| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
Arequest forarbitration is thelast step ofdispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. TheArbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by thearbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please seeguide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions ordiscretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to/Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from/Case,/Clarification and Amendment,/Motions, and/Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arbitration motions regarding ARBPIA5 topic bans review | Motions | 24 January 2026 | 2/5/0 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarification request: Indian military history | none | (orig. case) | 13 February 2026 |
| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Cleanup of old remedies | 17 February 2026 |
About this page Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs4 net votes to "accept" (or amajority). Arbitration is alast resort.WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read thearbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, seeWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, seeWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
Initiated byCoconutOctopustalkat17:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CoconutOctopus's statement contains274 words and complies with the 500-word limit.This is not a typical caserequest ; it is also the first time I have ever filed one so apologies if I have done anything incorrectly or missed anyone who is techincally involved - I have listed the two users who were directly impacted by the original motions but I suppose "all of ARBCOM" could be considered a party. I believe there is a community consensus to seek a full arbitration case regarding the series of motions including (but not limited to) the ban of Iskandar323. The discussion atWikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration_motions_regarding_ARBPIA5_topic_bans shows that a large number of editors, including many admins and experienced users, are confused by or disagree with the outcome of the motions and believe that a full case would be beneficial. I don't want to simply list everything brought up at the above link (nor do I have the words to do so), but multiple users state concerns around the evidence and the fact that numerous arbs switched their votes after discussion (with some feeling that more arbs would have switched their votes too given more time). There are concerns around the fact much of the evidence leading to the ban was submitted by bad faith sockpuppet accounts who themselves are now blocked. I believe it important that someone lists this as a case request to allow for a public vote by arbitrators on whether they agree they motion is not perfect and should be settled in a full case. I make no statement about my personal feelings as to which outcomes should be achieved as I don't think they matter in this case, but I do believe this should be a full case.
Iskandar323's statement contains1001 words and iswithin 10% of the 1000-word limit.Community sentiment has already given voice to the various ways in which this trial by motion has been questionable – both procedurally and behaviourally – in ways that loom larger than the specifics of the case itself. It would be interesting to know if Arbcom plans to address this. I have a motion: "Does arbcom believe it handled this matter well and to the standards expected by the community?" If the answer is: "it wasn't great", then it begs the further question of: what is arbcom going to do about it? As for the actual key issues ...
First: has arbcom even followed its own policy? – namelyWP:ARBPOL, which provides for procedures by motion only on limited circumstances:"Summary proceedings: Where the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed, the Committee may resolve the dispute by motion."
I think it is more than safe to say at this point that the facts of the matter are not"substantially undisputed"
. They were close at the 11-0 point, but at 7-5, I would say arbcom had a substantial dispute on its hands, not to mention the disputation coming from the community. That would appear to render the end result of the motions unfit for summary proceedings.
Then there is the matter of recusal or lack therein. I was unaware – not being a avid policy reader, and likely being too trusting – of the need to individually petition arbs in order to garner theirWP:RECUSAL. Even setting aside the obvious involvement of SFR as the most recent sanctioning admin, as well as ignoringtheir electoral promise to recuse from ARBPIA5 (of which these motions were a direct review) based on their having"too much administrative involvement"
, etc., there is Guerillero, who .... joined the sock-led AE case as a diff-bearing prosecutor, referred it to arbcom (with only a single non-commital nod from Sennecaster), joined the committee, supported their own referral, apparently after discussed it a bit over the holidays when half of the committee was barely online, and then with barely even an arbcom consensus for that, stepped up to re-prosecute the matter with exactly the same seven diffs from AE (so presumably 'discussion' didn't involve a re-assessment of the diffs or re-drafting). Sennecaster then recused themselves from even being a clerk due to their involvement at AE. Guerillero didn't. That alone is an almost mind-boggling variation in interpretation as to what constitutes 'involvement' regarding recusal. So second motion for arbcom: tighten up the recusal process. But long story short, Guerillero proceeded as both prosecutor and judge, which is conceptually egregious even if the Byzantine dysfunctionality of the recusal process didn't technically prevent it.
Next question: just why? - to any of this! If the ill-advised joke was a "naked violation" as Guerillero named it, why not just block me? For a longer duration than SFR had. Any admin could have done that. The community time that could have been saved is inordinate!
Finally: behaviour – possibly the aspect that has gotten the most community members the most riled up: the lack of effective communication (key elements ofWP:ADMINACCT andWP:ARBCOND) from some committee members. And again, why? Personal disdain for me and my pings? Maybe. But it's not about me. It's about the process, and the community, and engendering trust in the community by means of transparency. Not responding to community input, questions and counter-evidence isn't just a recipe for a half-baked outcome, it's disingenuous and disrespectful to the community. And once the evidence was dissected by the community and a minority of arbs, it was incumbent on the remaining arbs to engage constructively with that. To their credit, the two arbs who likely should have recused at least responded – even if their responses did not support the motion based on the actual evidence so much as handwaves at absent and seemingly misplaced evidence. However, I must thank HJ Mitchell for belatedlyproviding their statement on the noticeboard talk, as it provides a further glimpse at the rationales that the community were not priorly privy to. HJM did not reaffirm the POV-pushing claim, but instead waved at the more generalist "tendentious editing". I suspect this is a problem that several arbs had: they didn't likesomething, but they couldn't quite pin down what, so they just went along with the motion that was on offer. But if TE generally was the accusation, that should have been the motion; not the specific POV-pushing motion that was presented – the evidence for which was tested and found wanting. And the end result is an unsatisfactory outcome for all involved.
As for whether I want a new case: not really. Why? Because I'm not a disruptive editor and I dislike wasting community time. At the same time, the "finding of fact" is grossly offensive and should not have been allowed to pass, having been shown to be utterly fallacious based on the evidence provided. The committee can have its ban for all I care, as it could have had at any point without any motions. Ban + violation = block. But if Arbcom wants to level serious accusations at editors it should do so in the form of a proper case, not in a summary proceeding – and definitely not with such a sorry effort of a motion as its vehicle. If the choice is between letting that stand and having a case, I'd choose a case – not for a want of a case, but out of principle.
But I'd like to hope arbcom is collectively capable of looking at alternatives, such as vacating their unsupported FoF motion, while taking or leaving their ban as they see fit, but based on honest reasoning, not trumped up and degrading charges. And for any potential case or review of this motion or any other, I would suggest that the arbs that almost certainly should recuse actually think about recusing. And yes, this is almost certainly overlength, but if Arbcom is going to devote entire procedures to me then they should let me sing and dance. Lastly, a thank you to the arbs that did take the time to properly inspect the evidence and actually assess the motion based on the facts.Iskandar323 (talk)20:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich's statement contains192 words and complies with the 500-word limit.2) Since their topic ban inWP:ARBPIA5, Iskandar323 has been engaged in consistently non-neutral editing around the history of Judaism ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7]). This is a continuation of the misconduct that led to the original topic ban.
Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed, not
history of Judaism.
1. The edits are obviously a continuation of PIA-related editing just outside of the topic area. --GuerilleroParlez Moi 14:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- My vote is based on a similar set of observations as SFR from looking over Iskandar323's editing over the past 6 months --GuerilleroParlez Moi 03:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
PIA-related editing.
2. A topic ban doesn't mean find something only partially covered by your topic ban (as demonstrated by the warning and block) and continue POV pushing. As to what Parabolist said below,WP:NPOV is policy and non-neutral editing is disruptive. Wikipedia isWP:NOTADVOCACY and not aWP:BATTLEGROUND to further disputes.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- In response to the questions, the diffs presented are not the entirety of what I considered, they were some of the diffs from Iskandar323's recent editing that came up in discussions. I've spent a lot of time looking at Iskandar323's edits as I've fielded several reports of topic ban violations and I watch a lot of ARBPIA and adjacent articles. In some of the cases the edits were, as has been pointed out, correct and worth making, but when looking at the totality of their editing, especially with the ARBPIA FoF,
engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including consistently non-neutral editingin mind, there is a pattern of minimizing or removing mentions of Israel, Judea, and Jewish history without similar edits made when dealing with other religions or peoples.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
partially covered,
non-neutral, or
disruptive.
unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools.Unexplained arb votes have the same effect.
4. Per HB.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
they're not TBAN violationsand later struck
pushing a point of view, so how does
Per HBexplain this vote?
5.Girth Summit (blether) 23:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
6.Aoidh (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
7. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬) 16:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the oppose/discussion sections were 8,600 words of rebuttal. Harrycan't see anything ArbCom could do that would make people any happier
. Addressing the rebuttals and explaining your votes would make people happier. Whether you do that at a full case or reopen the ARM or wait for an ARCA, please do it. Explanation is not relitigation.Levivich (talk)20:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
informallydiscussions held and who participated? 2. Were the 7 diffs the clearest/most-egregious examples you found?
Continuing to violate the topic ban less than a week after their block...: Can you explain why you view those edits as part of PIA broadly construed?Levivich (talk)14:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
less than a week after their block.Levivich (talk)20:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite's statement contains589 words andexceeds the 500-word limit.Just a quick point - Iskandar323 is a party to this, but can't make a statement even on their talkpage because ArbCom blocked them with TPA turned off (why?). It would be useful to give them their TP access back so that they can do this if they wish.
You will not like our opinions any more than you already do if we open a full case.No, actually that's the whole point - if people understandwhy decisions were made rather than a hastily tossed-off "Support" followed by disappearing completely, then they're far more likely to support your decision. I'm unsure why this is a difficult concept for people to grasp.
I guess I have a few days before I am an arb. Missing from this report is part of the interaction between Iskandar323 and Levivich where they both nakedly violate their topic bans the other day. There is also a pattern of editing in the history of Judaism just outside of the topic ban where no one edit is a giant problem, but together they show an Israel-Palestine related POV being pushed.(followed by the list of diffs later used by ArbCom). In other words, this motion wouldn't even havehappened if it wasn't for that; thus, ArbCom has (possibly unwittingly) done the sockpuppeteer's job for them. A second point; why didn't Guerillero recuse from this?
Iskandar is banned because the Committee believes Iskandar ought to be banned.works as a rationale? I'm sorry to say I think Parabolist is quite correct here.
Note: The only thing short of a full case I would support is a full outline, endorsed by all seven supporting arbs, of the allegedly clear pattern of POV-pushing that the seven highlighted diffs are valid and relevant examples of.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)20:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[w]here the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed, the Committee may resolve the dispute by motion), goes for the the following motion too. And if not, why not.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)19:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In response toHJ Mitchell: ArbCom can sometimes get it wrong, wouldn't you agree? In addition to the possibility of different people yelling at the Arbs, a fresh examination might redress an injustice (and thereby benefit the project by allowing further participation by a valuable editor), or demonstrate more thoroughly the correctness of the decision (thereby reaffirming that the editor was disruptive). ArbCom's actions are supposed to be in service of the project (that boilerplate you folks unanimously vote "aye" on at the top of every case decision page) and is not supposed to be imposed overriding our consensus-driven decision-making processes, but to be the highest-level expression of them (or something; IANAL).
Arbs: Respond to the widespread disagreement with this decision and to the indications of doubt that were evident in several Arbs' changing their votes on Iskandar323 as community members raised points in discussion about the evidence. I would prefer that Iskandar323's ban be simply vacated as a flawed close to an unresolved ArbCom process (SashiRolls' "hung jury" analogy, or a "no consensus" AfD close analogy). Since that's apparently not possible, you should accept this case despite the time and effort involved.Yngvadottir (talk)20:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In response toScottishFinnishRadish.asilvering has averred that what we see is what we have. You assert a pattern of topic ban violations and refer to HouseBlaster explaining that the evidence presented wasn't the sole basis for banning Iskandar. There's a tension here. Moreover, several Arbs changed their votes after re-examining the evidence that was actually presented. In other words, the publically discussed evidence was not decisive for you and other Arbs who voted for a ban. That sounds to me awfully like prejudgement. It's counterproductive when apparently some Arbs decide based on evidence presented and can be persuaded by informed arguments about the subject matter, while others largely ignore the validity of that evidence. It makes it a popularity contest: how many Arbs are inclined to ban someone when they are once again the subject of a complaint, vs. how many weigh the evidence. Vacate the decision and have a full case so that the decision has to be based on evidence submitted. And narrowly focused, please. There is no justification for the threat of widening the scope. All it does is make people fear interaction with the Arbs.Yngvadottir (talk)01:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
IOHANNVSVERVS's statement contains457 words and complies with the 500-word limit.A lot of people are talking about this like it's simply a difference of opinions. But it's not. The "Iskandar further POV pushing" motion isn't just "unpopular", it's unacceptable, and I don't see how it isn't misconduct at this point by the arbitrators who forced it through and who still to this day refuse to give an explanation or a response to the community.
As laid out clearly atWP:ARBCOND, "Arbitrators are expected to: Respond promptly and appropriately to questions from other arbitrators, or from the community, about conduct which appears to conflict with their trusted roles." Yet the members of the committee who passed the motion have been completely ignoring the community, despite repeated pleas for them to respond.
We should not allow ArbCom to become a dictatorship able to ban anyone they want without even the semblance of reason or due process. As another editor has phrased it: "Any regular editor in any contentious topic could be banned on "evidence" as weighty as this. Nobody is safe."
Also, it needs to be asked whether or not ArbCom has been acting in this way in order to comply with some sort of pro-Israel external pressures or influences. Striking for being the wrong place for this question and to avoid causing any unnecessary controversy/distraction. 00:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure what mechanisms/procedures are in place to deal with this, but this is the problem as I see it.It is not Iskandar who is disrupting the encyclopedia, it is certain members of the current Arbitration Committee.IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)21:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
leaves non-English map without any sourcing that does not contain Israel or Judah. Article mentions Israel, Judah, and Ammon which are not in the map left in the article.IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)19:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Much has been said on WT:ACN about how the decision to ban Iskandar is unfair, harsh, or contrived. Everyone is well within their rights to give an opinion on rulings and their merits, and I think it's healthy for people to speak up when they see something they think is wrong.
That said, I'm not sure what this case request is trying to achieve. Relitigating the situation with the same people on a different page/venue isn't going to change their conclusions or votes. I should hope that the context of a case vs an ARM section would not make a difference to the outcome of a decision.
If there are calls for certain arbitrators to be more forthcoming with their vote rationales then that can be done elsewhere, but opening a case, whether to force a hand or try for a do-over, does not seem like the way forward.Giraffer (talk)22:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse what Giraffer said. I think the unusual piece here is that post-FRAM ArbCom has been pretty reliably able to come to agreement and often consensus about what the facts are. There might then be a split among the committee about how to respond, but basically the only time I can think of a major split on a crucial FoF leading to a "major" public decision (which I'm defining here as a block/site ban or desyop/resysop) was the 6 in favor, 4 opposed, 3 abstain for Stephen. But there the remedy landed at 9-3 so the FoF split didn't end up mattering as much. So given what Giraffer has said, if ArbCom is going to do something here beyond provide greater insight into its thinking, I would encourage it to think about what an FoF that would pass 9-3 or better would look like and then if a majority of the Arbs, based on that factual record, remain convinced there is sufficient evidence to ban. In working on that they would probably fufill Giraffer's suggestion of the productive thing being "more insight". Ultimately ArbCom isWP:CONEXEMPT for really good reasons which includes the ability to make calls that large segments of the community disagree with it. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)22:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Decisions are reached by a majority vote of active, non-recused arbitrators. So Harry's point that this is how ArbCom works is backed up by policy and Sashi is misunderstanding whatWP:CONEXEMPT means here (ArbCom is unique in a lot of respects so it's not unusual for Wikipedians to not understand elements of that uniqueness). That said, the lack of something approaching consensus as we traditionally use it for the FoFs is unusual when it's used as the base for a site ban at least in the post-FRAM era. Because of ArbPol's embrace of voting, when I was an arb I embraced that ethos as well for a lot of things. However, being on the U4C has shown me the value that can be reached in trying to achieve consensus where possible because that body has operated far more through that method than ArbCom does. Part of that is because it's easier with 8 people than 11 but part of that is also genuine attempts to try and see where there is common ground. Hence my suggestion that if ArbCom could find an FoF that got more support, would that still be sufficient for a majority to feel justified in voting to site ban someone based on my belief (and direct knowledge while on ArbCom) that Arbs are basing their votes for remedies on the facts agreed to rather than starting with a sense of the right remedy and voting for facts to support that outcome. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)17:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree withGiraffer's assessment of the situation, but would suggest being a little more sympathetic to the filing editor for not immediately hitting on the right process for a very complicated arena of Wikipedia. Opening what is essentially ARBPIA6 with a broader scope of evidence to hold other editors to a similar standard (or consider if exonerating evidence was missed)would necessarily take up the question of Iskandar323's ban. However, I agree withBlack Kite that the FoF and related votes on sanctions in this most recent case would definitely benefit from arbs giving clearer explanations of which diffs they felt do/don't demonstrate patterns, since there's demonstrable disagreement within the committee and community on the fact of the matter. An elaboration or reconsideration on that would address what appear to be the most pressing concerns, as I don't envy the task of drawing up a scope and collecting evidence that would make an ARBPIA6 worthwhile at this time.signed,Rosguilltalk22:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Two points here:
1) I was and am appalled at the two comments by arbitrators that suggested the ban was based on other evidence not identified. That is gross unfairness.
2) I was and am upset that the other arbitrators did not come back and explain their unjustified conclusion when the community pretty unanimously and the opposing members of the committee shot down any reason for the NPOV finding. So explanation, Harry is what would make me happier, and it is something thatWP:ADMINACCT expects.
3) I'll adopt Levivich's statement if it means you will consider it -- it would be especially galling that the committee considers banned or LTA editors statements like it did to start off the motions, but would not consider Levivich's statement, here.Alanscottwalker (talk)23:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4) I'll also adopt Black Kite's response to aslivering. For many of you, it's not what you did, it's what you did not do that's the problem. Unless, it was considering evidence not identified by diffs (which again, is grossly unfair). --Alanscottwalker (talk)00:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5) I agree with just "vacate the [site] ban" as own goal and move on, if it ever is or was truly needed, there is plenty of time for it. Also, just to be clear, I am from the uninvolved part of the community.Alanscottwalker (talk)01:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6) Responding to JClemens: What does not seem "objectively reasonable" is for "Arbitration" to operate on a no consideration of the arguments model. Not considering and not addressing the committee opposition and the community objections is not objectively reasonable. Saying there is other unidentified evidence is not objectively reasonable. Not responding and not explaining is also contrary to policy, so not objectively reasonable.Alanscottwalker (talk)04:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. I have done my fair share over the years supporting Arbcom's prerogatives, and citingWP:CONEXCEPT (Please Note: the proper shortcut). So, I know it's well within Arbcom's prerogatives to revisit its prior statements at any time. I am also sure, it's not within Arbcom's province to substitute WP:ASPERSION for diff evidence and to not explain. At any rate, it's good that at least one motion to revisit or correct the record has come out of this. Arbcom needs solid ground for CONEXCEPT to really work. --Alanscottwalker (talk)23:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, looking at this as well as the discussion over atWT:ACN, it's pretty clear to me that some of the ppl objecting to the decision to ban Iskandar are, for lack of a better term,passionate about their stance on this whole ordeal. Should the arbs decide to decline the case, I'd recommend they go over the various reactions and see if there's anyone among them who needs to be disciplined (whether it be by TBAN, siteban, or some other remedy).JHD0919 (talk)23:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@IOHANNVSVERVS: I don't think external pro-Israel forces were involved in getting Iskander banned, since it would be a waste of their time; they're topic banned from A-I after all. The sockpuppets that started the whole thing looked like they were seeking revenge, which we know people like Icewhiz love to do, both onwiki and off. I don't necessarily disagree with the ban, but I would highly suggest a full case since whatever happened in the motion felt rushed and sloppy. I also urge the functionaries to develop better policies when it comes to sockpuppetry in contentious topics, since it's clear bans don't really work against bad actors.
Additionally, it is disappointing when arbs simply sign a vote to ban users without commenting onwhy they want to do so. Banning someone is certainly no small decision, and we need transparency to ensure it simply isn't "I don't like them," or worse, "My colleagues want to ban this person,so I'm going to as well".ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)00:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think ArbCom's decision about whether or not to open this case should center on how the Arbs, currently, feel about the votes that were not changed after some Arbs did change their views about Iskandar. I would not automatically conclude that the discussion at the ACN talk page is also representative of the editing community as a whole: this is a hot-button topic area, and editors who have strong opinions disliking the recent decision may see things very differently than do those of us who looked at that talk page, and decided that we did not want to touch it without fire-resistant gloves. I went back and looked at the Iskandar diffs, and they convinced me that I'm not a subject matter expert. I think there are limits to what we can expect of ArbCom, in terms of determining the nuance of POV in this topic area, and the nuance of the boundaries of "broadly construed". But what strikes me as substantive is that evidencewas first presented by a bad-faith sock, then got some incompletely explained supports from some Arbs, after which some other Arbs looked at further evidence and decided against sanctioning – and now we have some of the early-supporting Arbs reaffirming their votes and others not yet saying publicly. I obviously don't know whether ArbCom would now change the outcome of that decision, but that's what should decide whether or not to reopen the case. --Tryptofish (talk)00:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since I, as an editor with relevant graduate-level studies who avoids the PIA area and is previously unfamiliar with Iskandar323's editing or position in the conflict, can, upon reviewing the seven edits listed in the FOF, readily determine which faction the non-neutrality is alleged to have favored, that strongly suggests that the arbitrators finding such a pattern of non-neutrality are not objectively unreasonable in doing so. The subsequent election is the traditional time to take up issues with arbitrators' interpretations.Jclemens (talk)02:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tiamut's statement contains505 words and iswithin 10% of the 500-word limit.The decision to fully ban Iskander is unjustified, both in evidence presented and arguments made by those in favor, who largely ignored community feedback exposing the diffs presented as innocuous.
This case was unnecessary and mostly prompted (like Iskander's original topic ban) by filings made by sockpuppets who do not like legitimate content being produced by honest editors. Sockpuppets make the requisite 500 minor edits on random articles outside the topic area (often continuing to do so to avoid scrutiny) but drop in to push a singular POV and file reports.
Article development in PIA suffers. So many knowledgeable editors are now topic banned, and newcomers are discouraged by the obstacles to editing. Fifteen years ago when I was very actively editing here, articles were regularly vandalized, with POV warriors often blanking material they did not like, sparking edit wars. Since my recent return, I have noticed this thankfully cannot happen because of the many restrictions since enacted, but articles are in desperate need of motivated, knowledgeable editors, and most of them are being topic banned, one by one, by reports filed by socks!Tiamut (talk)04:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a new case with the same arbs will be useful as it will be essentially asking the committee to investigate themselves and the COI is obvious. The only proper way to handle this situation is an independent review.Zerotalk05:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely obvious that there would have been no chance of the ban motion passing, in fact little chance of it even existing, if it wasn't for the POV motion. Please finish the job.Zerotalk11:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will add to the chorus that I'm concerned with the outcome here. A new case with the same arbitrators may not be that useful, but I would like a better justification of the outcome.
There is a difference of having a certain POV which comes out in your edits andWP:POV pushing which is disruptive andcan be associated with e.g. double standards, cherry-picking and wearing down 'opponents' on talk. To me, it is not clear that the interpretation of POVPUSH/CPUSH the committee used this time around, corresponds closely to the texts ofWP:POVPUSH andWP:CPUSH (both explanatory essays), as the diffs mostly just seem to show Iskander's POV without showing misconduct associated with it. Is it a question of cementing this better in actual PAGs? Arbcom is not meant to judge content, it is meant to judge conduct. In these kinds of cases, the line between the two can be blurry, but I'm not sufficiently convinced the committee was on the right side of that distinction.—Femke 🐦 (talk)09:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsindian's statement contains550 words and iswithin 10% of the 500-word limit.Topic ban violations are handled all the time at AE, so why was this case needed? The key is in the unusual FoF that Iskandar323 engaged in "POV-pushing" outside the technical limits of the topic ban. I submit that this is an absurd FoF, arrived at in an absurd way.
Let's recall the facts. Guerillero, in the AE request which led to this case, posted a bunch of diffs making this accusation. He did not tell anybody what procedure he used to collect these diffs, how these are violations, or why he went out to find the diffs in the first place. In the ARCA case, ScottishFinnishRadish also claimed to have seen evidence of non-neutral editing, again without any elaboration. None of the other Arbs gave even a semblance of any reason. The argument boiled down to: "trust me bro".
Why would anyone trust the judgement of members on ArbCom on this issue? Do they know anything about the topic? People elected you to administer Wikipedia, not to find outwhether Asherah was the consort of Yahweh.
For the FoF to make sense, the NPOV violation must be blatant and easily observable by outsiders with no special knowledge of the topic. For instance: if there was an explicit consensus on a page, and Iskandar323 violated the consensus and edited in a disruptive or edit-warring way. Did anything like this happen? No.
It is way beyond the competence of ArbCom to determine the nuances of the POV of an edit. That's becauseevery edit has a POV implication. And there are many subtle ways in which POV can be manipulated. These things are impossible to know without detailed knowledge of the topic. Unless they're blatant NPOV violations, which is clearly not the case here.
ArbCom should either get some sort of outside expert input, or stop trying to fix things which it has no competence to fix. Not every ill in the world can be fixed by ArbCom.
I have no opinion about what exactly should be done to fix this travesty.Kingsindian ♝ ♚10:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Consider a table with two columns: "Pro-Palestine arguments" and "Pro-Israel arguments". I fill the table one entry at a time, till I have 10 rows. Now pick 10 diffs from one column to "prove" that I'm "POV-pushing". QED.Kingsindian ♝ ♚17:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Without the PoV-pushing FoF, there wouldn't even be a motion, let alone a site ban. And what of all the othermotions like "admins are allowed to ban from a wider area" etc.? Admins at AE are allowed to expand topic bans on the basis of one diff? ArbCom is not only acting recklessly, it's expandingWP:BURO.Kingsindian ♝ ♚02:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sean.hoyland's statement contains455 words and complies with the 500-word limit.WasIskandar323's proposal here seen and rejected?Sean.hoyland (talk)12:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Scharb, without an evidentiary basis for your claims, I think you would agree that there is a risk of "just railroading a user with a different perspective" as you said at ANI about someone who has likely committed a crime by stealing an account and using it to target people on Wikipedia.Sean.hoyland (talk)04:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re:what would taking the issue of sockpuppet disruption seriously look like, to you?
Taking it less seriously and messing with socks is also an option since our options are limited in practice. Maybe there are ways to disincentivize the weaponization of reporting systems by socks. An issue is that there are no consequences. There's no downside to socking. This creates an enforcement asymmetry. There might be things that restore something closer to a symmetric state, more balanced payoffs for honest vs dishonest actors. One fun way might be to try linking topic ban length to ban evasion across the pro-A vs pro-B divide. So, pro-A user X gets up to some socking/editor-targeting shenanigans and gets caught. Ta-da! Perceived opponent topic banned Pro-B user Y gets their topic ban length reduced or even lifted. You get the idea, karma.Sean.hoyland (talk)17:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re:...making reports with evidence of POV pushing is nigh-on impossible
from Kowal2701. I think this case (and ARBPIA5) shows that it is easy to compile a small set of samples from a much larger set, say that it represents a pattern e.g. POV pushing, and many people will agree. People in the media/social media do it routinely about the topic area and many people accept their conclusions. I don't think there is much reason to believe that we, Wikipedians, are significantly less error prone than the general population. I think we should try to keep things simple. If reasonable people can disagree whether something broke a rule, forget it. Also, socks unambiguously broke the rules thousands of times since the ARBPIA5 topic bans were enacted. Nehushtani, who said "The pattern shown with Iskandar323 is especially disturbing.", violated policy 3,512 times in just over a year. Seems quite a lot worse than this case if the concern is the amount of rule breaking.Sean.hoyland (talk)16:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Sir Joseph'sit's a numbers game
, it's something like a numbers game, but I'm not sure people grasp the scale and complexity when they form views. Using a broad definition of the topic area, you can say - since the beginning of 2025, 20,389 distinct actors have made 263,526 revisions, with the top 3 percentages being 3.87%, 2.89% and 1.16%. Only 5 accounts have each contributed more than 1% of the revisions. The way people think and talk about the topic area, enforcement etc. seems detached from this complicated reality. That same set of 20k actors made over 16 million revisions altogether in the same period.Sean.hoyland (talk)08:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Super Goku V's statement contains473 words and complies with the 500-word limit.Ignoring the outcome for a bit, I feel like some of what I am hearing here isn't necessarily asking for a case to be opened, but for the prior case to be re-opened for members of the Committee to explain their actions.@Theleekycauldron andHJ Mitchell:, as the only members to have voted decline so far, would either of you be willing to express your thoughts on this?
Regardless of what happens, I will point out whatAdministrators' role and expectations are according to the Contentious topics. As noted by point three, administrators are expected to explain when they take an enforcement action. This portion links toWP:ADMINACCT, which contains the relevant portions:Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. (...) Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested. (...)
There were a significant number of times where members of the committee signed onto an action without explaining why during the ARM. For one member in particular, the two longest comments made were 65 and 63 words, which were respectively used to disagree with a motion regarding emails sent to the committee and disagree with the usage of the word "standing" in the motion. Said member otherwise signed 3 times without explanation and signed 12 further times with a total of 69 words and a rounded average of 6 words. (And a decent portion of that was still concerns regarding committee emails.) That member was not alone in signing without explaining during the deliberations. I will say again that some of the statements here sound more that they want committee members to explain their actions and reasons, rather than have a full case.
Failure to communicate – this can be either with editors (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to address concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)
Additionally, given that Iskandar323 cannot make any comments regarding this, shouldn't the "Statement by Iskandar323" section be removed or otherwise suppressed? After all, they cannot participate in this appeal since they are block here and at their talk page. --Super Goku V (talk)13:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: @Theleekycauldron: I agree that this shouldn't need a new case and thank you for fixing my mistake on motions and cases.
Question: @SashiRolls: Is it correct to assume that your position is that the banning motion should have potentially been 6-6 with Girth Summit's statement added and Guerillero's statement excluded for violating a COI or their pledge to recuse? --Super Goku V (talk)04:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Wafflefrites andLokiTheLiar: Less me pointing out or discussing irregularities and more curious about someone else's position. --Super Goku V (talk)23:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Sir Joseph: The ends justifying the means to me feels like it would be a violation ofwhat Arbitrators are expected to do. --Super Goku V (talk)09:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Final thoughts: I think there is more to this than just the motion that passed; Happy that some members better explained their positions; Disappointed with how proof/evidence was handled; and convinced that at least one member should have recused that didn't. --Super Goku V (talk)01:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SashiRolls's statement contains446 words and complies with the 500-word limit.A few observations:
turbo-recused(seequestion 3) from ARBPIA 5, yet he voted on this ARBPIA 5 motion based on unspecified evidence not presented in the case.
Conclusion: No new case is needed, the motion should be re-closed as no consensus concerning Iskandar's banning given the problem of recusals, quality of arguments, and the uncounted vote. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 15:33, 25 January 2026
The article on the conference looks pretty well referenced and notable.FWIW, the text Iskandar removed concerning the conference was exclusively sourced toFirstpost, which due diligence shows to be mentioned on RS/perennial as a publisher of paid content and whose en.wp page says
has posted misinformation on multiple occasions.-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥15:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a reconsideration of the same evidence by the same people will lead to a materially different outcome. As such I see limited utility to a case. But I was surprised by the severity of the remedy vis-a-vis the evidence in the FoF. I would appreciate if the arbitrators supporting that remedy took this opportunity to comment on that, and in particular to clarify whether the ban vote was a consequence of that evidence alone or Iskandar's previous history in the topic.Vanamonde93 (talk)17:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As an outsider comment, largely in reply to SilverLocust's comments below. I didn't follow ARBPIA5 and if the arbs say that Iskander behaved poorly, I believe them. I also understand that sometimes behavior that could be trivial from a random editor can be a "straw that broke the camel's back" for an editor on their last piece ofWP:ROPE. However, the topic of ancient Israel and Judah is one where valid, sourced edits can be read in sectarian ways, and there's no avoiding it. The odds are 100% that Iskander or any editor in the area will make edits thatcan be construed as some sort of sectarian dog-whistle, regardless of whether or not that was the intent. The supplied edits look like perfectly standard editing in the field - contestable and revertable perhaps, but not unusual or problematic.
If the arbs want to revise the outcome of ARBPIA5 as insufficient in its remedies for Iskander, fine. Ban Iskanderfor his actions then (rather than these diffs), or apply a topic ban to "anything involving territory in what will become Israel, broadly construed" to avoid any doubt on scope. But the provided recent diffs are just... normal editing in this space. They shouldn't be used as proof of misconduct, lest any edits at all in the field be seen as misconduct.SnowFire (talk)18:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zero0000, asking the present arb.com to investigate the present arb.com is a waste of time. I suggest a group, of let's say, former arb.com members, reviewing the case,Huldra (talk)20:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:SilverLocust, There are several editors who consistently favor use of "massacre" for attacks on Israelis and "attack" for Palestinians when participating in requested moves. (eks FortunateSons, Alaexis, GidiD, Coretheapple, Wafflefrites; links can be given if required). Why single out Iskandar? In theWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_FOARP, they only concentrated on the "pro-Palestinian" editors, and ignored the "pro-Israeli" editors,Huldra (talk)21:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:ChildrenWillListen, no use inthis connection, as ArbCom decided inWP:ARBPIA5 -for some reason- mainly to investigate "pro-Palestinian" editors. That whole brouhaha was skewed from the start.Huldra (talk)21:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't understand that the "Bad math"-comments count as topic ban-violations for Iskandar and L. Yes, I have readWP:BANEX, but last time this was discussed, atWP:ARBPIA4, it was the consensus that "Definition of the "area of conflict""[9] was "with the exception of userspace". Nobody argued against it. SoWP:BANEX contradicts that.Huldra (talk)21:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All of the edits were destructive, not constructive, and clearly intended to erase and minimize the history of the Jewish people, especially within the land of Israel; thus, relevant to Israel/Palestine "broadly construed," as Jewish history in the land is highly relevant to that topic.(Personal attack removed) This is a user who should not be part of the Wikipedia community.
As for the origin of the complaint coming from a compromised account–– I, myself, had noticed this pattern from Iskandar for a while but not said anything because gathering diffs and creating an ARBCOM motion can be time-consuming. I don't think Iskandar should get off scot-free just because honest users like myself were beat to the punch by a troll account.Scharb (talk)— Precedingundated comment added01:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wafflefrites's statement contains458 words and complies with the 500-word limit.Just wanted to point out regarding SashiRoll's observation "The claim thatthis comment on a user talk page is a concerning topic-ban violation, when it mentions neither Israel nor Palestine, requires such open-mindedness (in broadly construing) that I'm afraid there is a risk of my brain bouncing on the pavement." ... I believe the comment Iskandar323 made when he mentions "one of thePW pieces", he is referring to piratewires articles, such asthis one. So technically, it is topic ban violation.Wafflefrites (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC) This violation occurred in Dec 2025, after I323's block in Nov.Wafflefrites (talk)21:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please confirm if what Loki/Sashi/Goku are saying about the recuse thing is correct? If what Loki said about the tie is correct, can we please close this thing and not waste any more of our time?Wafflefrites (talk)07:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra, yes I remember this topic favoring massacres over attacks for the Oct 7 attacks/massacres. This is because American vs British English definitions for massacres is slightly different. For the Palestinans, the sources I was reading called them attacks, you can provide the diffs. A separate ArbCom can be opened for me, if you'd like.Wafflefrites
Also, if this what to do with Iskandar323 thing can't come to a close, I suggest you all try to compromise on the outcome. Like a month ban, 6 month ban, instead of year. Compromise is a good thing.Wafflefrites (talk)22:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a log showing SFR protecting Iskandar323 from vandals:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User+talk%3AIskandar323. And SFR even protected others and Iskandar323 from some account saying bad things about Iskandar323 by requesting speedy deletion herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MohaHossein. Not sure what they said about I323, but SFR is an admin who has consistently been trying to protect Iskandar323 and others from seeing bad things.Wafflefrites (talk)23:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a case be opened for I323. There is still clear confusion among admins and the community about "broadly construed" and exactly how many times I323 has violated his ban before the final block. And the policy pagesWP:BROADLY andWP:TBAN need to be improved with better wording and more examples on what exactly is broadly construed. My main argument for opening a case is that Arbcom is supposed to prevent disruption to the commmunity. I323 clearly is a well respected and liked member of a large part of the Wikipedia community. If there is not what the community sees as a fair trial, and I323 is blocked for 1 year, I am almost certain there will be more cases sent to AE for 1RR enforcements, POV pushing, etc., so likely more disruption, which I am sure no admin wants more of.Wafflefrites (talk)23:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And remember everybody to stay on topic, which is: should there be case y/n?Wafflefrites (talk)23:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SashiRolls and Super Goku have pointed out several irregularities that, if taken together, would have changed the outcome of the motion, or if a case is accepted should change the outcome of the case even if no new evidence is presented:
1. Girth Summit changed his statement to a clear statement of opposition, but did not copy it into the oppose area.2. SFRsaid they'd recuse from any potential ARBPIA5 because of his extensive involvement in the topic area (which included referring Iskandar's behavior to ArbCom in the first place). This extensive involvement, which he recognized as requiring recusal at the time, suggests he should have recused from this motion and also from any resulting case.3. Similarly, shortly before his current term Guerilleroposted several relevant diffs including some that were used by an ArbCom that now included himself to decide the motions at issue. Obviously this means he should have recused as well.
If all three of these irregularities were resolved it would change the outcome from 7-5 to 5-6. Even if only two were it would change the outcome to a tie (and therefore no consensus). Therefore I agree with SashiRolls that the motion should be overturned as no consensus (and that SFR and Guerillero shouldat least be trouted for not recusing when they should have.)
(Also, I would like to suggest that ArbCom should formally increase its own threshold to prevent issues like this in the future.)Loki (talk)06:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have not edited in thePalestine-Israel area and do not have an opinion on whether the original decision by ArbCom tosite-banIskandar323 was supported by the evidence. What is clear is that the community is dissatisfied with the decision by ArbCom, and ArbCom was elected by the community, and the purpose of this electronic workplace is to develop the encyclopedia, and the community is the collective author of the encyclopedia. Sometimes it may be necessary for ArbCom to make a decision that displeases the community, but those 'sometimes' occurrences should be very rare. This raises two questions. First, did ArbCom do anything specific or make any identifiable mistakes that contributed to a possible error? Second, what if anything should ArbCom do at this point?
The answer to the first question is that ArbCom handled theARBPIA5 violations by a series of motions rather than a full case. This may or may not have been a mistake, but is seen by some as having been a mistake.
There are several possible actions that ArbCom can take at this point:
The optics of Option 1 are bad. It will look, to a large portion of the community, that ArbCom doesn't care what the community thinks. Option 2 is the simplest option that recognizes that community opinion is important. Option 3 is probably what should have been done and will provide more transparency, and will beWP:ARBPIA6
I have an eccentric question. Can ArbCom ask the U4C to hear a case by admitting that ArbCom may have mishandled enforcement of the UCOC in this particular case? Can ArbCom request that the U4C hear an appeal, or select an appellate panel of its arbitrators, from ArbCom?
I advise ArbCom to ask the UCOC whether this case can be heard by the UCOC. If that is not available, they should open a new full case.Robert McClenon (talk)09:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The actions atWP:ARM originated from aWP:AE report submitted by a sockpuppet.
Any editing performed by a sockpuppet is, by definition, done in bad faith. There is no possible good-faith edit from a sock. Therefore, the WP:AE request itself was initiated in bad faith.
While bad faith does not negate the diffs which were presented in the WP:AE filing—they still exist as a record—the central problem is that the presentation and framing of these diffs by a bad-faith actor may have been given undue credence. A significant number of experienced editors, including many current administrators, have reviewed the evidence and stated that the diffs do not support the claims made about them.
Standard editing consistent withWP:PAG may have been systematically misrepresented in the worst possible light. More critically, the procedural constraints of a motions-based case has limited any analysis needed to assess the original filing's validity.
Given the overwhelming community response challenging the basis of the sanction, I believe the only appropriate path forward is to:
In a full case, each contested diff can be examined in proper context by editors knowledgeable on the subject, to determine whether there has indeed been a continuation of POV editing into new areas.TarnishedPathtalk09:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The entire reason why ARBCOM even exists is because in some circumstances the "community" (as represented by whoever will show up to the discussion, and as such not actually a cross-section of the actual community but instead whoever are the fiercest partisans in that area) cannot be trusted to properly implement our PAGs. I-P is undoubtedly a field where that is an issue.
If ARBCOM are going to overturn their own decision because of concern from the "community", they are negating their very purpose.
If, however ARBCOM intends to open another case in this area, then it should certainly not just be limited to the question of whether it was correct to ban Iskandar323, but also analyse the repeated violations of topic-bans by the people previously TBAN'd atWP:ARBPIA5, and whether it is appropriate to be lenient towards people who repeatedly flout a TBAN, even where individual violations appear minor.FOARP (talk)13:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Topic bans from Israel, Palestine, and the conflict broadly construed would be much easier for people to follow, and just more honest. The conflict permeates all aspects of society.
If what's happened here is SFR made a judgement call based off of their experience with the editor, and several arbs deferred to that judgement, I'd much rather people just said that. We know making reports with evidence of POV pushing is nigh-on impossibleKowal2701 (talk)14:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors raised questions of "what outcome are people seeking from this process," so I wanted to express my view on what I'd personally like to see. Achieving any specific result re: Iskandar isn't my main priority; rather, what I want is for arbs to be "showing their work", as others have put it, to demonstrate that they've reviewed all of the evidence and are making informed decisions. An example to illustrate my point: it was claimed that Iskandar was systematically and disproportionately trying to remove evidence of Israelite/Jewish presence from articles about the ancient Levant. Aquillionprovided a counterargument to that claim, showing a number of diffs of Iskandar making analogous edits about other ethnic and religious groups. I have no objection if the arbs reviewed this (or other) evidence and found it unconvincing, but I would like them to at least say so explicitly if they did, and would prefer if they also explained why; when so many arbs make silent votes, even in the face of multiple pings asking them for their detailed opinions, it's hard to know how informed they actually are about the state of the evidence. If the committee is taking extreme steps like sitebans, I want to be confident that such decisions are being made based on the relevant facts in their totality.ModernDayTrilobite (talk •contribs)22:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to an extent that the process was a bit off. However, I also think that in some cases the ends justify the means. One way to start getting balance in the IP conflict area is to have more balanced editing and editors. We don't have that now because it's a numbers game. The articles are so tilted that people who know a little bit about the area know not to use Wikipedia. Editors also "self-ban" from the IP conflict in order not to get involved. Take a look at the area and you'll see the same people editing the same articles in the same manner.Sir Joseph(talk)22:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Paprikaiser's statement contains471 words and complies with the 500-word limit.The committee's endorsement of a site-ban based on the seven diffs presented is indefensible. As multiple editors and even some committee members themselves have shown, these diffs are either irrelevant or clearly good-faith edits. Building a finding of "consistent non-neutral editing" on this debunked set of evidence, originallycompiled by the now-blocked sock Nehushtani presented in the AE case and pushed by blocked Galamore socks/meatpuppets BlookyNapsta and Nehushtani, reflects a serious failure of critical scrutiny. The process has been compromised by bad faith and a breakdown in arbitrator responsibility.
The voting record shows a pattern of arbitrators failing to meet their most basic obligation: to examine the evidence and publicly justify their decisions. In several cases,accountability appears entirely absent.
The enforcement history cited to justify the severity of the sanction is compromised. Torepeat my previous points, ScottishFinnishRadishinvoked Iskandar323's 2021 topic ban, which stemmed from an AE casefiled by an Icewhiz/Galamore sock, the same sock/meat network responsible for pushing the latest AE case against him. The committee is thus relying on an enforcement record produced by the same network targeting this editor for years, thereby rewarding a long-running harassment campaign.
The fact that this motion advanced at all on such flawed evidence and through such a deficient process reveals a system failing at a fundamental level. The community expects arbitrators to examine evidence, engage with criticism, and justify their votes publicly. In this case, a majority did not, and that failure must be addressed. I second Yngvadottir and Zero0000 in calling forthe ban to be vacated and for anindependent review to be opened, with decisions grounded in properly presented and evaluated evidence.Paprikaiser (talk)00:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Clicriffhard's statement contains510 words and iswithin 10% of the 500-word limit.As a wholly uninvolved editor, ArbCom's handling of this situation has been extremely disappointing. Specifically:
1) The arguments from Iskandar323, SashiRolls, and LokitheLiar for the recusal of @ScottishFinnishRadish and @Guerillero from the entire process (including retroactively) have been clear and intelligible. The arguments from ScottishFinnishRadish and Guerillero against recusal have, so far, appeared vague and incomplete, and simply have not addressed all of the arguments. I can see no reason whatsoever to think thatthe reasons ScottishFinnishRadish gave for recusing from ARBPIA5 did not continue to apply to these topic ban reviews, while both arbs have appeared to want more roles in the process than Judge Dredd. I'm also concerned bythis comment from 19 December, which Guerillero appeared to acknowledge could not have been made while sitting as an arb, but which he went on to make knowing that he would assume that role in the coming days. Without further explanation, that apparent attempt to circumvent the intended separation of roles raises serious questions about the integrity of Guerillero's actions, which is an explicit requirement ofWP:ARBCOND.
2) If the purpose of ArbCom is to resolve problems that the community cannot, then it is implicit that ArbCom should neither be relitigating problems that the community has dealt with, nor involving itself in non-problems. The FoF re Iskandar323's TBAN violations cited onlyone "violation" that the community had not already dealt with. If the claim that this was a comment on "the Palestine-Israel conflict" stretches broad construal to breaking point, then the idea that it was evende minimis problematic beggars belief. What possible impact could it have had on any editor's ability to work on the encyclopedia, even in the unlikely event that they were aware of its existence and knew which off-wiki article it referred to? In short, this was a non-problem that ArbCom had no business adopting as a factor supporting a site ban. In doing so, it has caused far more disruption to the community than any of us plebs ever could.
3) The cited evidence of Iskandar323's non-neutral editing has been characterised by many editors and arbs as somewhere between weak and non-existent. Both ScottishFinnishRadish ([10],[11]) and Guerillero ([12],[13],[14]) have claimed in response that their vote relied on uncited and unspecified evidence. They have been asked by numerous editors to produce that evidence, and now by two of their fellow arbs. Neither has done so. Arbs are explicitly expected torespond promptly and appropriately to such questions, and tomake public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, absent confidentiality issues. Again, arbs are also required toact with integrity, which nobody can possibly assess if they conceal the basis for their actions. As such, a simple request to @ScottishFinnishRadish and @Guerillero: could you please either (i) produce the evidence in question, or (ii) resign from the committee.
If they do neither, I hope that other arbs will have the strength of character to press the issue. A community of volunteers giving their time freely deserves better than this.Clicriffhard (talk)17:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed by ArbCom's handling of this. If you are going to pass a motion making a finding of fact to justify a sanction, then the diffs referenced in that motion should be the ones which support that finding. At least two arbs have now claimed that the finding was supported by different evidence to that cited in the motion, and yet they have been remarkably unwilling to point to the evidence which actually justified it! I don't think "the diffs cited in a motion should be the ones which justify that motion" should be a controversial principle!
If there is compelling evidence for the motions (and several arbs seem to accept that the diffs currently cited arenot compelling!) then all ArbCom needs to do is to actually tell us what it is. If, on the other hand, as asilvering says there is no more evidence, then those like SFR who are saying that the diffs presented were not the primary reason for the ban should not have voted for it. Frankly I don't think it matters which it is – ArbCom just needs to pick a position. Either the current diffsdo support the motions, or there are other diffs which support the motions and you should tell the community what they are, or the motions are flawed and you should rescind them. The current state where people are voting in support of motions yet saying that the diffs cited don't support them and refusing to say what evidence does support them is simply not tenable.Caeciliusinhorto (talk)12:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom should have a full case for this (as they should have at the start). Yes, it may reach the same conclusion; yes, people who are unhappy with the current result will still be unhappy with that result; and yes, a potentially monthlong case just to affirm an existing result will be frustrating for everyone involved.
You still have to do it. That's what we have ArbComfor - not to make sweepingWP:CONEXEMPT decisions from the bench (we could still just have Jimbo throwing thunderbolts from on high if that's all we wanted), not to judge people in a mysterious star chamber, but to do the actual deep-dive into the evidence in a public, transparent manner.
SFR is saying that the presented diffsare not the sole or primary reason for a ban
- but ArbCom is supposed to consider, and rule on, the evidence presented before it; that's what gives us the transparency that Wikipedia, including ArbCom, is supposed to operate on. Pointing vaguely to your own gestalt understanding of the situation or someone's entire history might be sufficient for a motion on something clear-cut or uncontroversial, but it should be glaringly clear at this point that this is not that - this is one of the most controversial decisions ArbCom has made in years. Maybe it is a necessary one; making controversial decisions is what ArbCom is for, after all. But the other thing ArbCom is for is actuallygoing through that full process for those decisions, even when it won't make everyone happy, even when it won't convince them, so at least people can go back and say "this was rough and I might not agree, but it was decided based on this and this and this." ArbCom has made plenty of decisions I disagree with over the years, but this is the first time where I've been concerned about the level of diligence behind that decision.
On talk, people (including me) are talking about how the precise lines of ArbCom elections could influence how long bans like these run for, and while that situation an inevitability to an extent due to the human element and the fact that ArbCom has to rule on controversial things, it's also clearly undesirable. That situation is mitigated by laying out all the evidence, clearly and completely, so a future ArbCom can go over it in the case of appeals, or for the purpose of precedent and consistency, or for future cases influenced by this one. ArbCom aren't just Super Admins, empowered to hand downWP:CONEXEMPT Super Admin decisions from on-high; giving our most controversial conduct issues the weight and detailed attention of a full case is, to a great extent, theentire point. --Aquillion (talk)06:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FortunateSons's statement contains257 words and complies with the 500-word limit.Two things can be true at the same time: the remedy for the misconduct being a ban can be (and in my opinion is) right, and the supporting Arbs should have made the effort to elaborate on what specifically led them to the conclusion that the editor is unable or unwilling to stay outside the boundaries of their tban and other topics outside of it without disruption. However, that ship has sailed.
In my opinion, the best options are the following, in order:
some additional words are necessary on why we are penalizing one user who stayed with their account, when sockpuppets from some banned users about 1.5 PIA cases ago are able to essentially overwhelm the system with weaponized AE reports. As someone who originally welcomed ARBCOM review,[15] and personally was alarmed by Iskandar's potential tban vios, i now find myself convinced more by what zero0000 is saying, as well as arguments sean hoyland made.[16]Fiat justitia ruat caelum simply may not apply in a world where justice is done only to those who allow themselves to be open enough to attract controversy.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)01:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So with this motion passing, but with no motion to vacate the ban, the idea is now that everyone who voted in support of Iskandar's ban did so SOLELY based on the talkpage 'violation', and definitely not on the false FoF that they all voted for? The talkpage violation where he was referencing the false statements of a hitpiece about himself and his editing? Everyone just politely voted for the other evidence. This is farcial. If you have to throw out half of the evidence, you shouldn't get to post facto declare "well, I would've made the same decision without it, even though I specifically called out the false evidence as my reason to support the ban." Leaving an editor indefinitely banned just to save face is, plainly, malfeasance.Parabolist (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)asilvering Same caveat as BK, of course, huge respect for being reasonable, and I doubt you disagree with too much here. But that's the thing. Arbcom isnot the "ends justify the means" venue. The arbitration process is the place on-wiki where the process matters the most. Arbitration cases are weeks long byzantine trials, where editors have to conform to very specific rules, exhaustively document everything, and spend hours defending themselves. The social contract here is that the Arbs have always been rigid and process-minded, without any cowboy shit. To have this upended here, and to learn that suddenly the rules don't matter, arbs can submit faulty evidence, not recuse when provided reasonable doubt, do their own research (something previous arbs have been very specific they don't do) and then not even share with the accused or their fellow arbs... it's a detonation of trust. The point of the committee is we trust you to beironclad in your decisions, through rigorous and exhausting process.Parabolist (talk)20:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I dont really know much of Iskandar other thanthis rude response to my suggestion not to test the line of their topic ban. I also defended their right to an exception to that topic ban in order to participate in an AFD I initiated against a page they created. In any case, whether the process was followed correctly is a fair point, but whether a redo would result in a different result (it seems not), is also a fair point. This looks like it is just going to waste arb time for what is a foregone conclusion, and just reflects discontent in the result. I think the arbs did the best they could at the time.
Furthermore, the view that the "community" is upset with the decision is mistaken at best, disingenuous at worst. Its pretty clear that Palestine-sympathizing editors have come out to support Iskandar, which frankly might also indicate the alleged POV pushing. Denying this fact is silly: its plainly obvious regarding the vast majority of PIA editors that they favor one side or the other. Restricting them all would solve little, but restricting the most egregious would be an improvement. These cases arent readily advertises, so unless one is paying attention, its not likely to be found by the average community member. Not to mention the issue of some editors feeling hounded off or bullied away from the topic. Wikipedia is accused of bias because of this persistent issue.
Giraffer, Kowal, and Sir Joseph in particular have also expressed points that make sense. Thanks again to the arbs for doing what they could to resolve the dispute(s). ← Metallurgist (talk)15:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
Black Kite, revoking TPA is standard practice for ArbCom bans.WP:BAN says that for site banstalk page access may be allowed to appeal the ban
; because we only take site ban appeals via arbcom-en, we normally revoke TPA. I definitely want to hear from Iskandar about whether they would like a case, so I support restoring TPA as an interim measure. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)19:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
full picturecomment was before I switched my vote; I was referring to the evidence from PIA5 + the infamous seven diffs. We have different views about what to do if bad-faith actors report real problems, and I know we won't convince one another of our views, so I won't try. But I generally agree withthis memorable quote from Levivich (of all people). Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)00:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: It won't affect the ban on its own, though as Izno alludes to, this might cause some supporters of the ban to re-evaluate their position). I opposed the POV motion but supported a ban due to the history of topic ban violations, and I maintain that is a reasonable position (I also can see why someone would oppose a ban). Regardless, there is great value in ArbCom removing a counter-factual, procedurally-incorrect motion from the books. I don't think I would support removing the ban without some safeguards (and I think a case is a great time to workshop what that would look like).
To address your main concern: I have serious concerns with the behavior of some arbs. Ireally want them to supply the diffs they used to support the POV motion or retract their claims of broader issues. But the tools I can see to deal with that, short of voting to suspend or remove them from office, are limited to asking them to do so, with varying levels of politeness and formality.
I'll reiterate my request thatScottishFinnishRadish andGuerillero to do so, in the spirit ofUser:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned. People are upset, not because you cast an unpopular vote, but because they don't know what edits you looked at to arrive at that unpopular vote. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]taking the issue of sockpuppet disruption seriouslylook like, to you? --asilvering (talk)01:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Judaism has generally regarded him as wicked, although repentance is also ascribed to him.Article describes him as an important prophet of Islam. Passes WP:V, supported by RS.
inhabitedCanaan during theIron Ageto
who emerged inCanaan during theIron Agebut the source places them emerging as a separate people in the late 14th century, late Bronze Age. The other possibility listed in the source is semi-nomadic people in central Palestine in the late Bronze Age.
Page is about a cultural epoch for the region, not a specific polity within the historical continuum of other polities, article discusses specific polities at length. This is after removing Hellenistic Judea from the article.
Nope – way better source needed, source is published byInstitute of Ismaili Studieslooks like some COI editing on this article. No discussion of source on RSN. Covered a bit inNasir al-Din al-Tusi.
Removing undue reference to tangential event, itself with questionable notability. The article on the conference looks pretty well referenced and notable.
The motion entitledIskandar323 further POV pushing
is rescinded.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0 | 7 |
| 1–2 | 6 |
| 3–4 | 5 |
[w]here the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed, the Committee may resolve the dispute by motion. Clearly not the case here.
Use this section to requestclarification oramendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Guidance on participation and word limits
Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.~~~~).General guidance
Initiated byEarthDudeat18:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
In the Indian military history case,WP:GS/CASTE was rescinded intoWP:CT/SASG. Before that, in 2023,a discussion at AN had led to GSCASTE's application being updated to "pages related to South Asian social groups, broadly construed". However, the official wording of SASG uses the old application of GSCASTE, that being "social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal". Looking through the Indian military history case, I couldn't find any reason as to why the old GSCASTE application was used instead of the newer one. In theDecember 2025 ACRA request regarding SASG, there appeared to be some confusion as to whether SASG is applied as "broadly construed". I have noticed SASG being applied as if it were broadly construed in places such asWP:RFPP (I have also seen the opposite, with some of these requests being declined on the basis that SASG is not applied as broadly construed). This inconsistent application extends beyond just RFPP. It is all very confusing.
This clarification request basically boils down to:
1) Is SASG applied as "related to" and "broadly construed"?
2) If not, then why?
Responding to the ping, and to the second half of the request, I agree that the decision to make SASG not be broadly construed (or more precisely, to exclude political parties, which would otherwise be well within the range of its broad construction) is confusing and will continue to be confusing. No opinion on the first part of the request regarding the use of an old framing vs. the current one.signed,Rosguilltalk23:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'lllink my previous comment on the matter for anyone who is interested. Briefly, I think it is desirable to remove the wording about political parties. Non-EC editors make a very large proportion of the constructive contributions to election-related pages; it is the caste-adjacent material that needs to be ECR. I would argue that "caste, broadly construed" is closest to the intended meaning of the original sanctions regime.
If you do stick with "social groups", I repeat my request that you clarify whether that encompasses religion. We should not be in the habit of making a broad ruling intended to be narrowly enforced; that opens the door to gatekeeping behavior that is already rife in this topic. That is, if religion is included, I ask that you make it explicit, such that the ECR may be uniformly enforced.Vanamonde93 (talk)00:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
broadly construed, so I would say it is not broadly construed. In any event, admins can still ECP pages under CT/SA that fall outside of SASG. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)19:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 | This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived atWikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visitWP:ARC orWP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (arbitrators only) All editors are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension on this page below (using the{{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailingclerks-l |
Remedies 1 and2 ofIsrael-Lebanon ("Use of blogs" and "Editors cautioned", respectively) are rescinded.
Remedy 3.1 ofIsrael-Lebanon is also rescinded. Any restrictions issued under this provision remain in force, and are governed by thecontentious topic designation for the Arab–Israeli conflict.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Remedies 1 and 4 andenforcement provisions 1 and 3 ofLyndon LaRouche are rescinded. Actions previously taken in accordance with the remedy or enforcement provisions remain in force.
Thepost-decision motion passed fromLyndon LaRouche 2 is rescinded. Any blocks issued under that provision remain in force, and remain governed by the applicable appeals process as if this motion did not pass.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Followinga long-running trial, remedies1 and2 ofMidnight Syndicate are fully rescinded. All topic bans issued in accordance with remedy are also rescinded. Additionally,the two bespoke enforcement provisions are rescinded.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Special enforcement 3 of theRace and intelligence case ("Review of topic-bans") is rescinded. Bans from the Committee may be appealed in the usual way atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Remedy 1 ofRegarding The Bogdanov Affair ("Ban on editing Bogdanov Affair") is amended to read:
1)CatherineV (talk ·contribs),EE Guy (talk ·contribs),Laurence67 (talk ·contribs),Luis A. (talk ·contribs),ProfesseurYIN (talk ·contribs),XAL (talk ·contribs), andYBM (talk ·contribs) are prohibited from editingBogdanov affair (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) andits talk page.
Remedy 2 andenforcement provision 2 ("Notice" and "Additional combatants") are rescinded. Bans issued in accordance with enforcement provision 2 are also rescinded.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Remedies 2 and 3 ofSathya Sai Baba ("Removal of poorly sourced negative information" and "Removal of poorly sourced information", respectively) are rescinded.
Remedy 4 ofSathya Sai Baba 2 ("Prior remedies clarified") is also rescinded.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Remedies5.1 and8 ofScientology ("Single purpose accounts with agendas" and "Editors instructed", respectively) are rescinded.
Remedy 6 ("Account limitation") is amended to read:6) Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic from a temporary account. They are to inform the Committee of the account they have selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to begin using a different account.
Special enforcement provision 2 ("Uninvolved administrators") is rescinded. The normal rules ofWP:INVOLVED continue to apply to administrators in the topic area.
Any sanctions issued in accordance with the rescinded remedies remain in effect until appealed. Time-bounded sanctions still expire as if this motion never carried.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Remedies 1, 2, 3, and 5 ofHunger ("Material from The Hunger Project itself", "Negative material", "Current editors", and "Continuing jurisdiction"; respectively) are rescinded. Note that thearbitration policy statesThe Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time.We won't reopen that case by motion, so we shouldn't retain the invitation to ask us to.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Remedy 2 ofUser:PolishPoliticians is rescinded.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Remedy 1 ofYoshiaki Omura ("Ban for disruption") is amended to read:
1) Richardmalter is indefinitely banned from editingYoshiaki Omura or its talk page.
Enforcement provision 1 ("Enforcement by block") is amended to read:
1) Richardmalter may be blocked for up to a year if they editYoshiaki Omura or its talk page.
Enforcement provision 3 ("Enforcement by reversion") is rescinded.The policy on reverting banned editors continues to apply to Richardmalter's edits to Yoshiaki Omura–related pages.
Allenforcement actions taken in accordance with the rescinded remedy and enforcement provisions remain in force and are to be appealed as if this motion did not pass.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Designation is amended to read:
Contentious topics may be designated either as part of the final decision of an arbitration case or by Arbitration Committee motion.
Every January 1, any contentious topic designations not used in the preceding two years (except for protecting pages) are automatically terminated. Contentious topics designations may not be automatically removed in this manner until they have existed for a full year. Additionally, if it becomes apparent that a particular contentious topic designation is no longer necessary, the Committee may rescind it. Any editor may request that the Committee review a contentious topic designation by submitting arequest for amendment ("ARCA").
Unless the Committee specifies otherwise, after rescinding a designation, all restrictions previously issued under that designation remain in force and continue to be governed by the contentious topics procedure.
Remedy 1.2 ofHistorical elections ("Contentious topic (with sunset)") is retitledContentious topic
and amended by striking the final sentence.
Remedy 1a ofYasuke ("Contentious topic (Yasuke)") is amended by striking the final sentence.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
I'm not sure I actually support this motion, but I think it is worth considering. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)03:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Remedy 4.1 of theAbortion case ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by thecontentious topics procedure.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
There were three page protections plus a custom 1RR in2022, three bans in2023, four actions (all page protection and all covered by AMPOL) in2024, and nothing in2025. I am weakly in support (this is quite minimal disruption), but I am open to persuasion. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)04:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Remedies1 and2.1 ("IP editing prohibited" and "Administrators instructed", respectively) are rescinded. The regularsockpuppetry policy and norms around moving pages apply.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Editors in good standing who wish to edit such topics under a single additional account not linked to their identity may do so under the provisions of WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:SOCK#NOTIFY.was supposed to expire after three years; if it expired, it doesn't hurt to remove it; if it is still on the books,WP:SOCK is sufficient. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)05:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Remedy 1.2 of theClimate change case ("Climate change: contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by thecontentious topics procedure.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Remedy 2 ("Climate change sanctions noticeboard superseded") is rescinded. Restrictions issued inClimate change or via the previous contentious topic designation may be enforced via thearbitration enforcement noticeboard like any other AE restrictions.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Any future sanctions requests should be based on the discretionary sanctions imposed above and the other remedies in this decision, and discussed in the standard location, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement (AE)) is no longer true if the CT is gone. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)04:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Remedy 2 of theGun control case ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by thecontentious topics procedure.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Remedy 5 of theThe Troubles case ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by thecontentious topics procedure.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Stats: a couple of bans in2023, a warning for socking, a page protection, an indefinite block, and something covered by BLP in2024, andone semi in 2025.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)04:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Remedy 6 ofThe Troubles case ("One-revert rule") is rescinded.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
I am leaning towards supporting this remedy and keeping the CT designation so admins can respond to problems (in what I consider to be the unlikely event that problems recur).HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)04:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Enforcement provision 2 ofThe Troubles case ("Terms of probation") is rescinded.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 6 |
| 2–3 | 5 |
| 4–5 | 4 |
Support:
probationis what morphed into the topic-wide 1RR, so it's unclear what this provision is currently doing. Assuming it is a carve-out to the blanket 1RR restriction, it is superfluous if 1RR goes away, and even more crazy if we keep 1RR on the books. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)04:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator discussion
Bans from the may be appealed in the usual way at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.is obviously missing at least one word, but I'm not sure if "from the" is correct either. I suspect this was incompletely rephrased at some point during Arb's pre-discussion.
Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals:create a new section and use the template{{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
For quick requests: use theQuick enforcement requests section.
See also:Logged AE sanctions
| Important information Please use this pageonly to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in thedispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please usethe clarification and amendment noticeboard. 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.
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}}.
|
| |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This section may be used for short requests for enforcement intended to be answered by a single administrator. This can include requests forpage restrictions or requests torevert violations of a restriction, but it shouldnot be used to request that an editor be blocked, banned, or given othereditor restrictions – for those, file along-form enforcement thread.
To add a quick request, copy the following text box,click to edit this section, paste in the copied text at the bottom, and replace "Heading", "Page title", "Requested action", and "Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated)" to describe the request:
=== Heading ===*{{pagelinks|Page title}}'''Requested action''': Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated).~~~~
One-revert restriction: Changes on this page are frequently reverted back and forth.User:Example (talk)16:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: This doesn't involve anycontentious topic, so an admin doesn't have discretion to impose aone-revert restriction here. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬)16:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]| This has already been handled. If there are further problems related to a quick request, it's obviously not a "quick request" anymore and should be handled in another manner.asilvering (talk)18:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
Requested action: Could someone please inform this user of the restrictions covering ARBPIA pages? And keep an eye on that page? A canvassing call was made off wiki and there are attempts to mass delete and ignore reliable sources. Thank you.Tiamut (talk)08:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
|
| This is not the place to request CSD.asilvering (talk)18:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
Requested action: Delete the page as a G5 violation, as the creator is not extended-confirmed. The G5 tag was declined because she is also running for Congress, even though, according to the creator,
|
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.
Search CT alerts: in user talk history •in system log
Thunderbird L17, arguing that it wasn't necessary to state inImane Khelif that she is not transgender because no one is saying she is, first asked for a major media outlet saying some public figure had said so at[34], and then asked for a quote at[35], and then argued Trump hadn't said that at[36] and[37], and then that Trump was known for not stating things clearly and asked for another public figure at[38] and also is arguing that Trump saying she "transitioned" isn't the same as Trump saying she is "transgender"here.
Now apparently arguing it's hypocrisy that WP requires different standards for saying Khelif isn't transgender than for saying she "admits to having SRY gene"here.
Removal of CT alerthere
This very infrequent editor hadn't edited in over a year. Three days ago areddit post covered this new story and discussed the WP article, and user came in and has made twice as many edits atTalk:Imane Khelif as at any other article or talk in their 20+years of editing, mostly arguing that no one is saying Khelif is transgender so there's no need for Wikipedia to state she's not transgender.Valereee (talk)21:59, 9 February 2026 (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.
I rarely edit Wikipedia anymore because it feels like the established narrative on a page and the procedure of allowing edits is more important than just stating the truth. It takes too much effort to effect change, even if the change you're trying to make to a page is factually, provably true.
I had monitored the Imane Khelif page for some time, and observed the unchallenged false statements on it. I knew the entire controversy was about whether or not Khelif had XY chromosomes, an SRY gene, and aDSD. But the Wikipedia pages have always framed the issue with a straw-man argument that Khelif had been falsely accused of being transgender.
When I saw in the news last week that Khelif had made a public statement about the SRY gene I decided to see if the page was going to finally reach a neutral and unbiased state, and acknowledge what the controversy was actually about. As expected, I saw on the talk page that certain editors were working hard to keep the quote off the page. I saw the request for comment and decided to try adding my voice to the conversation. I didn't come from Reddit or anywhere else.
In the discussions I pointed out that theImane Khelif page and the related2024 Summer Olympics boxing controversy also make claims that "Several public figures, including then U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and author J. K. Rowling, referenced the incident in political commentary about women in sports, often incorrectly suggesting Khelif was transgender."
That claim is false. There areno quotes from any public figures that I can find accusing Khelif of being "transgender", certainly not from J. K. Rowling. The closest I can find is a quote from Donald Trump about people "in the boxing" who "transitioned". That quote is unclear, but is also from asingle public figure who is well known for being unclear.
So I wondered if I could actually make a small difference in the conversation by pointing out that fact. In a discussion about how what exactly Khelif said was justso important, maybe I could respectfully point out that what exactly people like J. K. Rowling said was important too, and that they were being misrepresented on the same page.
The results have been unsurprising to me. No engagement with the actual fact that those claims are false. Just personal attacks against me for going against the established narrative on the page. And now this. I have no idea what exactly I'm supposed to defend here, and honestly at this point I really don't care. It's all taken up too much of my time and I'll probably give up on Wikipedia again for another few years.
But facts are facts. If you want them to be on Wikipedia, then put them there. But if you want to drag me through arbitration to preserve the provably false narrative that multiple public figures are accusing Khelif of being transgender, then do that. I've said my peace.Thunderbird L17 (talk)23:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why this arbitration was even started byUser:Valereee in the first place? According toWikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom, "All conduct issues should first be discussed at the talk page of the users involved." If this is a conduct issue that Valereee took issue with, then why did they not bring it up on my talk page first and resolve it that way? What are we even doing here?Thunderbird L17 (talk)01:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee I received one complaint by a user for using "they" instead of "she". I amended my comment as a result and was more carful with my pronouns going forward. I thought that would be the end of it. Like I said, this entire experience has soured me on ever answering a "Request for Comment" on Wikipedia again. I just don't understand why you wouldn't reach out first instead of pushing this to arbitration.Thunderbird L17 (talk)01:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion between myself and Thunderbird L17 atTalk:Imane_Khelif#Responses underneath my !vote. Some of diffs provided by Valereee make up part of that discussion. In that discussion, Thunderbird L17 repeatedly attempts toWP:GASLIGHT me, telling me that Trump didn't say what he clearly said. I've taken the page of my watchlist and unsubscribed from the threads in very large part because of Thunderbird L17's conduct. Looking at Thunderbird L17'scomments at Talk:Imane_Khelif it is harder to find comments which aren't problematic than it is to find ones which are. Two diffs which stand out areSpecial:Diff/1337356009 where they state that the issue has always been about "a male DSD" and thenSpecial:Diff/1337380747 where they state that @Katzrockso has engaged in a "dishonest misrepresentation" for quoting what they wrote.TarnishedPathtalk23:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear up some confusion: it appears Thunderbird is confusing theCTOP alert that's being discussed above with a warningthey received here fromDanielRigal. The difference is rather moot, however, as both the alert and warning should have been heeded when he removed them from his talk page.
In response to DanielRigal's warning, Thunderbird calls ourMOS:GENDERID guidelines "compelled speech rules
" because they'd require him to use she/her pronouns for Khelif[39]. Any editor who believes that not misgendering BLPs on wikipedia is afreedom of expression issue should not be editing within this CTOP.Nil🥝04:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question/comment aboutMOS:GENDERID about the pronoun "they".
Suppose someone self-identifies as a woman. Doesn't matter for this question whether they're cis or trans. Am I not allowed to use the singular "they" as a pronoun for them in talk page discussions? Where doesMOS:GENDERID prohibit this practice?
As far as I can see, the onlysentence at all dealing with "they" in the MOS is this:Singular they/them/their pronouns are appropriate to use in reference to any person who goes by them.
As I read the sentence, it is dealing with people who wish to be called by the pronoun "they" -- so Wikipedia editors should respect their wishes. This sentence does not prohibit Wikipedia editors from using "they" for anyone else, say a man or woman.
I understand completely that it's a problem if someone uses "she" for a person who self-identifies as a man (or vice versa). That problem arises because "she" or "he" are not gender-neutral. But thesingular they is a gender-neutral pronoun, and useful precisely because of it is so. I use the singular they all the time in my normal conversation.
I mostly stay away from this topic, so please excuse my ignorance.Kingsindian ♝ ♚16:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I participated a bit in the talk-page discussion; I’m commenting here on process and the evidentiary premise for sanctions, not to advocate for any editor.
theleekycauldron: yourcomment treats "male" language by J. K. Rowling as saying that it's "tooootally unrelated to accusing her of being transgender" (sarcasm), or else any attempt to distinguish "male" (as used in sport eligibility disputes) from gender identity is "[in] fact code for a claim of a DSD," which you then dismiss ("no one would describe [that] as truly being male"). The issue is that treating the eligibility-rule reading as basically off the table is doing a lot of work here.
On the merits of the reading: the relevant eligibility materials from World Athletics (as summarized in itspress release) andWorld Boxing use "sex"/"biological sex" terminology. World Athletics defines "biological male" by Y-chromosome status, "irrespective of their legal sex and/or gender identity" (section C3.5A). Thisjournal article makes this argument explicitly.
To be clear, I am not arguing for Wikipedia to adopt these standards; I have no trouble withMOS:GENDERID. I am saying it is not safe to treat "male" language here as necessarily about transgender identity (or "code") when these regimes define "biological sex" categories this way.
Given the page is under full protection specifically to channel disputes into talk-page discussion, some protracted back-and-forth is going to be normal. I’d be cautious about labeling that "sealioning" absent clear diffs showing repetitive badgering (same questions after answers) or refusal to engage what's already been presented.Kingsindian ♝ ♚10:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thunderbird L17 claims confusion but I'm not sure that I buy it. I think the use of "they" was almost certainly intentional and gratuitous and that the response to my warning was only feigned ignorance. I think that some other diffs support this suspicion.Here we have Thunderbird L17 trying to put the nonsense phrase "male DSD" on Khelif. (That's on Talk, so it's not as egregious as it would be in the article itself but it's definitely not good.) When Thunderbird L17rephrased that comment after I reverted it it was accompanied by a snippy edit summary. Then there is the old "why are you assuming what my pronouns are?" shtick which is a bit of a tell.
Of course, I have no way to be absolutely sure about what Thunderbird L17's intentions are but I think subtle but intentional trolling is the simplest and most plausible explanation for what has gone on here. I think a topic ban from GENSEX would put a stop to this without preventing Thunderbird L17 from contributing constructively in other areas if desired. --DanielRigal (talk)20:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts: in user talk history •in system log
3 Feb 2026 - Alaexis adds to the BLP article of Hussam Abu Safiya (a Gazan doctor who was has been detained without charge by the Israeli military since Dec 2024) that "Abu Safiya holds the rank of colonel in the Directorate of Military Medical Services. The directorate is part of Hamas but is separate from its military wing." This was sourced only to two Arabic language sources of unestablished (and seemingly dubious) reliability,[1][2] and to a Times of Israel article.[3] Alaexis' edit summary was simply: "position".
Their edit was reverted per edit summary of "This is WP:SYNTH, combining unrelated reporting from weak Arab language sources to an unverified Israeli military claim in ToI [Times of Israel]. It also fails WP:DUE and WP:BLP. Seek consensus".[40]
Alaexis' edit was made immediately after an edit adding similar content was removed per "JP [Jerusalem Post] cannot be cited for controversial claims, and ToI [Times of Israel] cites it back to an Israel lobby outfit NGO Monitor. Needs stronger source base for inclusion in a BLP".[41]
I believe this is a clear BLP violation and very similar to the edit Alaexis was previously warned over. The sources cited are not sufficient to establish this information is DUE, and the statement that "the directorate is part of Hamas" is disputed by Al Jazeera[42] and Drop Site News[43] and implies "serious accusations of involvement in a designated terrorist organization. As such,WP:BLPCRIME considerations apply."
See "Notice of a logged contentious topic warning" above.
Not only was this edit made by Alaexis but they continue to argue for it's restoration in the talk page discussion,[44] putting forth more poor sourcing to justify their edit, citing the Times of India (a problematic source per WP:TIMESOFINDIA), the Jerusalem Post (which "should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict"), and two sources of unestablished reliability (Misbar (Arabic) and The Media Line).
The Misbar source is titled (per machine translation) "The title "Colonel"... How did the occupation turn an administrative title into a terrorism charge against Dr. Abu Safiya?", and one user's analysis of it states that the article "provides effective reasoning for opposing inclusion of the "colonel" information absent the necessary context it provides, for doing so legitimizes the Israeli campaign to justify his detention and abuse. It explains that titles like "colonel" and "military medical services" are civilian administrative designations with no operational military meaning, and that deploying them outside their specific administrative and legal context produces a misleading perception (تصور مضلل) of military affiliation where none actually exists."[45]
References
-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)01:24, 14 February 2026 (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.
This is yet another example of removing sourced information which without any policy basis which has happened a lot in this topic area.
There are no sources that dispute the key facts (the rank and affiliation with the Directorate of Military Medical Services). Whether it's due is now discussed at the talk page, this is exactly what is supposed to happen when there is a disagreement. Several other editors also believe it's due.
When there is a disagreement in RS on whether the said directorate is part of Hamas goverment or not we should present all main viewpoints rather than censoring one of them.
This statement by IOHANNVSVERVS is misleadingthe statement that "the directorate is part of Hamas" is disputed by ... Drop Site News[48]
. The Drop Site tweet says thatThe article itself inadvertently admits this, writing that “Safiya’s photo appeared on the Gaza Medical Services’ Facebook page — a group overseen by the Hamas-run health ministry,” an admission that Abu Safiya belonged to a government health institution, not an armed faction
which is basically what I wrote inmy single edit of the article in question citing the ToIThe directorate is part of Hamas but is separate fromits military wing
[49]
Theedit summary of the revert shows the fundamental misunderstanding of the WP:RS policy. RS are allowed to use non-reliable information sources and do this all the time. Editors cannot use Youtube videos as a source but RS are allowed to do it because we assume that they do the due diligence. So using a source we deem unreliable is not a valid reason to remove a RS.
