you literally connected it to PIA yourself. Valereee (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

  @StopRejectingMyUsername, the extra words are generally fine when replying to workers here, but I'll specifically okay them. Okay, I'll take the edits at Amanpour as a misunderstanding on the part of a very new editor. Your restriction against PIA means you can't make edits anywhere, including in PIA-related areas of otherwise-unrelated topics. So, for instance, you can't edit the section of Falafel that is about the political implications. Literally the only place you can approach PIA is in this kind of discussion right here, or on your own talk page with an administrator you're asking for advice. You absolutely can edit at Amanpour (or Falafel), as long as you stay away from PIA-related edits. Valereee (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

  Which leads me to my irregularly scheduled public service announcement: Very new editors and contentious topics are a terrible mix. Go learn policy in places where the experienced editors have patience for helping newbies learn. In contentious topics they just don't have any patience. Valereee (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Request concerning Hogshine

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Historynerd361 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Sanctions on ACAS topics.

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

Pattern of Personal Attacks against me WP:NPA

• "intentionally dishonest”
• "serious case of lack of competence”.
• repeatedly insinuated that I am part of a "meat/sockpuppet network”.
• backhanded uncollegial remarks "I'm being charitable towards you (again), try to be charitable back for once”
• Your contributions to this project are minimal’’
• ”Gaming the system to rack up edit counts”
• "I don't think you're here to build an encyclopedia”

2. 12/11 Accusing user:777network of: ″using ChatGPT to write articles″ (several times) – ″gaming the system to rack up edit counts″

13/11 ″Good faith was assumed and handed to you on a silver plate, but you've proven otherwise″

6/12 tag-teaming for consensus’'

3. On the latest ANI Hogshine's primary reply's avoided addressing the new allegations of personal attacks and incivility, instead spending significant effort re-litigating a prior, closed ANI case and your past edits, which demonstrates a failure to constructively engage with the dispute resolution process. A similar behavior also exists on the talk pages mentioned above.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 11/10-25 Warned by admin Asilvering

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

11 October 2025 Administrator Asilvering issued a formal, logged final warning to Hogshine regarding conduct in ACAS topics during a prior ANI. This warning explicitly references the WP:GS/ACAS sanctions.

29 November Hoghsine makes edit where he acknowledges the GS/ACAS warning.

On Michael the Syrian talkpage he mentions ACAS several times.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On 15 November user Hogshine asked Asilvering ″ how is pointing out another's disruptive behavior considered disruptive itself″. Asilvering provided Hogshine guidelines regarding personal attacks. Despite receiving explicit guidance from Asilvering on regarding personal attacks, Hogshine continued to make them, as documented in the Jacob of Edessa talk page discussion and his subsequent ANI reply. This shows a pattern of behavior that persists even after administrative correction. Hogshine's interactions with other editors and administrators are consistently uncollegial. Even when directly addressed by an administrator about his motivations (see this,) his response was to argue semantics ('The aspersion was the "ejecting opponent” part') rather than engage constructively. This pattern of confrontational, rather than collaborative responses, contributes to the hostile environment in ACAS topics.

• You still continue with your personal attacks... Your reply labels my actions as "WP:DISHONEST," insists 777network "demonstrably" used ChatGPT, and suggests this AE request itself was written by an "LLM" or "different person." These are not good-faith critiques of edits; they are attacks on other editors' character and motives, violating WP;NPA and WP:AGP. Your repeated, serious claims of a coordinated "sock/meat network" are presented without new evidence and serve primarily to discredit complainants rather than address their specific conduct concerns. This AE request is about a pattern of hostile personal interactions that poison collaboration. Hogshine's response attempts to shift the discussion back to content disputes about individual articles and old warnings, which is beyond the scope of this enforcement request.

Please note that this AE was filed on request of Asilvering if the ANI would be archived without any results, which it was, hence my report. Also note that I’m not trying to get you out of Wikipedia, I just want you to know your behavior of editing and replaying is not acceptable. Historynerd361 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

[@Newslinger:] I filed this request specifically regarding Hogshine's pattern of personal attacks and incivility, as I believe it is the primary conduct issue disrupting collaboration in ACAS topics. My evidence and focus are on that pattern. While I defer to administrator discretion, I believe keeping the scope focused on Hogshine's conduct would allow for the clearest evaluation of the behavior I reported. If there are separate concerns about 777network's conduct, they could be addressed in a different venue as you suggested. Historynerd361 (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1

Discussion concerning Hogshine

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 777network

Y Extension granted to 1037 words. — Newslinger talk 18:04, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for moving this to AE. Keeping this as short as possible, Hogshine has repeatedly made personal accusations during content disputes, including claims of bad faith, POV-pushing, rule-breaking, gaming the system, and using AI to write articles at Michael the Syrian.

Despite being asked multiple times to stop, he continued, told me Wikipedia might not be for me, characterized me as "emotional," and later misrepresented my objections as a "threat" under WP:THREATEN (which an admin told was not the case). This behavior is coupled with POV enforcement and clear double standards across Michael the Syrian and Jacob of Edessa, where he selectively invoked policies to block sourced content related to Aramean identity while refusing to revert his own disputed changes.

Other editors noted that Hogshine’s objections were transparently POV-driven rather than policy-based, including an editor stating that WP:CVREPEAT was cited in a first-time warning to eject an opponent from the topic area. While Hogshine denied this and accused others of casting aspersions, an admin intervened and stated that the observation was "so transparently true" and cautioned him accordingly. However, this did not make him stop either, Hogshine tripled-down on the ANI page, stating that the observer and the admin were both wrong, whilst also again throwing aspirations and personal attacks at me. He was already told that I had not threatened him, yet he kept saying I did.

As Historynerd noted, because we were both involved in the same discussion, hogshine accused us of tag-teaming for consensus, despite neither of us continuing to engage. He also seems to be shifting focus a lot towards past SPI’s, for reasons I do not understand. Editing within the topics I do, should not really be considered to be basis of "meat-puppetry." There is only a handful of articles that cover these topics, hence the overlaps between different users. Same logic/argument could be said about Hogshine, but it just doesn’t make sense. Judging by Hogshine’s reply, it seems as he’s not even denying the allegations.

It’s difficult to summarize everything briefly, so I strongly recommend that any admin read this ANI comment of mine thoroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777network (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

[@Hogshine:] Just like you did on the ANI, here too you are proving the points we have presented (). You do not stop the allegations. If there is a genuine concern that we are sockpuppets, file an SPI. If you genuinely think I have threatened you, file a complaint. If you genuinely think we have tag teamed to manufacture consensus, file a complaint. Do not run around numerous talk pages and topics accusing us of these things.

This must be the third time I am telling you to stop saying that I have threatened you. My comment about this being the last time I am saying this was perfectly fine according to Asilvering. No, I did not call you a shit talker. I said I was tired of this shit talking. There is a difference between the two. I judged content, not the person.

Wikipedia doesn't have unlimited articles covering ACAS topics. It is only natural for different users to have overlapping edits. Stop saying that I am a sockpuppet because of this.

On the ANI you did the exact same thing as you are doing now. You keep deflecting the topic and only prove our points. Everyone seems to be wrong, including admins, except you. You even implied that the admin @Asilvering gave me permission to threaten you. Now that, I'm pretty sure, is an aspiration without excuse. 777network (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Reply to Newslinger, moved to correct section

Can I explain/defend myself? I find this highly speculative and not representing the truth. 777network (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger, my word count would be up to 806, so sorry but is it possible to increase it a bit more? 777network (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for extending my word limit, @Newslinger.

To address the concerns raised, I would like to start by acknowledging my unconstructive edits regarding date formats. I was previously unaware of MOS:DATE, but I realize the amount of cleanup work I created for others and I regret the disruption. As noted in my user contributions, I ceased these edits immediately after I was told about the guideline.

Regarding ECR (WP:GS/KURD), I would like to point out that when I discussed this with the admin Bushranger, it was determined not to be a violation. Consequently, Bushranger removed the ECR protection from the article. While I found the scope of GS/KURD confusing, I did not believe that editing an article merely because it mentioned "Kurds" fell under those restrictions.

I also understand the worries regarding sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but I categorically deny any off-wiki coordination with Historynerd361, and I have no connection to Wlaak/DavidKaf. While disputes regarding Aramean topics go back decades, there is a very limited number of articles involving them, so overlapping edits should be expected among the few editors interested in this topic.

Regarding the flag, anyone searching for the Syriac-Aramean flag would notice that the colors were recently changed, I noticed this and attempted to fix it. I had already been active prior to it, me editing this topic would naturally also come across the flag.

Extended content

Me and Historynerd361 seeming to be active during the same periods is because we are both reacting to specific content changes made by Hogshine, Historynerd361 had also edited this specific page before (while Wlaak was still around). I do not deny that we seem to be on the same side of this specific content dispute, but sharing a viewpoint is not evidence of coordination, in my opinion. I would also note that we have not "farmed" consensus nor tag-teamed, in fact, I would like to believe that we adhered to WP:DROPTHESTICK here, which is also evident in Hogshine's version to be standing today. In my honest opinion, Historynerd361 seems to have been active when Wlaak was active, his editorial patterns (such as creating drafts; in the past, while Wlaak was still around, as well as recently) as well as activity level, seems to not deviate from that time, so I do not see how they would be meat/sock puppets, let alone have me linked to him. In the SPI you had linked, Asilvering, who looks to be the most involved person in this dispute, made a comment not thinking Historynerd361 and Wlaak to sound the like the same person at all, judging by edits/behavioural patterns I assume. I have not gone through all his edits etc., but the few ones I have, I do not see a change in edit pattern nor "speech" from then. Finally, I have already begun distancing myself from this topic area, and my activity has significantly decreased compared to a few weeks ago. I believe a block/topic-ban would be too extreme considering the reasons. I do admit that I think all involved parties should distance themselves a bit, hence I will see this as a "semi-topic-restriction" until I get further experience. It is way harder trying to clear me from meat/sock puppetry since I have nothing prior to compare to from this topic, I am sorry if there is confusion still. I do not know what else, except the above, is linking me and Historynerd361, if there are any additional questions you have for me, please do not hesitate to ask me. We can perform a CheckUser to exclude sockpuppetry, but naturally, it can't clear your concerns of meat puppetry.

777network (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Hogshine

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

• Hogshine, there is a max of 20 diffs. You've provided 57. Please trim that down to the 20 that will be most helpful to responding admins. -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
• @Hogshine: A "possible" SPI result does not justify making allegations of sockpuppetry in content discussions. Since there was insufficient evidence to take action against 777network in the SPI, please do not continue accusing 777network of sockpuppetry unless you are doing so in a new case at WP:SPI with new compelling evidence. If you have evidence that 777network is engaging in other types of misconduct in the WP:GS/ACAS contentious topic, you can file a new enforcement request on this noticeboard. (777network's conduct is out of scope in this request, except to the extent necessary to determine whether Hogshine's comments were appropriate.) — Newslinger talk 13:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  • On second thought, it may be easier to waive the two-editor scope requirement and expand the scope of this AE request to also include 777network. asilvering, what do you think? — Newslinger talk 13:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

    @Newslinger, I think that's probably fair and I don't think it would result in a filing much more complicated than what is already here. -- asilvering (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

• Hogshine's primary reply's avoided addressing the new allegations of personal attacks and incivility, instead spending significant effort re-litigating a prior, closed ANI case and your past edits, which demonstrates a failure to constructively engage with the dispute resolution process. reads like LLM output, especially as it's referring to Historynerd's edits as "your edits". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
• @Historynerd361, Hogshine, and 777network: As all of you have exhausted your word limits, and the continued discussion has been unhelpful for evaluating this enforcement request, please do not make any further comments here except to answer a direct question from an uninvolved administrator in this section. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
• I was approached by an editor about an article 777network had expanded that I eventually deleted at copyright problems (Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2025 November 2), but I believe I'm uninvolved here. At this point everyone needs a break from the topic area; the sheer amount of arguing and accusations I saw on Asilvering's talk page was more than enough when I was reviewing the copyright matter. Enough is enough. I recommend topic bans at this point. Sennecaster (Chat) 07:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish that Historynerd361 appears to be posting LLM-generated comments in talk page discussions without disclosure. The most obvious example is Historynerd361's comment at 13:07, 27 November 2025, in Talk:Jacob of Edessa § New edits, which not only has signs of being copied-and-pasted, but also included the hallucinated claim: "According to WP:P and WP:PROD, well sourced content should not be removed without a policy-based reason." WP:P redirects to Wikipedia:Portal, and WP:PROD redirects to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, neither of which are remotely relevant to the discussion. After Hogshine noted the error, Historynerd361 deleted "and WP:PROD" from their comment at 22:57, 29 November 2025, without disclosing the deletion as required by WP:REDACT. "According to WP:P" still remains in the comment as of now.
  Historynerd361's first piece of evidence is a link to Hogshine's comment at 06:07, 30 November 2025; Historynerd361 pointed out a number of accusations Hogshine made about Historynerd361 (which I intend to take a closer look at later), but omitted that Hogshine said to Historynerd361 in the same comment, "This is what happens when LLM writes your articles for you". The LLM accusation was in response to Historynerd361's comment at 22:56, 29 November 2025, which stated that the content in the Jacob of Edessa article that was deleted in Hogshine's revert at 06:42, 27 November 2025, was supported by excerpts from the source "Syriac and Syrians in the Later Roman Empire: Questions of Identity" (specifically, pages 157–158), as published in The Syriac World by Daniel King. However, the actual citation in the article at the time was pages 157–158 of The Syriac World: In Search of a Forgotten Christianity by Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet and Muriel Debié. The incorrect citation was originally added by 777network at 13:45, 1 November 2025. It is strange that Historynerd361 did not notice the erroneous citation that 777network had added, and instead made an argument referring to the source that 777network had intended to cite. Historynerd361 and 777network provided their reasons for the mistake at 12:33 and 14:56 on 1 December 2025, respectively, but this irregularity warrants further examination.
  Based solely on Historynerd361's undisclosed use of LLM-generated comments to advance a point of view in the contentious topic, I support an indefinite topic ban of Historynerd361 from WP:GS/ACAS. Alternatively, I also support an indefinite block for Historynerd361, with Historynerd361 being advised that a credible unblock request from Historynerd361 would be more likely to be accepted if Historynerd361 agrees to the following unblock conditions: an indefinite topic ban from WP:GS/ACAS, and a prohibition on using large language models to edit Wikipedia.
  I intend to share comments focused on Hogshine and 777network after some additional review. — Newslinger talk 22:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Hogshine frequently fails to focus on content during content disputes on talk pages such as Talk:Michael the Syrian and Talk:Jacob of Edessa, and often makes conduct accusations without adequate substantiation in the discussion, which constitutes casting aspersions. Even if the conduct accusations were true, they must be properly supported by evidence, and they should ideally be presented in a venue that is specifically intended for resolving conduct disputes. It is a violation of the civility policy to tell another editor "Your contributions to this project are minimal" in a content dispute, as Hogshine said to Historynerd361 at 06:07, 30 November 2025, or "If you're going to get emotional with every single disagreement, maybe this place isn't for you", as Hogshine said to 777network at 10:11, 14 November 2025.
    It was also unconstructive for Hogshine to argue that Historynerd36 and 777network were "gaming the system to rack up edit counts" in content disputes at 06:07, 30 November 2025, and 05:15–05:17, 12 November 2025, respectively, because the conduct complaints were unrelated to the article talk page discussions they were posted in, despite being plausible or true. Historynerd361 did make 26 unconstructive edits in rapid succession to Draft:Beth Aramaye after being warned for violating the extended confirmed restriction (ECR) in WP:GS/KURD (with their deletion of links to the Assyrian people article from 32 articles about Turkish areas), although Historynerd36 claimed in the ANI discussion that they were trying to add a WikiProject template to Draft:Beth Aramaye. A week before that, 777network did make approximately 70 unconstructive date format changes (e.g. to "December 31th, 2011") after being warned for violating ECR in WP:GS/KURD for removing a link to the Assyrian people article (and other instances of the word "Assyrian"/"Assyrians") from the article Dereiçi, Savur (another Turkish area) at 23:24, 10 November 2025 16:17, 30 October 2025.
    I am going to pause right here because, at this point, I have seen enough behavioral evidence to believe that Historynerd361 and 777network are engaging in off-wiki coordination (i.e. meatpuppetry). Considering the findings here alongside the behavioral evidence in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wlaak/Archive, as well as 777network's unsuccessful attempt on Wikimedia Commons to restore the version of the File:Flag of the Syriac-Aramaic People.svg image that had previously been reinstated by DavidKaf (talk · contribs), who Wlaak (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of, I would group Historynerd361 and 777network with DavidKaf/Wlaak. While Hogshine should receive some type of sanction to curtail his uncivil comments, I support an indefinite block for both Historynerd361 and 777network. — Newslinger talk 19:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC); edited 22:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
    • @777network: Your word limit has been extended to 1,014 words, which provides you with 400 words to address my comments. If you would like to request a larger word limit, please say so. — Newslinger talk 20:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
    • Corrected diff in comment. Courtesy ping to 777network. — Newslinger talk 22:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
      • @777network: Could you please post the most essential parts of your response (up to 400 words), and then post the remainder in a collapsed format by surrounding it with {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} tags? — Newslinger talk 18:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

        @Newslinger, just reminding you that the collapse was done as asked. -- asilvering (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

    • I agree that 777network's edit to the Dereiçi, Savur, article at 16:17, 30 October 2025, is not within the scope of WP:GS/KURD, but that is not central to my point. Here, the similarity between 777network and Historynerd361 is how both users made mass edits after they were warned about violating WP:ECR in WP:GS/KURD, regardless of whether the warning was correct. 777network's edits appeared to be made in a hurry: 777network demonstrated knowledge of the correct forms of ordinal numbers in English by using "July 31st", "21st August", "23rd March", and "December 23rd", yet still made other edits with the incorrect forms "December 23th" and "December 31th".
      In his collapsed comment, Hogshine notes that 777network added a paragraph to the Michael the Syrian article beginning with "Michael the Syrian states that he belongs to the race or nation (umṭo) of the Arameans [...] the preservation of this language demonstrated the historical continuity of the Syrians." at 12:29, 1 November 2025, with the edit summary "Added more information / sources". The same paragraph with identical citation templates had previously been added to the article by DavidKaf (17 September) and added twice by DavidKaf's sockpuppet Devi van velden (12 September, 22 September). Note that DavidKaf's block for sockpuppetry (via Wlaak) expired on 20 December, but DavidKaf is still subject to the indefinite topic ban issued to Wlaak on 14 May. — Newslinger talk 18:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  • In summary, my recommendations:
    • Historynerd361
      • For undisclosed LLM use to advance a point of view in WP:GS/ACAS, an indefinite sitewide block (for which an appeal would be more likely to be accepted with two unblock conditions: a prohibition on using an LLM to edit Wikipedia, and an indefinite topic ban from WP:GS/ACAS)
      • For apparent off-wiki coordination, an indefinite sitewide block or an indefinite topic ban from WP:GS/ACAS
    • Hogshine
      • For making irrelevant or inadequately substantiated negative comments about the conduct of other editors on article talk pages, one of the following: a logged warning, a one-week sitewide block, or an indefinite topic ban from posting comments on article talk pages within the scope of WP:GS/ACAS about the conduct of other editors
    • 777network
      • For apparent off-wiki coordination, an indefinite sitewide block or an indefinite topic ban from WP:GS/ACAS
  • This is a panel discussion, so I would like to hear from other reviewing administrators, especially on whether all of the information here is sufficient to establish a finding of off-wiki coordination involving Historynerd361 and 777network. Another option to consider is expanding asilvering's warnings of Hogshine, Historynerd361, and 777network logged in WP:GS/ACAS § Individual sanctions to topic bans from changing and/or discussing changes to identity words under the scope of WP:GS/ACAS, such as "Assyrian", "Chaldean", "Aramean" and "Syriac". — Newslinger talk 18:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

    @Sennecaster, your previous comment was supportive of tbans for all, but Newslinger has some more granular sanctions suggested here, what do you think? @ScottishFinnishRadish, any thoughts?

    As for myself, for the past while I've been encouraging these editors to file at AE so they can have someone other than me handling this, so I'd prefer to just stick to an advisory role here. With that in mind, I would warn against changing those logged warnings about changes to identity words to tbans from doing so. From my experience following up on those warnings, I still think they were a useful first step, but I think the tban would be messy to enforce with these editors in particular and would come close to being a tban from the entire topic anyway. For what it's worth, I previously gave a warning that was in effect a time-limited topic ban of this nature to Wlaak and Surayeproject3, and both editors handled it well. Regarding off-wiki co-ordination, it's been my position since the first Wlaak SPI that there is obviously canvassing going on in consensus discussions like AfDs. No comment on whether these two editors, specifically, are improperly co-ordinating their efforts. -- asilvering (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

    Indef Historynerd361 for the LLM usage (I don't know if that can be an AE action, but I think that could probably be done as an individual admin action with the unblock condition being set by the Unblocks admins? If they commit to not using LLMs I think they could definitely be a productive editor outside of ACAS). Give 777network and Historynerd361 topic bans from WP:GS/ACAS.

    Hogshine's incivility has been an ongoing issue for longer than these diffs show - they are fundamentally unable to talk about issues other editors have without serious unsubstantiated claims, incivility, or repeatedly trying to persuade asilvering that something was a violation of the logged warning that they handed out earlier. (Edit: also, like every other one I've come across, this edit is wholly AI-generated. ) (You have twice already broken the rule to which you tried framing me for, ) (everything at User talk:Asilvering/Archive 27#Another vio). I'm not sure what the right solution is here between the ones you've proposed, Newslinger, but at the very least, I don't think Hogshine is capable of interacting with anyone that isn't on "their side", whatever it may be, in a productive manner. They were told almost two months ago to change their approach to ACAS, and they haven't. The chances of them acting like they have in what Newslinger has found and what I have seen on asilvering's talk page to someone fresh coming into ACAS is pretty high it seems. At the very least, if they're not topic banned here, at the next instance of incivility they're either getting a block or a topic ban to go see if they can be collaborative in less heated topic areas. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:46, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

    I didn't look into this in much detail, I just wanted to provide my weather eye on the LLM issue ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Request concerning Iskandar323

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BlookyNapsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC) ( Compromised account)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA5

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

1. 23 January 2025 Iskandar323 is indefinitely topic banned by Arbcom during the ARBPIA5 case ("Disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including consistently non-neutral editing".)
2. 26 January 2025 Erased a text including a reference to Hamas
3. 27 January 2025 Warned by a fellow editor on their talk page for the above violation
4. 24 January 2025, edited Solomon's Temple, an article that the main page clearly says it is included in ARBPIA. 24 January 2025 they self reverted "pending clarification on CT restrictions".
5. 30 January 2025 an editor asks them to reconsider the topics they edit since receiving their topic ban.
6. 13 February 2025 - Starting an AfD for a personality related to ARBPIA which came to news in connection with Gaza
7. 21 February 2025 - Logged warning by an admin (Tamzin) for the violations on the above page
8. 6 November 2025 - edited El Sayyid Nosair, an article about an Arab who assassinated a controversial Israeli politician.
9. 6 November 2025 - complaint in Administrators' noticeboard, after which the user reverted the above edit.
10. 25 November 2025 - Iskandar323 removed Land of Israel and replaced it with historic Palestine
11. 26 November 2025 - 2 week block for the above violation imposed by an admin and arbcom member (ScottishFinnishRadish)
12. 3 December 2025 - User asks admin to reconsider, asserting that "wandering into the grey twice in nine months isn't really much an indication of malicious intent for the project". 4 December 2025 - Another editor pointed out that there had been many more than 2 violations. Iskandar323 then erased that comment, saying in their edit summary "Thanks, but no thanks – please consider yourself disinvited from my talk page".
13. 17 December 2025 - Iskandar323 commented on Talk:Dome of the Rock, an article that the main page clearly says it is included in ARBPIA.
14. 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 16 December 2025, and 16 December 2025 - Iskandar323 participates extensively in discussion on Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting, including a discussion if it should be called a terror attack (where they opposed it). This attack is connected directly to ARBPIA: It was conducted by Islamic-State linked perpetrators, against Jews and Israelis celebrating a Jewish holiday. Jews, including an Israeli Jew, were killed. The authorities say it was motivated by antisemitism. Israel's intelligence believes Iran is behind the attack, which occurred just a short time after Australia expelled Iran's ambassador following intelligence showing the country was involved in hate crimes against Jews. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps blamed Israel of orchestrating the attack as a false-flag operation. The article's very background (following major sources) section connects the event to a rise in antisemitism in Australia in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks and the Gaza War.
15. 17 December 2025 - I wrote to them on their talk page recommending steering away from these topics. The erased my comment, writing in the edit summary "Erroneous and unwelcome - no thank you!".

Despite an indefinite ARBPIA topic ban (and a year long ARBPIA topic ban before that), multiple warnings, and a prior block, the editor has continued to participate in pages and discussions within the ARBPIA scope. Attempts to raise these issues on the editor's talk page have been reverted. A recent two-week site block has not resulted in improved compliance.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 21 September 2021 logged warning
2. 25 September 2021 topic banned from ARBPIA for 12 months
3. 23 January 2025 indefinitely topic banned from ARBPIA on WP:AE
4. 21 February 2025 - Logged warning for tban violation by ARBCOM in ARBPIA5
5. 26 November 2025 - 2 week site block for tban violations

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

• 2 September 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• @Guerillero: can you explain more about the process with ARCA? Does this mean the report should be closed here and then reopened there? and who is responsible to send the issues to ARCA? me, as the filer of this report, or admins? 07:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Iskandar323

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.

Result concerning Iskandar323

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

• No comment on the actual issue (I will do so when I have time to study it) but I am going to make the observation that a scan of this page appears to suggest a number of editors with relatively low edit-count are still trying to weaponise AE as a tool against their ideological opponents; there are now three sections with the same people doing this over and over again, and the filing editor here (1,074 edits) appears to be one of those. And call it ABF, but I can't help thinking that there may be some sort of off-wiki collaboration occurring here. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • The Kip Yes, I acknowledge that, but I am also always understandably wary when new-ish/low-editcount accounts start peppering AE with requests that their "opponents" be banned, especially when there are multiple editors involved. In such cases I generally start looking to see if those accounts are net positives in the CTOP area; I haven't had a chance to do this yet, but I will when I get a moment (which probably won't be today, unfortunately). Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

    @Black Kite, any chance you've had a moment to look at the reporting accounts yet? -- asilvering (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

    Well, I was looking at BlookyNapsta's odd swerve into ARBPIA after a few years of non-contentious gnoming, but that seems to have been answered. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

  • And, further, I'm always unimpressed with the "TLDR of diffs" approach trying to throw multiple items at the walls and seeing if one of them will stick. The thing I notice straight away is that all but the last four diffs predate Iskandar323's last block for violating their topic ban, so why are they there? I mean, it would actually be easier to leave them out if you wanted admins to analyse the ones that actually matter. Black Kite (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • So - Diff 12 doesn't claim to be a violation, it's just "context". Same with Diff 15. So this boils down to a simple thing with Diffs 13 and 14 - are Dome of the Rock or 2025 Bondi Beach shooting covered by ARBPIA? I think we can discard 2025 Bondi Beach shooting - it's covered by ISIL, but again the talkpage has no mention of ARBPIA, and I think it's a stretch given that the gunmen were of Indian extraction. So that leaves Dome of the Rock - I actually wouldn't have been surprised if it was covered, and the protection says it is, but it's never had a talkpage ARBPIA notice as far as I can see. Further, Iskandar did not edit the article, they left a message on the TP which wasn't even tangentally related to ARBPIA. So I guess this is technically a breach, but I'd say it's the weakest one possible. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
• I guess I have a few days before I am an arb. Missing from this report is part of the interaction between Iskandar323 and Levivich (talk · contribs) where they both nakedly violate their topic bans the other day. There is also a pattern of editing in the history of Judaism just outside of the topic ban where no one edit is a giant problem, but together they show an Israel-Palestine related POV being pushed (). I recommend sending this packet of issues to ARCA because we can't fully adjudicate everything here. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
• We're 14 comments in, of which only 2 of which are from uninvolved administrators, and I don't think having lots of uninvolved, un-namedropped editors chiming in with opinions will be useful, especially given the sheer size of the other PIA threads that were active recently. I'm invoking AE participation restriction here to hopefully make it go smoother, even if this does ultimately end up at ARCA. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

  I've placed the CT notice on the talk page of Dome of the Rock - I'm honestly tempted to say close without action on the diffs here. The TBAN violation is plausibly missable, although having wikiproject importance ratings for both Israel and Palestine means that it's not almost definitely missable. Looking at the substance of the comment itself, I concur with Black Kite on their thinking that the comment doesn't talk about ARBPIA. @Guerillero, we're probably fine to kick over the potential TBAN violation you've mentioned to you in a week or so ARCA. I agree with you that AE would struggle to adjudicate everything going on here. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

• Regardless of sending anything to ARCA, I'd suggest that this report be closed since the filer has been globally locked as a compromised account. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
• After reviewing WP:ANI § BlookyNapsta and AFD participation, I concur that this filing should be closed with no action. The account used to submit this filing, which has since been globally locked, was compromised at the time of filing and its illegitimate edits should be disregarded. Any editor with standing may incorporate the information here into a future filing on this noticeboard or at WP:ARCA, with the understanding that any edits that resulted in prior sanctions might be discounted or disregarded in a request for future sanctions. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)