Arequest forarbitration is thelast step ofdispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. TheArbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by thearbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please seeguide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions ordiscretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to/Requests/Enforcement.
Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs4 net votes to "accept" (or amajority).
Arbitration is alast 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 thearbitration 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.
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 emailingclerks-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 (seeWikipedia: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 therendered 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 orword count tool).This internal gadget andthis 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 orclerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via thecommittee 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 votingaccept/decline/recuse.
Use this section to requestclarification oramendment 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:
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 emailingclerks-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 (seeWikipedia: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 therendered 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 orword count tool).This internal gadget andthis 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 andclerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
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.
requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.
Expand the scope to a broader set of communtiy-imposed general sanctions
Statement by L235
In 2022, as part ofWP:CT2022, ArbComauthorized AE to hear requests or appeals relating tocommunity-designated contentious topics, so long as the community wanted AE to hear those requests or appeals. Arecent RfC has taken ArbCom up on this offer and now allows community-designated contentious topics (CCTOPs) to be enforced at AE.
In the process of writing the documentation at AE to implement this RfC, I have noticed that the current language has the potential to create its own confusion, because AE can only hear requests and appeals that arise from CCTOP enforcement and not enforcement of other community remedies like 1RR or ECR. To clarify what I mean, there are currently four buckets of community-authorized general sanctions:
ECR to supplement an existing ArbCom CTOP (WP:RUSUKR, which imposes community ECR within the broaderWP:CT/EE;WP:GS/AA, which imposes community ECR to supplementWP:CT/A-A;WP:GS/KURD, which imposes community ECR to supplementWP:CT/KURD); and
Plain non-CCTOP restrictions (WP:GS/PAGEANT, which authorizes indefinite semiprotections).
Now that the community has authorized enforcement of CCTOPs at AE, bucket #1 works great. But because the authorization for AE to hear community-imposed sanctions only applies tocommunity-imposed remedies whichmatch the contentious topics procedure (emphasis added), buckets #2-4 face some confusion. In bucket #2, AE can hear enforcement requests and appeals for contentious topics in general but not 1RR violations. In bucket #3, the ArbCom CT portion can be heard at AE, but not the community ECR portions. And bucket #4 is wholly unaffected by the new RfC.
This state of affairs is quite confusing because some restrictions within a topic can be enforced (and some enforcement actions can be appealed) at AE, but not all of them. I can't think of a principled reason for this difference in treatment. I would therefore ask that ArbCom permit the community to designate AE as a place to hear enforcement requests and appeals for a broader set of topicwide restrictions.
Below I've included some suggested motion text, but the exact way this is done is of course up to ArbCom.
After such a motion is enacted, the community would then need to allow the use of the AE noticeboard in those cases, which it could do by RfC. Speaking personally, based on the results of thelast RfC, I think such an RfC would pass fairly quickly.
Since it has been over a week since the last action on this request, I would appreciate an update from the arbs. Thank you! Best,KevinL (akaL235·t·c)02:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before this gets archived, because I expect this ARCA will be linked at any forthcoming RfC to assess whether the community wishes to make this change, I wanted to address a couple points.
(a) The community has indeed decided to permit CCTOPs to go to AE (seethe recent RfC, question #2), but has not yet considered whether to hear non-CCTOP GSes at AE.
(b) Regarding the opposition toany community proposal which would seek to move appeals of a sole administrator's decision to apply such a sanction under the auspices of a community CTOP away from AN/I, theWP:CCTOP procedure already adopted by the community should alleviate this concern. The rules are clear that:An editor appealing a restriction may: [...] request review at thearbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE")or at theadministrators' noticeboard ("AN"). (emphasis added).[a] This provision affirmatively guarantees that editors may appeal to AN, much like in a normal ArbCom-designated CTOP.
(c) Getting permission from ArbCom to use AE first is important because otherwise the community could not decide to use AE even if it reached a consensus to do so.
Regardingvoorts's comment thatArbCom has previously said the community can opt to have any GSes enforced at AE, and now they they've done so: I agree that ArbComshould allow the community to have all GSes enforced at AE, and that the communityshould do so. As a drafter onWP:DS2022 (which is where the committee first authorized the community to use AE for CCTOPs), I disagree that ArbCom alreadyhas done so, because the current language refers tocommunity-imposed remedies whichmatch the contentious topics procedure (emphasis added). And as the initiator of the recent RfC, I don't think the communityhas allowed all GSes enforced at AE, because the question was whether thecommunity [should] authorize enforcement of community contentious topics at AE, not all community GSes. I expect to author an RfC to fix this on the community side once the motion is formally adopted.
For editors who spend most of their wikitime in mainspace rather on the noticeboards and arbitration pages, the distinction between ArbCom-based contentious topics and community-based general sanctions, and the existence of different procedures for invoking or appealing them, takes time to learn about and can be a distraction. Anything that makes the procedures more parallel, and therefore easier to understand and implement, warrants serious consideration. The proposal would seem to fit into that category.Newyorkbrad (talk)17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by RGloucester
I agree that this is a good change, but I want to make clear that, for general sanctions other than contentious topics, the community has yet toassign those requests and appeals to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, asthe recent RfC was limited in scope to contentious topics. I hope that, if this change is adopted, the community will come to a consensus to make such an assignment.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎03:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by voorts
But because the authorization for AE to hear community-imposed sanctions only applies to community-imposed remedies whichmatch the contentious topics procedure(emphasis added), buckets #2-4 face some confusion. In bucket #2, AE can hear enforcement requests and appeals for contentious topics in general but not 1RR violations. In bucket #3, the ArbCom CT portion can be heard at AE, but not the community ECR portions. And bucket #4 is wholly unaffected by the new RfC. I don't see why this is true. I read the recent change as the community aligning all GSes, past and present, with the CTOP regime. The fact that some CCTOPs have different restrictions (such as 1RR or ECR) does not mean that they can't be enforced under the CTOP procedures.voorts (talk/contributions)19:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: If you look at discussion in the RfC, it's disputed whether there is consensus to align community ECR (allowing constructive comments in addition to edit requests) withWP:ARBECR (which only allows edit requests now). Nothing in the opening statement mentioned the difference between ARBECR and community ECR, and the difference arose later, after the amendment made onthis motion passed on 11 November 2023, not when DS was changed to CTOP. The text adopted hereWikipedia:Contentious topics (community-designated) doesn't mention anything about ECR either. A single editor in the !voting part about alignment mentioned ECR but even they didn't mention difference until later in the discussion part where the objection was raised. For that reason, I'd suggest the objections are reasonable and if we did want to align ARBECR with community ECR, a new discussion is needed where this is clearly specified. My impression is a lot of people don't even know there is a difference but also I recall when ARBECR was changed, at least one editor objected felt we didn't want such a strong requirement for community ECR. (Not complaining about people not knowing, I myself didn't know until just now that the community had already agreed to rename GS to CTOP back in 2024.)Nil Einne (talk)09:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: No as highlighted by L235 they only said the community can do so when "community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure". I don't knew about 1RR but CCECR explicitly does not match the ARB CTOP as it still allows stuff ARBCOM have chosen to disallow on their version of ECR that is part of CTOP. ARBCOM could choose to change this here by motion but until they've done so their authorisation doesn't apply to current CCECR. Alternatively the community could choose to match ARB CTOP ECR then the authorisation would apply. But at least one needs to happen.Nil Einne (talk)11:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that it would probably be better for ARB to clarify/amend because otherwise we could end up with the weird situation where the community has to work with ARBCOM to amend our ECR at the same time if it ever changes again or we'll end up with the weird situation we need to use some combo of IAR and NOTBURO to continue to hear such matters at AE until the community realigns. Alternatively the community would need to say CCECR is just community imposed ARBECR and the it always matches. 12:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Nil Einne (talk)12:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by isaacl
@Nil Einne: Note community consensus was for a transition to occur from community-authorized discretionary sanctions (modelled on the arbitration committee discretionary sanctions framework) to community-designated contentious topics (modelled on the arbitration committee contentious topics framework). This is not a renaming of general sanctions, since general sanctions is a catch-all term for all editing restrictions that apply to all editors, versus a specific named individual. This is why an amendment to the arbitration procedures is required. The committee previously allowed the arbitration enforcement noticeboard to be used for requests to enact a restriction under the contentious topics framework, for community-designated topics, and for appeals to enacted restrictions. By design, these restrictions are enacted on the authority of one or more administrators, delegated to them by the community. However the community can also enact its own restrictions directly on a topic area, such as one-revert rule. The proposed amendment will allow the community, if it chooses, to use the arbitration enforcement noticeboard to request enforcement of such community-enacted restrictions, or to appeal them.
Requesting enforcement is likely to be uncontroversial, but appeals would shift authority for hearing the appeal from the community to administrators. For the contentious topic framework, this is intended to make enacted restrictions less likely to be quickly overturned. It's not clear to me, though, if this consideration is sought by the community for all general sanctions it enacts – perhaps just for general sanctions related to a designated contentious topic.isaacl (talk)18:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise: The primary advantage I see in the arbitration committee enabling the noticeboard to be used in this manner first (should the community choose to do so) is that the committee generally can come to a decision faster than the community on these types of matters. Thus the committee can clear the way for the community to hold its discussion, without any uncertainty regarding whether or not the committee will agree to a change. As I previously stated, I agree that while requests for enforcement aren't a significant concern, transferring authority to decide on appeals is a significant change. I am sympathetic to concerns that it's confusing for sanctioned editors, though, regarding the appropriate place to find information about an enacted sanction and the appropriate process to follow to appeal it. Perhaps there should be a common framework used to find information (such as logging) and to post an appeal request, while who responds to an appeal will depend on who has authority for the sanction. So a single appeal page can be used as the starting point for all appeals related to contentious topics, but the process followed will differ accordingly. (If desired, the appeal can be moved to an authority-specific page.)isaacl (talk)19:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I am not concerned about the community doing something simply because the arbitration committee said they are open to a given approach. Particularly with respect to enacting sanctions, historically the community has maintained its own independent rationale for its processes.isaacl (talk)02:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the ability to appeal at both the administrators' noticeboard and the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, asdiscussed by KevinL (L235): currently the sanctioned editor doesn't have a choice but to appeal to the same body that enacted the sanction. Allowing for both approaches means the editor can choose to bypass a community-enacted restriction through a decision made solely by administrators. I'm not confident that the community wants this to be possible for any community general sanction, including those unrelated to any designated contentious topic area.isaacl (talk)00:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Snow Rise
L235 has noted (and I absolutely agree) that the community would need to authorize AE for the purposes of administering enforcement of community-designated CTOP actions, but I am curious: has this notion already been floated or formally proposed at any of the recent community discussions for harmonizing the ArbCom and community CTOP schemes, or is the idea to hold this discussion next? For what it's worth, I do believe the notion should have been debated before the community before getting ArbCom's authorization, but the most important thing is that both bodies authorize AE as an appropriate forum for this purpose, independent of the other.
Just forecast my own position, I think that there is a colourable argument to be made that the change to the distribution of authority will be minimal if all enforcement actions are permitted at AE, since ultimately an admin has to choose to act on any enforcement request, wherever it takes place. On the other hand, if any proposal sought to relocate appeals of sanctions made to individual editors under a community CTOP designation, I would havevery serious concerns about that. CTOPs and community authorized sanctions are expanding at an alarming weight, and creating an absolutely fundamental seachange in the administration of the project and the distribution of authority between ArbCom, the administrative corps, and rank and file editors. It is absolutely essential that any decision by an individual admin to apply an editing restriction, block, or ban to a specific editor, under the special authority of community-designated scheme for a specific subject matter (whether that ends up being called discretionary sanctions or "community authorized contentious topics") remain appealable directly to the community.
So I would strongly oppose any community proposal which would seek to move appeals of a sole administrator's decision to apply such a sanction under the auspices of a community CTOP away from AN/I. To create a scheme where only admins have authority over review of such decisions would lead to knock-on effects that would completely unbalance the project. Administrator-applied sanctions taken pursuant to ArbCom CTOPS at least have ArbCom itself to appeal to (and if I am honest, I'd love to see ArbCom CTOPS and ERs made under them subject to community review, but I don't see that happening any time soon). Having an admin's unilateral enforcement decisions made under community CTOPS reviewable only by the admins who happen to be volunteering at AE at any given time would be problematic in the extreme.SnowRise let's rap01:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl andThryduulf: I agree that there is a certain economy in holding these discussions in this particular order, but my concern was that there might be a certain degree of fait accompli influence on ever aspect of the proposal once ArbCom endorsed the change. But I say "was" becauseL235's most recent comments above clarify that the recent community discussions did already authorize this change in fora, but also made an express carve-out retaining AN as a choice of venue for appeals, which I feel is by far the most important possible concern of a migration of the CCTOP process to AE. Thanks for the update, L235; I followed those harmonization discussions as they opened but lacked the time to keep up with them in recent weeks.SnowRise let's rap02:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Thryduulf
@Snow Rise: The question being asked of the committee is "Can we do this?". If the answer to that is "no" then asking the community whether wewant to do it would be pointless, but the Committee's answer to the "can" question is not dependent on the answer to the "want" question. Asking the questions in this order also makes the question to the community much simpler and will make it easier to keep the discussion about it focused and thus more likely to result in a clear consensus one way or the other.Thryduulf (talk)20:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
This seems like simple-enough housekeeping and I support the principle of simplification/removal of duplication. It probably needs a motion as a change to the procedures, but that should be simple enough.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?18:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This looks fine in enforcing the Community's will (different people will have different opinions on whether AE is inherently better than AN), but I am more hesitant over the suggestion of using AELOG for Community-imposed sanctions. I think that the drawbacks from the confusion that may cause is greater than the minimal increase in convenience.Sdrqaz (talk)05:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: I saw the wording. What I meant to say was I think this is getting stuck in the ArbCom black hole, and I want to get this unstuck with an official motion or by treating these bulleted statements as votes perWP:NOTBURO.Z1720 (talk)00:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. Thank you very much for organizing this,L235. It seems to be a lot of bureaucracy for "if the community wants to, they can use that noticeboard" to me. I'm fine with anything in that direction. The amount of formal RfCs and motions needed must seem comical to non-Wikipedians.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wish changes like this could be done just based off consensus in the arbitrator comments section, but alas, it seems (per Kevin and Harry's comments) that this isn't currently possible. Might put it on the agenda for 2026...Daniel (talk)02:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CT2022 seems sooo long ago. I recall there being some discussion about the need to keep some clarity between CTOP & what is now CCTOP. I'd like there still to be some clarity as regards the distinction in the logging and the noticeboard. In regard to Daniel's comment, I see this asa step in the evolution, not necessarily the final step.Cabayi (talk)18:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion
Noting that I haven't put forward the second part relating to AELOG, per s.q.'s comments - feels like practicalities need to be worked through and general sentiment needs to be better surveyed. Maybe this passing (if it does indeed pass) can prompt that discussion in the future.Daniel (talk)01:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I have a conundrum regarding the requirement to log arbitration enformcement actions, with regard to unregistered IP addresses now that temporary accounts are a thing. PerWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log,All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections, must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Now that we have temporary accounts,WP:TAIV notesPublicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed. I performed a rangeblock of an IPv6 /64 for GENSEX-related disruption; therefore, I need to log this. However that - necessarily - discloses the TAIV-access-provided IP address on this page. How does this circle get squared? (Note, I also blocked the most recent TA used by that range and logged it, for now, to deal with the reporting requirement until the above question is answered). -The BushrangerOne ping only01:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are exceptions built into the policy for this kind of case. The issue does come to something like the revision deletion clause, which is clearly prohibitive. I suspect the people who wrote that into the TAIV policy actually just simply don't understand how revision deletion works (and that we'd have to revision delete... a lot... rather than I suspect the imagined "single revision" where the item was introduced). I put something in the ear of the WMF a couple weeks ago about that provision being dumb and needing rethinking, but this would be a good on-wiki use case specifically to reference. I agree that this all is also relevant beyond the "I need to block someone in the area" suggested above as enforcement also needs to consider "I need specifically to block someone using the powers prescribed in an arbitration case or in the contentious topic procedure" (consider as an example the old ban on Scientology IPs).Izno (talk)20:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Tamzin
@ToBeFree: I thinkyour analysis is the best way of looking at this. I'll note that I reached out to WMF Legal a few weeks ago about expanding the consecutive-block rule to all admin actions (after finding myself in a gray area on disclosure byunblocking an IP on request from a TA on that IP). Last I heard fromMadi Moss (WMF), the plan was to change it to "blocks, unblocks, or performs other administrative actions", although I don't know where that plan stands as of now. Of course it's the current policy that's binding, but even by the current wording I agree there's no issue with consecutive logging at AELOG (and Madi did not seem inclined to de-TAIV me for my consecutive-unblock:P).
All that said, yeah, the "appropriate venues" clause should work here if for some reason consecutive logging isn't enough to get the point across; if someone wants to do that, I'll repeat the suggestion I included in a footnote at TAIVDISCLOSE that they do the disclosure on a transcluded subpage, so that it can later be cleanly revdelled without taking out a bunch of unrelated history. So something likeI have also blocked the TA's IP range, {{WP:Arbitration enforcement log/TAIV disclosure/1}} <small>([[WP:TAIVDISCLOSE|intentional disclosure]])</small>, for 180 days. Then at the end of those 180 days (or later if there's continued IP abuse at that point),redact and revdel. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)03:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log: Arbitrator views and discussion
HelloThe Bushranger, the following premise is not factually correct:I performed a rangeblock of an IPv6 /64 for GENSEX-related disruption; therefore, I need to log this. You don't need to. Blocking someone for disruption, no matter in which topic area, is a simple administrative action that doesn't need logging. If you do something you could else not do, or if you don't want the rangeblock to be undoable without an appeal toWP:AN, then you can make it a formal contentious topics action. You can; you are not required to. The simplest practical answer to the question is thus "don't mark it as a GENSEX CTOP action".~ ToBeFree (talk)01:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good. To answer the actual question regarding IP addresses and logging, though: To my personal understanding, just as blocking an IP address creates a public log entry, it can't be a problem to log a ban or any kind of sanction on an IP address. Making a connection to specific edits would be a problem, even making a connection to a specific page may be, but simply stating that you are applying sanction X to IP a.b.c.d should be as unproblematic as the existence of a public log entry of a block on a.b.c.d.~ ToBeFree (talk)01:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to a page that can only be viewed by people with the needed access should be fine too. I assume this is aboutSpecial:IPContributions. Linking to it doesn't provide additional information to the wrong people; try opening that link in a private tab.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're mixing whether something is allowed from a privacy perspective and whether something makes sense from our ArbCom logging desires. If the logs are gone after 90 days, the logs are gone after 90 days and reviewing the IP block is tough. This is just one additional reason why applying CTOP sanctions to IP addresses, just as bans, was always an unusual and rarely meaningful thing to do.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish, there are so many unrealistic assumptions that come with this ... including formal awareness through a CTOP template that had to be sent to the IP address before that IP address can be sanctioned for continuing.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right. So if someone edits disruptively, we perform a checkuser lookup and log a sanction against their IP address range because that helps with escalating sanctions and they're known to be aware through non-public information.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So yeah, even the concept of awareness is broken with IP addresses since the introduction of temporary accounts. Can we ... perhaps just apply sanctions to accounts only, and avoid placing formal CTOP sanctions on IP addresses? Because that's highly impractical?~ ToBeFree (talk)02:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the currently-28 AELOG sanctions placed in November 2025 are against IP addresses. Temporary accounts are treated like accounts, their IP addresses might have been blocked in the background but not as logged formal actions. Which is fine. Beyond bureaucracy, academic privacy discussions and links to information that is now deleted after 90 days, there is no point in formally logging a sanction against an IP address obtained through TAIV, just as noone would have had the idea to do so for IP ranges obtained from checkuser results before.~ ToBeFree (talk)03:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To provide a practical example, let's say temporary account ~2025-F has edited an article about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and similar edits came from ~2025-A, ~2025-B, ~2025-C, ~2025-D and ~2025-E. A quick look reveals that all of these accounts were created from the same /48 IPv6 range. All of the edits were in violation of the extended-confirmed restriction in this topic area and not otherwise problematic. The usual response is protecting the affected pages as a CTOP action. No measures against temporary accounts or IPs are needed. However, if an administrator wants to apply a sanction such as a formal CTOP block, they can do so to the latest account (or all of them, as a symbolic measure). The administrator can additionally{{rangeblock}} the /48 IPv6 range:admins are allowed to make blocks that, by their timing, imply a connection between an account and an IP.[WP:TAIVDISCLOSE] And if all of that is really not enough and a formal sanction has to be applied to the IP address range, well then, that too can still be done and logged as before. Yes, it will create two log entries directly below each other with the temporary account's name and IP address. Just as the blocks did in the block log. It's completely avoidable and rarely helpful but not formally prohibited as far as I understand.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While in this case it could have been a standard block it can't be for an ECR block, so this is definitely going to come up and now is a good time to stew our noodles on how to handle it.WP:TAIV saysAnd when "reasonably believed to be necessary", exceptions can be made at appropriate policy-enforcement venues. Then it goes on to sayHowever, the disclosure should be revision-deleted as soon as it ceases to be necessary. It's necessary to maintain a log of submission enforcement actions for a number of reasons so maybe we could sneak it in under that? What a clusterfuck.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)02:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like using AE sanctions against non-accounts either, but wouldn't forbid it. If the sanction is against an IP, log it with a link to the IP. If it's against a temporary account, log it with a link to the temporary account. That shouldn't result in an "extra" disclosure simply based on the logging action. Let me know if I missed something...Sdrqaz (talk)03:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, just log the sanction on the temporary account. It shouldn't normally be necessary to log a block of an underlying IP/range. The only reason I can think of is that you want to mark it as an AE block to avoid it being overturned without proper consideration, in which case I suppose it has to be logged and the exception applies, but I'm sure an informative summary in the block log would be enough to prevent that in most cases.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?00:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This regards theSouth Asian social groups portion of the IMH case (akaWP:CT/SA). Specifically it relates to the formerWP:GSCASTE, which, absorbed into SASG, explicitly includes "political parties" in the defitintion of social groups that fall underWP:ECR. Recently at RFPP, it was stated thatas elections involve political parties, they fall under the GSCASTE/SASG mandatory ECR. I can see the logic (per "broadly construed"), while at the same time seeing it as a variation ofWP:NOTINHERITED, so I figured I'd come here and ask: are elections in the CT/SA defined area considered to fall uinder SASG for the purpose of extended confirmed restrictions? -The BushrangerOne ping only00:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Rosguill
I can understand the reasoning of why election articles in India are not typically fraught in the same way that caste groups are, but I would urge arbs to consider amending the scope so that it’s actually comprehensible to new editors. It’s honestly a bit ridiculous to expect editors to internalize the meaning of “broadly construed” but then assert that elections are not in the domain of political parties, despite essentially exclusively concerning the activities of parties. My vague recollection is that the inclusion of “political parties” in the definition of GSCASTE was due to repeated disputes over the characterization of RSS (and maybe also Tamil nationalist groups?). I can’t say that I’ve noticed nearly as much disruption recently in that vein, with most SA disruption being instead in the area of caste descriptions, wars, and Kashmir. If it’s true that political party related disruption is no longer a pressing issue, I think it would be much more reasonable for ARBCOM to amend CT/SA language to no longer highlight political parties, or to craft wording that specifies the parts of political parties that tend to be contentious (ie classification of their political orientation, esp the inclusion of nationalist/fascist/etc or not), rather than asserting that political parties are ECR but their primary activity somehow isn’t.signed,Rosguilltalk21:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Indian military history: Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Indian military history: Arbitrator views and discussion
That's the kind of thing I'd let ride unless it was becoming disruptive. ECR was applied in this topic because of the disruption, so with broadly construed cases it's acceptable to invoke it, but let it slide if there's not disruption.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)00:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per others; elections shouldn't necessarily be included. I would be fine with rewording the topic area designation to clarify this, but not seeing a pressing need either.Elli (talk |contribs)02:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived atWikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.
Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visitWP:ARC orWP:ARCA for potential alternatives.
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 emailingclerks-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 orclerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.
request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or acontentious topic restriction imposed by anadministrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against apreviously alerted editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
requestpage restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
Onlyautoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs 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 anextended-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 exceed500 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 aspersonal attacks orgroundless 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 furtherrestrict 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
All contentious topic restrictions (andlogged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using theapplicable template.
A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.
Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction
An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
the restriction was an indefinite block.
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:
aclear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
aclear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.
Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
On Arbitration Committee review
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at arequest for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
^The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Information for administrators processing requests
Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.
A couple of reminders:
Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.
Word counts may be added using the following template:{{ACWordStatus|page=AE|section=REQUEST NAME|user=USERNAME}}. Extensions may be granted using the following template:{{ApprovedWordLimit|words=NEW TOTAL|sig=~~~~}}.
Closing a thread:
Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between{{hat}} and{{hab}} tags. Hatted requests will later be archived by an admin (often after a few days to a week).
Please considerreferring 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.
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 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Aesurias
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanationhow these edits violate it
19 September 2025 Responded to second warning from admin by asking the same admin to engage inWP:PROXYING on their behalf
23 September 2025 AddedWP:FALSEBALANCE to politician's article with weasel-wording about their support of Palestine relief groupUNRWA - they had previously tried to insert the same unsourced information into the article back in March ([2])
28 September 2025 Reclassified an Israel-sponsored trip by right-wing political figure, implying such trips are not controversial
29 September 2025 Removed sourced quote from pro-Israel politician's article where she equated Palestinians to barbarians
2 October 2025 Removed passage identifying group's founder asGerald Ronson and his connection to Netanyahu - Aesurias acknowledged the information is correct and should be in lead instead, but chooses to delete everything
9 October 2025 Admonished another user for removing a tag from an article they created, telling them "DO NOT REMOVE A TAG WITHOUT IT BEING DISCUSSED, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS YOUR OWN ARTICLE"
12 October 2025 Removed notability tag fromJEXIT, an article Aesurias created, without allowing any discussion
13 October 2025 Created page on the pro-IsraelZioness Movement, with half the sources either dead links or direct links to the Zioness website
14 October 2025 Removed sourced passage explaining that Israel's doctrine they use to justify denial of theGaza genocide was authored by biased individuals
18 October 2025 Started anAN investigation into a userpage having a vague reference toHezbollah, which was promptly closed after the consensus was that Aesurius was wasting everyone's time
21 October 2025 Moved article on Track AIPAC, a watchdog group monitoring pro-Israel groupAIPAC to draftspace, calling it improperly sourced and non-notable
21 October 2025 Created page onBetter Australia, a group supporting pro-Israel politicians, using only five sources - two of which are primary, and one of which is a blog
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Aesurias
I previously opened an NPOV discussion against this user,here, over an image taken of a political candidate in 2007, which the user uploaded to Wikimedia as their 'own work'. The user, paradoxically, insisted that they had no COI with the candidate. Other editors questioned the user about this, because by insisting on 1) the image being their own work and 2) them having no connection to the person in the image, they were lying about at least one thing.
After I opened that discussion, I was incessantly hounded by the user, who has been reprimanded by administrators for his behaviourhere, but didn't acknowledge it.
Theythanked me dozens of times, spamming me with notifications, seenhere.
Their recent edit history, seenhere, is made up almost entirely of my articles -- they created talk pages for more than a dozen of them, adding the 'contentious topics' tag to each one, notifying me.
Their recent edit history also shows they were adding tags onto my articles without explaining why on the talk pages.
OnBetter Australia, they added an NPOV tag and opened a talk page discussion (the only page where they explained why they added the tag!)here. I was receptive to this, adding things they wanted to the article. The user then stopped replying. Another editor replied to the talk page saying I didn't need to add any of what this user wanted in the first place, as it was not relevant.
Additionally, they previously received a 48hr ban for personal attacks against me, seenhere. They have received other bans of various types, including another ban for personal attacks on other users.
Creating articles on Wikipedia is not a crime, as the user is trying to insinuate. Other editors approved these articles with no problem. I stand by all of my own reviews of pages, they weren't ready for mainspace. Cherrypicking a few of them relating to Israel-Palestine and ignoring the dozens that weren't is disingenuous.My edits were fine -- for example, the Israeli-American one was false info, it was a poll asking Israelis in Israel who they would theoretically vote for if they could, which is why I removed it. I removed some parts of 'criticism' sections because they didn't contain criticisms, rather they contained things that the editor who added them didn'tpersonally like. A failed AfD is not relevant, some editors agreed with me, some didn't.
This request is unserious. The user's assumption of bad faith, accusing me of "inserting pro-Israel messaging into Wikipedia", is not only offensive to me, but offensive to the dozens of well-respected editors who have approved my pages.
User:Sean.hoyland I had not seen this post before you sent it, and although I have a Reddit account I am not active in that subreddit. I would have disclosed this in the AfD if I had seen it prior.
I'm requesting that I be allowed to go over the 500 word limit, to explain each edit. I don't feel that these accusations have validity and would like to discuss each point! Thank you.Aesurias (talk)09:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations against me are flawed -- I have a 200word limit but some examples: Accusation #6 falsely claims I removed info about Israeli-Americans from an article about American Jewish politics - the edit history would show that it was actually a poll of Israelis living in Israel who can't actually vote (therefore shouldn't have been in the article). #8 is about an AfD (irrelevant), #9 was an approved edit from AfD discussion, #11 and #17 were just me creating articles (one of the points of Wikipedia...?), #18 was me removing a tag placed without explanation in talk page as part of their harassment campaign they were indef blocked for. Only of my only genuine errors in these accusations is #1 -- I had just begun editing and wasn't aware. The other editor in the convo kindly explained contentious topics rules but because my writing had no issues, it wasn't reverted and there was no issue.Aesurias (talk)01:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by TheNewMinistry
Asilvering (talk·contribs) is literally the administrator who advised me on October 15, 2025 to open an investigation on this very forum when I asked them for advice regarding Aesurius' biases in Israel/Palestine editing:
As for Aesurias, if you have npov concerns regarding Israel-Palestine, the place to raise those is aten:WP:AE.[4]
10 October 2025 Tagged The Holocaust and the Nakba for deletion...
Looking at the timing and the fact that the nomination for deletion was, I think, Aesurias' first visible interaction with that page, I would be interested to know from Aesurias whether the action was in response tothis Reddit thread or perhaps another site. If so, I do think for ARBPIA, for processes susceptible to external influence like AfD, it would be helpful if people just openly described the off-wiki discussion/social media post etc. that caused them to take action on-wiki whenever it happens as part of the nomination. That way we might have better visibility into the off-wiki/on-wiki causal connections that exist. Just a simple - saw this post/discussion... - might help.Sean.hoyland (talk)07:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Disclosure: I was the administrator who warned TNM about hounding Aesurias ([5]), having earlier blocked TNM for harassment regarding the same. I have also responded to Aesurias's questions about where to take various disputes, and about the word limit in AE proceedings. I do not feel that either of these prejudice me unfairly in this case, but am more than willing to move my comments up if other admins think I ought to. Regarding the evidence against Aesurias, I have not fully investigated but it looks at least good enough that we should investigate, not reject this filing out of hand for being retaliatory. However, the filingis quite clearly the most recent salvo in a pattern of harassment that I warned TNM over just yesterday. Clearly, some sanction for harassment on the part of TNM is required, regardless of the ultimate outcome regarding Aesurias. --asilvering (talk)00:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @TheNewMinistry, I told you to raise complaints at AE. A week ago. In the intervening time, instead of raising concerns at AE, you continued to harass Aesurias, and I then gave you a final warning, as I stated. As I have said, if other admins think I should move my comments up, I am happy to. I have, however, only been involved here in an administrative capacity. --asilvering (talk)01:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Aesurias's assertion that TNM has been cherrypicking, I'm not sure that can possibly be true, given that, unless I am much mistaken, TNM's evidence does not contain anything aboutTalk:Pallywood, Aesurias's most-edited talk page. That discussion has also spilled out toWP:NPOVN#'Pallywood' (though, note also the personal attack on them here[6]). Their position appears to be that Pallywood is "real". Pallywood is both a slur and a conspiracy theory. Someone who cannot distinguish betweenPallywood andMisinformation in the Gaza war should not be editing inWP:CT/PIA. --asilvering (talk)07:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think asilvering is fine to participate. I also think that Aesurias deserves a topic ban at minimum from PIA. TNM should get an interaction ban with Aesurias for the harassment at this point.Sennecaster (Chat)02:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked TNM indefinitely for their comment above in which they acknowledge that they used the "thank" button in response to an edit by Aesurias that they characterize as part of a conspiracy to "retaliate against me offsite"—obviously not sincere thanks, but a continuation of the same harassment Asilvering warned them for. I might have gone with a p-block from thanking, or a longer tempblock, but their complete lack of self-awareness that this is harassment suggests a problem broader than this one issue, and so for now at least an indef siteblock is the least restrictive remedy that addresses the disruption. This is not an AE action, and should not lead to an early closure of this thread. For now I have no opinion on TBANning Aesurias, but support an IBAN on TNM, blocked or not. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)05:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: I think I remain neutral on a TBAN. Not neutral in the sense of having a long analysis at the ready of the pros and cons, but neutral in the sense that the evidence doesn't quite click for me and, if not for the overlapping matter of TNM's conduct, I would have just not commented here. Please don't delay a close on my account, though. 3 support to 1 neutral is still a rough consensus. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)06:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remain the most concerned about the AN thread they started about the userbox, which is what ultimately persuaded me. I'd be fine with a warning, informal or formal, but I don't think this is a close without action situation because of that thread. Unrelated to this AE, Aesurias, you should probably start using more precise draftify reasons than the one you used in diff 16 (Identical to other page).Sennecaster (Chat)17:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the evidence myself, I concur with my colleagues that a TBAN is warranted. Aesurias's conduct atTalk:Pallywood makes me believe they will not be able to edit this area in a policy-compliant manner. I also agree that TNW requires an interaction ban. Closing with this result, given the rough consensus here.Vanamonde93 (talk)17:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Lumbering in thought
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict,[12]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Clear disregard for the need for RS in this topic area.
Despite multiple requests to present RS, multiple times, none were presented. Diff 4 was after several attempts for RS. I justreverted but am not interested in getting into an edit war.
The diff shared is further evidence that they don't know how to constructively edit on Wikipedia, especially in contentious topics. What I did wasWP:BRD. I reverted, discussed on talk page, and we achieved consensus.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Lumbering in thought
I take issue with 1-3 to the point of belief that the plaintiff has committedWP:BLUD, as for 4 [[14]] you can see the plaintiff didn't revert my revert when I started the request to get consensus. My revert being allowed to stay when we entered the talk was confusing. Thus arguably, the plaintiff's established pattern of behavior is worse than mine as perSpecial:Diff/1318135022.Lumbering in thought (talk)01:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the plaintiff's latest, recognizing that I never broke the 1RR perWP:PIA, I should have replied to their message on my Talk page, an attempt to establish a pattern of behavior which didn't have an invitation to the article Talk page done in coordination with their first edit summary revert reason [[15]] implying satisfaction with edit summaries, with an invitation to the article Talk page and a reminder that they should be discussing the article substance.
Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that a re-revert edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond without risking an edit war. See also WP:QUO. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, or invite the editor to the talk page if they insist on using only edit summaries, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle.
It's probably debatable whether the entire article is covered by PIA restrictions resulting from its relationship to 'the Arab–Israeli conflict, a contentious topic'. Maybe the ARBPIA template should have |relatedcontent=yes. Either way, it is currently unprotected.
I'm not sure I agree with the way Longhornsg has constructed this complaint. Isn't the right question - are the additions consistent withWP:LEAD? Other rules like OR, RS aren't pertinent because it's the lead. So, maybe it's about whether or not the changes are trying to crowbar content into the lead that is not present in the article body (always a red flag in PIA) i.e. it's not a valid summary, or is it? I haven't actually checked.Sean.hoyland (talk)07:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Lumbering in thought
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I think this just barely falls into PIA, in that LIT is talking about diaspora Jews at the deliberate exclusion of Israeli Jews, and then on talk drawing a distinction between the Jewish lobby and Israel lobby. With jurisdiction established, I'm pretty concerned here about what reads as a basic failure to understandWP:V. LHSG has repeatedly asked LIT for sources for their edits, and they've blown right past that while leaping to claims of bludgeoning. I'll stress that, while citationsare generally not needed in a lede, the ledeis expected to follow the body, and the body has nothing to back up LIT's edits, so LHSG's request for sources is valid. Furthermore, I'm pretty squeamish about seeing the word"predisposed" anywhere around ethnicity. Maybe that was just poor wording, but combined with the rest decreases my confidence. I'm not sure whether or what level of sanctions are necessary here, but something needs to be addressed in some way. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)08:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tamzin that the additions are problematic. WP:LEAD offers no exception tothe policy on verifiability; it only allows for providing citations in the body of the article. Lumbering's conduct is only marginally mitigated by the lead as it stood also being unsupported by the body. For a first offence I would suggest a logged warning. If they continue to miss the point, a TBAN is inevitable, although I would also consider a block as an ordinary admin action for adding unsourced content. As an aside, this is an excellent example for my oft-repeated position that contentious articles should not only allow but encourage citations in the lead.Vanamonde93 (talk)17:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a logged warning forWP:V (in particular, to provide an in-line citation to a reliable source for any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬)00:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Chronos.Zx
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanationhow these edits violate it
The participation of several editors atSati (practice) andSati (practice) has left a lot to be desired. But Chronos.Zx has approached the topic with a degree of aggression that is not appropriate to a contentious topic.
28 September,29 September: Edit-warring (same content), assumptions of bad faith ("whitewashing").
1 November; more edit-warring, claiming source misrepresentation without evidencing this on the talk page.
28 September Assumptions of bad faith, selective reading of the source to support content contrary to its intended meaning.
15 October Source misrepresentation: see my explanation in reply.
18 October continued inability or unwillingness to understand the nuance in the phrase "largely historical".
27 October misrepresenting article history; see my explanation in reply.
Chronos.Zx's multiple accounts and username changes make the history at AE difficult to track. They were given a GS/CASTE notificationhere and an ARBIPA notificationhere, in October 2023, and participated in an AE discussion with their previous accounthere, in April this year.Vanamonde93 (talk)04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The recurring theme here is a "give them no quarter" battleground attitude that has precluded any meaningful discussion of this complicated topic. Chronos.Zx is not the only offender here - if an uninvolved admin would like to give that talk page some attention, it would be appreciated - but their aggressive approach has been among the worst. This topic is a complex one, with a long history. Editors need to be willing to discuss differing interpretations in good faith, with sensitivity to nuance: Chronos.Zx has been consistently unable to do so.Vanamonde93 (talk)04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that Chronos.Zx continues to portray people he disagrees with as claiming the practice of Sati has ceased, which is not a position I or anyone else has taken. The failure to understand the nuance in "largely historical" is the heart of the matter.Vanamonde93 (talk)17:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Chronos.Zx
Addressing all the mentioned diffs:
I said"no stonewalling" here because removal of sourced content by UnpetitproleX was backed with the "get consensus first for your WP:BOLD changes to longstanding WP:STABLE version of lead" instead of justifying their removal of the content. This is frowned upon byWP:STONEWALLING which says "Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion." Similarly,this is not "assumptions of bad faith" because UnpetitproleX wasindeed removing reliably sourced content by falsely asserting "source misrepresentation".
This is outright misleading. You are describing a partial revert by wrongly terming it as "more edit-warring" and falsely asserting "claiming source misrepresentation without evidencing this on the talk page," when the evidence of misrepresentation was already provided on talk page in lengths.[17][18] It was only after that I made thispartial revert. The editor who was actually edit warringhas been page blocked for 2 weeks.
This is also misleading because UnpetitproleX wasindeed removing reliably sourced content by falsely asserting "source misrepresentation". UnpetitproleX failed to justify their false assertion after another editor got on the point before switching their opposition to claiming "it failsWP:LEAD" instead of "source misrepresentation" anymore. UnpetitproleX was wrong about that as well because the article body covers the content atSati (practice)#Opposition to the ban. Vanamonde93 removed the concerning sentence without ever discussing it,[19] however, the content was re-added to lead by another editor with almost same wording.[20]
There is no source misrepresentation there.This is my whole response. Where is the misrepresentation? Both sources confirm Sati practice has not faded away.
This is purely content dispute. Nothing to do with conduct.
I linked tothis version because this is the last version that required page protection.
This is no "assumptions of bad faith" here. As forthis, I am sure that the charge of "second time you have tried to misrepresent this particular source" is wrong, and so is how UnpetitproleX trying to treat the word "may" to be indicative of a false claim.[21]
Crux of this complaint is, that saying Sati practice still happens or arguing anyone who says the contrary is either "misrepresentation of source" or "assumption of bad faith". Anyone who readsSati (practice)#Current situation will not doubt that the practice does happens to this day.
Talking about "misrepresentation of source", Vanamonde93 clearly added an inaccurate summary of the source on the main article,[22] and failed to justify their edit on the talk page by completely evading the point.[23]Chronos.Zx (talk)06:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill andSennecaster: I acknowledge the issues, and promise to do better.
I would like to inform about two things that have came to community's attention only after this report was filed. It is that the long-standing version said "is a practice, a chiefly historical", not "largely historical". See past versions such asthis,this,this and it is easily more accurate in comparison. These revelations can be foundhere. If these facts were known earlier, then I think that things would be far better as I would have simply supported this wording over the options that were available so far.
It is not like I am not amenable. For example, you should see my edithere which was reverted for being against the basic standards of editing in this subject.[24] I did not justify myself. Iopened a talk page discussion to acknowledge the problem with my edit and for helping others become aware, in case their edits are having a similar problem.
Getting back to the report, I note that this is a single page issue as of current. I can confirm that there has been significant improvement in my editing across Wikipedia. I ensure the highlighted issues wont resurface.Chronos.Zx (talk)01:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: I said "the long-standing version said "is a practice, a chiefly historical", not "largely historical"." This is different from comparing just "largely historical" with "chiefly historical". The difference between "is a practice, a chiefly historical" and "is largely historical" is that the former is first ensuring that there is a practice before talking about its extent while the latter is directly talking about its extent. There is a subtle difference between "Chiefly" and "Largely" here because "Chiefly" means mainly, while "Largely" means to a great degree in terms of relative frequency. Therefore the argument I made would have been more valid in favor of "chiefly".
It is not just me who is seeing the importance of the difference between these two words but multiple users have on talk page,[25][26] well before I made my comment right above.Chronos.Zx (talk)15:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Chronos.Zx
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
1. is indeed edit warring by Chronos.Zx (and also Unpetitprole). I'm particularly, unimpressed by Chronos.Zx's repeated assertion here that Unpetitprole's editfalsely assert[ed] "source misrepresentation". It is indeed fair and due for Unpetitprole to cry foul when a source, which in its totality casts doubt on the prevalence of sati and its prominence in British accounts, is used solely to support a claim that in the Wikipedia article's context suggests that sati was prominent and popular among Hindus.
2. Here I don't see edit warring--there's one revert, and there's explanations on the talk page from other editors. That having been said, at least some parts of the explanation given by the explanations that Chronos.Zx highlights seem inaccurate:India before Europe does in fact emphasize the Rajput vs. Muslim divide, contra Orientls's claims in diff 19.
3. This is essentially part 2 of the repeat assertion I noted in point #1. A bad look to baldly double down on the assertion by saying:That said, you should refrain from engaging in whitewashing with misleading excuses..
4. I'm inclined to agree with Vanamonde93's assessment on this point, and Chronos.Zx's responses here seem to be crossing into IDHT territory. A source that statesWhatever the reason, sati has not disappeared completely. While relatively few in numbers... very much supports the framing that it is alargely historical practice; the use of the word "largely" directly accounts for the fact that the practice continues, albeit sporadically. Chronos.Zx would have a valid point if their discursive counterparts were asserting that the article should just saySati was a historical practice. Other sources regarding the prevalence of the practice could be brought to bear (read: I am not making a content judgment of what the article should say), but it is disingenuous to present Ahmad 2009 as a source that categorically disagrees with the description "largely historical".
5. I don't think that this diff in itself is a violation, nor does it present any new perspectives not already addressed above, although it is consistent with the IDHT perspective.
6 Mu -- Vanamonde93 appears to be correct about the overall history of the page's status quo, and Chronos.Zx's methodology in highlighting the revision they chose is a little odd, but it's not totally unreasonable and I think it's jumping to conclusions to conclude that this had to have been a bad faith assertion.
7. The first diff here doesn't seem to have any issues; the second repeats the POV-pushing accusation
In light of the above, there's a clear failure to assume good-faith, and a pattern of reading into sources what they evidently want to see to support their arguments rather than what the sources say in their totality. Charitably, if we assume that the rest of the bibliography that Chronos.Zx and other editors on their side of the dispute cite is decisive, this is still a failure to collegially engage with editors' discussion of RS coverage of the topic (n.b. the ongoing RfC participation does not currently suggest that the broader community finds the outcome to be one-sided). The evidence brought to bear does not suggest that Unpetitprole is misrepresenting sources or falsely accusing others of the same, and thus Chronos.Zx appears to beg the question of Unpetitprole's misconduct to justify their own terseness. All of that taken into account, I'm currently waffling between a logged warning and a topic ban. In reviewing AE and ANI logs, I note that Chronos.Zx under their prior aliases has been an avid participant at the drama boards, mostly raising cases against others, but in the process I do see that about 9 months ago they were sharply, if informally,admonished by Black Kite for edits toBangladesh that leave very little room for assumption of good faith. With that in mind, I'm leaning towards a topic ban from CT/SA, as the battleground attitude appears to have occurred across the topic area.signed,Rosguilltalk18:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Chronos.Zx's reply, I don't think that there is a meaningful difference between "chiefly historical" and "largely historical", and this grasping at straws to justify their position does not inspire confidence. Unless there is additional input from other administrators, I think we can move towards a close here.signed,Rosguilltalk14:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the following rejoinder insisting on "chiefly" persuasive in the context of the discussion on the relevant talk page. N.b., Vanamonde93 identified that the status quo ante version included "chiefly" onOctober 27. Chronos.Zx proceeded to !vote"no" and present several follow up arguments on November 1st in a section titledRfC: Chiefly historical or not?--granted, the actual question in the RfC saysShould...describe sati...through a descriptor such as "a largely historical practice", but nowhere in their responses do they indicate any qualification to their "no" suggesting that they might support another near-synonym in the lead sentence. That they're now changing their tune while under cross-examination does not change my opinion of their conduct in the discussion.signed,Rosguilltalk16:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also,Chronos.Zx, you've exceeded the 500 word limit for your responses here. Please do not respond further unless specifically requested to by an administrator. You are allowed to request extensions, although I don't really see much reason to grant one at this time (but perhaps in response to another admin's participation it could become relevant).signed,Rosguilltalk16:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, to cap off what I’m realizing became a bit of a tangent: the crux of the issue here at AE is not whether Chronos.Zx was correct/incorrect to argue against the inclusion of “largely”. The issue is the disingenuous argumentation and lack of AGF demonstrated in their responses to those who were advocating for “largely”, given that these arguments were not baseless. It may well be that “chiefly” is better suited due to the numerical connotations of “largely”, but that doesn’t explain the insistence that editors arguing for “largely” were engaged in source misrepresentation, nor does it explain Chronos.Zx’s arguments regarding Ahmad 2009 and its use in the article.signed,Rosguilltalk16:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing a sample of the diffs, I would consider Chronos.Zx's edits (both article edits and talk page comments) to be substantially in keeping withWP:NPOV/WP:V. However, there is a stark inability to pose comments or questions in a manner consistent withWP:AGF. It is not enough to have a good grasp of the sources or to have editorial policy on your side. Editors also have to keep the peace with other editors, even at times of disagreement. I would support a short site-wide block, but not a topic ban at this stage.Arcticocean ■10:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arcticocean, I'm not sure what that prescription would accomplish, as it seems more like an arbitrary punishment than a preventative measure. I know we use short blocks to address incivility, but that's typically in the face of persistent incivility that is ongoing when the administrative decision takes place. With that in mind, a logged warning seems like a more appropriate alternative rather than a short block.signed,Rosguilltalk17:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested a block because it would be preventive. The conduct has been slowly paced out – looking backwards, it last occurred on 1 November (7 days ago), 27 October (12 days ago), and 18 October (21 days ago). It's an analogous situation to slow edit warring, where once the pattern becomes clear, it can be interrupted with a block, even where the last instance was some days prior. I don't oppose a warning, but I don't think it will be effective.Arcticocean ■18:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think I’d stand by my original suggestion of a topic ban based on such an assessment: given the slow pace of the edit warring, I don’t see a block providing a “cool off” effect that is often salutary and sufficient in other disputes. Meanwhile, the bad faith assumptions seem to clearly be attached to perceptions of culture war in Indian topics, so my sense is that a topic ban would be ideal for both halting the disruption and providing a clear path for regaining the community’s trust. PingingSennecaster for their thoughts on which sanctions are most appropriate.signed,Rosguilltalk19:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What duration of topic ban did you have in mind? I may support your proposal, if the duration were proportionate, on the basis of the behavioural policy violations.Arcticocean ■19:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was indefinite, with expectation that a successful appeal could be considered in as soon as 1-3 months, depending on the quality and quantity of contributions in the intervening period.signed,Rosguilltalk19:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, but I've had my say. There is still a clear consensus (without me) for an indefinite t-ban, so we should go with that now.Arcticocean ■16:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a topic ban would be a good idea. Indefinite duration, because their activity is fairly spread out. I'm amenable to Rosguill's suggestion of considering an earlier appeal, but have no real strong opinions about it.Sennecaster (Chat)00:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Rap no Davinci
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
15:39, 17 September 2025: I found this today while looking for other cases of LLM misuse in PIA. There are multiple material content verification failures here. Example:[32] and[33] are provided as the only source for the claim...with a recent show in Amsterdam featuring a Palestinian flag on stage and renewed chants. despite neither article mentioning Amsterdam
They were previouslywarned about the diff above on their talk page, a warning theydeleted
I do not edit in the PIA space. This user was warned multiple times about LLM misuse prior to their recent edit toYifat Tomer-Yerushalmi and after seeing it I decided I had to file here.
Rap No Davinci'sexplanation does not make sense given how they fixed the broken references. In every case, they replaced the broken URL with links from a different publication. See the table below (triple-checked, at least broadly correct, but as always mistakes are possible).
TheWP:V issues seem to have continuedafter this AE thread was opened. This is not a comprehensive analysis; I found these issues while spot checking
Special:Diff/1321936652 RND createdTiiwTiiw. According to the edit summary it seems this may be a machine translation of a French WP article? It contains 3 references with dead URLs[34][35][36]
Special:Diff/1321928740: RnD expanded the lead of this article, parts of which fall into PIA, and introduced this linewas a Moroccan human rights activist and a founding member of the Moroccan Association for Human Rights (AMDH). The listedsource does not mention the AMDH
Special:Diff/1321589411: significant article expansion which contains this WP:V failure:On October 26, 2004, he released his first mixtape, titledPlanète Trappes. The following year, he released his first album,Bourré auSon. He released his second album,Aller-Retour, in 2007, which was certified double gold. is sourced only to[37], which contains none of this information
Re:TiiwTiiw: Just because the three broken references were present in the French article does not make it ok that you left them in the machine-translated English version. I don't understand why you would add unreviewed machine-translated text into articles while an AE thread is open about WP:V failures introduced via LLM
Special:Diff/1321589411: this is helpful, but I did not find any source in the Discography section (or in the article) that Aller-Retour was certified double gold, although let me know if I am wrong
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Rap no Davinci
Thanks for raising this. After looking back at my edits onYifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, the issue seems to have been mainly with the references: some links were wrong or dead, not with the content itself. I’ve already fixed those citationswithout changing any word in the “Resignation” section.
The source errors are my own, mostly from working too fast. However I take full responsibility. I’ll make sure to slow down and double-check each citation, especially for sensitive or conflict-related topics like this one.
I am still relatively new here, I have never been penalized before. If admins believe a sanction is still warranted, I will accept the decision and continue participating in a responsible manner. My goal is to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith and within policy.
To clarify my earlier point, I never denied using LLM but rather: I did not use it to generate the content, I used it to help me paraphrase text and format citations for Wikipedia source. I believe that formatting of all info to be source-suitable is what caused the citation errors/changes. I understand what went wrong. I should've double-checked the sources afterwards, but due to working a bit too fast I missed it, and I take full responsibility for that oversight. This is also why I mentioned it was easy to fix the 'resignation' section, as all the info was factual and the quotes accurate. Thanks for your attention.
What I mean by paraphrasing is that I normally gather the information myself and then have an LLM rephrase it, instead of doing it the 'old-fashioned way'. The main issue was that I mixed up sources while trying to save time (by having the LLM write the source code including the URLs). I now realize this actually wasted our time more than saved it. I understand how the mistakes happened and am confident I can avoid them going forward.Metallurgist I appreciate your input. Once again, thank you for your thoughtfulness and contributions.
The cases you just listed are translation related, and not sure how they're related to misuse of LLM, as all the info is from the corresponding Wikipedia articles I translated from. TakeLa Fouine's example: the projects mentioned in the quote you provided are already in theDiscography of the same article (excited before I edited), and they're inthe French article. Plus, the source is not for that particular sentence you mentioned, it's for the following one: 'He released Mes Repres in 2009, followed by La Fouine vs Laouni in 2011, both went platinum.', wherethe source does verify the 'went platinum' claim. Same forTiiwTiiw, those [dead] links do exist in theFrench article.
I think there's a bit of misunderstanding. First, the links on TiiwTiiw's page didn't show up dead on my side, and they're archived:here,here, andhere. I should've added the archives? Yes. Is this LLM related? No.
For La Fouine, the 'certified gold' claim: it's mentioned in the French Wikipedia in the lede, a page with 100s of editors, and no one challenged that, I didn't see a reason to not include it. When we translate other wiki pages, do we have to translate ONLY the well sourced info? I am not familiar with that. LMK. Plus, the Discography does state in certifications that his album Aller-Retour is Gold.
Are these cases of 'mass translation, copy-paste'?, or you said, "unreviewed machine-translated text" NO. have a look at TiiwTiiw's fr page, it has 19 sources, the En one I created has 26 sources even though I didn't add new info, it was extra work from my side. I carefully translate each paragraph, and add sources when available. But if a statement is not controversial and not challenged, I keep it in the translation. If that's wrong, please let me know. Still, unrelated to LLM.
For Mr.Sion Assidon's page, 'founding member of the Moroccan Association for Human Rights' is my mistake, a human error. 'a leading figure .. human rights' become that. I will fix it right now!
Thank you for answering my question about page translations, I’ll keep that in mind when working on other wiki pages. As for using LLM, my only reason for doing so was that I saw they weren’t banned on Wikipedia, so I assumed many editors used them. In good faith, I thought I could contribute more to the platform by saving some time using it. I now understand that LLM, or at least the way I was using it, wasn't as productive as I thought. I can stop using it, I normally don’t use it much anyway. Since this thread began, I don't think I used LLM, so I can continue that way. My goal has always been to contribute positively to this platform.I apologize for taking up so much time of many of you, and I appreciate the collaborative spirit here, thank you for giving me space to explain myself rather than jumping to conclusions.Moving forward, there will be no LLM related issues from my side. Cheers
Statement by Metallurgist
Rap no Davinci worked a bit onBob Vylan in September and helped expand the article a bit beyond the controversies, which troublingly had grown to comprise a large part of the article. However, I found some of thetext added did not correspond to the sources and seemed a bitWP:ORy, which didnt make sense at the time. Theyexplained their reasoning, and Isuggested how to do it better. This allegation of LLM use would make a little more sense of that experience. However, RnD was quite collaborative and cooperative on making things work properly. I can dig up more diffs upon request, but thats the essence of it. Not suggesting any action, but I saw this thread and thought some more context might help.
And now, reading the thread deeper, I noticed that my interactions described above were mentioned in the case. I wish I had been tagged for input, I just happened to see this while cruising noticeboards the other day, and finally had time to comment. ←Metallurgist (talk)03:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Rap no Davinci
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I am not convinced by Rap no Davinci's claim that the five sources inone edit were coincidental human errors, not LLM hallucinations. Where did they find the sources? What sources did they intend to use? As the user has been previously warned against disruption through use of AI-generated content, also in this topic area, I think a sanction is necessary. I'd welcome views on which sanction would be proportionate.Arcticocean ■09:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the user admits using an LLM, a further warning would be appropriate. As this is the second warning, further AI misuse is likely to result in a sitewide block.Arcticocean ■06:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rap no Davinci, I'm somewhat concerned byI did not use it to generate the content, I used it to help me paraphrase text, because I can't understand how "paraphrasing text" is not, by definition, "generating content". Like the other admins here I'm tentatively in favour of a warning for misuse of LLMs, but I'm worried that you may violate this warning without realizing it. My strong suggestion is that youavoid using LLMs in any way at all. Maybe - very maybe! - you could use them to search for sources; but then you'll want to ignore everything the LLM has told you and just read the source. LLMsseem easy to use, but using them in ways that don't drive other editors crazy or violate our core content policies is much, much harder than it looks. Until you've really gotten the hang of Wikipedia editing, and now that you've already been taken to AE for it, avoiding them entirely is the only sensible way forward. --asilvering (talk)07:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tentatively in favor of AGFing and leaving this at a logged warning for misuse of LLMs, with the understanding that any further issues will be a TBAN at minimum if not just a siteblock. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)16:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Rap no Davinci appears to indicate that they will continue to use an LLM to"rephrase" and"paraphrase text", despite having previously been warned about problems resulting from their LLM use in this contentious topic, I support a topic ban of Rap no Davinci from theArab–Israeli conflict (WP:CT/A-I) topic area. If Rap no Davinci agrees to cease using LLMs to edit Wikipedia, then I would support a logged warning in lieu of a topic ban.@Rap no Davinci: In response to"When we translate other wiki pages, do we have to translate ONLY the well sourced info?", please note that all article content on the English Wikipedia (including content translated from other Wikimedia projects) must meet theverifiability policy. The sectionHelp:Translation § Verifiability: Include citations provides more specific guidance. While the articleLa Fouine is not covered underWP:CT/A-I, it is covered under theWP:CT/BLP contentious topic ("living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles"). — Newslingertalk16:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning EilertBorchert
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
19:19, 21 October 2025 More of the same, apparently copy and pasted from "The DisInformation Chronicle"
11:09, 11 October 2025 Incorrectly claims "There is consensus that the 27 scientific workers (signers) dit not mention the truth in the scientific Lancet Paper"
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on09:43, 9 January 2025
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I give 3 diffs above but I could have picked basically any from their contribution history, their only contribution is promoting lab leak conspiracy theories on various talk pages. They seem fixated on repeating various irrelevant/disproven points and end up derailing discussions about how to improve the articles.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 EilertBorchert
Statement by Alpha3031
Wow, I had somehow missed the copy and paste in the history. I've tagged it with the usual, but if any of the admins here get there first it should probably be RD1ed.Alpha3031 (t •c)16:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning EilertBorchert
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I have completed the revision-deletion requested by Alpha3031. For the benefit of any non-admins reading along, the diff contained a complete copy ofthis substack post. I also note that the text in diff number 1 is lifted fromthisHSGAC press release. As for the substance of the request, it seems fairly clear to me that EilertBorchert is unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue with their fellow editors, and I'm inclined to think an indef is warranted. --Blablubbs (talk)17:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of this user's contributions relate to COVID-19, and there is evidence of tendentious editing from the beginning and throughout. I'd support either an indefinite topic ban from COVID-19 or an indefinite site wide block.Arcticocean ■09:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Countryboy603
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Countryboy603
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Countryboy603
Statement by DanielRigal
Looks like an indef to me. Account seems to beWP:NOTHERE over a sustained period. The misgendering goes back more than a year. Also, I know it has nothing to do with GENSEX, but the George Floyd stuff from 2023 (e.g.diff) looks like disruption wearing a mask of faux civility. Only thing I can say in his favour is that he never got a final warning which, in retrospect, was an oversight. --DanielRigal (talk)16:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Countryboy603
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I'd rather not indef on a first block. I just gave them 31 hours forWP:DE as a unilateral action. If that doesn't help them change their mind and/or if they start digging themselves a very large hole, I have no objection to anyone extending it. --asilvering (talk)05:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The (now suppressed) posts in point 5 are the most concerning to me; if not for them I'd be inclined to suggest a TBAN from GENSEX, but including those leaves me thinking an indef is the only acceptable outcome here.CoconutOctopustalk17:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; I honestly might support an indef just for the blatantly transphobic vandalism, but trying to out a editor for being trans is really not acceptable.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)17:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I lean indef onWP:COMMUNICATE grounds if nothing else. That might seem strange to say given that it's a far less serious issue than harassment, but my reasoning is that as I try to assess whetherWP:HATEDISRUPT and/orWP:HARASS applies here, I find I really can't get a good answer because this user never explains themself. They've made a number of edits that read as pushing an anti-trans agenda, although[41] makes me think this may be more a case of someone having somewhat idiosyncratic views on gender and trying to "helpfully" implement what they view as a compromise. Maybe that's an excess ofAGF, I don't know, but I guess my point is I can't know, because they keep making these driveby edits and then neither engaging when people revert them nor changing their behavior subsequently. So I think the simplest way forward is a non-AE indef for failure to communicate, and then an unblock reviewer can decide whether to downgrade that to a GENSEX/trans-topics TBAN, uphold it as necessary to prevent disruption, or (rather unlikely IMO) simply unblock. In some cases I might say just letting the tempblock ride and seeing how that goes would be enough, but given how they've flown under the radar, including with an apparent attempt at outing, I'd rather this be sorted in a way that falls back to being blocked. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)22:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indef blocked which is an extension of Asilverling's short block and done with their permission. I agree with all that has been said, in particular that as this conduct extends into outing and harassment, an AE sanction or topic ban would not be appropriate.Arcticocean ■09:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Polygnotus
Polygnotus is warned to be careful about their wording when soliciting input on discussions, and to communicate in good faith when concerns are raised with their editing.Vanamonde93 (talk)03:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Polygnotus
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
I agree with @Vanamonde93 that the problem is broader than GENSEX, given that this is Polygnotus's attitude to being asked a straightforward question:Usually people bonk their head against the wall a couple of times and then they leave me alone.voorts (talk/contributions)21:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: this is the initial question/comment that started this course of events:Are you asking for admin action here? If so, AE is the proper venue. If not, this looks like canvassing. There is no personal attack or assumption of bad faith. I asked a question and made an observation based on how I read your comments. You could have corrected me instead of calling me ignorant and acting aggressive and evasive.voorts (talk/contributions)21:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: I haven't apologized because I didn't do anything wrong. Please reflect on the fact that there are now four independent, uninvolved admins (including Tamzin, whom you say you look to for advice) who have advised you to stop digging yourself deeper and who are considering issuing a formal logged warning against you.voorts (talk/contributions)21:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Polygnotus
Polygnotus's statement contains2428 words andexceeds the 500-word limit.
In response tothis comment by@CoconutOctopus:, which has a valid point: I honestly overestimated Voorts. I was very surprised when he kept digging the hole. Usually people bonk their head against the wall a couple of times and then they leave me alone. I would never have expected him to post on my talkpage, or post this request. That was my bad and it won't happen in the future.Polygnotus (talk)21:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: The problem is obviously Voorts' attitude when challenged... The fact that they are wrong should be completely obvious to them, even without research. And if they would have spent 30 seconds doing research it would be more obvious and they would know that they are wrong and why. But instead they kept upping the ante and not listening.Polygnotus (talk)21:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: is using yet another strawman:given that this is Polygnotus's attitude to being asked a straightforward question:Usually people bonk their head against the wall a couple of times and then they leave me alone.. My attitude to being asked a straightforward question is to politely answer it. But what you were doing was not straightforwardly asking a normal question. You were attacking and assuming bad faith.Polygnotus (talk)21:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts:You could have corrected me instead of calling me ignorant and acting aggressive and evasive. but I didn't. I asked you to readWP:CANVASS which would show you why you were wrong. And why have you not apologized now that you know the full story? I answered very politelyPlease read WP:CANVASS. Thank you. and then when I figured out you were an admin I said:Wait you are an admin you should know what that page says already. et cetera. So my initial response (not knowing you were an admin) was perhaps overly polite. Only when I knew you were an admin I said that you should be familiar with the guideline.Polygnotus (talk)21:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: But I already said what they wanted me to say. Sure, in retrospect I would've chosen different words. But I didn't think some reference to an old movie would be used to launch bad faith assumptions and this whole attack against me. Can you imagine how unfair this feels, from my POV? How could I have predicted that you would make such a giant problem out of something so tiny?Polygnotus (talk)21:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god now SashiRolls brought up the Steven1991 POV pushing campaign I fixed, after which there were attempted doxxings and a hate campaign on reddit and more fun stuff. Note that I did respond in that case, via email. Doingthe right thing on Wikipedia is not rewarded, it is punished. I didn't do anything wrong related to GENSEX, I didn't do anything wrong in terms of canvassing, so now I was not kind enough to Voorts who was assuming bad faith? Or am I a bad person because I was unkind to NorthernWinds who was wasting my time after I cleaned up Steven1991s POV pushing campaign... on another wiki. I wasthanked by an UCoC member. If we keep moving the goalposts we might find something.Polygnotus (talk)21:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blablubbs: But obviously there is a reason for that. I was informed that there was a word limit after I wrote a long text explaining stuff. I can explain my reasoning, and if I do you'll at least understand my POV, but it involves writing yet another long text. Meanwhile I was asked to replace everything with a much shorter text. While I grant you that it may look bad to someone who does not know what I am thinking, it is a logical progression from my POV with what I knew at the time. So now my options are to waste yet more time writing a much shorter text that explains stuff, which would involve private evidence, or ignore the word limit and explain my POV, or accept that people just make bad faith assumptions and threaten me because I said someone doesn't grok a guideline (correctly) and repeated myself too much. I spent maybe 6 seconds typing that message, how could I have predicted that some old LOTR reference would be used to assume bad faith.Polygnotus (talk)15:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda agree with HEB that all LGBTQ+ people worldwide should elect me as their leader and follow my every command (but it hasn't happened yet and its a pretty diverse group). If this ever happens (ideally in time for the new year) I promise to use my powers for good. I also agree the statistics about cluebat-related violence are worrying(ly low) and that poetry sucks now that metaphors no longer exist.Polygnotus (talk)22:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know a tiny bit about many things, and an seriously unhealthy amount about 3 things.I have a few people whom I ask for advice on Wikipedia, like Novem Linguae, Sohom Datta, WAID, Tamzin and Theleekycauldron. Each of them has skills/knowledge in areas I don't.
LGBTQ+ is not my area of expertise. I am more interested in computers. Of course I happily support anyone's right to do whatever and I throw bricks at the far right, but I don't think I am knowledgeable enough to make bold moves (like removing a bunch of articles from a category) without trying to form a consensus.
I consider Tamzin an expert on LGBTQ+ stuff (and they were listed as such onValereee's userpage, and as willing to answer dumb questions) so, when Iencountered a claim I hadn't heard of before, Iasked them if the claim was true or false. Another time I had todeal with someone with a strong opinion on another topic I am not an expert in, and Iasked Tamzin to check if what I did was correct, andthey forwarded me to Theleekycauldron. Theleekycauldron helped me and seemed nice so I stored them in my list of people I can ask questions (not a physical list, I remembered their username). I of course had looked a bit at the stuff they were doing so I knew they edited LGBTQ+ stuff.
According to the canvassing guideline, asking people who are known for expertise in the field is fine. The guideline even says:In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. and it namesEditors known for expertise in the field as an example of an appropriate notification. Asking someone who has expertise on a topic improves the quality of the discussion.
Normally I would've asked Tamzin but I readthis comment and while I wasn't sure how to interpret it it sounded like they were busy. And Tamzintries not to have opinions on category related stuff.
So I asked Theleekycauldron for advice. While my messages were a bit cryptic:The beacons are lit -- Gondor calls for aid. andSome day I will learn English and then it is over for you clowns! I didn't ask them to !vote (which wouldn't be allowed), or tell them what to vote (that is not the kinda relationship we have). I just pointed them in a direction.
Usually if people are canvassing they will alert people in a second AfD who !voted their preferred way in a previous AfD, so they know that they share that opinion. I don't know if Theleekycauldron agrees or disagrees with me and I have no control over their actions. If I wanted to canvass I would've asked someone who I was sure would agree with me, but I don't edit in this area and I don't know which users are likely to agree or disagree with me.
If I wanted to canvass anyone, I certainly wouldn't canvass someone who is as experienced as Theleekycauldron. They are an arbcom member; they must be aware of the concept of canvassing so it would not be a great idea to try to canvass them.
I alsoasked the LGBTQ+ wikiproject with an equally cryptic messageNeed some cluebats plox. which also is explicitly allowed per WP:CANVASS,The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.
Voorts made a series of mistakes:
They made the initial mistake to create a problem where none existed.
They didn't do the research required to form an understanding of the situation before jumping in.
Voorts thinks there was alimited list of allowed reasons, and everything else is disallowed. This is incorrect, as is explained in the very first sentence of the guideline:In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
Voorts repeatedly assumes bad faith in that he thinks that I am asking Theleekycauldron to !vote, instead of to use their brain, despite the fact that he has no evidence for that idea.
Voorts wrote:leek hasnot "made substantial edits to the topic or article" which means they think that if I want to notify someone of a discussion about whether Zizians belongs in the "Transgender history in the United States" category that person needs to have edited the Zizians article before, and that having made substantial edits to LGBTQ+ topics, like Theleekycauldron has, is not enough, which is incorrect (although the wording could be better the intent is clear).
Voorts wrote:As far as I know, leek is not an expert on the Zizians. They think that if I want to notify someone of that discussion then that person needs to be an expert on the topic of Zizians, which is complete nonsense of course. To determine if that article belong in Category:Transgender history in the United States you need someone who knows about LGBTQ+ stuff, not necessarily about Zizians. An expert on LGBTQ+ stuff can do a quick skim of the Zizians article and determine if it fits, but an expert on the Zizians cannot quickly read everything they need to know about transgender history to know if this article fits in that category.
they didn't comprehend that the fact that I repeatedly asked them tolist the reasons why my message to leeky is not canvassing meant that I of course was well aware of the rules and knew that he was wrong. Voorts interpreted that asevasiveness when they should've realized that they needed to go back to the guideline, in which they can find a bunch of reasons why the message is not canvassing.
Voorts didn't drop the stick because they couldn't handle being contradicted a bunch of times, and escalated by posting on my talkpage, and now this stuff which is a giant waste of time because of his ego.
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
Theleekycauldron is clearly an informed yet uninvolved editor.
The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.
I did notify the relevant WikiProject.
Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
Editors known for expertise in the field
Theleekycauldron meets all three criteria. They are informed, they made substantial edits to the LGBTQ+ topic, they have participated in previous discussions about LGBTQ+ stuff and they are known for their expertise in the field. I don't know what they do irl of course, so I doubt they are a professor of transgender history, but I clearly have reason to think they know what they are talking about.
Appropriate messages meet these criteria
limited posting vs mass posting (I posted on 1 user talkpage and 1 WikiProject, seems pretty limited to me)
Neutral vs biased (I used a LOTR reference without specifying what they were supposed to think or !vote)
Nonpartisan audience vs partisan audience (I have no clue what Theleekycauldron would !vote, nor control over their actions)
Open vs secret (I openly posted for all to see).
The one thing they could've complained about (they probably didn't get the reference) was that my message saidSome day I will learn English and then it is over for you clowns! which is not very nice but it is also obviously a joke.
And then we got some pile ons which are not really worth responding to.So, what should be done about this? We can admonish Voorts for his continued assumption of bad faith and his lack of understanding of the canvassing guideline, but I don't think it would really help anyone.Polygnotus (talk)21:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Sennecaster
Jumping in at this stage is probably a bad idea, especially if you do not understand the situation. Watching someone's talk page is apparently not in the realm of possibility. The continued snark and insisting that Voorts and myself do not understandWP:CANVASS or that I should not act in an administrative capacity is unbecoming of any editor.Sennecaster (Chat)17:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by theleekycauldron
I think Polygnotus was being silly with the LotR reference and not trying to canvass me to support their side in the discussion they started, which is why it's so disheartening that they are refusing to admit that a "call[] for aid" (Gondor was not neutrally canvassing Sauron and Rohan soldiers alike) could look like exactly that. Instead, theyrepeatedly (12345) asked voorts to make their argument for them and, when he refused, wrote things likeno worries nothing exploded, Voorts just doesn't understand WP:CANVASS. pro tip for anyone asking for my help on my talk page: putting other people down does not make you look better.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)17:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by SashiRolls
I suppose it was the clickbait title "The Beacons are Lit" and ensuing liveliness on my watchlist which led me to read TLC's talkpage. Maybe, too, the memory of being solicited on my meta TP for therecent UCC case concerning Polygnotus (which was dismissed) influenced my decision to click.Apparently I was a witness on one of the pages that is mentioned in the diffs on that page.
In any case, IMO:
I probably shouldn't have opened the hatted material on TLC's talkpage.
Polygnotus definitely shouldn't have written it in the first place.
A civility warning is due. To quotecivvi from the U4C decision:There is considerable room for improvement in the way Polygnotus interacts with other users, but their behavioural issues should be handled at a local level. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥21:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Horse Eye's Back
@Polygnotus: you refer to this comment[43] as "cryptic" but to me its not cryptic at all (maybe I spend too much time online). "Cluebat" is a common meme, "A metaphorical bat used to ‘beat some sense into’ someone who is blatantly stupid."[44] and plox just means please[45]. So in common English "Need some cluebats plox." means "I need some people to beat some sense into this idiot, please." Do you disagree with that?Horse Eye's Back (talk)22:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blablubbs: if you believe Polygnotus then what does "Need some cluebats plox." mean besides "I need some people to beat some sense into this idiot, please."? Because if thats what it means then Polygnotus did indeed intend to canvass, that is an entirely non-neutral call to arms.Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CoconutOctopus: I've told you what it means... You now know what it means, those aren't gibberish you've been supplied with their definitions... "I need some people to beat some sense into this idiot, please." is very explicitly canvassing.Horse Eye's Back (talk)18:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Statement by JuniperChill
I couldn't think of a better way to say this. The fact that you've commented on leek's talk page many times, plus the fact that you have gone way over the 500 word limit. Its like reading the terms and conditions (which no one reads anyway). There is a reason why the 500 word limit is in place relating to arbitration to reduce workload for arbitrators. Its also in place in certain CTOPs likeWP:PIA at 1000 words. This is an example of aWP:WALLOFTEXT, so long to the point I didn't read it. For comparison, my statement is just over 100 words long.JuniperChill (talk)23:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning Polygnotus
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
[Disclaimer: I was mentioned in the discussion on leek's talkpage but have no involvement in this.]@Polygnotus: This seems like a really easy situation to talk your way out of. Like, most of the possible comments you could write that substantively address the canvassing concerns would probably be enough to avoid a logged warning. If you're not willing to do that, well, that's probably the way it'll go. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)16:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus, I really think in this case you shouldWP:DROPTHESTICK and admit that, yes, the post you placed on Leek's talk page was poorly worded. I fail to see anything voorts has done as against policy and just because you supported an admin does not mean they cannot warn you when they believe necessary. As Tamzin said this would be a very very easy case to clear up and I strongly advise you do that rather than dig a hole here.CoconutOctopustalk17:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus, I absolutely do not think you were attempting to canvass. However, I also think voorts was correct to raise it with you initially as your initial comment on leeky's talkpage was not exactly clear and was possible to construe as "come help me in this discussion". A bigger issue here is the behaviour towards voorts afterwords; I'm not sure why you didn't just respond "wasn't trying to canvass, I'll change the comment to be clearer" as that would have instantly sorted everything from the get go and we'd never have had to have this whole conversation.CoconutOctopustalk21:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I also note Polygnotus's statement above is nearly 3 times the word limit, but I also agree with Vanamonde in that this doesn't really appear to be an AE issue as GENSEX is not the problem, but rather the serious of very confusing responses to a perfectly valid concern of voorts). The repeated insistance voorts is somehow in the wrong here, despite multiple uninvolved administrators explaining otherwise, is veryWP:IDHT.CoconutOctopustalk21:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on the outcome of this is going further past a logged warning to some form of more serious sanction with every post made continuing to complain that voorts is the one in the wrong here.CoconutOctopustalk21:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying subject matter experts about a discussion is acceptable. It still needs to be done with a neutral notification, particularly in a contentious topic, where sticking to the correct form is more important. I am willing to accept that Polygnotus saw themselves as notifying an expert, and didn't immediately see a problem with the text of their notification. When questioned, the correct response would have been to explain this. The bizarre subsequent exchange, and the lack of recognition above that they did anything wrong, suggests to me a warning is needed. I don't know if it needs to be a logged GENSEX warning, because the problem here is clearly not GENSEX, it's Polygnotus's attitude when challenged.Vanamonde93 (talk)21:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unlikely that were I to leave this thread open longer, Polygnotus would talk themselves into a block. And perhaps that is what is needed to make them recalibrate. But we've had a number of admins opine, consensus is quite clear that a) Polygnotus's wording was suboptimal even if not a brightline violation of CANVAS, and b) their subsequent communication was inappropriate. As such I'm putting this thread out of its misery. I will defer to my colleagues and log this warning under GENSEX despite my own opinion that that's not strictly required.Vanamonde93 (talk)03:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Polygnotus - you're seriously over the word limit and you're not helping yourself either. As someone who is not connected to this subject area, I can't understand why you are continuing to dig deeper rather than just say "oops, I'll be more careful with my wording in the future." At this point, I'm fine with a formal warning about how they respond when challenged.Ealdgyth (talk)21:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly overestimated Voorts. I was very surprised when he kept digging the hole. Usually people bonk their head against the wall a couple of times and then they leave me alone. I would never have expected him to post on my talkpage or post this request. That was my bad and it won't happen in the future. does not read to my eyes as exactly being a "Oops, I'll be more careful with my wording in the future." To me, your reply was a lot of passing the buck to Voorts and not much acceptance of the fact that other people are telling you that while you may not have meant it to look like canvassing, it did to others, including Voorts. While I get that you, Polygnotus, think that Voorts attacked you, the initial statement from Voorts was very mild - "this looks like canvassing" is very mild in terms of raising canvassing concerns. To that simple statement, you began digging in and getting defensive. While that's understandable to some degree, it's not helpful. The reason various admins here are discussing a warning is because you continue to be defensive and to continue to make less than optimal statements about Voorts ("I honestly overestimated Voorts" pretty much is implying that Voorts isn't bright/smart/whatever as you thought they were) and the snark are not a good look.Ealdgyth (talk)22:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the word count template out of a morbid sort of curiosity.Polygnotus, I cannot understand why you are doing this. I urge you to reconsider your approach here. It's quite possible that no one has ever written so many words at AE in under an hour. At this rate you are going to sail way, way past a logged warning into something much worse. --asilvering (talk)21:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am dumbfounded by the fact that we have now spent thousands of words on a dispute that ought to have been over after maybe 50 of them. Yet here we are, so I'll add some more to the pile.Polygnotus, having read through your explanation, I believe you when you assert that you had no intention of canvassing (and that you did not end up engaging in it). The problem is that you seem steadfast in your belief that voorts ought to have divined that fact from a statement that you yourself acknowledge iscryptic, as well as your belief that the only reason why someone may think that a notification statement that includes a "cal[l] for aid" looks a lot like canvassing is that they must be clueless and assuming bad faith. Neither of those things are true, because communication is a two-way street: If you make cryptic statements, you don't get to be irate when people draw entirely reasonable, if ultimately incorrect, inferences about what you meant to say. That goesespecially when you react this aggressively to them voicing their concern, instead of simply explaining what you meant. It would have been as simple as "I might have been a bit too cryptic with the message there. I have no idea how leeky feels about the issue, but I know them to be extremely knowledgeable about this topic, and so I simply wanted to ask if they might have thoughts to share". I support a logged warning. --Blablubbs (talk)15:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Longewal
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Longewal
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
21:55, 23 October 2025 - Violations ofWP:AGF andWP:ASPERSIONS; "My concern is that these rules are fostering an insular group of editors focused on South-Asia topics. This allows them to dictate consensus, often at the expense of neutrality. I'm starting to see a troubling pattern of like-minded views, and this gatekeeping is a real problem."
00:43, 11 November 2025 - Replacing India and Pakistan with excessively broad and POV term "Indian subcontinent".
01:48, 11 November 2025 - Referring to territorial expansion of Mughal empire under Aurangzeb using a map.
03:00, 11 November 2025 -Violation of ECR, also misinterpreting the image caption as saying expansion caused higher GDP when the caption clearly makes a distinction between the two sentences using a conjunction.
@Voorts: Let me add a few words regarding the diffs I have already provided: Longewal is engaging in:
1) continued violation of ECR, givenMughal Empire territorial expansion underAurangzeb is a military topic as these expansions occurred only through military conquests (diff 5)
2) wikihounding me by arriving on the controversial articles that were recently edited by me and reverted me on at least 3 of them.
3) See diff 4, he is POV pushing to suppress words like "Pakistan" and "Aurangzeb", in line with Hindutva POV that seeks to discredit Pakistan and Aurangzeb.[46][47][48]
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Longewal
Longewal's statement contains492 words and complies with the 500-word limit.
I am a newer editor working towards EC status. I take the CTOP restrictions seriously. I admit I wasn't fully aware of the policy in the very beginning, but always reached out to admins for clarification. This report is an attempt by the filer to weaponize enforcement proceedings to win content disputes regardingEconomic history of India andSati (practice). See relevant talk page discussions: (1), (2), and (3)
Regarding ECR (Indian Mil History/India Caste): The filer accuses me of violating ECR restrictions by discussing a map of the Mughal Empire. I specifically sought administrative clarification on this exact issue to ensure compliance. AdministratorNewslinger reviewed the situation and stated:
I do not see Longewal's disputed edits as blatant WP:ECR violations... most of the Economic history of India article is not military-related.Diff
I have adhered to this guidance. My edits concerned the economic scope of the empire (GDP and territory), not military conflict.
Regarding ASPERSION and AGF accusations: I don't think my comment there is an attack on anyone but a general comment on how the broad restrictions on South Asia related topics creates an insular environment. In hindsight, I should have been more careful with the words. However, these were personal views left on an admin's page and they didn't seem to take those unkindly. On that note, it must be noted that the filer has made it a habit of reading my comments as ASPERSION and AGF on talk page discussions when they are clearly not. They have been warned that their accusations are wrong by another experienced editor before.
I don't see anything that rises to the level ofWP:ASPERSIONS here, Zalaraz... They did imply disruption on your part with how you've approached the content dispute, but there too they are expressing a your-mileage-may-vary opinion and didn't suggest that you were acting in bad faith so much as not responding the policy arguments.Diff
Regarding "Wikihounding" and conduct: The filer and I edit the same high-traffic South Asian history articles; overlap is natural. However, the filer has consistently responded to editorial disagreement with personal attacks and aspersions, rather than policy-based discussion.
False accusations of using AI: OnTalk:Sati (practice), when I engaged in a policy discussion, the filer baselessly accused me of using AI to generate my comments. The filer was explicitly warned by editorSnow Rise regarding these personal attacks:
There is no consensus on the reliability of supposed 'AI detectors' (themselves a form of LLM technology), and in fact, a great deal of skepticism about their accuracy. I've looked at both of the TP contributions that you flagged, and for various reasons I find it highly doubtful that they are not human-generated. Regardless, Longewal eventually made clear that their position was that they wrote at least the first comment and you persisted with the accusation on the basis of your suspicions. More to the point,none of this is relevant discussion for an article talk page. If you had concerns about their using LLM generated TP comments, you should have raised them with those with them on their user talk or talking the discussion to a relevant behavioural conduct space.Diff
Regarding Content Disputes: The filer cites my support for the term "Indian subcontinent" (over "India and Pakistan") for the Indus Valley Civilisation era as a sanction-able offense. This is a standard NPOV disagreement regarding historical geography, currently under discussion on the Talk page. I even agreed to accepting "South Asia" as a compromise. It is not vandalism or disruption. In fact, I have given really solid arguments explaining why I propose removal of country names. Bringing up content disputes in active discussion as a sanction-able user conduct issue is a misuse of this process.
I have followed admin guidance regarding ECR topics and attempted to discuss content on Talk pages, while the filer has resorted to aspersions and forum-shopping.Longewal (talk)22:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aurangzeb was an emperor of theMughal Empire who engaged interritorial expansion through military action. However, the disputed content in theEconomic history of India article refers only to the economic impact of the territorial expansion and not the means by which it was conducted. As territorial expansion (in general) can also be accomplished by non-military means, I do not see Longewal's Aurangzeb-related edits on theEconomic history of India article and its talk page as blatant ECR violations. The disputed content's close proximity to the ECR-coveredIndian military history subtopic does make it more difficult for Longewal and other editors who are not extended confirmed (EC) to discuss the topic, which is whyI advised against non-EC editors participating in discussions that are prone to crossing into the restricted subtopic, at which point non-EC editors must disengage.
I am interested to hear other opinions on whether my determination was appropriate. In my opinion, all editors would benefit if determinations regarding whether a subject is covered by ECR were indexed on a centralised page to provide more certainty for non-EC editors on whether they are able to participate in discussions about subjects that are close to a restricted topic. — Newslingertalk15:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not too familiar with these editors, but the only of those 3 editor interaction timlines that even remotely implies Wikihouding is the one forHindu rate of growth. The other edits have weeks in-between. Moreover, the edits Longewal made toWomen in Hinduism don't even seem to be on the same section of the article as the edits Zalaraz made. From what I can tell, the same goes forEconomic history of India. The only overlap between the two editors on the same content appears to be on theHindu rate of growth, where Zalaraz added[51] "Hindutva historical revisionist" as a descriptor forSanjeev Sanyal and Longewal removed it[52]. One edit doesn't really make Wikihounding.Katzrockso (talk)12:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Longewal
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Diffs 1 and 2 are stale/have been dealt with. Diff 3 is a criticism of ARBCOM/a generalized complaint, not specific aspersions against particular editors. I see no issues with diffs 6-9. This filing feels a bit overzealous.voorts (talk/contributions)21:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Atsme
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanationhow these edits violate it
17 November 1:49 casting aspersions,particularly the assertion that there isderogatory speculation by politically biased opponents afoot, alleging widespread anti-conservative bias in aWP:BATTLEGROUND fashion
17 November 8:25 bizarre deflection invoking controversy around whether the subject is Jewish (other editor'sresponse pointing out the irrelevance of this aspect)
17 November 16:45using it as a political weapon obviously stemming from hatred for Trump while protecting Biden is unacceptable, and clearly not encyclopedic.Just curious... is there a WP article aboutBiden's use of pseudonyms?, again aspersions regarding other editors' motives, bizarre invocation of Biden, who does not appear to relate to this dispute outside of Atsme's assertions
Prior history of bans and appeals substantiates awareness.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I would note that I'm uninvolved here, but think that this is more appropriate to bring to collective reviewrather than imposing a unilateral sanction against another admin. These are only diffs from a recent, ongoing discussion, but this behavior is longstanding, and similar to what precipitated the prior bans. The edits comprise a consistent pattern of bludgeoning and battlegrounding in relation to AMPOL and PIA topics (e.g.Special:Diff/1316455638, and note both the bludgeoning throughout the discussion before then and the lack of real argumentation beyond a contrarian defense of anything she perceives as confronting Wikipedia's "systemic bias"). It is difficult to find recent diffs of her participation in centralized Wikipedia discussions thatdon't fit this pattern (for recent AfD votes, compare,AfD vote 1,AfD vote 2, and compare it to her engagement with sources from a few years ago when the topicisn'tpolitical).
This is all the more concerning given that she has tried toinstrumentalize her own experience as an NPP instructor to try to win discussions on political topics. This particular example is worth unpacking: the cited coverage inThe Atlantic is genuinely substantial, and if she had stuck to that it would have been a valid argument. But the invocation of trivial coverage in theNew York Times andBloomberg as well as an interview inReason is something she should know better than to do,as a NPP reviewer/former teacher, let alone when admonishing others thatit appears more editors need to sign-up for the course. When called out, she first doubled down, then exited the discussion.
It is particularly concerning that she feels the need to shoehorn references to Joe Biden at every turn; evidently she is engaged in the battleground of the 2020/2024 US elections, even when that's not the actual topic of discussion. Atsme is not contributing constructively in AMPOL or PIA, and the bludgeoning, whataboutery, and aspersions have gone on for long enough, clearly backsliding into the issues that led to the first ban in2018. I initially intended to include a further word of apology here noting our past experience as colleagues, but am running up against the word limit so I will have to end here.signed,Rosguilltalk20:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, thank you for the correction. I've further clarified the element of the first diff that I believe crossed a line into aspersions; I'd stand by my assertion that the 4th diff is bludgeoning in the context where it appears, irrespective of whether it may be reasonable to express such an opinion elsewhere (although I do think that basing !votes on substantive issues on allegations of systemic bias without providing RS evidence of said bias does cross into disruption. Seeing what comes up when you search"systemic bias" "Wikipedia" on Google Scholar is left as an exercise to the reader).
In response to Szmenderowiecki's report...Atsme, you do realize that both Tamzin and I are very transparently Jewish (I can't speak for anyone else, but that's 2/3 admins who've participated here)? Antisemitism? Do you realize how ridiculous your accusations are?
My understanding of Wikipedia's policies and norms is that both conservatives and communists are welcome to edit here, provided that they cooperate for the good of the project of building a free encyclopedia. Communists and conservatives that can constructively engage in good faith are valued members of our community (and I can think of several in both categories). Communists and conservatives that are not able to maintain good faith collaboration are shown the door.signed,Rosguilltalk02:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Atsme
Per instructions from Isabelle Belato, I've deleted the overage. Word counter says 805 words including the diffs, excluding the hatted request.Atsme💬📧16:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked by a few editors/admin to respond so I will state my purpose at NPOVN. The premise of this AE filing; i.e, that my four NPOVN comments violate a current American politics topic ban is factually incorrect; ludicrous at best. I'm not under an AP2 topic ban. My AP2 topic ban was lifted by ArbCom motion in 2019. If my memory serves, I have not edited any articles in the AP2 contentious-topic area since that date. I have said nothing that warrants this case. The diffs in question took place at NPOVN w/some reference to potentially libelous material per WP:BLP, neither of which falls under the AP2 contentious-topic designation. I provided examples and facts. Filing this AE request, treating me as if I were still topic-banned, without first seeking clarification from ArbCom as to whether NPOVN commentary falls under AP2, was premature and has caused me unnecessary distress. If there is genuine uncertainty about the scope of my2019 lifted t-ban, the proper venue for clarification isWP:ARCA, not an enforcement discussion that proceeds from incorrect assumptions and the opinions of many of the same detractors who have hounded, harassed, and opposed my views for over a decade.
I respectfully ask that this thread be closed with no action taken, based on the fact that my noticeboard commentary on NPOV and BLP policy is not within the AP2 topic area. Should any admin believe the 2019 motion needs clarification or amendment, seek that clarification at ARCA.
Posting policy-based opinions at NPOVN, especially when another editor explicitly solicited community input on potential systemic bias and BLP issues in the Elliott Broidy biography, cannot & should not reasonably be construed as editing within the AP2 topic area. Furthermore, most of the incidents involved FARA violations, so it's not even AP2.
Darouet provided a line-by-line analysis demonstrating none of the cited statements are sanctionable, even under the broadest reading. It wasnot a political discussion, as it was a NPOV issue involving BLPs and non-neutral material that was potentially libelous, a stark difference from being political. The persons in the biographies are lobbyists connected to foreign nationals and/or former politicians, which should not be considered a "AP2" discussion, not even generally construed. WMF recently lost a libel suit because of libelous material in a biography of a businessman involved in politics in another country. I have every right to be concerned over WP's systemic bias, and its antisemitic positioning which is also under scrutiny by the US govt., another issue I alluded to at NPOVN.Atsme💬📧14:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm seeing is blatant oppression of my views. Facts and context matter, as does antisemitism, bias, and libelous material in a bio, all of which indicate a growing problem. The following links support what I've been saying, and those diffs have nothing to do with me violating AP2:
Also consider the following diffs as further context for conduct issues by some of the same detractors who have opposed me for over a decade. I have experienced harassment, hounding (including by administrators), and off-wiki targeting and bullying because they disagree with my opinions, whichWbm1058 can help confirm at WO since I do not have access to that unconscionable hate site that even AI describes as despicable. I have also experienced situations that raise questions about certain admin actions, hounding, bad judgement calls, etc. which I believe has contributed to a pattern of POV railroading in areas where editors have epistemological disagreements.
I recognize that AE is not the venue to fully litigate those matters, but if this case ends up being referred to WMF:Trust & Safety or ArbCom, I will present a more complete set of diffs, including many more than what I've included below which go well beyond the innocuous diffs used against me here and in the past, demonstrating the longterm hostility toward me by the same users & admins.
[54] Bishonen overturns another administrator’s decision in a matter where the closing admin had evaluated the case saw no cause to block me.
[55] 2015 exchange between AndyTheGrump and Bishonen related to me.
[56] An ANI thread in which Andy wrote,You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better, a deeply hurtful comment that demonstrates the level of hostility he has toward me.
[57] alignment between Andy and Bishonen against me.
[58] Andy's pattern of rejecting my contributions in areas we disagree.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
[61]<––Rosguill didn't think the word count applied here. Now thatIsabelle Belato has brought it to my attention, may I please double the 500 word limit considering I'm the one subjected to and being asked questions? I need the ability to defend myself against these false accusations & misinformation. As for the comment about AP2 being broadly construed...potentially libelous content in BLPs is not subject to "being broadly construed". There was nothing I said in the diffs that violated AP2. Not liking an editor's POV unrelated to political discourse is not a reason to t-ban them. Comparing bios at NPOVN regarding WP:NPOV is not a violation of AP2. It amazes me that our policies are being misconstrued in such a manner. I can strike or delete some of what I've already said if there's concern we're running out of server space. Strike or delete?Atsme💬📧03:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Hemiauchenia
I fully endorse the proposal to reimplement the topic ban. Revoking the original topic ban was obviously in retrospect a mistake. At this point, Atsme is clearlyWP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia (she now has her own encyclopedia, Justapedia, which is a mirror of Wikipedia which she rewrites to reflect her own conservative agenda), but merely to agitate against it in a disruptive manner. Atsme is not able to separate her strongly conservative views on American politics from her editing, and she has repeatedly behaved in a disruptive manner regarding the issue since her topic ban was lifted.Hemiauchenia (talk)22:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Butterscotch Beluga
As I started the discussion these comments were made in, I feel obliged to addthis comment of theirs as probably relevant. I'm still unsure as to why they felt the need to write such an aggressive response to me. As I wrote inmy response to them though, the details of their comment were confusingly inaccurate & seemed to not engage with the material being discussed. -Butterscotch Beluga (talk)22:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: Diff 2 has to do with the fact that the article in question says "He is Jewish." without further context. You probably don't know this(sarcasm!) but both the US far left and far right use calling someone Jewish as basically a personal attack. So when the subject is in any way controversial in the joyful context of modern US politics, there is an argument for not saying the subject is Jewish unless it can be shown to be not just sourced but also relevant. --GRuban (talk)23:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Szmenderowiecki andBishonen: Atsme was writing on her own user talk page. Yes, it was unadvised, but it was on her own talk page, and we traditionally allow a certain leeway to users to vent on their own talk pages. It was removed when she thought better of it, and no one was directly mentioned or targeted. --GRuban (talk)19:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen andSzmenderowiecki: Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, that we should give latitude to user talk opinions; yes, it absolutely does matter where an opinion was expressed. Most every week for several hours I regularly express the opinion that I and a small group of friends are Saving The World from an alliance of murderous ghouls and vampires.(Last session our characters reached seventh level!) In general I don't let that affect the way I program software, or parent my children, or write encyclopedia articles. Does Atsme really think that Wikipedia is failing and overrun by Communists? Maybe, sometimes, no doubt, depending on the place, and the time, and probably on whether her back pain is acting up. People are complex, they can hold multiple ideas in their head, even contradictory ones, and choose which to act on and when. We shouldn't punish people for what they think, only for what they do. And in general we have said that one's user talk is an acceptable place where one can go to express opinions like that, because there they are being expressed to a small group of talk page watchers, and as long as it isn't a specific attack on a person, which this wasn't. We are not the thought police. --GRuban (talk)13:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by AndyTheGrump
AndyTheGrump's statement contains973 words and complies with the 1000-word limit.
To add to what GRuban says above, or at least add my take on it, I'd have to suggest that regardless of the political context, a bald statement, with no further discussion, consisting of a sentence in its entirety as "He is Jewish" is and always has been inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. The term for this is 'Jew-tagging', and those with long memories may recall the disputes I had with at least one now CBANned former contributor over this, with regard to indiscriminate tagging (in a similar fashion) of biographies of entirely non-political figures. Evidently Atsme failed to argue clearly, or perhaps was trying to argue something else, but she wasn't wrong to draw it to peoples' attention.
As to the merits of the case, I'll refrain from commenting, since I've made my opinion abundantly clear elsewhere, and doubt that anything I said would be seen to be objective. Which might well be true. I'm sure you can reach an appropriate conclusion without my input.AndyTheGrump (talk)00:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to comment further, but one thing I think might need taking into into consideration is a particular diff relating to the 'communist infiltration' thread on Atsme's talk page. Clearly, I was involved in the discussion, so I'm not in the best position to judge, but the passage in question appears to be attempting to blame 'socialists' and 'communists' for the Holocaust:If you truly knew what communism meant, or what the Holocaust was all about, these young people wouldn't be fighting for socialism or Hamas.[62] I'm not entirely sure myself whether this is in fact the intent, or merely the result of incoherent babbling, but either way it is grossly offensive, and doesn't belong in any discussion on Jewish history, the state of Israel (which was founded by socialists amongst others, and in its early days very much took socialist ideas into practical consideration), or of communism (Which, in its many diverse forms, has had quite a number of individuals of Jewish origins amongst its leading thinkers). If Atsme really can't avoid conflating victims of the Holocaust with its perpetrators, she certainly shouldn't be discussing the topic, or anything remotely related to it, anywhere on Wikipedia.AndyTheGrump (talk)11:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re GRuban's "no one was directly mentioned or targeted" comment regarding Atsme's talk page venting, this is incorrect. When asked for evidence of 'communist infiltration' she posted diffs of two posts, a direct accusation against two individuals, neither of which appear to be 'communist', never mind 'infiltrators' (whatever that is supposed to mean). I'll not link Atsme's post directly here, since it it is still accessible (in page history) for those who might wish to confirm this, and since I don't think it at all appropriate to draw particular attention to the individuals concerned, given that they appear to have been selected almost at random, for doing nothing more than making edits that Atsme apparently didn't like. The diffs in question remained visible on Atsme's talk page for over 12 hours.AndyTheGrump (talk)20:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...And to add to the above, it should probably be noted that the diffs in question are followed by what appears to be accusations of antisemitism, which seem inexplicable when one looks at the edits in question.AndyTheGrump (talk)21:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding GRuban's recent "We shouldn't punish people for what they think, only for what they do" comment, note again that amongst things Atsme hasdone is to make absurd, entirely groundless allegations of Communist (and/or antisemitic?) 'infiltration' against two named contributors in good standing, one of whom, an academic, a 'Wikipedian in residence', and a promotor of better coverage of women in science (both within Wikipedia and beyond) is readily identifiable since her user name matches her real name, and who makes her identity entirely clear on her user page. And GRuban's suggestion that comments "expressed to a small group of talk page watchers" don't count, even if it were valid (Nothing in policy or common practice seems to support this), is rather negated by the fact that Atsme's talk page saw a massive surge in page views: it seems possible that the post was seen by several hundred people.[63]
Regarding topic ban scope, I would point out that neither of the diffs related to American politics specifically. One was to our article onNationalism, and the other to our article onCommunism. And neither of the edits concerned the US. If Atsme's behaviour merits a topic ban (which seems lenient, in my opinion), it needs sufficient scope to cover the topics in which she displayed the behaviour in question - which is politics as a whole.AndyTheGrump (talk)18:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme now brings up off-topic matters from a decade ago:[64] my response:
Atsme refers to Bishonen and I as a 'circle of editors'. If this 'circle' exists, it is ill-defined, apparently including anyone Atsme has ever disagreed with. I’ve interacted little with Bishonen over the years, and in as much as we agreed over Atsme's conduct, our agreement reflects the broader community that imposed the sanction in 2015.[65] If Atsme wants to re-re-re-litigate this somewhere more appropriate, I hope the present community will take the time to look into actual events rather than Atsme's self-serving spin.
As for taking this to ArbCom or T&S, OK. Either will take Atsme's own conduct (including possibly off-Wikipedia conduct, where she regularly trash-talks Wikipedia and its contributors in the most obnoxious manner) into consideration, and perhaps consider whether some of her behaviour on Wikipedia veers into CoI territory, given her personal stake in Justapedia.
And for the record, I find the fact that Atsme has again failed to retract her absurd, evidence-free, and obnoxious accusations of communist/antisemitic infiltration against two Wikipedia contributors in good standing to be beneath contempt. I no longer consider a topic ban sufficient sanction for such continued behaviour: the project would do well to indef/CBAN Atsme entirely.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any exceptions that could be made to a tban that’d mitigate potentially reinforcing systemic bias? Like to project space or formal discussions such as RfCs?Kowal2701 (talk)14:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)retracting after seeing the history and lack of availableWP:ROPE[reply]
Statement by Metallurgist
Echoing GRuban and Andy, there are philosemitic and antisemitic reasons that the attribute of being Jewish is added to articles like this. Jewish people like to celebrate it, antisemites like to draw attention to it. Thats the whole origin oftriple parenthesis and "early life check" that can be found in alt right online communities. It could have been added for any reason, but the concerns Andy mentioned are valid, which appears to be what Atsme was getting at. In any respect, per Kowal, it looks like AtsmeWP:RETIRED, so perhaps this is mooted now. I do understand the frustrations expressed.←Metallurgist (talk)01:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme’s TP post:WIKIPEDIA IS A LOST CAUSE I found disturbing. I really wish people would stop throwing around the word communism. That is what is sad. I know of zero American politicians or Wikipedia editors who espouse anything related to communism. And the common claim that anyone who criticizes Netanyahu or actions of the Israeli government is somehow antisemitic would suggest that the majority of Israelis are antisemitic. We have a lengthy article onWeaponization of antisemitism. Someone with such views should not be editing in CTOPs, particularly PIA and AMPOL.O3000, Ret. (talk)01:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Borrowing a link from Szmenderowiecki[67] misogynism is another oft misused term. It is an accusation of a very serious character flaw and like communist and antisemite, should never be used simply because you disagree with someone.O3000, Ret. (talk)00:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Katzrockso
I was disturbed by this editors comments in the NPOV noticeboard thread, as well as atPseudonyms of Donald Trump, where they statedEncyclopedias are not supposed to be political or used as a political weapon. They are supposed to provide encyclopedic information, not political rhetoric, scandals, gossip, etc. to mar the reputation of someone a group of editors consider to be a political opponent[68] and another editor responded,You're politicizing this content discussion more than anyone else. You keep going off on tangential rants about politics and political bias that have nothing to do with the content or sources[69]. The clear implication here throughout all of these comments is that anyone who disagrees with Atsme is trying to use Wikipedia as a political weapon (?), which is clearly anWP:ASPERSION. There are definitely collegiate ways to disagree with each other, and I think Metallurgist and I had productive disagreements and discussion on that page, but Atsme's involvement went off-topic and was clearWP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.
I now checked every single edit just for curiosity,AndyTheGrump, and notone of the edits brought up on the NPOV noticeboard thread was removing information about whether or not Elliott Broidy was a Jew. Atsme jumped to bring up off-topic information about the overall state of Elliott Broidy's page, when the topic of the noticeboard thread was about Iljhgtn's edits on pages related to Elliott Broidy. As Parabolist noted in the original thread, it seems Atsme did not read the original post by Butterscotch Beluga and instead went to start complaining about Wikipedia's supposed biases.Katzrockso (talk)03:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Metallurgist. How was Wikipedia's broader bias relevant to the discussion we were having at the NPOV noticeboard. The purpose of that thread wasn't "let's fix the issues on Elliott Broidy's article", but "let's discuss potential COI/advocacy issues in this list of edits Iljhgtn made". That Atsme saw the need to provide off-topic commentary demonstrates theWP:BATTLEGROUND mindset here.Katzrockso (talk)03:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet. The only problem is that every single one of Atsme's comments was completely off-topic from the point of that thread. Iljhgtn's edits didn't remove the mention of his Jewish identity, so why was it being brought up in a conversation about Iljhgtn's edits? Sure, that question might be completely appropriate for a conversation about editing theElliott Broidy article, but that noticeboard thread was not about how to make theElliott Broidy article more compliant with P&G, it was a thread about the editing behavior of Iljhgtn. Atsme's edits veered away from the purpose and topic of the thread to insinuate that anyone criticizing the whitewashing of Broidy's article and other articles is trying to promote a "political hit piece" (edit #2), using Wikipedia as a "political weapon" (#3), supporting "derogatory speculation by politically biased opponents" (#1). If you can't see theWP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in these edits, in addition to the other ones, I'm not sure how else to explain it. It's perfectly reasonable to agree with Iljhgtn and defend those edits as reasonable, it's not acceptable to focus entirely on the supposed actions of others in the thread, rather than on the actual content in question. That is, analyze the actual removals and defend the content thereof rather than cast aspersions on anything who doesn't think those removals were appropriate.Katzrockso (talk)06:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Szmenderowiecki
Atsme has published a statement on her talk page that "WIKIPEDIA IS A LOST CAUSE" andalleged "Communist infiltration" or "infiltration of the anti-Semites" of the encyclopedia (not exactly clear from the context). Iasked her to present proof for the Communist part because that's how I understood her OP. Sheclaimed she had the evidence, and it was definitely unsatisfactory.Even before being confronted about the quality of her sources, shestated that she was being persecuted and silenced:And even more bizzarre [sic],they want to "silence" me with a t-ban or block from AP2 when my comments were related to biographies and made on WP:NPOVN.. As the discussion progressed, Atsme went into full meltdown mode and also users quickly got off-topic about the far-right discourse and Nordic politics. Then shepublished this:
I strongly advise you to practice your legal defense tactics elsewhere, not here on my UTP because your insults are out-of-order, & not welcome here. In fact, all the trolls need to leave...NOW. I don't have to put up with this misogynistic BS. Shoo!! Get outta here!! (whip cracking) Be gone! Only my WikiFriends and good hearted people are welcome here. Trolls be gone!
There are two things I have to say: 1. TheFirst Amendment applies to the government, not Wikipedia. If your political views have a detrimental influence on your editing, expect not being able to edit anymore. 2. If you suspect you are being trolled,you have the right to remain silent,get a lawyer, stop answering questions, backtrack and back away. You never have to dig yourself into more trouble, however you have to know what is going to lead to trouble and avoid it. Apparently Atsme is so passionate about her views she can't help herself.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)02:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen I thought Ctrl+F is a thing as I linked to the whole discussion, but apparently it's not enough so I fixed this.
GRuban The problem is not her views on "Wikipedia engulfed by decadence", which she is entitled to have, it's that she patently can't get along with others, doesn't know when to back off and doesn't have a sense of when talking starts looking more like she's running her mouth. It doesn't matter where this happensSzmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)22:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Alpha3031
As with Rosguill, I feel it is unfortunate that this had to be filed, and had been internally debating whether I should comment here, but I was intending to reply tothe reply to me in the now archived section. In lieu of that, I have revised something along those lines for here.
I am sympathetic to AE admins who are hesitant to chill the raising of the issue of bias, and also to avoid the appearance of further bias. I don't think I have anything substantive to add about the actual comments, e.g. accusing editors ofhatred for Trump while protecting Biden. Atsme does state that her comments are not intended to be political. I am not clear on how to read those parts of those comments to be apolitical, but, more to the point, even if I do so, I don't think any other editor would. I hope Atsme does not consider it misogynistic, cancel culture or thought policing when I state that it is unlikely to be productive to make comments that would be seen as political in discussions that they do not intend to bring politics into.Alpha3031 (t •c)05:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Cdjp1
Defending/explaining your actions by alleging there arecabals of people controlling and manipulating Wikipedia are bold claims to make when editors disagree with you. I would also just like to point out how while claimingI don't play identity politics, Atsme defends her knowledge of matters due to aspects of her and her family's identity, and then accusing those of disagreeing with her of being bigoted against aspects of her identity. Atsme's views on the claimed left-wing bias of Wikipedia are well understood in her work on projects she's started seeking to make an "unbiased" version of Wikipedia, but how she chooses to evidence this has been kindly exemplified in her comments in discussions highlighted here and her essay on Wikipedia being a lost cause, where low quality sources, and some sources that stray into muck journalism, are held up as valid records and sources of information. Not discerning between such sources and others (especially when there are plenty of well known academic sources covering this) is a concern. --Cdjp1 (talk)19:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme did you link to the intended difference at 54 that you meant to, as the description you provide doesn't seem to match well with the content at the difference. I ask for confirmation as similar happened when you linked to an edit by MaryMO (AR) accusing them of whitewashing communism/being a communist, yet the edit you linked to as "evidence" was an edit on the article for Nationalism and the edit changed nothing that related to communism in any way whatsoever. --Cdjp1 (talk)20:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This complaint amounts to the following: a lot of information was removed from our biography of Elliot Broidy[70], leading to a complaint atWP:NPOVN (here[71]) soliciting comments and feedback. Atsme made four statements mentioned in this complaint:
[72] Atsme very politely disagrees with another editor and says that Wikipedia has a problem with systematic bias. She concludes,"We should all support the removal of derogatory speculation by politically biased opponents, regardless of what side of the aisle they sit. That's my nickel's worth, and I bid you well." What on Earth is the problem with this statement? You can disagree with her if you like, but how is this remotely sanctionable?
[73] Atsme is concerned that Broidy is identified as Jewish, and asks what motivations exist for mentioning it. This is another reasonable statement, editors ask questions like this at biographies all the time and we need to be able to ask them.
[74] The most problematic part of this statement is,"Brief mention with an objectively cited explanation is appropriate but using it as a political weapon obviously stemming from hatred for Trump while protecting Biden is unacceptable, and clearly not encyclopedic." The statement doesn't directly accuse any specific editors of bad faith, but it implies that this could be a motivation. More directly, Atsme is saying that such a motivation would be bad.
[75] This statement about donors is innocuous and meaningless.
I'm probably on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Atsme. It blows my mind that so many editors are arguing that we should sanction her for her opinions literally being solicited on a board designed for that purpose, but nobody is attempting to sanction theactual removal of sourced information at the page in question?As for the opinions expressed on Atsme's talk pages, many people express political opinions on their talk pages. I do: I use my user page to quote Stefan Zweig, who is complaining about war propaganda. -Darouet (talk)04:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request for more text
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Tamzin, may I please have an extension of up to 900 words (plus this request to you), so that I can reply toKatzrockso's reply to my statement? I feel Atsme's words are being inappropriately given their most hostile interpretation. -Darouet (talk)16:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply toKatzrockso - your statements consolidate my concerns about this complaint. While I'm extremely sympathetic to your views, you are inadvertently misconstruing Atsme's statements according to their most hostile interpretation. And Atsme's specific words matter. Point by point:
First, you write,"Iljhgtn's edits didn't remove the mention of his Jewish identity, so why was it being brought up in a conversation about Iljhgtn's edits?" It's unacceptable to declare that whenIljhgtn's actions atElliot Broidy are brought to NPOVN, an editor who looks at the biography more generally - the heart of the topic in question - can be sanctioned for doing so. Every editor is going to ask questions about the biography in such a forum. It's our job.
You write that Atsme's edits "insinuate that anyone criticizing the whitewashing of Broidy's article and other articles istrying to promote a "political hit piece" (emphases mine), but Atsme has not said that anyone is trying to do that: those are your words. Atsme said the biography should not read like a political hit piece. That's a legitimate criticism that weneed editors to be able to make. I am upset at Iljhgtn's purging of material from the Broidy article. But I'm grateful that Atsme and others have the right to warn, in such public fora, that we need to ensure biographies aren't hit pieces.
With the phrase"derogatory speculation by politically biased opponents", Atsme is clearly referring to potentially biased sources, not to editors at Wikipedia.
Yes, I understand the unease over Atsme's statement,"Brief mention with an objectively cited explanation is appropriate but using it as a political weapon obviously stemming from hatred for Trump while protecting Biden is unacceptable, and clearly not encyclopedic." Specific words matter: Atsme may be voicing a personal feeling about what has happened atElliot Broidy, but she is not accusing anyone specifically. And if we start blocking or banning bases on ambiguous statements, good editors could be sanctioned all up and down the project. We need to be able to hear things we don't like, as long as statements don't constitute personal abuse. Atsme's statement doesn't get close to that kind of problematic behavior.
Katzrockso, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that it would be problematic to"to focus entirely on the supposed actions of others in the thread, rather than on the actual content in question." But if everyone editing in the political arena were equally sanctioned for losing focus or straying from core content issues in some of their posts, we'd have nearly no editors left.
The weakness of this case leaves the impression that our editors here are unable to construct procedurally and ethically adequate enforcement processes that involve realistic appraisals of the rights and actions of those accused. This is not a problem when we have an editor who agrees with us politically, and is given then benefit of the doubt. The very fact that many of us obviously share political beliefs that differ markedly from Atsme should cause us to proceed with exactly equal or even greater caution, acknowledging our potential for bias. -Darouet (talk)19:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal seemed genuine so I'm not surprised it was accepted, to so very obviously not only slide right back into the problems that lead to the TBAN in the first place, but defending doing so under some MAGA variant ofWP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, I think even as someone entirely uninvolved seems like a betrayal of the community giving a second chance. Wikipedia certainly has issues that need to be addressed if it is to remain what it has been, but the way this editor is going about it is obviously problematic.TylerBurden (talk)18:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Davide King
"Are you two antisemitic communists as Atsme said?" No. For the full answer and some observations about alleged Wikipedia bias (around 1,000 words), seehere. Davide King (talk)20:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Tryptofish
Yesterday, I posted a statement here, then quickly thought better of it and self-reverted. I consider myself a friend of Atsme's, and my first impulse was to offer a defense. But I feel that I need to be honest here, and let the chips fall where they may, sadly. Some of the diffs of things Atsme posted reflect what, from my own perspective, are strange and conspiracy theory-based views: the innocent people in prison (I'm pretty sure that'snot aboutAlligator Alcatraz), or Joe Biden's alleged pseudonyms. But as far asthat goes, we should leave room for people to make those kinds of comments on talk pages, so long as they will be reasonably courteous to other editors who make rational arguments refuting that. But what gets caught in my craw is this:[79]. The over-the-top smugness of saying that admins would issue a boomerang, ArbCom would laugh at this, and it's the worst time-sink she saw in a decade – well, Atsme, that's not a collegial way to interact with editors you disagree with, and you should know that. And it is clearly being disproven by the reactions of AE admins here. That kind of thing impairs consensus, and is disruptive. It makes me sad to post this, but I feel this is the right thing for me to say. --Tryptofish (talk)23:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Wbm1058
I waspinged to here regarding my participation at Wikipediocracy (WPO). There is indeed a lengthy thread there titled "Atsme and Justapedia" in thePublic Area "Web 2.0 & 3.0: The Emperor's New Clothes", "Non-Wikimedia Wiki Sites", which starts with my post of June 03, 2024 which was split out from the earlier thread "What are some good alternatives to Wikipedia?". Although Atsme should still be able to read that thread, she cannot reply nor defend against attacks there since she was banned from WPO after May 07, 2025. I am not happy about that situation, as the discussion has drifted from general discussion about Justapedia to personal discussion about Atsme. That thread might best be moved to the private area of WPO as long as she remains blocked there. So what is the big deal with her recent edits on Wikipedia? She's madeless than 20 article-space edits in the past year, and not yet even a dozen article edits in 2025. The Committee has passively sat while others have made thousands and thousands of disruptive, bold semi-automated article edits before finally acting to stop such behavior. What's the difference between a battleground and aWP:BATTLEGROUND? Has she disrupted any articles? Hardly. Has she organized a faction that disrupts, or made legal or other threats? Not that I've seen. We should show that we're better than WPO by continuing to let her exercise free speech in discussing the content of articles. It takes two to make a battle. If you disagree with her, explain how, and if she responds and you don't have anything further to say in response that wouldn't just repeat yourself, then let her have the last word. End of the "battle". Disclosure: I met Atsme at the Boston conference in 2019, and we struck up a friendship – despite our differences regarding some matters of politics. –wbm1058 (talk)14:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Atsme
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
@Rosguill: Not saying you were wrong to take this here, but just to be clear, Atsme is not an admin. As to the merits, I'll await a reply from Atsme before saying anything at length, but my initial impression is that diffs 1 and 4 are reasonable critique of a perceived systemic bias, which we oughtn'tchill whether or not that bias exists; diff 3 is not; and diff 2 I have no idea what's going on. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)21:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good morning folks. With the addendum to the diff 1 link, I do agree "politically biased opponents" is problematic; otherwise I stand by my take that we should be hesitant to come down on systemic bias critiques, whether or not we agree with them. To me, it's similar to the standard we have for when we're allowed to opine on the substance of an editor's views in a content dispute, which is not "Is this correct?" but more something like "Could a reasonable person believe this in good faith?" I think that a reasonable person could in good faith believe that Wikipedia has a bias against conservative American politicians, again, whether or not that is correct. (Full disclosure, I have said once or twice that I think at least some of our articles on conservative American politicians are too enthusiastic to point out negatives in the lede.)A view being minimally not-unreasonable is different from it being expressed appropriately, though, and the latter is the main thing we try to figure out at AE. So the "politically biased opponents" is a bad start. I'll AGF on diff 2 per comments by others above. As to diff 3, usually a "but what about the other guy" comparison would be a big red flag for me, butWe have an article about this arguably negative thing for a Republican politician but not a Democratic one, in the context of a complaint about overall bias, again seems fair. On the other hand, the supposition that editors are acting in a wayobviously stemming from hatred for Trump while protecting Biden is unacceptable is absolutely not okay. As I argue inWikipedia:Partisans § The looking glass, when an editor shows that they expect edits to be a reflection of personal POV, this calls their own edits into question. It is entirely possible to think our coverage of Trump is biased without supposing that that is due to partisan political agenda-pushing, let alone by supporters of Biden (who I don't think is all too popular among the sorts of liberals who edit Wikipedia, but I could be wrong). Atsme carefully avoids calling people out by name, but in a way that just makes it worse: Claims of political bias by editorsare actionable, but they need evidence to not beaspersions.If this were a first offense, I would probably favor a logged warning for personalizing disputes and speculating as to editors' motives. With the former full topic ban and existing partial one, I regretfully lean toward reïmposing the full AP ban. That said, I'm hoping that @Atsme will say more here. Despite my link to the Partisans essay, I'm not actually convinced Atsme is one; she has strong political views but does seem to genuinely care about Wikipedia getting things right, and at her best I think is capable of being what I describe in that essay as "the NPOV-compliant POV-driven editor". I'll admit my bias here—not a political bias, but an editorial and administrative one: I think dissenters from the majority in a topic area are an important part of what makes Wikipedia work; even when they lose every content dispute they help keep articles from devolving into being written like persuasive essays. So I'm always reluctant to remove the ones who are able to dissent in a policy-compliant manner. That last clause is important, though. If Atsme can't commit to focusing her concerns on the contents of articles, rather than the perceived motives of their editors, I think our hands are tied. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)06:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I won't be participating further in this thread, as I'm taking a few months off from enwiki admin work. Briefly, I'll say that Atsme's response as of late does not change my stance because it does not address my concerns. The closing admin is welcome to discount my position if facts change in such a way as to make it less relevant. (Or maybe something likeYovino v. Rizo applies and my !vote just doesn't count? Well, not my job to figure that out.) --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)18:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure I see the issue with the passage highlighted from diff 1; my read of the statement is that Atsme is arguing thatderogatory speculation by politically biased opponents is a characterisation of a category ofsources that we ought not use, and – assuming that reading is correct – I don't have a problem with that specific passage. As for the other three, I agree withTamzin's reading.Looking at this as a whole, I think that Atsme's approach here is problematic. Yes, believing that Wikipedia is biased in one way or another is okay, as is expressing that belief on Wikipediain appropriate contexts. But those perceived biases are being invoked here in a way that ultimately amounts to a claim that anyone on the other side of the dispute must be "part of the problem", so to speak. That's an approach that is more or less bound to make the editorial climate worse, because it ultimately ends up preemptively dismissing any substantive response as being driven by ideological bias. --Blablubbs (talk)13:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Small talk by Bishonen can safely be ignored
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
GRuban, are you advising me to ignore things that Atsme has posted on her own talk and then removed? Sorry, no, that won't happen. Published is published, and you're inviting aStreisand effect with your comment. If I mention any of it, it'll be clear that it was on her own page. And as AndyTG points out, Atsme has via diffshere on her page accused a couple of users of whitewashing communism and probably of being antisemitic as well (sorry, but it's not the clearest sentence she ever wrote).Bishonen |tålk22:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
I've been hesitating to go back in history and write about my old T-ban of Atsme from Am Pol in 2018 — so long ago! — but now that I see quite a few people referring to it, I think a look at how it came to be lifted may be helpful.
I T-banned Atsme indefinitely from Am Pol in June 2018.[80] and she appealed this ban successfully in February 2019.[81] Her appeal is worth a quotation:
In retrospect, I regret the occasions I strayed from my customary collegial behavior during RfCs and consensus required discussions in the AP2 topic area. I don’t have such issues when editing in other topic areas so I used the latter to gage my behavior in AP2. I now see the biggest problem was my overzealousness to win the debates and gain consensus, showing little consideration to opposing views. The times my position did gain consensus were overshadowed by the inappropriateness of my persistence, and for that I apologize with a promise that it will never happen again.I made a New Year's resolution that if I ever find myself participating in the AP2 topic area again I will stay on point, present my case with civility while keeping brevity in mind, will answer questions if asked and will maintain my customary polite demeaner at all times. If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas. This is not her whole appeal. Bolding in the original.
This appeal got consensus for lifting the ban, with a warning about backsliding. In many people's opinion, she did backslide. In July 2019, just four months after the appeal,AwilleyT-banned her from anti-fascism as "a warning shot" because of her failing to keep the promises she had made. When another userwarned her about the same thing on her page in August 2020, sheblew them off, saying she was tired of hearing about "a 2 year action that was questionable from the get-go. Stop dredging up the past.". This indication, after a year and a half, that she considered her own promises so ancient as to no longer "count" was fairly alarming, and Iposted a strong warning about it on her page, pointing out that she had gone back to inappropriate persistence and "overzealousness to win". I gave the particular example that she had said in February 2019"If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas." By contrast, in the summer of 2019, she had posted some 75 times in the Fox News RFC. I urged her to go back and re-read her own appeal and start living up to her promises, or I'd consider reinstating the topic ban. I kept my eyes open for some months after this, and it did look like my warning had scared her off her worst abuses. Then I took my eye off the ball, (perhaps for the sake of my own sanity) and I have since been assuming that Atsme was too busy with Justapedia to post anything much on Wikipedia. That was clearly a mistake, as shown above and on Atsme's own page (especially its history). I believe the indefinite T-ban from Am Pol should be reinstated. Sorry for the length of this, but I wanted people to see what Atsme's promises were in 2019. (Readingher whole appeal and the discussion of it is better still!).Bishonen |tålk16:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
@AndyTheGrump: Usually editors will request an extension on their own section or on the talk page of one of the admins that have already responded to the thread, though the talk page here is also fine. Considering how extensive the discussion already got, could you just give a summary of the type of comment you'd like to add?Isabelle Belato🏳🌈14:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, you are about 700 words above your limit. Please refactor your statement or ask for a word extension. As a side note, you've been here long enough to know that CTOPs are broadly construed, meaning that any discussion related to the topic within Wikipedia is also considered to be under restrictions, be it a user's talk page or the NPOV noticeboard.Isabelle Belato🏳🌈21:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme: Rosguill's reply seem only to imply that the error was not due to any existing word limitation, as that does not exist at a software level, but due to some missclick. I will concede a 500-word extension, meaning you still need to cut down on some of your reply. I recommend using an online word counter if you need to. Concerning your comment over "broadly construed", theWP:CTOP page links toWP:TBAN andWP:BROADLY, which help clarify what that wording means:[CTOP] applies to edits and pages in all namespaces. When considering whether edits fall within the scope of a contentious topic, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy. That your comments at the NPOV noticeboard fall under our AP2 CTOP is undeniable, the question is whether or not your participation in these kinds of discussions has caused enough disruption that a TBAN is necessary.Isabelle Belato🏳🌈15:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that walk down memory laneBishonen. I'm too inactive at the moment to cast an actual vote here, but just wanted to highlightTamzin's excellent comment:
I think dissenters from the majority in a topic area are an important part of what makes Wikipedia work; even when they lose every content dispute they help keep articles from devolving into being written like persuasive essays. So I'm always reluctant to remove the ones who are able to dissent in a policy-compliant manner.
I don't know the way out of the polarized mess that is so prevalent nowadays, but I think part of the solution is going to be people making an honest effort to understand the concerns of others with whom they disagree, but without demonizing them or trying to convince them that they're wrong. Zooming in on Wikipedia, I think having a variety of viewpoints is healthy for the project, but when we log in, we need to assume the role of "collaborative editor" and put our own viewpoints in the back seat. They can inform our discussions and editing, but they shouldn't be driving.~Awilley(talk)19:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I too believe that an AP topic ban is needed here. Atsme's participation atthe NPOV board was disruptive. Compare for example the haughty and dismissive tone ofthis post or the conspiratorial/battleground attitude and rhetorical flourishes in (especially in the second half of)this post with, for example,Metallurgist's moreparticularized critique of the content that was removed. The latter are the kind of objections that can be addressed and help editors reach a consensus while Atsme's style of comments only help raise temperatures and derail discussions. Uncivil comments likethese similarly poison the atmosphere and drive away editors... especially ones who are not ideologically invested in the topic.
The history outlined by Rosguill and Bishonen shows that this was not a one off. Even Atsme haspreviously recognized that this is a topic area where she has trouble editing neutrally or collegiately and it is disappointing that she did not live up to the commitments she made when appealing the previous topic-ban, which would have perhaps precluded the need to reimpose it.Abecedare (talk)00:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through all of the above, I'm convinced that this behavior just cannot be allowed to continue and that an AP topic ban is needed. Atsme just doesn't seem able to restrain herself. Hopefully she can be productive in other areas, but not this one.Doug Wellertalk09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said, Atsme sometimes makes incisive and valuable observations. This does not excuse or diminish the other policy violations documented in this AE report and discussed at length by the numerous users offering statements above. In view of Atsme's previous sanctions and appeals, regrettably an AP topic ban is the only appropriate outcome, and that is now supported by a clear consensus of uninvolved admins.Indef topic-banned from AP.Arcticocean ■16:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Iljhgtn
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Iljhgtn
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
"In the plea documents of former DOJ employee George Higginbotham, Michel was accused ofpaying Republican fundraiserElliott Broidy and othersmaking paymentsto have Guo extradited to China."
Source:Mother Jones article about Pras, which mentioned "Broidy" 21 times
"Wolosky led or co-led some of the firm's high-profile matters, including the firm's representation of Greenberg, its representation of former RNC Vice ChairElliott Broidy in litigation againstQatar"
Sources:NYT andWaPo articles about the litigation, which mention "Broidy" 44 times combined, but do not mention Greenberg
«reported that Lebanese-American businessmanGeorge Naderturned Trump's major fundraiserElliott Broidymade the Trump administration"into an instrument of influence at the White House...for the rulers ofSaudi Arabia and theUnited Arab Emirates... High on the agenda of the two men... was pushing the White House to remove Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson"»
Source:WNYC, which details how"Broidy had pled guilty eight years earlier in a pay-to-play scheme involving public pension investments", but does not describe any philanthropy
Removal of"Sex scandal with Elliott Broidy" section:"The Wall Street Journal reported in April 2018 that Bechard was having an affair withRepublicanfundraiserElliott Broidy. After becoming pregnant by Broidy in late 2017, Bechard had anabortion. Her lawyer,Keith Davidson, negotiated the payment of US$1.6 million as money for silence throughMichael Cohen, U.S. PresidentDonald Trump's lawyer at that time. On July 6, 2018, Bechard filed a lawsuit against Broidy, Davidson andMichael Avenatti in California, alleging that Broidy had stopped paying the rest of the money for her silence."
"reports that Mueller has given George Naderimmunity from prosecution for his testimony relating to his foreign lobbyingin relation toElliott Broidy andon behalf ofthe United Arab Emirates"
"reports that George Nader has testified to Mueller that he wired $2.5 milliontoElliott Broidy via a Canadian companyto fund a lobbying campaign to Republican members of Congress to persuade the U.S. to take a hard line againstQatar"
"reports federal authoritiesraided Republican fundraiserElliott Broidy's office inJuly 2018,carried out a raidseeking materials related to foreign officials'dealings with Trump administration associates"
Added content (unredacted part shown):"@Gcollins94 Near(Redacted), eh?"
Receivedreply from editor formerly known as Gcollins94:"Frankly, pointing out my location, making multiple comments to my talk page and here, following me to multiple spaces - it's borderline harassment and I'd like for you to stop it."
The above diffs show that Iljhgtn has been removing reliably sourced content aboutElliott Broidy en masse across numerous Wikipedia articles. This listing is not exhaustive; see Iljhgtn's related edits to other articles in theassociated noticeboard filing at NPOVN. Iljhgtn's edits here, as a whole, constituteadvocacy editing in favor of Broidy that is not representative of the cited reliable sources. Based on the above, I believe Iljhgtn should be topic banned fromElliott Broidy, broadly construed.
A secondary concern is Iljhgtn's tendency to use edit summaries that do not clearly indicate the full nature of their edits. A review of Iljhgtn's edit summary history would not have suggested that Iljhgtn's mass content removals outside of theElliott Broidy article were related to Broidy. I also noticed this pattern when Irecently warned Iljhgtn for their edit warring on theWP:CT/AP-covered articleThe Epoch Times;Iljhgtn deleted the warning with the edit summary"archive", despitenot having archived it. In addition to the topic ban fromElliott Broidy, I believe Iljhgtn should be warned to use accurate edit summaries. — Newslingertalk14:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Metallurgist: You've acknowledged diffs #6–9, but overlooked many other diffs submitted by me and others. I disagree with "clemency"; this AE discussion uncovered Iljhgtn's extensive scope of disruption. Timed topic bans are ineffective, in my experience, and should be indefinite instead. I have more diffs (if needed) after Iljhgtn addresses the doxing. — Newslingertalk10:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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 Iljhgtn
Iljhgtn's statement contains1000 words and complies with the 1500-word limit.
In May 2025, I was removing what I felt wasWP:UNDUE material from the leads of articles. I came across Elliot Broidy's page, which was a mess at the time and a violation of BLP standards.[82]
A blocked sockuser:DanikS88 was editing the page at the time and adding UNDUE material.[83]
After I saw what this editor was doing, I searched for related pages where they and others were adding UNDUE material about this figure. Most of my edits were not challenged at the time, other than a handful. In the few cases where the edits related to this person were reverted, I did not edit war on any of these. In any of these cases, a talk page discussion or revert perWP:BRD is part of our normal editing procedure.
I let my OCD get the best of me, and sometimes I go too far down one particular tunnel or another, and in some of this it appears that is what happened. As was the case in the past, I do my best to improve, I will commit to improving my edit summaries and can limit form-fit edit summaries to edits which are sure to be uncontroversial (such as the thousands of book cover images, film posters, AfDs, talk page commentary, and other edits that I make, for which I regularly get "thanks" and barnstars etc.). Lastly, I can easily voluntarily abstain from editing Elliott Broidy stuff broadly construed. Thank you.Iljhgtn (talk)20:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts The Somali name for Omar was proposed by a Somali editor, who I supported. Some Somali language sources were provided, but dismissed as not reliable. Also, other American politicians had foreign language names on their articles with no sourcing, so I found it odd that this was made an exception. That they are all Democrats is irrelevant as there are no elected Somalis from any other party. This seems to have support from Somali editors, but there was other opposition to it, and I moved on.Iljhgtn (talk)21:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger That is where I began and then I looked at other pages that might have had similar issues. If the core BLP page had these problems, which seem to have originated from a sock account, then I felt it was reasonable to go looking at other pages.Iljhgtn (talk)21:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This began as a limited AE just related to a BLP and related pages, which I agreed I went too deep on and would accept a topic ban on this figure. If there are other concerns related to editing, it may well exceed 500 words. Also, I will note that this was preceded by some apparent coordination and canvassing by several editors on Wikipediocracy on a thread started by user:Lightbreather to bring me down (screenshots and evidence can be provided).Iljhgtn (talk)21:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts I know I should not have mentioned a location in that comment, but it was not my intention to dox the editor. I lived in the area for some time and thought it was cool. It was also the general area, not a specific address.
For HEB's claim I was careful to abide by the 1RR in place on that page and I respect revert rules. My reasoning is that the "right wing" label was already included in the linked subject's article, but felt it was not needed for this article.
For cite 97, there is one mention of "Conservative" in the body before my changes, and I did not feel mentioning it in the lead was supported, and I did not edit war on this article. I understand that the other editor disagreed with me, and I generally would also go to the talk page to try and find agreement with my reading of the sources.
I don't thinkThe Epoch Times edits can fairly be called edit-warring. I made an edit on October 28. Newslinger reverted it on October 30, and I reverted once the same day. And then did not touch it again until November 17. Other editors also contributed to this each way. As for the short description, I felt it was too long, so I shortened it, was reverted, and I did not touch it again.
For Unity of Fields, my edits were sourced, even if some may dispute the amount and quality of the sources. "Far-left" was used as a descriptor inThe New York Times. "Proscribed" is primary, however it is a government source describing a government action, but I agree I should have looked for a secondary to support it further. And critics do in fact claim the group promotes terrorism and violence, which was sourced, but I could have more clearly attributed the claim.
For Nerdeen Kiswani, I attempted to add sourced statements, I was reverted a first time, I restored the content once, was reverted by a different editor and I moved on. I don't feel that is edit-warring.
In regard to alleged political bias in my editing, though I come from a centrist perspective, perWP:NPOV, I ultimately just wish to see all reliable sources represented. I think that I have demonstrated above how I mostly do accept consensus, though it sometimes takes time. I maintain thatWP:CCC. Generally, my edits on an article are well spaced out so that others are allowed to comment and build consensus that might disagree with me, and when I am truly in the minority in my perspective then I concede after that becomes clear. The WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE consideration is one that each and every page and every section and every editor must weigh when editing Wikipedia.
I do believe that I can improve in many areas. I promise to use more descriptive edit summaries and engage more collaboratively with other editors going forward.Iljhgtn (talk)04:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also just uninstalled this script (User:Iljhgtn/MyEditSummaries.js) that someone had graciously helped me to put together a long time ago, I think maybe anastrophe? Thank you.Iljhgtn (talk)05:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Idk whether this is relevant, but these comments on Jimbo's talk page seemed awfully trollish[86][87], the latter of which led someone to ping Sanger and the discussion got closed as inflammatory[88]. Idk whether it was trolling or if Iljhgtn was just being naive/unaware of how their comments would be received.Kowal2701 (talk)22:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Horse Eye's Back
There seem to be more or less the same sort of edits to articles about Israeli politics as American ones... See for example this edit[89] which similarly emphasized left wing elements while removing outright "right-wing." They then edit war over it[90][91][92][93][94][95][96]. A seperate edit removes another reference to right-wing[97].Horse Eye's Back (talk)00:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Aquillion
[98] - note the contrast between this and the edit war overIsrael Frey above. For Frey, Iljhgtn insisted in including "far-left" in the lead of aWP:BLP, without attribution, based on a singleWP:BIASED source, theTimes of Israel, calling him that in a single article. For Roy, Iljhgtn removed his politics from the lead despite it being extensively discussed throughout the body, showing a differing approach to BLPs depending on their politics.
OnEpoch Times, removed far-right from the short description despite theextensive citation bundle full of high-quality sources; again, note the inconsistency with the above, where they use much weaker sourcing to add or restore "far-left".[99]
But I feel that most of Iljhgtn's problematic editing is in the I/P topic area. Some examples:
OnNerdeen Kiswani, Iljhgtn added obviously BLP-sensitive stuff to the lead using sources that are clearly not BLP-quality[100] and then attempted toedit-war it back in when someone objected.
OnUnity of Fields,[101], putting "far-left" into the lead based on a single mention in a single source; describing it as proscribed in the lead based on a single primary source; extensively describing it as promoting violence in an unattributed paragraph in the lead and body cited only toWP:BIASED and low-quality sources; all with the same vague edit summary used above. They thenedit-warred it back in when someone objected.
I amextremely loathe to engage here, being deeply allergic to WP bureaucracy, but I feel the "Diffs of previousrelevant sanctions, if any" (emphasis added) should be struck, as it was about use ofappropriate edit summaries,not allegedlyintentionally misleading edit summaries oncontentious topics, as this seems to be about. I briefly (though in depth) engaged with Iljhgtn, at that time a relatively 'green' user, due to use of a canned edit summary on mass changes to ENGVAR. User wasn't aware of the appropriate use of ENGVAR, and in making many identical edits, used a single canned edit summary offered automatically that wasn't accurate. With some effort, got user set up with their own set of edit summaries to choose from. That was my last interaction here w/user.
That previous issue - as best I can tell while holding one hand over one eye and making a tiny peep-hole between the fingers of my other hand, due to the above declared loathing of all matters bureaucratic - had nothing to do with "contentious topics", the seemingly overriding matter here.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAnastrophe (talk •contribs)20:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger, Seeing as the very next comment after Mathglot's that you linked to is by me, perhaps my 'confusion' was warranted.
@Voorts, any reason you're making an uncivil comment towards me out of the blue here? Your personal comment about me has absolutely nothing to do with this action. And people wonder why I loathe this shit. cheers.anastrophe,an editor he is.21:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by GreenLipstickLesbian
In an adjacent topic area (Climate change), Iljhgtn has also engaged in similar editing. OnAlex Epstein, they edit warred out sourced content with misleading edit summaries over a period of several years[102][103][104] and adding claims that Epstein believed somethingG while citing sources that do not mention Epstein.([105][106]) When another editor pointed on that several other editors had discussed this text and come to a consensus,[107] they responded by saying it was a BLP issue[108], reverted back to their preferred version over a period of multiple edits,[109][110] and modified the archive settings to remove the conversation.[111].
My interactions with the editor are mostly onAmerican Institute for Economic Research, which primarily relates toWP:CT/COVID but probably could sufficiently be covered by AP2. As I've previously mentioned, I didn't think the edits on that page rose to the point of sanctionable behaviour, but do indicate the same issues (ofselectively inserting labels and contentious content) extend to that topic also.
3 August asserting without sources that a BLPviewed the declaration as a threat to a centralized pandemic response and attempted to disparage it by labeling itcalled the declaration "total nonsense"
16 NovemberThe declaration was also criticized bytheleft-leaning, formerly libertarian-leaning,Niskanen Center,a formerly libertarian think tank thatwhich now calls itself moderate.
I had also found the edits toIsrael Frey raised by HEB when the topic was raised at NPOVN, though not other edits in I/P raised by Aquillion.
In terms of the editor finding another contentious (small-c or big-c) topic and continuing the same behaviour, I imagine if AE makes it clear that such behaviour (selective application of what appears to be blatantly different standards of judgement, deceptive edit summaries, etc) is not acceptable in any topic, any individual administrator or ANI could very quickly make it not our problem to deal with any more if that occurs. I think it is possible that the editor is willing to take things under advisement, and can clearly identify the topic areas they edit which are not (small-c) contentious, though I suppose we will have to see.Alpha3031 (t •c)11:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Drmies
Interesting that this would come up--I've been wondering about the political bent of this editor as exhibited by their behavior. Another editor, above, mentioned whitewashing in relation to Gaza, but I think we have that here as well--in this edit they cutNazi gun control argument (following a merge discussion), andhere they merge the content intoDisarmament of the German Jews--but now it's just a brief paragraph full of weasel words, with all its teeth pulled and all its names redacted. Note the end of the paragraph, starting with "Others cite that", where the editor basically repeats two arguments of proponents of the theory (that, basically, gun control caused the Holocaust), in significant detail, sourced to one particular non-neutral book. That section is almost half of the entire paragraph, completely overwhelming the rest of the content. A similar erasure took placehere, in another gun-related article. I think a topic ban from American politics, broadly speaking, is appropriate.Drmies (talk)18:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Butterscotch Beluga
@Iljhgtn - I'll freely say that I had made a post on Wikipediocracy about noticing your trend of edits relating to Elliott Broidy, but at the time, had yet to decide if I should bring the issue to a noticeboard. I thought it over for two days with little response, so I posted at WP:NPOV/N for more perspectives. I did not ask anyone off-wiki to contribute, did not ask for sanctions of any kind (here or there), & I did not notify anyone that your conduct was even being discussed on wiki. I'll also note that the thread in question is mostly unrelated, off-topic discussion, so I'm unsure what"coordination" you're referring to. -Butterscotch Beluga (talk)22:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Metallurgist
Ive been taking a deeper look at the edits referenced in the original post on NPOV, but saw it was escalated to here, so Ill post here instead. Some of the edits I feel were justified. Many were indeed undue BLP attacks, and of the 21 edits on 20 articles I looked at the origins of, 7 were done by 3 accounts and 1 IP, who were subsequently indeffed, some for inserting baseless BLP edits that were never reverted until now. I wonder what is still extant, and will look into that. One had a total of 20 blocks over the years, which is quite a bit ofWP:ROPE. 3 further edits were done by accounts who were blocked at least once, but are not currently. So, there is that. On the other hand, there were edits that had me scratching my head...
There were 13 I found justifiable, 3 had a case for some (but not all) removal, and 4 were highly questionable. I could go into detail, but that probably is not material here, and I would need about 1000 words. I will post them on NPOV and if requested here I can copy over.
Given all of this, I feel a very very stern warning is justified at a minimum.WP:One last chance to change their ways before sanctions imposed. Some editors receiving this will take the hint; but those who dont, then its the same result as a restriction here and now. I am loathe to advise restrictions against a generally productive editor, even one I had disagreements with, such as#Rap no Davinci above, who used the troublesome LLMs. It always vexes me to see editors whose hearts are in the right place, but do not follow the rules and guidelines. If there is to be a restriction, perhaps a timed topic ban to give the user a chance to cool it, and demonstrate they can change their ways. 0/1RR seems reasonable to temper edit warring and consensus-seeking concerns. I hope Iljhgtn realizes that their editing could use improvement and take action to rectify it immediately. There clearly is some justification for a clement result given that they were not outright blocked and instead brought here. ← Metallurgist (talk)04:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Iljhgtn seemingly tried to derail 2 discussions I started about their edits by suggesting that I was violating COI/UPE/OWN instead of directly responding to my argument.[116][117]. They asked me multiple times if I had a COI[118][119] even though I had told them the first time they asked that I don't[120], and they had no evidence.
Iljhgtn returned on14 November 2025 00:39 to re-do some of their edits that had previously been reverted and discussed in July:
They re-did their22 July 2025 3:21 edit to remove content from the lede regarding an attack on Frey's home. July discussion ishere.
On12 July, Iljhgtn removed “journalist” from the SD without explanation; I re-added it. in the Julydiscussion about whether to call Frey a journalist or an activist, Iljhgtn agreed that more sources call Frey a journalist but wanted to call Frey an "activist journalist" without providing sources for this term. Based on the discussion, another editor removed the word “activist” from the article. On14 November 2025 00:39, Iljhgtn replaced the word “journalist” with “activist” everywhere except SD; their edit summary:activist still seems to be best label for lead
01 October 2023—12 May 2025: Iljhgtn inserted inadequately sourced claim into the lede/SD~11 times that it was a “mass shooting”. there was no support for this term in thediscussion.
I don't think that they should be indeffed. It seems like they are doing a lot of work to upload fair use cover art images to articles about books.Rainsage (talk)03:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Iljhgtn
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I was trying to remember where I knew this editor's name from, and then I realised it was atIlhan Omar where they tried to get a fictional "Somali name" included in her article (discussionhere andhere). During that latter discussion it turned out that they had added equally unsourced/fictional names to at least eight other American politicians of Somali descent (all Democrats, of course), with completely deceptive edit summaries (i.e.[121]). I don't think I need to explainwhy they did that, although they probably won't admit it. As another editor said there, "their dismissive attitude towards WP:OR and WP:RS means that it is impossible to distinguish their edits from hoaxing", and on BLPs that's clearly a huge issue.Black Kite (talk)19:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A TBAN fromElliott Broidy is the minimum in my view. The dispute surrounding Ilhan Omar and the edits about American politicians of Somali descent are troubling as well. Combined, I think there'sprima facie evidence that Iljhgtn is editing non-neutrally in the area of American politics. @Kowal2701: I don't find Iljhgtn's edits to Jimbo's talk page to be problematic. @Atsme: your comment doesn't address any of the diffs provided in the AE request. In any event, while I'm generally concerned by corporate/government manipulation of media, that explanation doesn't apply to most of the diffs cited above.voorts (talk/contributions)23:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to see what Iljhgtn has to say, but I want to give a further assessment in light of the new evidence. I think it clear that Iljhgtn allows their politics to color their editorial judgment across various contentious topics (both colloquially and in the Wikipedia sense). From the evidence presented, it appears that a major part of the disruption surrounds articles about living political figures and edits related to political labels (e.g., whether to call a group/individual "left" or "right" or a variation thereof). I think there needs to be, at minimum, a TBAN from BLP edits related to political persons or groups, broadly construed; a 0RR restriction; and an editing restriction prohibiting changing political labels, broadly construed. I'm a bit concerned that any restrictions we impose would just lead to Iljhgtn moving to a different "contentious" political topic area that is not covered by a CTOP.voorts (talk/contributions)00:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn: I'll give you another 1,000 words beyond your current word count. Any private evidence of off-wiki coordination and canvassing would need to go to ArbCom. Also, even if true, it doesn't excuse any non-neutral editing on your part; we don't have anunclean hands doctrine when it comes to AE.voorts (talk/contributions)21:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't give two hoots what Iljhgtn's politics are, but the diffs presented here evidence selective reading of source material (when source material exists at all) and poor communication of the sort that isn't acceptable in a CTOP. Given their considerable history, a TBAN is necessary. I'm uncertain as to scope, because a number of different areas have cropped up in the diffs. The simplest I can come up with is "political activity of living people". But perhaps an AP2 TBAN would be clearer and simpler to enforce. I would also want a warning about using descriptive edit summaries.Vanamonde93 (talk)22:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The broadness of topics makes me think an indef is the only viable option here. There isn't a way to topic ban someone from "AP and everything that attracts attention due to AP". --GuerilleroParlez Moi15:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to jump to an indef as a first AE sanction. The core NPOV issue here is cherry-picking negative and positive material based on POV, but I don't see evidence that they've been sanctioned for that before. I'd prefer a TBAN - even an expansive one - that allows them to demonstrate their ability to edit constructively.Vanamonde93 (talk)16:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
إيان
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning إيان
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Uncivil behavior and violations ofWP:AGF onTalk:Jerusalem Day: On23 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. On24 November 2025 they claimed that those disagreeing with them and saying something isWP:UNDUE is "not policy based" and then later on24 November 2025 doubling down on these claims. This seems to violateWP:SATISFY. On24 November 2025BlookyNapsta told them to start anWP:RFC to include the contested material, but on24 November 2025 they insisted that "I don’t think we need to go to an RfC to establish consensus". On24 November 2025 they wrote that those who disagree with them areWP:Status quo stonewalling.
WP:SYNTH: On23 November 2025, the user was warned on their talk page that they had violatedWP:SYNTH, in one case on aWP:BLP page. On23 November 2025 they insisted that these edits "seems like useful context for the reader". (Although on23 November 2025 the user did eventually say that they will be more diligent on the matter, implicitly admitting that they had made a mistake.)
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 open08:01, 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, on10:09, 16 November 2025, they began edit warring the contentious content into the lead with no discussion whatsoever.Nehushtani (talk)07:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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
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 isABSURD, especially coming from the accuser who, reverted bytwoeditors, 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 thishere.
The accusation of uncivil behavior is also contrived. I followedWP: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 allegesthey 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 SYNTH accusation is again content-based and not conduct-based and was already addressed andresolved. The accuser was not involved at all, and I'm curious why the accuser brings it up again here.
PerWP:Dispute resolution:If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request arbitration. It would have been appreciated if the accuser had, for example, discussed their grievances with me at any point directly on my talk page before bothering everyone here with these flagrantly frivolous and vexatious accusations and this unnecessary bureaucracy. I take the Wikipedia policies very seriously, and it is inappropriate to try to weaponize Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to silence editors contributing in good faith with whom we might disagree on content.إيان (talk)15:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by BlookyNapsta
I'm afraid Ayan's response goes to show exactly the problem Nehushtani complains about: a total failure to understand Wikipedia rules when it comes to this extremely sensitive topic. As someone involved in the same discussion, I saw the same issue: Ayan is trying to promote a very controversial piece of information to the lead of an article about a public holiday in Israel, but when the conversation doesn't go the way they wanted, they seem to have decided to force their version despite clear opposition. Wikipedia has enough bias issues and this kind of behavior just makes it worse. Ayan's denial of the issues that appear here, which I learn they are not doing for the first time, having already been warned by this very forum, require a good answer.BlookyNapsta (talk)15:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Butterscotch Beluga
Your description of "Uncivil behavior and violations of WP:AGF" seems rather inaccurate. They asked you to come to talk to discuss & but you didn't respond until other editors got involved.
The comment you're quoting for "not policy based" actually read "Not a source or policy-based argument." The comment they were replying to was in response to my comment saying it was WP:DUE & backed by sources, so saying you disagree without supplying your own sources is unhelpful.
I don't believe asking for someone to explain their reasoning or cite a source for their !vote isWP:BLUDGEONING as long as they don't badger them further.
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
White Spider Shadow
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning White Spider Shadow
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Specifically notifiedhere on 08:12, 30 September 2025.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Unclear why White Spider Shadow wasn't blocked at the same time as all the other meatpuppets on Zak Smith, but it's clear they are intent on flogging the same dead horse the community has had enough of.
White Spider Shadow saysI also see no practical point in topic-banning a non-EC editor from an EC-protected topic that has been closed to discussion by non-EC editors for a while now. I do see a practical point, since it prevents future disruption should they become EC at some point in the future. Their history on Zak Smith to date has been essentially identical to others who are already blocked and/or topic banned.FDW777 (talk)21:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by White Spider Shadow
Hi. The request made by FDW777 contains several untrue statements. "Posts an edit request, while not extended confirmed" is not an edit that violates the sanction. It's specifically noted at the talk page in question that posting an edit request is an allowed exception (Quote:You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss the topic of Zak Smith on any page(except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive).
"After having the edit request being rejected with a clear explanation, reinstates the edit request" is untrue as well. There was no clear explanation regarding my request, which is why I proceeded with the reinstating.
"Starts a discussion on my talk page about Zak Smith." is untrue as well. I did not discuss the topic of Zak Smith on FDW777's talk page. I pointed out that none of the reasons for my request were addressed, and asked if this is a normal practice. It's a discussion about edit requests, not about Smith. Diff:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FDW777&diff=prev&oldid=1324131549
The additional comment "Unclear why White Spider Shadow wasn't blocked at the same time as all the other meatpuppets on Zak Smith, but it's clear they are intent on flogging the same dead horse the community has had enough of." is untrue as well, and sounds like a personal attack. It is clear why I was not blocked. My activity on WP was checked several times, and no reason for blocking me was found. Here's one link from my Talk page, more can be easily found:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:White_Spider_Shadow#c-ToBeFree-20250825232200-White_Spider_Shadow-20250825231600As for "flogging the dead horse", I doubt that improving the quality of WP articles should ever be called that.
I do not believe that requesting to bring the article to the standard worded in RFC is disruptive. Neither do I believe that an edit should be judged based on the editor's previous actions, as opposed to the edit itself.
Reopening the request certainly can be criticized, but since it was immediately reverted by a different editor, I don't think any harm was done by it.
The comment about reliability of Law360 is exactly what I asked for in my request, and it was not posted by the respondents. That's why I stated, and stand by my point, that it had not been addressed by the respondents. (Not going to discuss the other point in details, since, while I believe it, too, was not addressed, it relates to the EC-protected topic).
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests,provided they are not disruptive) (emphasis mine). WSS is the fifth most prolific editor of the Zak Smith talk page, with a whopping 73 edits since August 21. Given this, and their repeated attempts at escalation to admins and arbitrators, I would consider this request disruptive - especially reopening it with no comment at all in the edit summary or on the article's talkpage.
Stating that their reasons for the edit request were not addressed is disingenuous at best. The respondents clearly explained why their removal of text is not appropriate given the outcome of the previous RfC. Also, a simple search for Law360 on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard turns up three different topics, one specifically about BLPs, all agreeing on reliability. "I was unable to find information" implies that they looked, so I'm a little curious as to how WSS missed the most basic of resources here.
The vibe I'm getting is that this discussion didn't go the way they want, and there's a refusal to accept that (via continual challenges on technicalities and the picking of nits). At this point I can't help but suggest a topic ban at the very least; Wikipedia is built on collaboration and consensus, and while they may be a great editor for other articles, it may be best if they keep away from this one.— Precedingunsigned comment added byNekoKatsun (talk •contribs)20:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by CoffeeCrumbs
I think the infraction here is pretty clear-cut. The edit request was answered; the proper thing to have done would have been to ask for clarification, not simply reverted the decline. And the edit request wasn't a particularly good one. Simply not being disruptive isn't enough; an edit request must be non-controversial or be a modification that includes an agreed-upon consensus. Children Will Listen's comment, specifically invoked for the edit request decline, directly stated that there was no agreed-upon consensus.
This being said, I personally feel a warning would be sufficient. While I share the community's unhappiness about the brigading that has taken a real toll on this topic and been a drain on the community's time and patience, this isn't a particularly egregious violation. In addition, I think WSS's behavior reflects a good faith attempt to try and follow the EC policy: they immediately stopped discussing Zak Smith once it became EC-restricted. Unlike many other involved editors, they've also edited on many topics unrelated to Smith, and edited other articles on completely unrelated articles since the EC restrictions.
Anything more, I feel, would be needlessly punitive. I think this editor's history indicates that they're unlikely to intentionally repeat this less-than-ideal edit request interaction.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)17:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning White Spider Shadow
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
lists.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.
. If the sanction is against an IP, log it with a link to the IP. If it's against a temporary account, log it with a link to the temporary account. That shouldn't result in an "extra" disclosure simply based on the logging action. Let me know if I missed something ...Sdrqaz (talk)03:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Polygnotus's statement contains2428 words andexceeds the 500-word limit.
Longewal's statement contains492 words and complies with the 500-word limit.
