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
Onlyregistered users who areautoconfirmed may file enforcement requests here; requests filed bytemporary accounts or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as 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.
To add a quick request, copy the following text box,click to edit this section, paste in the copied text at the bottom, and replace "Heading", "Page title", "Requested action", and "Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated)" to describe the request:
=== Heading ===*{{pagelinks|Page title}}'''Requested action''': Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated).~~~~
Banned editor making Israel/Palestine edit: This editor is banned from the topic yet they made edits to this article:[1]. At the time, the top news item on the organization's website was this statement on Israel-Palestine which clearly indicates their motivation given their shared position:[2]jwtmsqeh (talk)15:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, the content of the edit does not touch upon the conflict, even when broadly construed. Also noting that Iskandar323 is currently already serving a short block for a different edit that did violate their sanction, and which post-dates the edit to the NIAC article.signed,Rosguilltalk15:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Hi, you made 221 revisions using the IABot over a period of about a week just prior to acquiring the extendedconfirmed grant. You then became active in theWikipedia:Contentious topics/Iranian politics topic area (which is not under extendedconfirmed restrictions). Did you employ the IABot to speed up your acquisition of the extendedconfirmed grant? If so, are you planning to edit in a topic area that requires the grant, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area?Sean.hoyland (talk)16:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Revert inappropriately restored material: CT in question is Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Material was added, removed in contention, and then restored. Talk discussion initiated; editor who added and restored the material has ignored repeated requests to self-rv.꧁Zanahary꧂13:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: there is talk page discussion, which doesn't seem to be going your way. An experienced editor said, on the talk page, "This topic area gets too ugly and noticeboard-happy"--and yet here we are. No, I see no violations of the agreed-upon set of behavioral and editorial practices; that the editor does not wish to self-revert is not a violation. I do, however, appreciatethis, but I urge you to take that wise editor's words to heart.Drmies (talk)15:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I brought this request to the quick ER section (unless I'm forgetting something, my first time coming to AE) because I was not seeking sanctions against any editor; when I referred darkly to noticeboards I was talking about where people go to get others blocked. I have no aversion to boards seeking uninvolved third parties to make procedural content edits.WP:ONUS is an agreed-upon editorial policy, and I would be surprised to learn that immediately restoring one's boldly-introduced new material after it is contested is standard editorial practice, let alone in a contentious topic area. Moot now, but I wanted to clear that up.꧁Zanahary꧂00:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Enforce ECR: I'm not sure how extended-confirmed enforcement is supposed to work, but there are a couple of IP editors who have taken part in the RfC, and I assume that their contributions should be struck? The RfC plainly involves Israel-Palestine issues.Samuelshraga (talk)18:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments in this thread are restricted because an administrator has placed this enforcement request under anArbitration Enforcement participation restriction (AEPR). Comments violating the restriction may be moderated or removed and may result in sanction of the commenting user.Further information on the scope of the restriction is available atWP:AEPR.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
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]
@Valereee - I fixed the diff you asked about; something went wrong with the formatting, but it should be ok now. Also, should I respond toDrmies's comments? They are an admin, but I'm unsure if I should respond because they wrote their comments outside of the admin section.Nehushtani (talk)06:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies - I don't understand your argument that "this isn't edit warring".WP:ONUS states that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Since إيان was trying to add disputed content, it was their responsibility to achieve consensus, and trying to add the contested content multiple times before achieving consensus is edit warring, not the other way around.Regarding the discussion on the talk page - My main argument is that mentioning the chants is undue for the lead as it is only tangentially related to the holiday. I said early on in the discussion on11:29, 23 November 2025 "I have consistently insisted (and still believe) that it is undue for the lead." We did digress briefly into a discussion about another page, but that was never my main contention. Whether or not something is a false equivalence is a content dispute and is not what it is being discussed at AE.Nehushtani (talk)12:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
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]
Originalcola, if you thought that Iwas clearly engaging in bludgeoning, why didn't you say so? I admittedly engaged a lot, but I thought I was engaging politely and in good faith, and there was good discussion happening in response to my arguments and questions. It didn't seem to me from the way the conversation was going that I had been doing something wrong. And as I said in my statement, when it was brought to my attention, I stopped. Regarding thefalse claim regarding case-sensitive searches, I did indeed make a mistake in seeing the "case-insensitive" tab as "case-sensitive" which I later realized andfixed from then-on.إيان (talk)10:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
QuicoleJR's accusations also appear to be rooted in a disagreement on content rather than conduct. The claimThe editor in question, after the content was removed from Jerusalem Day, added it to anti-Palestinian racism is wrong and deceptive. The thoroughly sourced content—perfectlyWP:DUE where I placed it per sourcing—is based onthis understanding, not the information removed from the lede.
Samuelshraga, thanks for your statement here and thank you for acknowledging that I was engaging politely and in good faith. It means a lot to me. I appreciate your input here as Iappreciated it at the RM.
I have acknowledged that I engaged more than I should have in the RM. Part of it was a substantialirregularity caused it to become a second RM, which Nehushtani framed into a doubled bludgeoning accusation. Anyway, I won’t engage in that way again.
I have no problem acknowledging my mistakes when I make them. I wasn’t sure how to takeif you're not familiar with how to interpret or use this kind of search tools for specific topics like this then you can ask for help from other editors—it looked like a possible taunt.If Originalcola would like a formal apology for it, I'm happy to do so,as I have for my misunderstanding the ngram case-sensitivity.Ihave apologized for comment taken as an insinuation of bad faith. 08:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC) I would have apologized at the time if they had made it known then that they took offense. (I now realize that it was genuine, but it is hard to tell through text sometimes.) I thought responding withthis appears to be condescension, which is inappropriate and I remind you to maintain WP:Civility was an appropriate, diplomatic way to both address that possibility and maintain the assumption of good faith. Same forTalk:Jerusalem Day, where I—then aware of the need to economize my words—was more terse than would be ideal, and I see how it could be misconstrued, and I can apologize there too.إيان (talk)03:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Longhornsg, my heart is indeed in the right place—thank you—and I emphatically disagree with your characterizations and conclusion. My contributions in the topic area, forexample, are of immense value to the encyclopedia.إيان (talk)06:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also,this is notresorted to accusing me of WP:BADFAITH.
I'm afraid Ayan's response goes to show exactly the problem Nehushtani complains about: a total failure to understand Wikipedia rules when it comes to this extremely sensitive topic. As someone involved in the same discussion, I saw the same issue: Ayan is trying to promote a very controversial piece of information to the lead of an article about a public holiday in Israel, but when the conversation doesn't go the way they wanted, they seem to have decided to force their version despite clear opposition. Wikipedia has enough bias issues and this kind of behavior just makes it worse. Ayan's denial of the issues that appear here, which I learn they are not doing for the first time, having already been warned by this very forum, require a good answer.BlookyNapsta (talk)15:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR's comments about POV pushing are really disturbing. If Ayan's behavior includes not only edit warring and bludgeoning but also activist-style edits meant to distort our coverage of ARBPIA topics, that should be remedied asap. I saw more examples of this happening just yesterday on30 November 2025 toTalk:Six-Day War. After two failed attempts to change the article's name because of alleged "POV title", Ayan now claims that "the occupations and displacements" are "the most prominent features of the war". The very suggestion that "displacements" were "the most prominent" feature of the war goes directly against any serious coverage of the topic in scholarship.
Another article -Zionism in Morocco - written from scratch by Ayan also shows clear bias. "Zionism ... the 19th century ethnocultural nationalist movement to establish a Jewish state through the colonization of Palestine" - Calling Zionism "colonization" reflects a specific political framing which is not agreed about in academic literature. Similarly, the article refers several times to Zionist activities as "propaganda", but does not use this phrase for other political actors. The article also states that "Initially, Mossad Le'Aliyah agents exploited poverty to motivate Jews to leave"; using the word "exploited" is clearly POV and judgmental.
These actions around the articles on the Six-Day War and on Zionism in Morocco, which seem to try to rewrite historical events to serve a clear agenda, seem to be just a few examples of a wider attempt to expand the bias that is ruining Wikipedia's credibility (which are not noticed only by me, but also by Wikipedia's founders).BlookyNapsta (talk)09:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I keep seeing more of this happening. Yesterday, on3 December 2025, at 1948 Palestine war, they reverted a constructive edit without even attempting to explain why they were reverting. This constructive edit did justice with the article, and seems to have fixed the very activistic "Zionist forces... established Israel" - as if it was established by a militia - with the facts: "The JewishYishuv... established Israel", and added a mention of atrocities against Jews in the war to improve NPOV since the lead did not mention these. According toWP:REVERT: "Rather than reverting entirely, consider improving the edit to enhance the article's quality. .. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." That may suggest that Ayan is not interested in the improvement of the encyclopedia, as constructive editing is not in their head. In itself, this wouldn't require a severe sanction, but this clear stonewalling, alongside the other examples provided here of POV pushing, edit warring, bludgeoning, synth and BLP violations, all connected to the promotion of a certain POV on Wikipedia, point to an editor who isWP:NOTHERE (see "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia") and should be driven out of this topic area.BlookyNapsta (talk)07:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee - I find the suggestion that a page ban for Ayan would solve the much broader issues reported here, including bludgeoning, edit warring, synth BLP violations, and possibly also POV pushing, not helpful. This would not improve the situation in ARBPIA at all. An editor that acts this wayconsistently, as the diffs here clearly show, should be held accountable. This editor already received a logged warning here, on WP:AE, asking them "to remain civil, assume good faith of other editors, and avoid inflammatory remarks". This kind of recurring behavior is clearly not something we can solve with a page ban. That behavior would continue everywhere else. 13:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC) (edit: I've just noticed Valereee's comment regarding participation, my bad, sorry. though my thoughts still stand).BlookyNapsta (talk)13:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your description of "Uncivil behavior and violations of WP:AGF" seems rather inaccurate. They asked you to come to talk to discuss & but you didn't respond until other editors got involved.
The comment you're quoting for "not policy based" actually read "Not a source or policy-based argument." The comment they were replying to was in response to my comment saying it was WP:DUE & backed by sources, so saying you disagree without supplying your own sources is unhelpful.
I don't believe asking for someone to explain their reasoning or cite a source for their !vote isWP:BLUDGEONING as long as they don't badger them further.
If there was edit warring in this situation, the sequence of events indicates that it is Nehushtani who have engaged in edit warring. إيان opened a talk-page thread on 16 November immediately after the first revert, but Nehushtani did not participate in that discussion. When another editor reverted the Nehushtani on 21st, Nehushtani edit warred with them. إيان then reverted Nehushtani and requested to engage on the talk page. Nehushtani engaged after this.
Rather than using the existing talk-page discussion to seek consensus,Nehushtani continued reverting. It is not appropriate to revert repeatedly without participating in discussion, and then characterize the other party as the one edit-warring. Editors are expected to collaborate and engage in talk page discussions in a timely manner, in line with WP:CONSENSUS.
The evidence does not substantiate the claim that إيان was the party engaged in edit warring. Accordingly,I ask that the enforcement request be dismissed.Cinaroot (talk)09:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding @إيان's response to my statement, I just chose to disengage as I didn't think it was productive to continue. I had pointed out the mistake you made regarding case-sensitive searches and issues with some of the metrics you had been using ina reply to you somewhat early in the conversation, and I didn't want to continue that line of discussion at the time given the lack of acknowledgement andthe aforementioned incivility accusation. Honestly I expected that either you would withdraw your request or someone else would close the discussion early given that there seemed to be a clear-cut consensus.Originalcola (talk)19:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question, after the content was removed fromJerusalem Day,added it toanti-Palestinian racism. They have alsoadded the chant to the See Also section ofglobalize the intifada, and are the creator of theMay Your Village Burn article which they are trying to add content about to other articles. Furthermore, upon reviewing their recent contributions, it would appear that most of their recent editing consists of expanding on controversies and negative coverage of Israel and their supporters, as can be seenhere (see alsothis related POV edit),here,here (which was another insertion of content related to an article they created), andhere. Nehushtani's conduct has also been subpar in this topic area, but adding this to the OP's report shows that the user in question is a clear POV pusher, which the topic area certainly needs less of. IMO a topic ban is unfortunately warranted to avoid further POV pushing, although I could also see a balanced editing restriction being passed as a lighter sanction.QuicoleJR (talk)20:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I wasn't trying to imply that we shouldn't cover negative information about Israel, just that you seemed to be expanding on it as much as possible in as many places as possible, and that it seemed to be your primary purpose on Wikipedia. I also don't think there's anything wrong with you writing that article, but it was helpful context to you adding mentions of it to three other pages. I think your invocation ofWikipedia:Systemic bias shows the issue here; pro-Palestine POVs are not systematically underrepresented on Wikipedia, and trying to remedy that non-existent bias by adding a pro-Palestine bias is POV pushing, which is a conduct issue. For the record, I was not involved with any of this before finding this AE report.QuicoleJR (talk)19:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in the Six-Day War RM. I think إيان probably did enter bludgeoning territory (there was a lot of repetition the same arguments). The bludgeoning was aboutWP:COMMONNAME[3][4][5][6], then about the article naming policies ofWP:CRITERIA andWP:POVTITLE[7][8][9][10]. I think there was also a certain measure ofWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - إيان was corrected on both issues repeatedly by multiple editors over the course of weeks. That said, إيان did (finally) accept that their case aboutWP:COMMONNAME was flawed[11], and did ultimately stop engaging when told they were approaching a word limit.
In isolation, I wouldn't consider the conduct in the Six-Day War RMs worthy of sanction, especially not if إيان understands where they went amiss. Based on the statement above that the accusations of bludgeoning arecontrived, we're not quite there. @إيان, you said above on this issue:I thought I was engaging politely and in good faith. You were! But that doesn't mean you didn't bludgeon, and when OriginalCola pointed out where you went wrong, you accused them of being uncivil.[12] I think you should reconsider doubling down on this - making a mistake like this is not the end of the world, especially not if you can recognise it.
No comment either way on the rest of the evidence, other than the response to 2:I placed the link to the explanatory essay there for the benefit of all without making any accusation about anyone doing it. Erm... no, that's not how anyone would have read this, it's clearly an accusation - more an explicit than an implied one.Samuelshraga (talk)07:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their heart is in the right place, but I've had a number of interactions with this user in PIA that do not give me great confidence that they can contributeproductively constructively to this topic area without the exertion of a substantial amount of community time to rectify policy violations.
My experiences aren't content disputes.WP:SYNTH is a violation of policy. SYNTH on a BLP is worse. See the examples and conversation atTalk:Jordana_Cutler#SYNTH-y mess as an example, with the editor as the offender. This came after I had towarn the user for additional SYNTH violations in PIA. Concerningly, while the editor perfunctorily acknowledged the issue, theydefended their use of SYNTH and resorted to accusing me ofWP:BADFAITH. This is exactly what the user waswarned not to do by AE consensus just over a month ago.Longhornsg (talk)03:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And a bit ofWP:CIR.This edit mispresented the source and just made up the responsible cyber unit. Andthis edit represented a source as being from 2025, when its clearly written in 2023, and would make no sense to be written in 2025. All told. I've had to remove more than 5,300 characters, one-third of thetotal article, from a BLP because of SYNTH violations. This is not acceptable in this topic area.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLonghornsg (talk •contribs)04:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
@إيان: In response to your request, your word limit has been extended to 850 words. I have removed the subheading"Additional comments by editor against whom the complaint is being filed" to fix the edit counter for your section. — Newslingertalk18:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason we haven't restricted participation here? I feel like seven commenters, causing the subject to feel like they have to address every comment, and then the commenters are responding to their responses...I feel like it's exactly whatthe participation restriction was created to prevent. I haven't been working at AE since that was put in place, though, maybe this doesn't feel like too much to others here?Valereee (talk)10:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No more from anyone except the subject and filer perthis.إيان andNehushtani, no more respondingto anyone but admins working here who ask you a question. No further additional words will be granted except to answer questions from admins. Any uninvolved admin should feel free to adjust this.Valereee (talk)12:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All right, as best I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't need either of these editors atJerusalem Day. I propose an indef p-block of both from that article, allowing them to continue to discuss at the article talk.I will wait for other admins to chime in.Valereee (talk)13:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies, oh, sorry, I thought (and another editor asked me about it my talk) you were saying you objected to the participation restriction, not the proposed pblock!Valereee (talk)16:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to other admins working here: see above that Drmies is commenting as an uninvolved admin objecting to the pblock for إيان. I'm assuming comments outside of the results section by uninvolved admins aren't excluded by the participation restriction.Valereee (talk)16:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nehushtani, yes, you can reply to Drmies, as they're an uninvolved admin who mentioned you (and thanks for asking first, this exact situation wasn't something I'd thought of. In future I'd make it "uninvolved admins" rather than "admins working here".)Valereee (talk)11:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[I've moved my comments from the "other editors" section to the "uninvolved administrators" section: I am uninvolved, after all, and AE matters need resolution.Drmies (talk)14:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)][reply]
I'm only looking at items 1 and 2 now. The charge of edit warring on Jerusalem Day is--well it's not even weak. Nehushtani has "edit warred" as much as the other editor has, meaning, meh, this isn't edit warring. The charge in 2. is more exciting, because Nehushtani argues that the editor has been disrupting the regular process--yet when I look at the discussion I see inane comments like "According to this logic, we should mention antisemitic chants in the leads of articles about pro-Palestinian eve...". But the "logic" was that it was well covered, extensively covered, inthis article. So إيان says "UNDUE"--and this is predictably followed by "you're UNDUE". "False equivalence" says Butterscotch Beluga, and they are correct, but Nehushtani pushes this argument for Land Day as well, as if all those things are equal. If anyone is stonewalling, it's them, and that's what this AE request seems to be about as well: tying up editors with vexatious procedures. I may still have a look at the other items but if 1 and 2 are the strongest ones, then it's clear to me that if anything, Nehushtani might well deserve a topic ban.Drmies (talk)21:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, you proposed p-blocking them from Jerusalem Day, didn't you? I disagree with that. As to your other question--no, I'm not INVOLVED in any sense, it's an area in which I rarely edit (I wish I knew more languages), but since my ArbCom period I've sort of lost track of how all these arbitration procedures work, so I prefer to be onthis side of the fence in many cases, unless they're pretty straightforward. (Honestly I don't know how so many people are able to navigate these arbitration waters--my ship has sailed.) Thanks,Drmies (talk)14:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nehushtani, in my opinion the other editor's action in that article did not amount to edit warring in any meaningful sense, and if a hammer is to be brought down on those edits, that applies to yours just as much. Edit warring is a two-way street. The false equivalence I and others signaled on the talk page is a bit more than, what did you call it--a side step? A brief digression--but such digressions easily become disruptive, and that's what happened here: you were in fact using another example as an argument for this article, and so other editors had to go look at that, respond to it, etc. You said it was about content: no, it was derailing and stonewalling, and this AE request, it's hard not to see it as a means to get an editor out of the way. Yes, I think the project would benefit from a partial block on Jerusalem Day and its talk page for you, with a warning to not extend such lines of arguing elsewhere. And one more note forUser:إيان: I chastised your opponent for saying "you're UNDUE", but I urge you to use more words, to respond/criticize in complete sentences with a bit more decorum, as unnecessary as this may seem to you.Drmies (talk)15:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nehushtani: In the future, would you please list the diffs one by one, with each diff in a separate list item? It would be easier for all participants to refer to the number of the list item than to link to the diff itself. — Newslingertalk00:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The activity on theJerusalem Day article does constitute edit warring, but I count three reverts from Nehushtani (07:05, 16 November 2025;07:18, 17 November 2025; and06:34, 23 November 2025) and two reverts from إيان (09:00, 23 November 2025;04:13, 25 November 2025). Nehushtani's first revert is not considered edit warring, but that leaves two instances of edit warring for each editor, which means that any sanction tied specifically to the edit warring should be applied evenly to both editors. In my opinion, Valereee's proposed partial block for both editors and Drmies's decision to disregard the edit warring are both reasonable outcomes for the edit warring. Please remember thatrevert rules are"not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times".I do not believe the diffs of the discussion onTalk:Jerusalem Day are actionable. إيان's activity onTalk:Six-Day War does constitutebludgeoning, and warrants a reminder or warning; although"Editors [are]limited to 1,000 words per formal discussion" withinthis contentious topic, this word limit is also not an entitlement and you could have raised the same points with far fewer comments. The claimed violations ofWP:SYNTH may be actionable, but the first comment inTalk:Jordana Cutler § SYNTH-y mess also invokesWP:BIASED ("reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective"), which makes the argument unclear. — Newslingertalk00:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is actionable misconduct in this request for enforcement. Dealing with the allegations in turn: 1.) The chant-related edits amounted to edit warring. These breaches were particularly serious in view of the attempts at discussion ongoing on the talk page. 2.) I agree with the filer's characterisation: the talk page comments were significantly inaccurate as descriptions of Nehushtani's earlier comments. While that may have been a legitimate misunderstanding, the user doubled down when corrected.WP:DR#Discuss with the other party is Wikipedia policy and is incompatible with this sort of approach to discussions. 3.) If this crosses into the territory of bludgeoning, it does so only briefly and I don't consider it actionable. 4.) There are two allegations here, neither actionable. The comments at the RM do not cross into bludgeoning. The Gaza genocide talk page comments do not do so either, not even remotely. 5.) Contrary to what the user said above, the Jordana Cutler edits are within the scope of this complaint.WP:OR is a content policy but there is also aconduct expectation that users make proper use of reliable sources.Responding to this allegation's inclusion in this complaint (the relevant paragraph begins withThe SYNTH accusation), the user demonstrated a concerning tendency towardsWP:IDHT. As the user has admitted thatthe edit violated policy, I do not think we require to look behind the allegation. For completeness, I did review the Nation source and found it lacked any support for the article's assertion that the MSA itself surveils overseas protesters.
In view of all this, while I support at minimum the p-block proposal above, I would go further and support a topic ban of the user, based upon allegations 1, 2 and 5. I do not think that the proposedWP:BOOMERANG sanction for the filing user is necessary, but I would not oppose should others feel it appropriate.Arcticocean ■12:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing this portion of my comment, as I don't think it quite fits the situation, given the talk discussion (though it wasn't concluded during the reverts). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬)02:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An initial bold addition and then revert are, obviously, not violative ofWP:EW orWP:ONUS. But once you summarily reinstate your bold edit, you are (as a general matter in circumstances like these) shrugging off your onus and indicating that you would like to resolve the dispute not by discussion but by force of will:let's see who will give up first. Then by repeating their revert of the bold edit, the other editor is accepting that challenge (that is, the edit war). That is especially so in a highly contentious topic like this, especially where 1RR has been imposed. In a contentious topic, editors"must edit carefully ... and ... comply with all applicable policies" (including EW and ONUS) or they can be sanctioned at the discretion of an admin. To make the sanction fit the offense, I would impose revert restrictions on both editors: Do not reinstate your bold additions without consensus and do not repeat your reverts without consensus (both applicable to PIA and subject to theusual exceptions). As an initial matter I would impose this restriction for, say, 90 days.
If there is a need to remove them fromJerusalem Day, I would strongly prefer a page ban to a pblock (especially an indefinite one that could only be lifted viaCT-restricted appeals), since a block is much more of ascarlet letter (due to, e.g., fairly commonuse of the markblocked gadget by prolific/extended-confirmed editors) and since there isn't reason to believe these editors wouldn't comply with a page ban. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬)17:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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]
Theactivities of a different editor in a different case are wholly relevant perWP:MEAT,"For the purpose ofdispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." All your behaviour is the same as Slacker13 (unsurprisingly some might say) so you should be treated as simply another Slacker13 sockpuppet.FDW777 (talk)16:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
White Spider Shadow's statement contains662 words andexceeds the 500-word limit.
Hi. The request made by FDW777 contains several untrue statements. "Posts an edit request, while not extended confirmed" is not an edit that violates the sanction. It's specifically noted at the talk page in question that posting an edit request is an allowed exception (Quote:You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss the topic of Zak Smith on any page(except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive).
"After having the edit request being rejected with a clear explanation, reinstates the edit request" is untrue as well. There was no clear explanation regarding my request, which is why I proceeded with the reinstating.
"Starts a discussion on my talk page about Zak Smith." is untrue as well. I did not discuss the topic of Zak Smith on FDW777's talk page. I pointed out that none of the reasons for my request were addressed, and asked if this is a normal practice. It's a discussion about edit requests, not about Smith. Diff:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FDW777&diff=prev&oldid=1324131549
The additional comment "Unclear why White Spider Shadow wasn't blocked at the same time as all the other meatpuppets on Zak Smith, but it's clear they are intent on flogging the same dead horse the community has had enough of." is untrue as well, and sounds like a personal attack. It is clear why I was not blocked. My activity on WP was checked several times, and no reason for blocking me was found. Here's one link from my Talk page, more can be easily found:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:White_Spider_Shadow#c-ToBeFree-20250825232200-White_Spider_Shadow-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).
The claims about my edits at the Zak Smith talk page seem to be manipulative. A) The editor whose behaviour I had addressed had since admitted that their claims about me were baseless, and agreed to remove them. I provided the link, as requested. B) Those edits have no relation to the current request, and no action against me was taken when they were made, despite the Talk page being quite active at the time, with some administrators participating in one way or another.White Spider Shadow (talk)02:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NekoKatsun's statement contains438 words and complies with the 500-word limit.
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests,provided they are not disruptive) (emphasis mine). WSS is the fifth most prolific editor of the Zak Smith talk page, with a whopping 73 edits since August 21. Given this, and their repeated attempts at escalation to admins and arbitrators, I would consider this request disruptive - especially reopening it with no comment at all in the edit summary or on the article's talkpage.
Stating that their reasons for the edit request were not addressed is disingenuous at best. The respondents clearly explained why their removal of text is not appropriate given the outcome of the previous RfC. Also, a simple search for Law360 on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard turns up three different topics, one specifically about BLPs, all agreeing on reliability. "I was unable to find information" implies that they looked, so I'm a little curious as to how WSS missed the most basic of resources here.
The vibe I'm getting is that this discussion didn't go the way they want, and there's a refusal to accept that (via continual challenges on technicalities and the picking of nits). At this point I can't help but suggest a topic ban at the very least; Wikipedia is built on collaboration and consensus, and while they may be a great editor for other articles, it may be best if they keep away from this one.— Precedingunsigned comment added byNekoKatsun (talk •contribs)20:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@White Spider Shadow: I actually would like to see your mentioned diffs regarding"A) The editor whose behaviour I had addressed had since admitted that their claims about me were baseless, and agreed to remove them." Also, with all due respect, I believe that the diffs provided byAquillion (and Aquillion, please let me know if I'm misinterpreting) are intended to demonstrate that "the current request" is not an isolated one-off - it (the request) cannot be considered in a void. The issue is not ifthis specific request is a problem, it's if this request is indicative of a continuing and/or escalating pattern of behavior on your part.NekoKatsun (nyaa)17:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!"...[a]dmitted that their claims about me were baseless, and agreed to remove them" is avery generous interpretation - the user in question,MilesVorkosigan, agreed to"stop pointing out that you're supporting a sex creep, you're correct that I don't have explicit evidence that you're doing it on purpose" and struck through aportion of a comment on the article talkpage. Regardless, I appreciate the clarification.NekoKatsun (nyaa)21:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CoffeeCrumbs's statement contains206 words and complies with the 500-word limit.
I think the infraction here is pretty clear-cut. The edit request was answered; the proper thing to have done would have been to ask for clarification, not simply reverted the decline. And the edit request wasn't a particularly good one. Simply not being disruptive isn't enough; an edit request must be non-controversial or be a modification that includes an agreed-upon consensus. Children Will Listen's comment, specifically invoked for the edit request decline, directly stated that there was no agreed-upon consensus.
This being said, I personally feel a warning would be sufficient. While I share the community's unhappiness about the brigading that has taken a real toll on this topic and been a drain on the community's time and patience, this isn't a particularly egregious violation. In addition, I think WSS's behavior reflects a good faith attempt to try and follow the EC policy: they immediately stopped discussing Zak Smith once it became EC-restricted. Unlike many other involved editors, they've also edited on many topics unrelated to Smith, and edited other articles on completely unrelated articles since the EC restrictions.
Anything more, I feel, would be needlessly punitive. I think this editor's history indicates that they're unlikely to intentionally repeat this less-than-ideal edit request interaction.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)17:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion's statement contains227 words and complies with the 500-word limit.
For context, between their first contribution to the recent controversy atTalk:Zak Smith and the page getting an extended-confirmed restriction a little over a month later, White Spider Shadow posted 71 times on the page,around 12% of the total. This continued even after an RFC intended to settle the issue; in fact, the extended-confirmed protection itself was imposed afterWhite Spider Shadow went to ArbCom after the RFC, effectively asking them to overturn it.
More examples of the repetition:[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] - honestly this was the worst part; they stubbornly refused toWP:DROPTHESTICK, despite multiple RFCs reaching the same conclusion, despite dragging the matter to ArbCom and getting a result that functionally removed them from the page, and despite havingalmost no new arguments, they'd just constantly repeat the same thing over and over and over, demanding that everyone answer their questions to their satisfaction.
A topic-ban from Zak Smith seems like the bare minimum, especially since in retrospect (looking at contribution numbers, and keeping in mind themost prolific contributor in that timeframe was already topic-banned) the extended-confirmed restriction can reasonably be described as having removed White Spider Shadowspecifically from the article's talk page. --Aquillion (talk)22:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments in this thread are restricted because an administrator has placed this enforcement request under anArbitration Enforcement participation restriction (AEPR). Comments violating the restriction may be moderated or removed and may result in sanction of the commenting user.Further information on the scope of the restriction is available atWP:AEPR.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
09:24, 29 November 2025 - They wrote a statement against me on a complaint I had filed in AE against another user and claimed to be "un-involved". They were in fact uninvolved in the dispute that they were writing about, but they should have disclosed that we were involved in a dispute in the talk page, and I do not believe this was a coincidence.
6 November 2025 They tagged only "people they like" on a talk page discussion. I warned them on6 November 2025 and another user warned them for the same edit on7 November 2025 forWP:CANVASSING. While it may technically not be a violation since it was an informal discussion, it seems inappropriate to tag only certain users to a followup on a discussion on a contreversial topic.
@Cinaroot - The claim that this filing is retaliatory is incorrect considering that I told you the day before08:34, 28 November 2025 that "This is the third and last time I will ask you. If you do not revert, I will have no choice but to take it to AE." Your support for إيان was only after this warning.Nehushtani (talk)07:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger - There is an ongoing talk page discussion about whether to include the phrase in question. As perWP:ONUS, it should not be included in the article until there is consensus.Cinaroot violated 1RR to restore the contested content, violating both 1RR and ONUS, it was removed byCoining at15:37, 23 November 2025, and then restored byM.Bitton less than an hour later at16:15, 23 November 2025; this is the version that currently stands. Cinaroot wrote on06:08, 28 November 2025 that "I do not believe it is appropriate to revert it solely to comply with 1RR, as that would only create further disruption." But on the contrary, the disruptive behavior is that of the editors who were violatingWP:ONUS and edit warring contested material despite an ongoing discussion.
@Newslinger - Can you please clarify where the line is betweenWP:TITFORTAT and asking somebody to revert their 1RR violation? I simply saw that @Cinaroot had violated 1RR in their original third edit, and I asked them to revert. Does the fact that another pair of editors had reverted and restored the contested version in between mean that it is no longer a 1RR violation that they're supposed to revert? Or does that mean the person restoring the contested content is responsible for edit warring? Thanks in advance for the clarification!Nehushtani (talk)09:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton - My understanding is that ONUS applies whenever there is an ongoing discussion. And in this case, there was no stable content; it had been edit warred in and out several times over the previous week. As far as I know, restoring disputed content that has been removed multiple times, without achieving consensus is a textbook case of edit warring.Nehushtani (talk)12:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nehushtani appears to be attempting to weaponize AE and target editor(s) they disapprove. The 1RR issue cited here is between Originalcola and myself, not Nehushtani. Nehushtani wasnot involved in the discussion on thearticle talk page — where I clearly stated that Originalcola was free to revert me. Originalcola also explicitly responded withIdeally I’d like you to self-revert, but if you don’t see this that’s fine
After Nehushtani targeted me and inserted themselves into the situation onmy talk, I again asked Originalcola on my talk page whether they wished for me to self-revert. Their reply was:I am not entirely sure if you need to self-revert the third revert, right? — which confirms that there was no clear expectation that I revert myself. Another reason I did not revert is that multiple editors had already reverted it[31][32], anda talk-page discussion was underway. Reverting again would only have led to further disruption and 1RR policy shouldn’t be applied through an overly rigid or literal interpretation without considering the underlying principles and context.
I alsodo not thinkmy first edit qualifies as a revert. I asked about in admin noticeboard. No one has responded.Edit_or_Revert Removing or relocating content can be a normal part of editing, and in this case the purpose was to create a new section while retaining most of the material from the original one.
Regarding thestatement i made in the case against إيان: I am indeed an uninvolved editor, as I was not part of that dispute. I did participated in the RfCtoday, after submitting my statement. My dispute with Nehushtani does not prohibit me from making a statement on any AE and nor does it relate to AE against إيان. There is no requirement that you must disclose all prior disputes or disagreements with another editor in unrelated discussions. Mystatements here are in good faith.
The canvassing accusation is baseless. It was aninformal discussion that could not result in any change to the Contentious topic article title. I am free to notify or tag any editors I choose, as I have already explainedhere andhere. Please also note that - i tagged 2 editors who opposed and supported fromprevious discussion.Cinaroot (talk)20:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Originalcola I only formed the view that Nehushtani is weaponizing AE after they filed the request against me — not before. My statement in support of إيان was made prior to the AE request concerning me.Cinaroot (talk)19:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger Inthis edit, Nehushtani stated that I “didn’t tag anypro-Israel editors,” which implies that the editors I did notify are “pro-Palestinian.” Inanother edit, they accused a different editor of “taking the pro-Palestinian side.” Assigning political identities to editors is inappropriate in ARBPIA, constitutes a personal attack, and violatesWP:AGF andWP:ASPERSIONS.
@Metallurgist Please do not allege serious conduct issues like POV-pushing without providing solid evidence. Impressions based on my poor choice of words and insinuations are not valid evidence.
Violating 1RR is an affront to the community as a whole. It is not averted when the party being reverted agrees for the revert to stand, much less when they say that they would prefer that the offending editor reverts. Similarly, the claim thatNehushtani isn't a party in this dispute is misplaced, since 1RR is a community standard and not a method for resolving disputes between specific editors. Cinaroot should have self-reverted as soon as they were informed of the violation, and that they didn't should be grounds for sanctions.
Regarding "weaponizing AE" - If legitimate CTOP violations brought to AE are labeled as "weaponizing", we are in big trouble.
The other two edits may not have been technical violations of policy, but they add to the evidence that Cinaroot should not be participating in in CTOP if this is reflective of their behavior. Pinging only editors who share similar views on the IP conflict to a follow up discussion is inappropriate, as is writing a note on AE against an editor with whom that they are currently in the middle of a dispute without disclosing that.BlookyNapsta (talk)13:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton - @Cinaroot violated 1RR while also adding contested content which is still under discussion.Wikipedia:ONUS states that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." In keeping with the combination ofWikipedia:1RR andWikipedia:ONUS, I believe that they should revert - as in, remove the content in question, which currently appears in the article - until there is a clear consensus to include it, and your own restoration of this disputed content is in itself edit warring.BlookyNapsta (talk)08:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlookyNapsta: since self-reverting means reverting one's edit and not someone else's, asking them to "self-revert" in this instance is akin to asking them to edit war (a request that should be ignored). As for thestable content: it's there because someone else restored what was removed without a valid reason.M.Bitton (talk)13:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I am involved in the claimed canvassing by Cinaroot, having been tagged by them, I have to say, it doesn't seem to be a clear cut case of potential canvassing. The discussion that Cinaroot started on the talk page for the article (Open (Transparency)) was an informal discussion about a future potential RfC. This informal discussion was off the back of a previous RM started by Cinaroot to rename the article, which saw a conclusion that the article would not be moved to Cinaroot's suggested new title. As most people who opposed this specific move were open to and even suggested potential alternate move targets, Cinaroot wanted to explore potential alternatives further before starting any more formal process in the future. In this informal discussion Cinaroot chose to tag four people from the previous RM for potential input. Of these four people, two had supported the move, and two had opposed it (including myself). As can be seen in thearchived discussion, I wasstrongly against the suggested move. So while pickingpeople [you] like may indicate partisanship (Partisan (Audience)), the choice to pick an equal amount of individuals who supported your position and opposed it, suggests the opposite (Nonpartisan (Audience)). The last two categories we have at WP:CANVASSING for an inappropriate notification on Scale and Message I also don't think are inappropriate as it was the single message on the article talk page (Limited posting), and while the message that is the start of the informal discussion details the bias that is Cinaroot's position, Cinaroot is explicit that this istheir opinion, and they want input from others as to what potential future formal discussions could be (Neutral (Message)). --Cdjp1 (talk)16:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find the assertion that this is an issue between 2 editors to be extremely misleading, given that he had also reverted the edit of @IOHANNVSVERVS in his firstWP:1RR violation. The issue involving me specifcally refers to his reversion of a revert that I had made on the page following [a discussion on the Gaza Genocide talk page]. I am still unsure about what the resolution of the discussion was meant to be, or if it was an RfC or not. The mod who had closed the discussion offered to give an explanation but was injured in a car crash and unable to respond to comments as a result, and many editors who were not involved in the original discussion suggested that the conclusion of the discussion differed from what I thought it was which left me confused.
The editor proposed that I could revert their edit in their edit summary and in the talk page. I had not noticed at the time that they had made multiple reverts in a 24 hour time period, so I did not initially insist that they self-revert in the talk page. I was kind of taken aback when they suggested that I should revert their edit and break theWP:1RR myself, which made me think that the request was not sincere. When I was asked again I stated that they should've done so earlier and that I was presently not sure if they needed to revert given that intermediate edits had been made since then. Cinaroot did say that he would revert the edit if I made an explicit request, but this shouldn't have occurred to begin with. I stated that they should have reverted as soon as it was pointed out to them(by both me on the talk page and Nehustani) that they had brokenWP:1RR, statingi don't see a point in reverting it just for the sake of 1RR and thatWhile we should follow these rules, it’s equally important to understand why those rules exist. Policies shouldn’t be applied through an overly rigid or literal interpretation without considering the underlying principles. This is also not the only time that this editor has broken theWP:1RR on this page, as they did so around one month prior:[33][34][35]. The justification that was given to me when I raised this concern was that the content wasremoved as part of talk discussions. Seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_20#Are_protest_images_relevant_here?, but this is only not true for all the content removed but also irrelevant to this issue.
I also find it concerning that they claimed to be an uninvolved editor in another AE, which seems to be directly contradicted by the seperate claim thatNehushtani appears to be attempting to weaponize AE and target editor(s) they disapprove. The fact that they held this view after earlier claiming to have accidently violatedWP:1RR is weird, since it appears to be an extreme assumption of bad faith towards Nehushtani. Either way they should not have portrayed themselves as uninvolved given that the 2 editors were involved in a dispute.Originalcola (talk)22:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cinaroot has seemed to be POV pushing and trying to force their views onto articles all over PIA, which has been concerning. They seem heavily focused on that area to the point of bordering onWP:SPA. The instance where I felt they were canvassing was not directly canvassing for support, but did give an unsavory appearance. Even tagging for and against, they still mentioned tagging editors they liked, which was selective and entirely unnecessary. I did agree with the discussion proposal, but to not include all involved editors is disingenuous. I would have made it myself, but I knew it would involve tagging a large number of people. In light of that, it would have been best to just tag no one. Im also wondering why they archived the entire talkpage ofPalestinian genocide accusation[36][37][38]. As it is, that issue is still unresolved. TheRFC onIsrael also looks like an attempt at POV pushing. In a lot of these cases, what they want is already mentioned, and they are trying to push it further along beyond what is reasonable. I think some sort of PIA restriction for awhile might be in order, at least to see if they are willing to broaden their contributions. ← Metallurgist (talk)06:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
re:They seem heavily focused on that area to the point of bordering on WP:SPA. 'seem' is probably not very reliable. I don't know how to test whether an account qualifies as single purpose, but we can label revisions and count them. If you do that for Cinaroot using the strictest possible model of the topic area, pages where ECR applies to the entire page (and talk page), Cinaroot has made 32.3% of their post-extendedconfirmed edits in the topic area. A few comparisons for interest: Originalcola: 37.4%, Nehushtani: 24.3%, BlookyNapsta: 16.3%, Cdjp1: 7.4%. I am an SPA, as it states on my user page, or at least that is my intent, to only carry out PIA related actions, and my post-extendedconfirmed percentage is 55%. Metallurgist, you are 17.3% for interest. These are all undercounts somewhat in that they don't include edits to pages only partly covered by ECR, but it gives you some idea of the numbers.Sean.hoyland (talk)07:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I worked with Cinaroot onElon Musk and found them to be a thoughtful and helpful editor. Couldn’t just a warning be sufficient here? This seems purely punitive with no clear benefit to the encyclopedia.Iljhgtn (talk)07:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nehushtani: We have identified that Cinaroot's first edit (03:24, 22 November 2025) is a partial revert, so it was acceptable for you to tell Cinaroot that you would file an AE report against them if they did not undo their second revert (07:19, 22 November 2025), because that second revert violatedWP:1RR and was still present in the article at the time of your comment. However, it is not acceptable to tell an editor that you will file an AE report against them unless they undo someone else's edit. Cinaroot's third edit (02:00, 23 November 2025) had already been reverted by another editor when you posted the comment, which means that Cinaroot was no longer obligated to remove the content at that point, despite it still being anotherWP:1RR violation. The content was then restored byM.Bitton, who assumes responsibility for the content.M.Bitton's restoration of the disputed content was not compliant withWP:ONUS, but that is out of the scope of this enforcement request ("The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported"). — Newslingertalk10:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: Corrected again. I have traced the content addition slightly further back to this22:04, 5 October 2025, edit by another editor. Based on the age of this content and the fact that it had been discussed on the talk page, I would considerWP:ONUS to be met, although I am noting this observation solely to ensure that the record here is accurate, as it is of limited relevance to this enforcement request. — Newslingertalk18:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinaroot: Pinging only four editors in your07:32, 6 November 2025, edit was inappropriate. This is mitigated by your selection of two editors who supported and two editors who opposed the move request atTalk:Palestinian genocide accusation/Archive 3 § Requested move 26 September 2025, which is proportional to the"~28 editors" who supported and"~28 editors" who opposed the move request (per the closing summary). Nevertheless, whether you"like" an editor is not a neutral criterion for selecting editors to ping. If you wish to ping editors who participated in a related discussion, you should ideally ping all of the editors or none at all. — Newslingertalk09:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No more from anyone except the subject and filer perthis.Cinaroot andNehushtani, no more respondingto anyone but admins working here who ask you a question. No further additional words will be granted except to answer questions from admins. Any uninvolved admin should feel free to adjust this.Valereee (talk)12:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm proposing a two-week block of Cinaroot for violating 1RR, as they've previously been blocked for a week for the same issue.I will wait for other admins to chime in.Valereee (talk)13:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also support a two-week block of Cinaroot for breachingWP:1RR in light of the prior block. Additionally, as part of the claims in the filing are valid, Cinaroot should be either reminded or warned not tocast aspersions (i.e. claiming that an editor"appears to be attempting to weaponize AE and target editor(s) they disapprove"). I do not believe any of the other presented evidence is actionable against Cinaroot specifically.WP:1RR has failed to prevent edit warring on theGaza genocide article, which is high-profile enough for multiple editors to engage in excessive back-and-forth reverting, sometimes over an extended period of time. I also support implementing theconsensus required restriction on the article to reduce the level of disruption. Participating editors may be interested in maintaining a list of points onTalk:Gaza genocide that constitute the current consensus, as seen in the exampleTalk:Donald Trump § Current consensus. — Newslingertalk08:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On my user talk page, Cinaroot suggested that their prior block (16–17 months ago) was too far in the past to warrant a block. When I asked if they had an alternative restriction in mind, Cinaroot offered to"take a logged self article ban, whether for one or two weeks" instead of a block. I am posting this here for consideration, although I believe that a 1–2 week block would be a more typical outcome for this case. — Newslingertalk22:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier block was also for a 1RR vio with refusal to self-revert in the same CT, it looks like. I'd be willing to consider alternatives, though.
Maybe an indef tban for PIA, liftable by any admin; I prefer indefs generally as they require the editor to discuss, but tbans are hard.
Maybe an indef 0RR, liftable by any admin; that's easier on the editor because it basically requires them to open a talk page section on a given change before they make it.
Maybe an indef requirement as an AE action (so not liftable by a single admin) to comply with any request to revert themselves. (The reason I suggest this one should be liftable only by the community is that this is what Cinaroot should be doing anyway at any CT, it's not that onerous a requirement, and I'd want to see the discussion of why it's no longer needed.)
Cinaroot, FWIW, we aren't trying to be harsh, and we certainly aren't trying to be punitive. We're just trying to prevent disruption in this highly contentious area. If you're going to work in this area -- and especially if you're going to work in some of the most highly contentious articles within the CT, which you are -- your behavior has to be pretty much perfect. For heaven's sake, when someone asks you to self-revert in a CT,do it and go talk. I'd self-revert atList of volcanoes if someone asked me to.Valereee (talk)11:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:0RR can be burdensome because tracing the addition or removal of content through the edit history is a time-consuming and error-prone process, asmy above comments show, and this would need to be done for every single edit Cinaroot makes in the topic area. However, when the entire contentious topic is already under 1RR, the only revert restriction available is 0RR. The originally proposed two-week block would be the least onerous result for Cinaroot at this point, with the block serving as adeterrent against future 1RR violations. — Newslingertalk15:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All ofWP:CT/A-I is under 1RR, so I would consider this requirement to be almost as severe as astandard 0RR restriction in the topic area. In my opinion, the two-week block with the consensus required page restriction on theGaza genocide article should be sufficient. — Newslingertalk18:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. In general I think timed blocks are not as useful as indefs. This editor can just wait out a time block. But I know edit warring usually goes for lengthening timed blocks. What I'd like to see if this editor not doing this again rather than simply arguing that it's been so long two weeks is overharsh. But I'll get on board with what others think is best.Valereee (talk)18:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disfavor timed topic bans for that reason, but because indefinite sitewide blocks prevent any editing (aside from appealing the block), I reserve them for urgent or persistent issues, or for editors who areWP:NOTHERE, to minimize attrition for editors whose edits are mostly constructive. I would also appreciate a third opinion, as it has been almost two weeks with only the two of us commenting in this section. — Newslingertalk20:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along. The editor had asked for other options, and I feel like any of the three I suggested would be less onerous for them, but I'll go with the flow.Valereee (talk)21:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BlookyNapsta, I see the link and have read the diffs. I don't see much there. If you think I'm missing something, you can have 100 words to explain what it is you think we should be paying attention to.Valereee (talk)17:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanationhow these edits violate it
WP:Battleground.3 December 2025 Easternsahara used the word "victims", with quotation marks, to refer to the Israeli hostages who were sexually assaulted while in captivity. Following this,3 December 2025 I wrote a message on their talk page, asking for clarification regarding the use of the quotation marks. But rather than responding, on3 December 2025 they erased the message, writing in their edit summary that it "was debunked in 2024 (url) will be debunked again. this is wartime propaganda." They totally ignored the fact that this article debunks specific cases, not the fact that sexual violence was carried out against Israelis on October 7. Alongside the statement that this is "wartime propaganda", which is an example for offensiveWP:BATTLEGROUND, the claim that it "will be debunked again" isWP:CRYSTAL.
Abusive behavior: On30 November 2025, they told an editor their RfC statement was "packaged in ai slop".
POV pushing: On05:15, 26 November 2025, they rewrote the first sentence ofMuslim supporters of Israel: deleting the neutral "both Muslims and cultural Muslims who support the right to self-determination of the Jewish people and the likewise existence of a Jewish homeland in the Southern Levant" and replacing it with "Muslim supporters of Israel support the continued colonization of the Palestine region."
Removing content. On30 November 2025, they removed a lot of sourced content. Some of it was policy based, as explained in the edit summary, but other parts seem to just be removing sourced content because they don't like it. Also, as far as I know, Ynet is not considered an unreliable source.
Support of Hezbollah: As a tag on theiruser page makes clear, they supportHezbollah, which is considered a terrorist organization in the US, Canada, UK, Germany, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and many Latin American and European countries. The tag also makes it clear they support the use of violence.
The editor wrote on their talk page[39]:" "This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics: ... the Arab–Israeli conflict."
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.
Easternsahara's statement contains533 words and iswithin 10% of the 500-word limit.
WP:CRYSTAL does not apply directly to talk pages.WP:BATTLE is also irrelevant since I wasn't uncivil to you by putting victims in quotations. I did remove it from my talk page because it was not about the discussion that we were having.
I do not see how my behavior atTalk:Israel is bludgeoning, perhaps you were trying to say it was rude? I just found it suspicious that an editor would not edit in quite a while, only to vote in a RfC. As for the AfD, this was bludgeoning and I do agree that I shouldn't have done that.
That is clearly AI-generatedWP:AISIGNS,WP:DUCKTEST. I am not saying that the editor is bad, simply that their statement is.
This seems to be a content dispute and, as such, is inappropriate for AE. My edit wasreverted and I was including information already on thezionism page. My edit was unjustified because I did not request consensus beforehand and did not include material that supported my claims in the body first.
This was simply a question, which was not phrased in an accusatory way
WP:JERUSALEMPOST: "It should be used as a source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict only to cite basic facts or if its reporting is validated by additional reporting from another source not similarly limited." I do not think that the statement it was backing up was either of these things. As for Ynet, there are no formal RSP discussions that have taken place, but that doesn't matter either because that was also older and reported on the case that the PBS article debunked. "removing sourced content because they don't like" where is this? As you have brought upcivilty andWP:AGF, could you cite diffs for this?
This was discussed atWP:ANIWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive375#Clear references to Hezbollah in a userbox, here. Simply bringing this up without anything new disrespects the time of editors. As for the redirects, I was creating redirects from related topics to rhetoric (language) that delegitimized Israel. As Rosguil mentions, this can not be interpreted as condoning the use of them. Whether these were good redirects or not isn't relevant, as it is insufficient for a t-ban. TLC mentions that I am asserting that JP is wholly unreliable for such topic, but my statement must be read in the context that I wrote it: while I was removing content sourced by it.WP:JERUSALEMPOST says "It should be used as a source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict only to cite basic facts or if its reporting is validated by additional reporting from another source not similarly limited". I don't think it was doing this here. One out-of-context statement being POV-pushing is extrapolation. As for the Muslim supporters of Israel page, I have already mentioned that I should've included information in the body before the lead.
Editing with a POV is fine. It's how we ensureWP:NPOV. And this is not the proper venue to relitigate the userbox in question. However, ES's repeated violations ofWP:NOTFORUM are disruptive. Comments likethis are unacceptable in this topic area. The creation of redirects using offensive terms (mindful ofWP:RNEUTRAL) ([41],[42],[43]) only found on social media is unhelpful. This is not how we ensure this topic area is civil. We've TBANed for less.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLonghornsg (talk •contribs)01:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just returned to Wikipedia after a very long hiatus. Don't know Easternsahara from before but can see they are doing good worklike this, among many other positive and high quality contributions. Reviewing the evidence here, I see only one, possible two problematic content edits, on separate articles, with no consistently disruptive behaviour. Having strong political opinions is not disruptive in itself. Many people editing articles related to I/P have them and are not as forthright about them but still engaging in very disruptive editing unimpeded.Tiamut (talk)10:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Think Easternsahara's request for more words is well explained in the request itself. For parity, as two of those making claims have been given word extensions and party would require it no?Tiamut (talk)16:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Jerusalem Post does do propaganda for Israel. A lot of media produce propaganda actually, including the New York Times. Media is never bias free. And saying that does not warrant a topic ban. Editing the source out once while saying that doesn't either. Nothing presented here shows an inability on tbe part of Easternsahara to be cooperative or collaborate. We need more editors with diligence and passion, and self-awareness.Tiamut (talk)17:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Targeting of the Easternsahara account off-site commenced at least 2 months ago in more than one place. It may have included the submission of complaints to Wikipedia, ADL and CAMERA (who forwarded material to a "journalist"). Given that kind of attention and external coordination I'm surprised it has taken this long for a report to appear at AE. This is not meant to imply a causal link between what happens off-site and this report, because I do not have visibility into causal links and I assume nothing. Denisaptr's words can obviously be evaluated on their own merits. But I wanted to note the off-wiki activity for the record because the topic area is not insulated from the outside world and external efforts to influence what happens here are increasing.Sean.hoyland (talk)04:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Newslinger, your comment addressed to me is accurate. Making helpful comments is not really my thing, it seems. Is it helpful to know that an editor reported here has been targeted off-site when there is zero evidence of causation? I have no idea really. It's a larger context window...that may contain irrelevant information. There is nothing actionable in the off-site material.Sean.hoyland (talk)16:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Noting that I have deleted two of the three redirects listed by Longhornsg underG4 as recreations of redirects deleted by consensus atRfD. If any editor believes these redirects should exist, the correct venue to overturn that consensus is probablyDRV.Toadspike[Talk]23:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Rosguill pointed out that since the targets of these redirects have changed since they were deleted, G4 does not apply. I have reversed the speedy deletions and instead taken them all to RfD.Toadspike[Talk]00:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting narrowly on the redirects at this time since I've inadvertently engaged with that aspect of this case: my first impression was that a redirect from anti-Israel pejoratives toLegitimacy of the State of Israel#Rhetoric of delegitimization could well be warranted and relevant; having now read over that specific article section, I don't think these were appropriate redirects given that this sort of pejorative really isn't discussed in the target section. That having been said, given that the section in question does nevertheless extensively discuss negative impacts of the use of pejorative and delegitimizing language, it seems unreasonable to presume that these edits comprise an endorsement for use of such terms by Easternsahara; if anything, such redirects would likely discourage readers from using those phrases.signed,Rosguilltalk00:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite the shift onJerusalem Post from whenyou said it "should not be used by this article" because it has "a vested interested [sic] in creating propaganda for Israel". That's not at all specific to the content being supported, that is a blanket statement.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)02:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiamut, "They got to talk more so I want to talk more" isn't really a compelling reason. We don't really need more words simply for the sake of more words. More words actually makes the job of workers here harder. What I'm looking for is "There are things that have been said about X that are inaccurate, and I'd like a chance to respond, I think I'll need 200 words".Valereee (talk)16:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got some reading to do, but I want to note thatthis, the edit with the word "victims" in quotation marks, is--well I don't know if it's immediately blockable, or if perhaps it should be revdeleted as a gross BLP violation, but sheesh.Drmies (talk)15:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've seen enough--of the bludgeoning (not every single diff, but enough), of the bad faith ("that's AI" seems to be the most recent accusation to become commonplace), of the uncollegial attitude/bad faith in so many edits. A topic ban is more than warranted.Drmies (talk)15:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Denisaptr: While your filing includes examples of unacceptable conduct, your inclusion of"Support of Hezbollah" in the filing is an instance of"Using someone's political [positions]as anad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views", which is apersonal attack and itself an instance ofbattleground conduct. Asthe AN discussion resulted in no action but a suggestion to start aWP:MFD (Miscellany for deletion) discussion, the userbox is not actionable here, and your mention of it in this filing serves no purpose other than to criticize Easternsahara's political views, which falls below the standard of discourse expected in this contentious topic.Also, in your future filings, please list the diffs one by one (with each diff in a separate list item) to make them easier to refer to individually. — Newslingertalk14:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: Your statement here is too vague to be helpful for evaluating this enforcement request. According toyour user talk page comment, the material you are referring to consists of"social media" content, but your statement here indicates that you do not have evidence that Denisaptr is associated with the social media content. If you have actionable off-wiki evidence, anemail to the Arbitration Committee would be the most appropriate way to submit this evidence. — Newslingertalk14:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the unanimous consensus of the uninvolved admins who have recommended a result here and I see no reason to draw this out further. Closing. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬)02:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
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.
I acknowledge that I used excessively blunt language. The claim that Smallangryplanet engaged in "terrorist advocacy" is unfounded, and I apologize for that. However, in my defense, the October 7th attacks are an emotional topic and I find it very upsetting when people continuously cast doubt on the fact that sexual assault took place in the attacks or claim that it only happened "reportedly", which is what Smallangryplanet was doing, if you look through the diffs. I believe that this editor's misrepresentation of the Amnesty International report is far more offensive than anything I said. However, I understand that even in extreme circumstances, it is better to avoid using combative language, and I will avoid doing so in the future. If I could rephrase what I said in the talk page without casting aspersions, I would say the following:
"Thereport you linked to states in clear, unambiguous terms on p.18 that 'Palestinian assailants, consisting of fighters in military-style clothing and armed or unarmed men in civilian clothing, subjected people they captured on 7 October 2023 to physical, sexual or psychological abuse either in Israel or in Gaza.' and they 'documented evidence that armed or unarmed Palestinian assailants committed sexual assault during the 7 October 2023 attacks.' The only ambiguity in the report was 'scope or scale of the sexual violence' and whether it was committed by Hamas themselves or other Palestinian militants- there was no doubt that sexual violence had occurred, which is what we are discussing here. The evidence from reliable sources is overwhelming and every serious journalist and political leader has acknowledged that sexual violence on October 7th has occurred, except for those who are from terrorist regimes. There is no reason to say 'it happened reportedly' instead of 'it happened'."
To address Newslinger's statement - Yes, I understand that I don't have enough edit history to engage in disputes or make anything other than small constructive edit requests in ECR, I will wait before attempting to make such contributions again. However, given the nature of Smallangryplanet's misrepresentation of the Amnesty report which I posted in my attempt to make an edit request, I felt compelled to correct the record. I hope there are avenues for even less experienced editors such as myself to call out such misrepresentations.
I support a one-week block of RedrickSchu in response to the ECR violations and personal attacks (e.g. inSpecial:Diff/1326998563 andSpecial:Diff/1327080845), as adeterrent against future violations. If this recurs, the most likely result would be a longer or indefinite block (and/or a topic ban) issued by a single administrator, without needing a full discussion on this noticeboard. ECR is strictly enforced because the Arbitration Committee has found the measure necessary to reduce the disruption in this contentious topic, which means that editors who are not yetextended confirmed may only participate in the topic area by making constructive edit requests to article talk pages. — Newslingertalk15:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RedrickSchu, we do understand how upsetting working in this topic is. One of the reasons we limit participation by newer editors is to help you keep out of trouble while you're learning policy surrounding the most contentious topics on wikipedia. As Newslinger points out above, even a more moderately-worded comment is disallowed until you have more experience. I strongly suggest working in other areas before coming into articles about Palestine/Israel or other highly contentious topics, even if they aren't extended-confirmed restricted.Valereee (talk)15:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RedrickSchu, unfortunately, no, there are no venues here on WP for less experienced editors to address what they see as a misrepresentation in an article within the Arab/Israeli conflict. Editors without EC (500 edits, at least 30 days) really can't discuss it anywhere except to make uncontroversial edit requests on article talk pages. However, there are nearly80,000 EC editors, well over a hundred watchers atSexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks, and there wasan active discussion of the very issue of using "reportedly" on the article talk when you made your edit request. The issue was being discussed among 8 experienced editors, including some who agree with you.
Theother reason inexperienced editors can't participate is that the actual likelihood anything they can contribute would be some sort of new, helpful perspective is far outweighed by the disruption they tend to cause. In this case you were disruptive in multiple places. And reallyexcessively blunt language is an understatement.
Newslinger, until this editor lost it a few days ago, they were so unproblematic that no one had ever even posted to their talk. I feel like they had been unaware of what ECR even meant and just over the course of a few hours grew increasingly angry the more avenues they found were not open to them. I always hate tbans because they're hard on editors, but maybe a logged warning? Plus strong advice to RedrickSchu: if you can't control your temper, stay away from emotional topics.Valereee (talk)12:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: This doesn't involve anycontentious topic, so an admin doesn't have discretion to impose aone-revert restriction here. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬)16:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬)18:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
إيان's statement contains959 words and iswithin 10% of the 925-word limit.
White Spider Shadow's statement contains662 words andexceeds the 500-word limit.
NekoKatsun's statement contains438 words and complies with the 500-word limit.
