Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

< Wikipedia:Arbitration
(Redirected from Wikipedia:ARBREQ)

Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Michael Jackson (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 01 Jun 2026 15 Jun 2026
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 none (orig. case) 2 June 2026
Direct violation report: Skitash none none 14 June 2026
Motion name Date posted
Contentious topic changes 27 May 2026

Requests for arbitration


Requests for clarification and amendment

Shortcuts

Submitting a request for clarification or amendment

  1. Open the appropriate page in a new tab or window:
    1. Request a decision be clarified
    2. Request a decision be amended or rescinded
    3. Appeal an arbitration enforcement or contentious topic restriction
    4. Report a violation of a restriction imposed directly by the Arbitration Committee
    5. Refer an AE enforcement request
    6. Refer an AE appeal
  2. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify them; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  3. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Users who have been blocked or banned sitewide can appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).

Guidance on participation and word limits

  • Submissions are limited to 500 words of rendered wikitext, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly include (a) why you need additional words and (b) what you hope to discuss in your extended submission.
  • You may only edit your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (See Wikipedia:Guide to arbitration § Responding to requests.)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

Initiated by Staraction at 18:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Staraction

Over at WP:BATCH, Sean.hoyland has requested extended-confirmed protection for some templates whose topic is strictly within the Arab–Israeli conflict. Protection for some of the pages requested was previously declined by Toadspike since they were not articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area [emphasis added]. Subsequent discussion revealed disagreement between several administrators regarding whether relevant templates fell under the extended confirmed restriction, with a general sense of ambiguity (Pppery, Toadspike, rsjaffe).

TL;DR: Do templates whose topic is strictly within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area qualify under WP:CT/PIA's extended-confirmed restriction?

I concur with Toadspike & rsjaffe below in that I worded this last line incorrectly, apologies. It should read: "Do templates whose topic is strictly within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area qualify under WP:CT/PIA's extended-confirmed protection by default remedy? [emphasis added] Staraction (talk · contribs) 19:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I've added template transclusion counts to the request for convenience/consideration. Note that the counts will be 1 less than the transclusion counts from 'What links here' because I've excluded the template talk pages from the counts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question that might be worth considering at the same time - is a redirect to an article that qualifies for ECP by default an article that qualifies for ECP by default? For example, 1948 war -> 1948 Palestine war Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toadspike

My comment here summarizes my perspective. Staraction's question isn't quite correct: It's obvious that templates fall under the extended-confirmed restriction; the real question is whether they fall under the ECP by default remedy. I have no opinion on whether they should, I'd just like clear guidance either way. Toadspike [Talk] 18:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pppery

Statement by Rsjaffe

The question I'd like answered is slightly different: should templates strictly within the A-I topic area be ECP by default?

The committee decided that All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article. However, if you look at the votes and discussion at that link, you see arguments that appear just as applicable to templates as to articles. This makes me wonder if the scope of the remedy was insufficient as written. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Bushranger

@Toadspike: Regardless of whether or not they are mandated for ECP by default (which the consensus of arbs seems to be "not"), the fact of the matter is that ECR, when an entire page (regardless of namespace) falls within the topic and thus the entire page falls under ECR, is de facto ECP, as no non-XC editor is allowed to edit the page; applying the protection is simply changing that to de jure. IMHO there's no reason to ever not ECP a page that falls fully within an ECR topic area. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion

Direct violation report: Skitash

Initiated by SuperPianoMan9167 at 14:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Restriction being violated
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb#Skitash topic banned
User being reported, and confirmation that they are aware of the report
Confirmation that the user is aware of the report

Statement by SuperPianoMan9167

Skitash altered info relating to Libya in this edit, which is a violation of their topic ban from "the Maghreb region, broadly construed". @Bananakingler has already reported this at WP:AE#Arbcom Maghreb violation, but ARCA is the preferred a suggested location for reporting violations of sanctions directly imposed by the Committee per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Direct violation reports. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Skitash: Avoiding editing Libya- or Maghreb-related articles is not enough. Your topic ban is "broadly construed", so you cannot make any edits relating to the Maghreb region or any of its constituent countries anywhere on Wikipedia. WP:TBAN says Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed".
Removal of info related to the 2011 military intervention in Libya is certainly within the scope of your topic ban. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the out-of-process change of venue. I made the decision to switch to ARCA based on the discussion at User talk:Asilvering#Correct forum. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Skitash

Greetings. I am topic banned from the Maghreb, not from United Kingdom–United States relations. The edit I partially reverted was a large addition of unsourced material about the 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2011 NATO intervention in Libya that had been placed in the lede of that article about US-UK bilateral relations, which in my view constituted WP:UNDUE weight and off-topic bloat. My intention was not to edit anything about Libya, and I have not edited any Libya- or Maghreb-related articles. Skitash (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that my topic ban is broadly construed, and my revert fell under that scope. I have made a mistake in this case, and it won't happen again. Skitash (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Samuelshraga

Arbcom adopted a finding of fact that explicitly included Libya within the Maghreb. That makes this edit unambiguously a topic ban violation. However, I don't think any of the evidence in the case was about Libya, and Skitash's comment suggests they're not aware that they're topic banned from any content about the Maghreb at all, not just Maghreb-related articles. I suggest if they signal that they are aware of this now and that they will refrain going forward, this need not go further. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by rsjaffe

Even though this could have been handled at AE, since the substantive discussion is occurring here I closed the AE report as a duplicate to avoid confusion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Skitash: Clerk notes

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

Skitash: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • ARCA is the preferred location the section does not say that, it says they may be sent here. Izno (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shouldn't have been brought here, as there's (even to this minute, still) an active AE report about this. Further, and as Izno correctly notes, the operative word here is "may" rather than "preferred". On the substance, I note Skitash's mea culpa and think this can be closed as 'editor acknowledges violation, has committed to not making mistake again'. Daniel (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone gets one and they now understand the topic ban is broadly construed and what that means so I think we're done here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Contentious topic changes


These four motions would amend the contentious topics procedure by:

They are open for comments before voting. Your thoughts are welcome in § Community discussion :) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic changes: Clerk notes

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

Live motion: Replacing awareness with warnings

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a second paragraph:

An administrator should warn an editor whose behavior is not egregiously disruptive if the administrator believes the editor does not understand what editing in a contentious topic means. Otherwise, the administrator should issue an appropriate restriction.

To conform with these changes:

  • Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by removing An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previously aware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.
  • The part of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Enforcement of restrictions beginning However, breaches of a page restriction... is amended to read However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if the restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template).
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope is amended by removing the word aware
  • Point (v) of Palestine-Israel articles 4 remedy 9, point (v) of Indian military history remedy 9, and point (vii) of GamerGate remedy 1.2 ("Available sanctions", "ARBIPA available sanctions", and "Sanctions available", respectively) are amended to read The contentious topics procedure permits uninvolved admins to use a wide variety of tools from the "standard set" to address disruption, including protections, blocks, topic bans, and revert restrictions.
  • Remedy 2 and remedy 3 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("DS Extended: SPAs" and "DS: Administrators Encouraged", respectively) are terminated
  • Remedy 1 of COVID-19 ("Contentious topic designation") is amended to read:

    1) COVID-19 is designated as a contentious topic, replacing the community COVID-19 general sanctions.

    All sanctions issued under the COVID-19 general sanctions are governed by the contentious topic procedure. Administrators who enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing this contentious topic.

  • Remedy 13 of Skepticism and coordinated editing ("BLP DS reminder") is retitled BLP contentious topic reminder and amended to read:

    13) Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation from the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case. Administrators should give serious consideration to issuing contentious topic restrictions to editors named in this decision in the event of further misconduct.

  • Remedy 1c of Indian military history ("Arbitration Committee assumes WP:GSCASTE and unifies South Asian WP:CTOPS") is amended by removing the second-to-last bullet point (beginning Editors aware of the previous contentious topic...)
  • Remedy 1 of Article titles and capitalisation 2 ("Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended") is amended by removing Editors aware of the previous contentious topic designation are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within the subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.

Administrators are strongly reminded that warning before sanctioning is almost always best practice. This change only removes the formalities associated with awareness.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

  1. Absolutely. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Aoidh (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 19:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mildly in favor. Izno (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

    Abstain:

      Arbitrator discussion

      Live motion: Repeated warnings

      Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a final paragraph:

      If an editor does not improve their behavior after a warning, administrators should normally impose editor restrictions rather than give additional warnings.

      For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

      Support:

      1. I support the idea in principle, but I don't know that it'll have much effect. At least it gives a sign for admins to tap when making their argument at AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      2. I think the giv[ing] a sign for admins to tap will be helpful, though I expect to iterate on this in the future. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      3. Mildly in favor per SFR. Izno (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      4. Aoidh (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      5. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      6. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 15:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      7. While I hate to add more to how CT works, this has been a long-term problem with AE --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      Oppose:

      1. Yeah, honestly, I think this ends up being a solution in search of a problem. I trust AE admins to be effective in calculating remedies. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      2. It's creep. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      Abstain:

        Arbitrator discussion

        I've held off from supporting this. I'm not sure I want to, using Levivich's word, micromanage admins or require additional paperwork, and at the same time, I wonder if this is CREEP. At the same time, maybe we can try this minimalist approach and later reassess how it has worked? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

        Live motion: Eliminating renewal

        Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Renewal of page restrictions is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. To conform with this change:

        For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

        Support:

        1. One of Wikipedia's greatest problems these days is the proliferation of overly-complex rules and procedures, which make it harder to contribute to the encyclopedia. We have done next to nothing to address it. Eliminating procedures which have never been used is the lowest hanging fruit when dealing with a complex document like Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

          I'll switch to oppose if anyone can find one (1) instance where this procedure was used. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        3. Mildly in favor of removal per my review. Should we remove this procedure, I do think someone is permitted by procedure to renew a thing by themself anyway (and such action can be appealed to AE after the fact regardless). Izno (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        4. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        5. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        6. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        7. With the understanding that removing this text doesn't actually remove the ability to renew a page restriction by just imposing it again. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        8. Agreed with SilverLocust and Izno. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        9. Aoidh (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

        Oppose:

          Abstain:

            Arbitrator discussion

            Live motion: Consider banner blindness when placing banners

            Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices is amended by inserting the following as a final sentence in the second paragraph: Editors should consider the hidden cost of banner blindness when placing contentious topic page notices, especially if a page has no active restrictions.

            For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

            Support:

            1. Fewer notices makes it more likely that editors will read the important ones. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            2. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            3. Mildly in support but I'm skeptical of the utility. Second choice to the below I guess. Izno (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              The two motions were meant to be complementary (i.e. both could theoretically pass). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              Huh. I don't think we need to say the same thing twice. Izno (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Oppose:

            1. Come on. Adding instruction creep in a bunch of motions designed to get rid of instruction creep?! In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            2. Per ag --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            3. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            4. Aoidh (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Abstain:

            1. Daniel (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Arbitrator discussion

            Honestly, given the size of our procedures, I think this just gonna go ironically ignored. If we come up with a real way to deal with banner blindness, I'm all for it, but I'm not sure if this'll end up being an effective solution. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Live motion: Soften language surrounding talk page banners

            Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices is amended by replacing and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages with and may add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

            For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

            Support:

            1. Prefer to the above. If a(nother) concern to banner blindness is "people should be behaving themselves on pages regardless of whether something is a CTOP", I think I prefer "may" to "should". Izno (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            2. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Oppose:

            1. I've been persuaded by isaacl (below) and SilverLocust (above), but I don't think this is a terrible idea. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            2. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              (For quicker reference, here is my comment on the draft motion and isaacl's.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            3. Seems like a bad idea --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            4. I don't think this would be an improvement. - Aoidh (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Abstain:

            1. Daniel (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Arbitrator discussion

            Arbitrator views and discussions

            • My suggestion when HB was drafting this was to just remove awareness and add a single line that says, more or less, If an administrator believes that the editor is unaware they are editing in a CTOP or unaware of what that means the editor should be warned before sanctioning unless the disruption is egregious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Community discussion

            • I don't blame the committee for wanting to get rid of AWARE. However, the text of the motion is completely incongruous, for me, with the section name of "Replacing awareness with warnings". It's an absolute directive to consider an unlogged informal warning as the outcome in all situations, not just in the situations previously covered by an unaware editor. I also don't know how to square the second motion on repeated warnings with that motion on giving more informal warnings. Substantively I, on the whole, find the no repeated warnings order reasonable for ArbCom to give knowing that a future ArbCom might give an opposite order; it is healthy for some ArbComs to be more willing to sanction than others. I support the third and fourth motions around renewals and banner blindness. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • Two things. One, how do the changes to AWARE square the circle of "an editor who is very disruptive in CT and needs sanctioning, but has never been made aware or warned"? Is it still bad form to simply go straight to an AE block? Secondly...in the fourth one. The image used to illustrate "banner blindness on talk pages"...is not of a talk page. It's banners that go on an article, which if it existed would be very silly certainly, but doesn't illustrate the actual point at all IMHO. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              I'm curious about the first question too because from what House Blaster wrote in the section heading and explanation the answer would be "still bad form" but the actual policy people would read seems to give admins carte blanche. I think Arbs would have been better off changing Standard of review to say the policy version of "An editor truly oblivious to CT would be a good reason to accept an appeal for anything that's not a warning". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              To your first point, the intention is that someone who is engaging in behavior that shouldn't require a warning, admins would be permitted to use CT tools to address that disruption. I'm open to suggestions to make that intention more clear, and I'd support something like SFR's text. To your second point, I'm saying that we all recognize that it looks silly on an article, but it's what we do to our talk pages. See, e.g., Talk:Tandon v. Newsom, which has seven banners. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • (edit conflict × 2) Concur with Bkeep that this is... not as clear as it claims to be. Regarding banner blindness, I'd suggest that we have a procedural order of templates and CTOPS-related templates always display first in any case, I don't see a way to avoid banner blindness apart from just... less banners and then it leads to a whole can of worms as to how we can achieve that; I'd argue that a reminder to think about it does not help since we're already aware and do think of it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              Editors considering less banners is absolutely a positive, in my view. I'll gently push back on we're already aware and do think of it—discussions about adding CT banners are always about whether an article is in scope, not about whether a banner would be helpful. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • @ScottishFinnishRadish:, I think your wording above is incredibly clear and would make things a lot simpler for everybody. I suppose there is an argument that an administrator could maliciously claim they believed someone was aware in order to issue a sanction unfairly, but I like to have faith in my fellow administrators (plus, I think anyone who obviously did that would be swiftly dealt with through their own sanction) so it's not something I'm especially concerned about. CoconutOctopus talk 20:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              I agree it's a huge improvement over the current motion. I would just suggest using oblivious or some other synonym for unaware just to make the break with the past clearer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              "Unfamiliar"? I think you are right that avoiding the term "aware" is a good idea. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              Unfamiliar works well as a term in my eyes. CoconutOctopus talk 20:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm glad of the proposal to get rid of awareness. The current system can be too rigid at times. Sometimes when folks are disruptive, I want to gently guide them towards behaving properly with tailored messages instead of hitting them with a big template that implies they are not disruptive. If they double down instead of listening, going through the motions of then making them aware and then going to AE, is bureaucratic. For other types of sanctions we don't make people aware either, and escalate as appropriate. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • re the BLP DS reminder Editors are reminded that "living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" is a designated contentious topic. is absolutely horrible phrasing that I had to read two or three times to properly parse. I think something like Editors are reminded that "biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people" is designated a contentious topic (or "biographical articles and other biographical content...") would be much easier to read and understand. I realise this would require rewording the designation on the actual CT authorisation as well but, (a) you're already amending things anyway, and (b) the change would be a positive readability improvement there too. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              I'd be fine amending the scope of the CT, though I think that's beyond the scope of a motion about awareness. Would Editors are reminded that there is a contentious topic designation for biographies of living people be better? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              As far as I personally understand living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles", it parses to [living or recently deceased people] + [that are the subject of biographical content] + [in a Wikipedia article], i.e. any biographical content in any article, as long as the subject of biographical content—not necessarily of the article—is living or recently deceased. Thryduulf's suggestion parses to mostly the same but in a more intuitively understandable way. In so far as there's a scope change implied in it, it's that it no longer restricts things to articles (which imo wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing because BLP vios on talk pages or in redirect titles aren't exactly welcome either, but yeah that would need formal adjusting I suppose), but that could be fixed by adjusting his suggestion to either Editors are reminded that "biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people in Wikipedia articles" is designated a contentious topic or Editors are reminded that "biographical content in Wikipedia articles relating to living or recently deceased people" is designated a contentious topic (struck, see Thryduulf's reply below)
              Your suggestion to me reads as "articles that specifically are biographies of living people", which is a substantially narrower scope. It's possible that that's the scope actually intended by the currently existing phrasing, but if so the phrasing is even more horrible than it seems on first glance, because that's not what it actually says. AddWittyNameHere 10:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              Your (AddWittyNameHere's) two suggestions are not the same imo. The first covers [biographical content about living or recently deceased people] in [any Wikipedia article] while the second covers [all biographical content] in [Wikipedia articles about living or recently deceased people].
              HouseBlaster's phrasing could be read as applying to (all content) in (biographical articles about living people), or it could be read as a simple pointer to the (unchanged) designation elsewhere. The latter would avoid any issues of conflicting scopes if the designation changes in the future (c.f. the mess that The Troubles got into) but would not (by itself) resolve the parsing issues noted. That change may actually be better handled as a completely separate motion though to ensure it attracts the attention of the editors interested in that CT who might not care about awareness details. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              Hm...upon rereading, you're quite right that my two suggestions can be read differently with 'relating to' in the second one much more likely read as referring to the clause immediately before it ("Wikipedia articles') than to 'biographical content'. Not sure how I missed that, but glad you caught it and pointed it out. Consider my suggestions struck. And concur fixing the underlying phrasing issue in the designation tiself might be better dealt with in a separate motion. AddWittyNameHere 11:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

              I think amending CT/BLP is beyond the scope of this process, though I agree its wording could be massively improved.

              The first sentence is meant to be a pointer, so maybe say that explicitly? Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons § Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022). The second sentence is the important part of the remedy, which was written as "admins should use this if named parties continue to cause disruption", not a general reminder. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              Yes, making it an explicit pointer resolves this issue (although it's worth looking at the designation separately, maybe after these motions are resolved). I'd phrase it as something like Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation authorised in the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case. as I find that easier to read than a URL. The link is deliberately to WP:NEWBLP on the thinking that if the section is renamed or superceded by a new motion, the shortcut will be retargetted to wherever the current authorisation is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              I've gone with that, but using the word "from" rather than "authorised in". Avoiding the word "authorised" was actually one of the changes during WP:CT2022. (Not that I understand why that was changed... but it was.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would tone down the WP:AWARE replacement to "Before imposing a contentious topic restriction, administrators should consider whether an informal, unlogged warning or regular administrative action would be sufficient" - no emphasis, and "should" instead of "must". I feel that going must consider is a contradiction - you'd be setting this ironclad, scary, all-bold requirement to... consider the alternative? And, what, if I can demonstrate that an administrator didn't even consider any alternatives, that would be grounds for appeal, or even sanctions against them because of the big scary "must?" The fact is that this leaves it up to administrative discretion, and there's no getting around it - I feel that leaving in the big scary bold must would just result in some weird appeals from people who want to read it as an entitlement to an initial warning (which it clearly isn't, given the "consider.") "Should" is the sort of wording we use on lots of other policies; administrators are experienced enough to understand that it's a very strong admonition as to what the general best practices is. must consider just reads weirdly in a way that would lead to odd interpretations and appeals - at the end of the day, either you're leaving it up to administrator discretion or you aren't. --Aquillion (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • Seconding Aquillion's point. "Must consider" is the formulation used at WP:BLPCRIME and in practice it works really poorly. It's unenforceable and unreviewable -- all someone has to do to comply is say they considered it. This works as guidance ("should consider," as in the fourth item), but not as an enforceable rule.
              A common way of handling this sort of situation is to set a default, and then require a specific, articulated rationale for varying from the default.
              So for #1 it could be "must give a warning for first offense unless there are extenuating circumstances, in which case those must be specifically articulated in the log (eg, 'no warning -- serious violations of TOS -- death threats')."
              For #2 it could be "must give only one warning unless there are extenuating circumstances, in which case those must be specifically articulated in the log (eg, '2nd warning because they promptly self-reverted')."
              That would at least give something to review when reviewing the admin's decision to vary from the default. Other two motions look good. Levivich (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              @HouseBlaster: I agree the "should normally impose" language is better than "should give serious consideration". I still think that both formulations are superficial in that they state (IMO) universally-accepted principles without addressing the difficult exceptions. I think if you ask 100 admins, all 100 will tell you that warnings should normally be given for a first offense, and subsequent offenses should normally result in restrictions not just further warnings. I don't think anyone disagrees with this, and like Izno and SFR, I don't think arbcom stating this is going to make a difference to anyone. The more difficult question is when should an admin depart from this normal procedure, and that doesn't seem to be a question that any of the draft motions are addressing. I would suggest, if arbcom wants to give guidance to admins, then give guidance, don't just say what everyone already knows is true, but give like new information that's not something everyone already knows/agrees with. I think one helpful bit of new guidance is, as I mention above, requiring admins to document the reasons for departing from the norm. Another possible path is to give examples of when departures from the norm should happen, although I could see arbcom not wanting to do that for fear of micromanaging. (I'm not sure if I'd consider it micromanaging or not.) Hth, Levivich (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • I feel that the distinction between logged and unlogged warnings is unhelpful. As I see it, the point of warning an editor is to let them know that their behavior is disruptive and they should change course. The point of logging the warning is to alert other admins that the editor has already been warned, so they can consider that if the disruption continues. Having different tiers of warnings that escalate from "informal" to "logged" is just bizarre; a warning is a warning, and all warnings in arbitration enforcement should be logged. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              One big difference is that only admins can log warnings in the enforcement log, but anyone can give an informal warning. (And one of the reasons that only uninvolved admins can log their warnings is that non-admins' warnings have a decent change of being inappropriate.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've stated previously that I think the audience for awareness messages (either on article talk pages or user talk pages) is fairly narrow: editors who are aware that the standard set of restrictions can't ordinarily be applied by a single administrator on their own initiative, and so are willing to engage in actions that pushes the boundaries of disruptive behaviour. I think it's beneficial for the community to progress towards a base assumption that editors are expected to behave collaboratively, whether or not restrictions can be imposed upon them by a single administrator or a community discussion. After many years of authorization of discretionary sanctions/contentious topics designations, I think by now the community is generally comfortable with admins imposing restrictions to curb disruption in highly disputed areas. Thus I think it's appropriate to transition away from the formal concept of awareness to reduce complexity. isaacl (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • Regarding the proposal to amend Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings, I agree that editors generally should be warned about their behaviour before being restricted. But I don't think it's necessary that editors be warned that they are editing in a designated contentious topic area before they are restricted. Typically, editors who have been warned about their behaviour and continue to behave poorly to the degree that an admin is about to sanction them are aware that they are being disruptive. I'm not sympathetic that they didn't alter their behaviour because they didn't know certain types of restrictions could be imposed upon them by a single admin. isaacl (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              That's why the new phrasing calls out egregious disruption. If something has to be done it can be, but if they're clearly unaware of the stakes and a warning might work that should be the tack. I also expect editors, in the face of disruption, will let someone know about CTOPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              Yes, I understood that's the tack you are proposing. I just have a different view on the course to set. isaacl (talk)
              As a rough analogy, if someone is acting disruptively in public, the appropriate authorities can take action, even if the person doesn't know the jurisdiction in which their current location falls. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • Regarding this comment regarding pages with specific restrictions in force: personally I think editors should be able to know what restrictions are in effect before trying to edit the page. Thus I think it's good to have both a talk page banner and an edit notice. isaacl (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • I already have new editors snap at me all the time when I place the existing CT notices, demanding that I explain why I am threatening them with a "warning template". We definitely still need a no-fault-notice level of CT awareness. signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              Removing the formal awareness requirement (thus removing the need to use a specific template) in favour of allowing any wording to serve as notification provides flexibility to craft a gently worded message, tailored for the specific editor. I feel this should provide more options to inform new editors in a non-confrontational way. isaacl (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              Ah, I misread the motion at first glance, thanks for the clarification. signed, Rosguill talk 16:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              Take a look at {{welcome-arbpia}} and {{welcome-ctsa}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • To be fair, contentious topic notifications have always been (mild) warnings. Sometimes when a mild warning seemed not enough, I added a note below them like "Contrary to the message above, this notification does come in response to issues with your editing." But even without that text: If you send someone a message whose only two effects are allowing sanctions for the account from now on, and letting the user know that they need to be careful, that is a warning. Sending them without any concerns about the user's conduct has always been a rare and unfriendly-looking action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • Regarding giving admins a sign to tap: as I've discussed in User:Isaacl/Address problems without creating new specialized rules, I'm not a fan of adding text simply to be used as a link target that is brandished. Personally, I don't think that's enough to justify lengthening the text (which adds to the burden of those reading it) in a way that is already covered by standard practice for significant disruption. isaacl (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              @ArbCom Clerks: I apologize for going over the word limit. I request an extension to the number of words I have written (by my rough count, 511 words). isaacl (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              isaacl: Extension granted to 511 plus concise replies to questions from arbitrators. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              Wouldn't this be reworking the highest level guidance to encourage desired behaviour? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              I appreciate this is a tricky area. Although the arbitration committee has delegated authority to enact guidance on behalf of the community, when the usual consensus-based decision-making process is failing, it limits its use of this power as much as possible. So changing the highest level guidance for editor-specific restrictions at Wikipedia:Banning policy is out of scope. In my view, the proposed addition is too general to have a specific effect on committee-designated contentious topic areas. If the burden of a specialized rule is going to be paid, then I think it should have more potential benefit. isaacl (talk)

            Requests for enforcement

            Shortcuts

            This page is used to report:

            Appeals of user and page restrictions imposed under the CTOP or GS procedures may also be submitted here. Any other problems, including content disagreements, should be directed to other dispute resolution venues. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

            Before participating here, please note:

            • Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests.
            • Comments must address only the conduct of the user being reported or the filer. Enforcement against other users must be requested by creating a separate AE report (unless an uninvolved administrator has given permission).
            • Statements may be made only in individual sections and are limited to 500 words and 20 diffs. Extensions can be requested on the talk page.
            • Administrators have broad discretion in moderating AE threads to enforce behavioral and procedural requirements. They may, among other things, shorten, collapse, or remove comments; restrict participation in a section; and issue blocks to prevent disruptive participation.


            Quick enforcement requests

            Shortcut

            ECP protection for Antisemitism in Canada

            ECR violation by ~2026-31846-01

            ECP for Rosalie Abella

            Geremia

            Tiamut

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

            Request concerning Tiamut

            User who is submitting this request for enforcement
            NorthernWinds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            User against whom enforcement is requested
            Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

            Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


            Sanction or remedy to be enforced
            WP:PIA
            Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

            WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA, and WP:ASPERSIONS:

            1. 14 May 2026 Implying that people who believe that Jews are an ethnic group are Nazi (this was in response to (אקעגן) who said that Jews are an ethnic group)
            2. 16 May 2026 Accusing GordonGlottal of being anti-Palestinian and denying Palestinians a right to define their own identity during a disagreement.
            3. 23 May 2026 Threatens to make a change against consensus as a retaliation in case a consensus for something she opposes is found
            4. 23 May 2026 Accusing me of making "national claims" Jews/Israel to Palestine
            5. 25 May 2026 calls my suggestion to split a general list of people from Palestine to specific ethnic groups an assault on Palestinians
            6. 28 May 2026 Accuses me of soapboxing and POV pushing
            7. 1 June 2026 accusing me of selectively reading to support your view that modern Palestinians came from Mars or something

            Advocacy and Misusing WP:NPOV:

            1. 6 May 2026 Clarifying that she holds this "Palestinian POV" (As a Palestinian Christian, it seems entirely reasonable to me that I can claim an identitarian affinity to Jesus, and that he would be counted among the historical ancestors of my people.)
            2. 7 May 2026 Saying the Palestinian national opinion should be weighed (the Palestinian collective is not RS). Tiamut eventually yielded the page shouldn't reflect the Palestinian POV, but later interactions prove they still don't understand that we balance sources, not opinions. For example, she later cited a suggestion being inoffensive to most interested parties as a reason to support it.

            Others:

            1. 23 May 2026 Cites my previous objection to a change in a revert that reverted me making that change. Later clarified that she also objects and weirdly implied that the Edomites are Palestinian
            2. 5 May 2026 Initial response an inappropriate edit was to embrace it to Let the reader see how Israelis also try to appropriate Palestinian identity
            3. 1 June 2026 Canvassing (explanation)
            Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
            If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
            • Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on #14 February 2026
            Additional comments by editor filing complaint
            NorthernWinds's statement contains 1235 words and exceeds the 700-word limit.
            Green tick Extension granted to 700 words.

            I have made a few rushed edits at List of Jews in the southern Levant; later I realized they were disruptive. I've acknowledged this and corrected course since. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            I'll add that the fact that Jews are an ethnicity is a very established scholar consensus. It's extremely fringe to say that Jews are not some sort of ethnicity (proof), so the fact that Tiamut calls those who do not follow this fringe theory 'Nazi' is very concerning, and constitutes fringe POV pushing imo.

            To Beluga:

            1. .
            2. .
            3. .
            4. Still a personal comment; substantiating is appreciated but it's the bare minimum.
            5. .
            6. I've already stated I support a unified list for each ethnicity (including Palestinians). What I said was (partially) substantiated previously. Tiamut wasn't asking why Palestinians have to be split across separate pages but why ancient Canaanite rulers & modern Palestinians can't share a list page. This question was previously discussed in length.
            7. Not an accurate representation; this is a content dispute. I will explain upon request.
            8. No source argued Jesus is part of Palestinian heritage, which Tiamut advocated. This is why a near-unanimous consensus was found for splitting. Tiamut later acknowledged NPOV issues and supported the split.
            9. We rely on sources, not feelings.

            NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            NorthernWinds replied with several paragraphs on the long history of Jews in Palestine imprecise (see Beluga's link). NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Maybe Tiamut reject[s] its application to Palestinians too, but she previously stated Arab is an ethno-linguistic identity that coexists alongisde others and accepted Asians as ethnic groups. The idea that those unconvinced by 18 footnotes This is a content dispute. I'll elaborate upon request. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            To Tiamut:

            1. .
            2. .
            3. This was a misunderstanding with no wrongdoings. I said see also, not to consider the list. In a chain discussing article names, Tiamut cited the userspace list (this was unrelated). I then asked if she thinks "it's" biased. I meant the title but she thought I meant the list, hence the strawmanning statement. Looking back, it was just a misunderstanding. Ignoring me when I ask you if you support a split I proposed it; obviously I do.
            4. .
            5. I have verified the content; here's the response I gave Tiamut. Claims I used more AI than I admitted are WP:ASPERSIONS. I haven't blamed Tiamut for anything. Regarding opposition, Katzrockso (who later opposed) stated in the split proposal I have no particular position on if editors want to create other lists (I am sure "List of Jews from Palestine" is a notable topic under WP:NLIST and would survive AfD). The process (regarding creation&split proposal) is explained here; my errors resulted from inexperience.
            6. False timeline: I edited before you said this.
            7. Only Masalha was cited, and he explicitly supported "Muslim Arab."
            8. False.
            9. .
            10. This information was already in the body and cited there. See explanation.
            11. claiming in the discussion that such an identity does not exist or is not being referred to - False.
            12. Admittedly misplaced sarcasm

            NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Black Kat Regarding hounding NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            I was sanctioned for attempted off-wiki canvassing, not behavior. Vanamonde93 Just to clarify, you think evidence 1.1 is more civil content dispute than we usually see in this topic? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Paprikaiser إيان - NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            EaglesFan37 even after 50 sources, even after conceding, she's still arguing with Slava NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Tiamut claimed (then hastily deleted) I did not look at Slava's user page, which is a lie since she knew he's Jewish despite him never stating so. Also, I now realize this (If I take the time to copy quotes from the text I provided you tomorrow, would you seriously consider them? You seem to have made up your mind that regardless of... Jews simply living in a given region... should all be listed together.) matches WP:PARTISANS (They will never seriously consider my evidence) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


            Vanamonde93, Tiamut, Arcticocean I want to respond & acknowledge; may I have 150 words? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Vanamonde93 can you edit the templates to reflect this? I've been battling this word limit while Tiamut has been unfairly posting freely...

            • Arcticocean My impression is that NorthernWinds views it differently, and has tended to take offence to comments by Tiamut. For various reasons, indeed. I apologize for any disruptions this tendency may have caused.
            • Vanamonde93 of the two principles here NorthernWinds is the worse offender in terms of jumping to conclusions in bad faith I apologize if seems I assumed bad faith; whatever the outcome of this report is, I'll calibrate myself accordingly.
            • Vanamonde93 Regarding WP:FORUM, I engaged the discussion on my talk page partly as a continuation of the discussion at List of Jews in the Southern Levant. (+Tamzin re The digression issue is apparent from people debating Jewish identity in the first place, since we all know that editors' personal opinions don't matter in resolving a content dispute) In it, Tiamut cited perceived lack of ethnic characteristics (e.g. ) to support her position.
            • Slava570 If done intentionally, WP:CHERRYPICKING, and worryingly it wouldn't be the only instance (e.g. ...Israeli scholarship itself speaks of multiple Jewish ethnicities: [source using plural 'Jewish enticities'] This text indicates that there is not one unified ethnic category for Jews. while the source elsewhere said On the Jewish side, I call the secondary distinctions within essential sameness the discourse of edot yisrael. As noted, the Hebrew term eda connotes a cohesive community, a gemeinschaft or subculture, based on common origin. Within the Jewish sector of Israel the use of eda, of community, resonates to a degree with how ‘ethnic group’ is used elsewhere. There are, however, crucial distinctions that need discussion in order to see how equality among Jewish ‘ethnicities’ depends... (my emphasis))
            • Huldra FYI List of Palestinians said The first list "Mandate period and after" consists of people who identify as "Palestinians" since the creation of Mandatory Palestine in 1920.

            NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Tamzin, Smallangryplanet:

            • The caveats do not change the substance of attributing bias to another editor based on her Palestinian identity I inferred personal opinion from evidence 2.1 and I apologize Tiamut if you thought I based myself on your nationality; it had nothing to do with the comment.
            • NorthernWinds... demanded narrow identification criteria for Palestinians but accepted much broader ones for Jewish lists - False.
            • NorthernWinds also recently said Tiamut's "side" in the discussions exhibits "nationalistic editing" I said I personally do think that there may be merit to the claim that there is nationalistic editing in the discussion, but if so, then it exists on both sides, not just the people you are arguing with. (original emphasis)

            NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Tamzin, Vanamonde93 I was not aware that I am under administrators' scrutiny for hounding. I'm nevertheless aware of Tiamut's perception of hounding and that's why I did my best to minimize interaction; I didn't tag her page nor did I notify her on her talk, as required. I hoped someone would pick it up and just give her a gentle reminder. FYI I was told you will have to mark the page as Copyvio-revdel at WP:DISCORD here and directed to that forum here. I didn't simply remind on her talk page (as Tiamut asked here) since I am banned from commenting on her behavior and posting it there would be seen as harassment. In hindsight it was a poor decision to point it out but I was very conflicted whether I should follow the advice on discord or not, or just ignore it entirely. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Tiamut I spend a lot of time writing on this topic, mostly in word documents that you don't see. Just to demonstrate, here are some of the edits I have ready to go. I don't even have time to make all the edits I want to refers to these prepared edits I refrain from posting because they'll presumably take a lot of time to discuss. I apologize for any distress resulting from my miscalculations.
            Unrelated to this thread and prior to it I categorically objected to one-way IBANs and ask reviewing administers (Vanamonde93) to consider my alternative proposals when considering this remedy. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            re a little honest reflection please @User:NorthernWinds : Tiamut the only page I've engaged in length and found through your contributions (I stalk everyone, not only you) is Talk:Languages of Palestine, at which I supported your suggestions (also see this link for my pledge to stop). For the record, I found many of your edits objectionable or inaccurate (e.g. ) and actively chose to not engage to avoid hounding and a feeling of unease. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            In case this doesn't end in a topic-ban, I self-request a 1-2 month topic ban to be added on top of whatever conclusion is decided. Perhaps I do need a break. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

            Special:Diff/1357014081/1357283323


            Discussion concerning Tiamut

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

            Statement by Tiamut

            Tiamut's statement contains 1017 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

            The two editors User:NorthernWinds named in her report, and who she alerted to its filing have been following me around (diff #1). Final warning from admin to GordonG following his unsubstantiated ANI report against me (filed as I was compiling a report for AE here). The other editor deleted my message on their talk page asking them to stop (diff #2). Tiamut (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            NW's first message on my talk was posted on May 7th, the same day GordonG left me uninvited warning messages, both pertaining to disputes at List of Palestinians, a page I edited before both arrived. Since then, NW has left multiple, messages unrelated to article content and followed me:

            3. chronic communication problems characterize interactions between NW and I
            4. reverts my edits without discussion, deleting sourced material
            5. removes a tag I added claiming "aspersions", but she said she used AI to generate content for that page and I explained my rationale on talk; she also created the page following a failed split proposal she opened, participated in, closed, and characterized me alone as to blame when others opposed its creation too while accusing me of OWN behaviour
            6. tell her I am editing elsewhere and need time to respond re: the other tag - so, she follows me (my first edit May 27th) starts making several unhelpful edits:
            7. attributing material stated by several scholars to one, and adding "Muslim Arab"
            8. unexplained deletion of footnote, edit summary "formatting citation"
            9. says she has no problem with sourced info in the lead
            10. then deletes the same info and sources (easily moved into body if placement was the problem)
            11. readds "Muslim Arab" to the geographical-belonging-Palestinian-identity description while claiming in the discussion that such an identity does not exist/is not being referred to
            12. provoking to waste my (and now your) time

            To reply to NW's diff 1, my objection to using "ethnic" is universal and I reject its application to Palestinians too (Note the newly EC account I am replying to there has also followed me from Palestinians to Palestinian Arabic to Al-Maqdisi to Palestinian identity and Talk:Holy Fire! since May 25th). Tiamut (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC) - Follow-up to NW's lastest "proof" Tiamut (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC) Re: "ethnicity" Tiamut (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            @User:GordonGlottal might not be aware(?) I created the etymology section at Gauze in 2009. Tiamut (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Never made an exhaustive list of where Gordon followed me, but I did mention List of Palestinians. He knows I left the article I created because of his attitude there. Respected no boundaries until warned by @User:Nil Einne. Tiamut (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            @User:Maltazarian, Several things, but confine myself to: the idea a list about "complicated" Palestine is somehow less complicated/problematic if about Jews there strains credulity. Tiamut (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Welcome an IBAN, but do consider, NW inserted herself on my talk page, opened two AE cases (one "for" me, and one against me), and followed me to multiple articles. My recent engagement on her talk to address a diff here was a mistake. Tiamut (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Fully agree and apologize for my role in feeding the forum. Tiamut (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • The diff in the OP pointed to how the "othering" of European Jews led to their exclusion from European nationalisms, and to Nazism. I struggle to understand how it can be cited as evidence of antisemitism, though I do understand how it might be interpreted as inappropriate/unnecessary.
            • Engaging NW on her talk page to discuss the previous diff was poor judgement on my part. I already recognized and apologized for that above. This comment was a jibe and expression of my own frustration over the past month over the questioning of Palestinian identity across multiple pages. I will avoid all such personal commentary in the future.
            • A topic ban for this is severe. I have not been seriously accused of antisemitism or hate here in 20 years of editing. @User:Tamzin may have misunderstood some of my comments in that unfortunate WP:FORUM. There are many definitions of ethnicity and part of my problem with the term is its imprecision. Tiamut (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            "Your identity narrative" was more a reference to my own]. I apologize for any offense caused but also feel deeply frustrated that this one comment has become the central issue, rather than the hounding I have faced for a month now, and which I see this AE report to be a part of. Tiamut (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

            Butterscotch Beluga's statement contains 525 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

            1. I don't think that's an accurate characterization of what they said, but still believe Tiamut's commentary was unnecessary here.

            2. This was in relation to GordanGlottal disputing that Marie-Alphonsine Danil Ghattas was Palestinian despite reliable sources describing her as such. While Tiamut could've obviously approached this dispute differently, after reading the discussion for context, I wouldn't say that characterization was entirely inaccurate.

            3. That's a statement that Tiamut opposed the split & that they see the subsequent rescoping required to separate Jews from Palestine as being segregationist. "opt to" in "opt to re-merge" means "prefer to re-merge", not a threat of action.

            4. Tiamut specified 6 minutes after NorthernWinds replied that they were referring to this comment where NorthernWinds repeatedly referred to the scope through a national framing. NorthernWinds even thanked them for substantiating their comment.

            5. In context, this reads to me as a broader statement of exasperation over the prolonged dispute over the article rather then a remark against NorthernWinds specifically. The ongoing dispute has repeatedly attempted to scrutinize & categorize Palestinians to a degree I don't think would be warranted for any cultural identity. I'd say that the talk page is an inappropriate place to express such broad frustrations though.

            6. This full sentence "This is soapboxing/POV pushing that evades the point regarding the multiple meanings of Palestine." was in response to this comment. When asked why Palestinians have to be split across separate pages, but Jews don't, NorthernWinds replied with several paragraphs on the long history of Jews in Palestine.

            7. In reply to quotes referring to the history of the Palestinian identity going back to Roman Palestine that NorthernWinds requested, they focused exclusively on the sentence "There is no way to understand this identity apart from the conflict" & dismissed the rest as inappropriate to cover the historical continuity & removed material cited to it as "fabricated and not in the source".

            8. Jesus' characterization as Palestinian had a surplus of sources supporting it, so I don't see what issue NorthernWinds has with Tiamut stating they also hold this belief.

            9. It in itself isn't an RS, but if it's a significant perspective it should indeed be considered. To consider something "inoffensive to most interested parties" is the goal of building a consensus. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC) (Rephrased upon asilvering's request) - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            @Tamzin - While I disagree with much of Tiamut's interpretation of ethnicity as a concept & would agree that this comment was inappropriate, I don't believe it's at all reasonable to characterize it as antisemitic. They've been rather consistent on this matter, stating in that same discussion that 'Jews are an "ethnic group" in the way Arabs are an "ethnic group"', & that they "don't like using the word "ethnic group" for either." The same reasoning as this disagreement with me at Palestinians, so it's clear they aren't holding some double standard based in bigotry. I'll also state that I interpreted said comment as an attempt to empathize with Slava570's concern, considering Tiamut's recent experience "having [their] identity narrative being questioned". - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            May something at least be done to remedy NorthernWinds' continued hounding of Tiamut? - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by Zero0000

              Zero0000's statement contains 186 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

            I just want to say that none of these diffs can be understood without looking at what went before them and what they refer to. That will usually give a different impression. Mostly they express NorthernWind's frustration at not being able to get their way. Zerotalk 14:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            There is almost nothing to see here and this case should be closed with at most a warning. Topic bans would be far more severe than any evidence presented here can support. Zerotalk 05:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            As has been pointed out, Slava570 is 100% mistaken in believing that the phrase "identity narrative" implies that a story is fake. As it explains right at the start of narrative, the word can be applied to stories that may be either fictional or non-fictional. When the role that a story plays within a culture is studied, phrases like "identity narrative" are used by experts in order to avoid tackling the question of the historical facts behind the story. All cultures, all ethnic groups, and all nations have their "identity narratives", and Tiamut is a sophisticated editor who uses phrases like this correctly. Zerotalk 13:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by Maltazarian

            Maltazarian's statement contains 511 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

            I contemplated whether or not to comment, but I suppose I should since I was extensively involved in the build-up to this AE, when I was trying (and failing, obviously) to facilitate the building of a consensus that addresses the concerns of both NorthernWinds and Tiamut. I'm only going to comment on the list-related matters as that's where I was involved.

            I think it's important for the diffs on the list articles/pages to be contextualized. While not an excuse for any potentially uncivil behaviour, it needs to be known that they are part of a long series of exhausting, at times bitter and quite often deadlocked discussions (most to all of: ) that would frustrate most editors. It also didn't help that other editors weren't really able to keep up with NorthernWinds and Tiamut towards the end of C, and that includes myself. Even though it's not wrong for them to simply continue talking to each other, I do feel it ended up having a WP:BLUDGEON-like effect, and with no outside input there wasn't much of a way for the two to stop being at loggerheads.

            Comments on individual diffs:

            Northernwinds:

            3a. I concur with Butterscotch Beluga.

            5a. That may not have been directed specifically at the comment by NW that it's indented under; I've noticed Tiamut occasionally puts another comment under her most recent reply in a thread, and they're not always direct replies to the thing her most recent reply was.

            7a. Neither user is WP:AGF in that exchange.

            1c. This is mostly poor communication exacerbated by the animosity already present on that talk page.

            3c. This wasn't the best way to get outside input for the conversation, but I'm sad to see it wasn't taken as an opportunity to invite even more outside input.

            Tiamut:

            3. Going off my experience this is a very accurate statement (the comment here, not the diff).

            4. Tons of reverts were done prior to discussion at the list articles, which isn't unusual.

            I find it disheartening that this has gone to AE, but I can't say I'm surprised. Sorry I couldn't help figure something out.
            ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 21:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Paprikaiser:
            The splitting proposal, not RfC, was done with the understanding that further discussion on scope was needed post-split. WP:SPLITCLOSE allows involved editors to close split proposals with clear outcomes. The only potential issue with the close was that a week had not yet elapsed, but as nobody in the discussion objected I don't see how this is a big deal; there was a consensus.
            The part about inconsistent inclusion criteria leaves out that the origin of the dispute (e.g. ) is disagreement over how the fact Palestine/Palestinian has a complicated history should be handled; in comparison, Jew is relatively uncomplicated. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 23:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            @Tiamut I wasn't saying a list of Jews from Palestine is less complicated than a general one; I was referring to "List of Palestinians", the subject of the diff linked by Paprikaiser. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 15:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by GordonGlottal

              GordonGlottal's statement contains 282 words and complies with the 500-word limit.
            • @Vanamonde93 I wasn't planning to weigh in here but it is not true that I was following Tiamut around and I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that whatsoever. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              @Vanamonde This is complete nonsense. What are you talking about? I edited Gauze before Tiamut ever did, and Golan Heights when Tiamut hadn't edited it in six months (she immediately returned to make a frivolous accusation of "misleading edit summary". I explained to her how i got to Aramaic square script, which is much more my usual kind of page than hers. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              @black kite Tiamut has been on wiki much longer than me. So far as I know, tiamut has only accused me of following her to Golan heights and Aramaic square script, and anyone who looks at the edit history for those pages can see that neither is true. Yes vanamonde - I was talking to her on those pages! This is absurd. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              @Tamzin I had no idea that I was still be discussed here until now, please give me a couple of days to respond because I am very very busy on weekends. I am absolutely astonished at the way you are characterizing my edits. In that conversation I was never until the very end (when I gave up) the only editor objecting to Tiamut and Tiamut never had another editor on her side. I posted to WP:3O, which is a pretty incredible thing for a stonewaller to do. I have thousands of ARBPIA edits in prodcutive concert with many other editors of all stripes. Anyway I have to sign off now but I will repond fully later. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by Paprikaiser

              Paprikaiser's statement contains 281 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

            I reviewed the interactions underlying this filing and found conduct concerns by the filer. This filing came shortly after Tiamut indicated her intention to file a case against NorthernWinds, giving rise to retaliatory concerns.

            In Talk:List of Palestinians#Splitting proposal, NorthernWinds was involved, !voted, and then closed the discussion in favor of their own !vote's position, citing Near unanimous consensus, although the RfC had only been open for three days and multiple editors had raised scope and criteria concerns. This is the second time NorthernWinds appears to have made an improper close in this CTOP.

            After no consensus had been established to split List of people from Palestine (historical region), NorthernWinds created the disputed Jewish list anyway, then argued AfD could pick up where the prior discussion ended. They then told Tiamut that Out of 5 editors, 4 endorsed this page while you opposed it. This is what's called "near-unanimous consensus" and directed her to WP:1AM. But Katzrockso clarified: I did not endorse the creation of this page, I opposed the creation of more ethnic lists, and, when NorthernWinds suggested AfD, asked: Why would you create an article and then propose it be nominated for AfD? That sounds like fait accompli as a no consensus result is likely to result from most contentious discussions in this topic area. NorthernWinds also made rapid title changes and told Tiamut to go for an RM or RfD if those changes were insufficient. They later acknowledged the related renaming was disruptive.

            For List of Palestinians, NorthernWinds objected that the Mandate-and-after list had no source on any of the subjects confirming that they identify as Palestinian. But when defining a proposed Jewish-related list, they accepted broader criteria, including Jews born in Palestine, known for being from it, or who made Aliyah, and argued: I don't need RS to define a list that I am making. This shows inconsistent inclusion-criteria standards.

            Regarding aspersions/WP:AGF, NorthernWinds warned إيان after a disagreement, saying: Please stop implying bias, or else this ""POV"" of yours about WP:PA will unfortunately be taken by someone to AE. In the same exchange, إيان objected to the double standard: if I use the word "POV" it's an "accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence," [...] but if you use the word "POV", it's "in a literal sense". This is part of a broader pattern in the List of Palestinians and related discussions, where NorthernWinds personalized disputes and warned others over conduct framing that they also used themselves. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            NorthernWinds points out that the initial wording to إيان was later struck, but my concern remains with the initial framing and the broader pattern (e.g., ). Paprikaiser (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by EaglesFan37

              EaglesFan37's statement contains 136 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

            Even in the middle of this AE case, the dispute between NorthernWinds and Tiamut has continued unraveling. . This has been going on, by the looks of it, for nearly a month at this point. Outside of a two-way WP:IBAN, I'm not exactly sure how this gets resolved. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            @NorthernWinds None of those diffs help your case much. EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            At Talk:Languages of Palestine, NorthernWinds and Tiamut continue to have content disputes that start to become less focused about content. , , , . EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            @NorthernWinds @Tiamut My primary concern is that this has been going on for a month now and has resulted in back-and-forths between you two on several different talk pages that veer into WP:NPA. @Maltazarian summed it up really well in their comments. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by Slava570

            Slava570's statement contains 563 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

            Hi, that I am aware of this is my first time ever dealing with Tiamut. I got into a discussion with them on NorthernWinds's talk page. The discussion was about what I consider their fringe view that Jews are not an ethnic group. In response to my (I think) reasonable comment about Hebrew being a lingua franca they responded saying that I was "defensive" because "my identity narrative [was] being questioned." (I had said nothing about my identity up to this point). I responded saying they should not bring that up . They said if I don't like their responses I'm "free to disengage" . Then I replied saying they should not write off my comments because of my identity, citing WP:PARTISANS After that, the conversation basically went back on track for a while, and we ended up discussing some sources. However, the sources they provided in no way backed up their claim that Jews are not an ethnicity. I maintain that this is a fringe view. I realize the sanction sought here is PIA, but in my opinion, unless they walk back this view, I believe they should not be editing articles related to Jews and Judaism, as this shows a basic lack of understanding of the topic. Slava570 (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            I'm still very concerned about something which I consider the most egregious aspect of all this, and that is the use of a harmful fringe view. What is scary to me is that people are reading Tiamut's comments and are being convinced that the view is a valid dissenting view. Fringe views are not the same thing as minority/dissenting views. Huldra's comments are largely tangential to what I'm talking about. Nazi racial categories (Aryan/Semite) are now obsolete.
            For example, Tiamut posted a link to a study claiming Jews are not an ethnic group, but a look at the study finds numerous instances of the exact opposite. One example of many: p. 3 "Jews have historically been regarded as a racial, ethnic, and religious group." Overall, it's nuanced, and I can't get into everything here, but it cannot be clearer. Yet Tiamut linked this study as evidence that Its not fringe or uncommon. Is it not in itself disruptive to attribute the opposite view to a source? It takes a large amount of effort to then go into a source, only to find out it doesn't say what they say it says. And this particular view is not only fringe, but harmful to the Jewish people. Without commenting on the intention, the result is erasure and bigotry against Jews. This was why I brought it up, and Tiamut responded by dismissing my argument because of my ethnicity. Slava570 (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            Smallangryplanet: Despite several people's attempt to sugarcoat it, the "identity narrative" comment is more offensive to me than if Tiamut had only said she was dismising my comment because I was Jewish (which would also have been offensive). "Narrative" here implies that it's not a real identity, but fake, one that I tell myself is true because it makes me feel good or because I have an agenda. This is a major part of bigotry against Jews. Slava570 (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            I think NorthernWinds's contribution to the Zionism page has been invaluable and irreplacable. If there is any way to exclude administrative action from that page, Wikipedia would be better off IMO. Slava570 (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by Huldra

            Huldra's statement contains 636 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.
            I hadn't planned participating in this WP:AE, but I must react to Tanzim's addition. After more than 20 years editing in the IP area, I still could not give you a definition of "Jew" or "Jewish": it means different for different people. We even have a (loooong) article called Who is a Jew?. For the state of Israel's s´"law of return" you are counted as Jewish if only 1 of your 4 grandparents were Jewish. But once in Israel, you are not allowed to marry a Jew, unless your mother was Jewish (or you have converted). I think it was Norman Finkelstein who once stated that being Jewish was a religion, until Nazism made it a race. (As I am sure most of you know: it made no difference at all to Nazis, if a Jew had converted, say to Christianity; they were still Jewish according to the Nazis "race laws". Interestingly, it makes a difference for the state of Israel: if you have converted, you are no longer considered a Jew. Which makes for the interesting case, that you could have been a concentration camp survivor, and still be rejected Israeli citizenship, eg Oswald Rufeisen, or this guy)
            As for Tamzin's essay, Wikipedia:Hate_is_disruptive#Appropriate_remedies, can we use that against all the editors who have noted Tiamuts Palestinian identity? As I recall, there have been some... I have been called "Palestinian", "Arab-European", "married to an Arab", etc, etc, but I have never thought of asking for a topic-ban for the editor who calls me that. (Though I did go to the WP:AN when a guy insisted on his right calling me he/him, as being female is the one identity I display on my user-page). In short: Tamzin's sensitivity in these matters is no good basis for rules in the IP area, Huldra (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            User:Tamzin: I wouldn't dream of ever reporting the fact that some editor refer to me as "Palestinian", "Arab-European", "married to an Arab", etc,. For a start: I am neither "Palestinian", nor "Arab-European", nor "married to an Arab". When editors write that about me; I just roar with laughter. (Which isn't often I have a chance to do, editing in the IP area...) . And if anyone would get my facts right (which would surprise me, as I, AFAIK, have never disclosed my marital status or ethnicity on wp) I would still laugh, (as I am quite comfortable with both by ethnicity and marital status).
            User:Slava570: my point was that various people/states/organisations refer to "Jews" both as an ethnicity and as a religion. Take the state of Israel: if a person is an atheist/agnostic, and not a member of any church, mosque or synagogue, BUT has 1 Jewish grandparent; then that person is eligible of Israeli citizenship, under Israels "law of return". So the state of Israel clearly recognise "race", or "ethnicity", or call it what you want. Clearly not the Nazi "race laws", but still based on genetics. But if that person convert, say to Islam or Christianity: they are no longer eligible for Israeli citizenship. (if anyone can find a logic in that: then please explain it to me, 'cause I can't find it! But then human laws are not based on logic.)
            This is getting sidetracked by the real issue: Tiamut is challenged on her identity almost every single day: eg editors stating that someone has to declare themselves as "Palestinian", in order to be counted on the List of Palestinians. Funnily enough, no such declarations is demanded of other nationalities. Say, Michelangelo is not required to have declared himself to be Italian, in order for him to be listed on the List of people from Italy, etc, etc, But of course, for some, there are no such thing as Palestinians. Too bad for those who identify as Palestinian, Huldra (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by Vice regent

              Vice regent's statement contains 89 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

            Tamzin and Vanamonde93: English isn't my mother tongue, and I don't have any post-secondary education in it, but I feel that Tiamut's most controversial statement containing the phrase "your identity narrative" can be interpreted in two ways, depending on whether "your" attaches to "identity" or to "identity narrative":

            • 1) [[your identity] narrative], meaning "the narrative about your identity", which in this case might be a reference to Slava's Jewish identity.
            • 2) [your [identity narrative]], meaning "the identity narrative that you advance", which is an attack on Slava's line of argument, not their identity.

            VR 04:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by Smallangryplanet

              Smallangryplanet's statement contains 336 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

            @Tamzin: I am - since we're talking about identity in this case - a Jewish Wikipedian and I agree completely with Tiamut's objection to racial/genetic and monolithic uses of "ethnicity", which doesn't deny Jewish peoplehood.diff 1 Our page on Antisemitic tropes does mention, time and time again, the ways in which perceiving Jews as a separate race has been used to persecute us, insisting there's only one specific kind of Jewish ethnicity is often used to perpetuate negative stereotypes about Jews who do not meet a particular (almost always white-european) mold. Tiamut's view extends to all groups. She wrote that Jews are an "ethnic group" in the way Arabs are an "ethnic group", while adding she dislikes the term for both.diff 2 She has made the same point before: There is no such thing as an "ethnic" Palestinian (in my opinion) while distinguishing that from modern Palestinian national identity diff 3,diff 4

            The Slava570 comment is also being inflated (as pointed out by others). Tiamut did not say "your Jewishness" or "your identity", but your identity narrative, meaning the conception of Jewish identity being debated. diff 5 The defensiveness phrasing was poor, and she apologized.

            What concerns me most is the erasure of broader context. This discussion arose from editors repeatedly questioning, minimizing, and in some cases outright erasing Palestinian identity across the List of Palestinians page and related disputes. NorthernWinds and other editors demanded narrow identification criteria for Palestinians but accepted much broader ones for Jewish lists, as Paprikaiser noted. NorthernWinds also recently said Tiamut's side in the discussions exhibits nationalistic editing, diff 5 and after Tiamut responded that while she is Palestinian she is nevertheless guided by consensus/NPOV, diff 6 NorthernWinds said that some biases are hard to avoid and that this still has an effect on your editing. The caveats do not change the substance of attributing bias to another editor based on her Palestinian identity and linking it to her editing. diff 7 I see that as a fairly clear questioning of an editor's objectivity in relation to identity. I appreciate the comments about dismissing the two party rule here and I share Tiamut's frustration that the hounding is not being properly addressed, and I hope admins also consider the comments minimizing and questioning Palestinian identity. Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by Aquillion

              Aquillion's statement contains 228 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

            Although I don't agree with it (I think that race and ethnicity are hazy concepts to begin with but that they reasonably apply here as much as they do anywhere) the objection to the idea of a Jewish race or ethnicity premised on "well that's the definition the Nazis used" is not so fringe that it ought to be sanctionable; it is an argument I have heard professors make before in person. And it's one that has been made in academic publications, eg. . It is definitely a minority view, and one that has to be raised cautiously as an argument for reasons that this discussion makes extremely clear, in addition to WP:FORUM issues (even people like Corcos who make that argument usually do so as part of a larger effort to pull the thread on the concept of race as a whole; the second link goes into even more depth on this), but I don't think it's so shocking as to be sanctionable simply for making that argument, when similar arguments have been presented in academic literature by scholars who, while perhaps not representing the majority, can't reasonably be called wildly WP:FRINGE, either. It is a fact that "that's the categorization the Nazis used, so we shouldn't use it" is an argument that has been put forward by reasonably respected scholars in academic publications. --Aquillion (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by Bluethricecreamman

              Bluethricecreamman's statement contains 157 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

            Generally on tiamut side and think there wasnt an attempt to intentionally attack identity, but popping in to state that it is still fairly hurtful to be told an ethnic group isnt real in the same way as being telling someone you are race blind and dont see race.Perhaps not intentionally, but it is definitely a micro aggression. Yeah race and ethnicity are arbitrary social constructs but that make them any less real lived experiences User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            I get the whole idea nazis made the jewish ethnic identity, same way christian enslavers made a black race to categorize a widely diverse group of folks. But that doesnt change the self conception of folks or that its a real identity with real history. (Also im not a sociologist so not gonna even pretend i am an authority on any of this) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            edit: that doesnt make them any less real lived experiences
            User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by LumenArchivorum

            (re this): Yes, Tiamut’s recent actions have raised concerns. First, the style of writing and selection of material appear to deviate from NPOV and come across as advocacy rather than encyclopedic . Second, the communication has felt combative, like when I sought advice at the Teahouse about how to handle a potential dispute, they joined that discussion in a similarly combative manner and later posted on my talk page to criticize me for seeking that advice.

            Most importantly, the consensus we reached on the talk page for Languages of Palestine has not been followed. Making substantial and rapid changes on such a sensitive topic while discussion is ongoing does not seem collaborative. I would appreciate a return to a consensus-based approach and a more neutral and constructive tone moving forward. LumenArchivorum (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            (re this): I do not think it is okey that any editor feels they must avoid certain articles or talk pages due to another editor. In my experience, interactions with you have been combative, and ongoing consensus-building discussions have been ignored. Additionally, responses to criticism have come across as reactive rather than constructive. I would encourage a more collaborative approach that supports open participation and respects consensus-building processes. Perhaps best if you stay away from articles you have too strong feelings about so you can remain neutral. Forgive my technical inability to link to all the different comments, I still have much to learn on Wiki. However, I am not making a complicated claim, just skimming the talkpage in question is clear, not neutral and not really collaborative, the teahouse and my userpage just shows pattern of behavior.

            LumenArchivorum (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by (username)


            Result concerning Tiamut

            This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
            • I believe the first six (at least) are Tiamut's evidence to support their claim that NW has been following them to articles. Tiamut, some more commentary on each diff would definitely be good. Black Kite (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • Butterscotch Beluga, can you rephrase your statements so that they're speaking "to the room" and not to anyone in specific, that is, with clear reference to NW/Tiamut instead of "you"? Thanks. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • As an aside, it's not just Tiamut that's incredibly unimpressed with this newly-EC editor so far, i.e. User_talk:ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen#Not_necessary. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't understand why this report was filed; this is a more civil content dispute than we usually see in this topic, with some genuine progress toward consensus. I have read through the entire talk page of List of people from Palestine (historical region). I don't find the behavior there sanctionable, and of the two principles here NorthernWinds is the worse offender in terms of jumping to conclusions in bad faith. However, the two users are not arriving here with equally clean hands: NorthernWinds has a previous site ban and PIA TBAN. I am reluctant to reinstate/expand the TBAN, since the discussion here for the most part has been civil, but I would consider a BER, as these two editors are clearly frustrated with each other.
              Separately I am convinced by the evidence that GordonGlottal and אקעגן are following Tiamut around. GordonGlottal was recently told off for frivolous accusations, and אקעגן has AE blocks from two years ago. I'm undecided on what the appropriate response to this would be. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              GordonGlottal, please comment in your own section, not in the admin section. Since you are here, can you offer an explanation for how you have, on six different occasions this year, come to edit a disputed page or participate in a discussion on pages you have not previously edited, directly after Tiamut did? Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • GordonGlottal You say that it is not true that I was following Tiamut around and I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that whatsoever; however, as you can see from this, you and Tiamut share 41 article and talk space pages, of which Tiamut edited 35 of them before you. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have read through the discussion on NorthernWinds's talk page. I do not see views expressed there that are so abhorrent as to require removal from a topic; the argument falls within reasonable interpretation of the sources linked. That said, it is deep into WP:NOTFORUM territory, and I would remind both Tiamut and NorthernWinds that Wikipedia is not the place for generic disputes about, for example, Jewish ethnicity. Discussion must be limited to improving our articles. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              of which many were edited within hours of Tiamut's first edits, and many were direct modifications of Tiamut's previous contributions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • Without prejudice against any actions against others discussed in this section, I will say that I am concerned about Tiamut's comments about Judaism as ethnicity. They are certainly fringe; our article Jews categorizes Jews as an ethnoreligious group without equivocation. They also seem to represent a misunderstanding of what an ethnic group is, repeatedly conflating it with either race or genetics. But most importantly—because merely holding a fringe or poorly-stated view is not itself disruptive—Tiamut is willing to defend these views through hyperbolic comparisons and aspersions against other editors. The diff in the OP characterizing the mainstream view as "Nazi conceptions" is pretty bad. The comment to Slava570, cited in his statement, is considerably worse, and I would go as far as to say crosses over into antisemitism. Tiamut projects onto Slava an insecurity about Jewish identity narratives. I don't see anything into Slava's comments that would make that a reasonable inference; all I see is the userbox on his userspage saying he is an Ashkenazi Jew.
              In my view, the bare-minimum obligation in moderating an identity-related CTOP is that no editor should feel they're going to be targeted based on their ethnicity, religion, etc. That Tiamut has gone down this path while already at AE signals, to me, that they are unable to edit in ARBPIA without provoking such tensions. My usual attitude (see Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive § Appropriate remedies) is to go straight to an indefinite block, but the fact that these comments arise specifically in discussion of Jewish identity make me recall what I wrote in that essay that If an editor has shown inability to distinguish between hateful and non-hateful sentiments regarding a particular group, while not clearly intending to hurt anyone, a topic ban or partial block may be appropriate. So I would see a TBAN from ARBPIA as an acceptable remedy here, keeping in mind our option to expand to a TBAN from Jews if that's insufficient. Again this is without prejudice against remedies against any other person; I also see no reason to hold ourselves the two-party rule in this section if we don't want to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              @Tamzin: We're examining discourse in an area where legitimate dissent and fringe views are elided, so I want to be cautious here, and I will note that I am amenable to persuasion. I cannot read these comments as equating a belief in Jewish ethnicity to Nazism. The comment which engendered this dispute was this one, and I cannot read that as describing any conception of coherent Jewish ethnicity as Nazism.
              Now, if you want to remove an editor from PIA for stating they do not believe in the concept of a coherent Jewish identity, I will not stand in the way, because that is outside my area of expertise: I will only note that our article, seemingly well-sourced, does acknowledge the existence of Jews without Jewish ancestry, while also acknowledging the strong recognition of the ethnic nature of Judaism. But I'd want us to be precise in our reason for this removal, and the interpretation of their comment about Nazi conceptions is imprecise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2026 (UTC) Addendum: I agree that this comment is bad, but from my perspective it's bad as ad hominem and ABF independent of the views expressed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              @Vanamonde93: I think you're reading my concerns in inverse order from what they are. I certainly don't want to exclude Tiamut for their opinion; people are allowed to have minority opinions, and I'm somewhat notably of the view that even an outright hateful opinion would not be enough to disqualify someone from editing if they don't express it. (And I don't consider Tiamut's opinion outright hateful.) Likewise, I don't see the "Nazi conceptions" comment as bad enough to sanction for on its own; I would describe it as reckless and temperature-raising but it doesn't cross our esteemed former general counsel's line of accusing anyone of Nazism or similar.
              The thing that makes me support a TBAN is the comment that, as you say, is an ad hominem. I have long held the position that invoking another editor's inherent traits in a dispute promotes an editing environment that is hostile to editors of that background. I've been consistent about that across a variety of axes and on all sides of disputes. Tiamut's comment boils down to Your Jewishness is the reason you hold this incorrect opinion. They may well have meant it in a conciliatory way, as they are saying above. That doesn't make a huge difference for me. I've been in the position of having people invoke my own inherent traits as a "positive"—"it's good that you're not biased toward X despite being X"—and I can tell you, it doesn't really feel any less hateful than if they invoke it as a negative, because the logic for the positive can easily flip under different circumstances. "Benevolently" making assumptions because someone is Jewish is still making assumptions because someone is Jewish. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              As noted above I agree the comment is inappropriately personal. But we lack the evidence to sanction for hateful behavior: I have read through the discussion multiple times, and I see no evidence that Tiamut is rejecting the broad picture of Jewish ethnicity, only specificities that are distinctly in dispute among mainstream scholars. I am not willing to support a TBAN based on that comment alone. There are several comments in this dispute that inappropriately project motivations onto other editors, or otherwise raise the temperature to no purpose. Crying wolf about being called a Nazi isn't a constructive approach to a conversation either. As far as the two principal actors here go, I cannot support more than a logged warning, and I would still like to see more opinions on what, if anything, is to be done about hounding. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              I think I'm okay with a logged warning, and a not-too-sternly-worded one at that, on the basis of Tiamut's clarification and apology—not because the comment was okay, but because I'm able to see it in the context of an excessively digressive and personalized tangent for which multiple parties are responsible, which makes it easier to see as careless word choice, something Tiamut has acknowledged. The digression issue is apparent from people debating Jewish identity in the first place, since we all know that editors' personal opinions don't matter in resolving a content dispute. So I would likewise be interested in proposals to lower the temperature here, whether that's sanctioning hounding, reining in non-constructive discussions, or something else. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              @Huldra: Yes, someone trying to disqualify your opinion on the basis of your ethnicity, spouse' ethnicity, etc., should absolutely be removed from the topic area (and perhaps the project). If there's recent cases of that, feel free to start another thread here and ping me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              @Smallangryplanet: Yes, nationalistic editing is a serious charge to throw around, and if it's not coupled with evidence, when directed at someone of the nation asserted to be subject to the nationalism, it carries the implication that the nationalism is inferred from the nationality. At this point I am leaning toward a warning like Participants in the discussions about the lists of Palestinians in general, and NorthernWinds and Tiamut in particular, are reminded not to personalize disputes by commenting on others' identities, and to avoid digressions into personal opinions on divisive topics.
              Separately, notwithstanding the two-party rule, I'd like to take a look at the hounding evidence. Looking at the Tiamut/GG EIA, I've focused on pages that aren't core ARBPIA pages (since we can reasonably expect any PIA regular will sooner or later edit West Bank, for instance). Gauze and its talkpage look like independent interest in the page. List of Palestinians & talk and List of people from Palestine (historical region) & talk show GG showing up to weigh on the dispute without previous background on the page, although also not directly targeting Tiamut; given the high publicity of that talkpage, I wouldn't weigh this much either way. This edit to Talk:Yitzhak Rabin looks somewhat like following Tiamut, although it being in a listed RfC is some mitigation. The history at Aramaic square script & talk, an article written in January by Tiamut, which start with GG using the word "absurd" to describe what appears to just be a mildly confusing time-jump resulting from the source condensing a lot of hisotry, seems a lot like hounding, and makes it harder to AGF on Rabin. On the other hand, GG does have some historical interest in Aramaic , so it's not like he followed Tiamut into the area with no background in it; this is also moderate mitigation. Finally, among pages they've edited close together in time, there's Yehud (Persian province), which GG actually edited first, and where neither directly reverted the other, so nothing to see there.
              Then there's the substance of GG's edits at the Palestinian list pages. Pedantically, I'd say behavior like Talk:List of Palestinians § Marie-Alphonsine Ghattas is more stonewalling than hounding, but it's not good either way. Notably, their contention at the start of the thread, The lede says [...] that entries must 'identify ... as part of the Palestinian national collective' (unbracketed ellipses original), is plainly not what the lede said at the time of the comment; those words explicitly applied only to Palestinian Jews or other Israeli citizens who may be native to the geographic region of Palestine. As AE admins it isn't our place to decide who's right or wrong in a content dispute, but we can analyze whether a particular argument is bad-faith and/or factually incorrect; this is certainly the latter (with respect to the text of the article, that is; whether the article's standard is reasonable is beyond our purview), and I'm inclined to think that it's also the former based on GG's other conduct in the thread: Stonewalling to retain a word that someone accidentally included in a list's scope definition, which they've tried to revert and no one else has supported, just to use that definition to win an argument, is not good-faith participation, and combined with the other evidence reads like trying to wear down a topic-area opponent through scorched-earth tactics. I would support a TBAN against GG from ARBPIA, including related matters of Palestinian and Israeli national identity. At this point I'll formally propose that we waive the two-party rule with respect to GG; Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard reports limited to two parties is a little unclear as to whether I can do that unilaterally or it needs a rough consensus, but I'd at least like a +1 before pinging GG for response.
              Less has been said about אקעגן. Making this a four-party thread would complicate things even further, so I'll hold off on doing an analysis there until I've gotten feedback from other admins on the above. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              @Tamzin: I endorse this reading of the evidence, as well as the proposed response. I also endorse formally waiving the two party limit. I think we're running up against the limits of that system here; on the one hand it would be reasonable to require a separate report for each of those users, but on the other hand, the evidence is being offered as mitigation, and having read it failing to act on it would be contrary to our ethos. I would be willing to postpone discussion of אקעגן's edits, as these have received less attention here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              This seems reasonable. @GordonGlottal: Pinging you if you would like to respond. Since we're treating you as a party, I'll give you 700 words like the other two parties, although please don't feel obliged to use them all. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • The diffs in this report are predominately from Tiamut's contributions to List of people from Palestine and the associated talk page. Taking an overall view of them, I see very little that is objectionable. There is very little to support the three allegations – namely battleground editing, personal attacks, and personal advocacy. I will comment further only on two aspects of the report. First, the "Nazi conceptions of Jewish ethnicity" remarks. Taken broadly, the initial remark was editorially relevant to the subject matter – how should Wikipedia define a 'person from Palestine'. But taken narrowly, the remark was irrelevant to the preceding comments: nobody in the thread was seriously advancing a hateful definition of Jewish or Palestinian identity. Making the comment was unhelpful, and to a very limited extent disruptive, because it risked inflaming the discussion. But its effect was minimal, and I agree with Vanamonde93 that this aspect requires a logged warning only. Secondly, interaction between NorthernWinds and Tiamut features heavily in this report. Conduct by Tiamut towards NorthernWinds is generally high in standard, from what I have seen in this report. My impression is that NorthernWinds views it differently, and has tended to take offence to comments by Tiamut. This has been unhelpful and ultimately disruptive. Informally, I would remind NorthernWinds to assume good faith of all users but Tiamut in particular. Arcticocean ■ 10:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • NorthernWinds and Tiamut may both have an additional 200 words. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              @Arcticocean, @Tamzin, @Vanamonde93, since GG has asked for extra time to respond anyway, does it not make sense to try to resolve this Tiamut-NW filing and then open a new one for GG alone? (and another for אקעגן?) It looks like there's no appetite for anything stronger than a warning for Tiamut or NW and they'd probably appreciate not being in the AE spotlight for another week. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              I would support closing this and initiating a procedural filing for GG; to me that is a logical extension of having expanded this to three parties. I am still disinclined to take any action with respect to Tiamut and NorthernWinds, and if we must warn, I would oppose asymmetric warnings. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              I'm fine with splitting off the GG thread. However, the link Butterscotch Beluga posted to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2026 June 13 kills any AGF I had for NorthernWinds here. To take someone to a noticeboard on trumped-up charges (collecting a few quotations of reasonable length relevant to ongoing content development) while already under scrutiny for hounding that user shows a fundamental incompatibility with the topic area. Especially given NW's history of sanctions, we should topic-ban or refer to ArbCom. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
              I agree that diff is bad, and particularly so in the context of this filing and associated discussion. I would prefer to begin with a one-way IBAN, but in the interest of putting this bed I can support a TBAN also. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Patrick.N.L

            Riposte97

            NadVolum

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

            Request concerning NadVolum

            User who is submitting this request for enforcement
            Slava570 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            User against whom enforcement is requested
            NadVolum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

            Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


            Sanction or remedy to be enforced
            Wikipedia:PIA
            Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
            1. 7 June 2026 Implies that being Israeli disqualifies a scholar scholars (in general) and that their scholarly contributions are tainted by their authors having Israeli nationality. This is bigotry against Israelis.
            2. 7 June 2026 In response to my comment that nationality is not a relevant factor, they refused to answer, saying they don't want to waste their life on me.
            If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
            • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2024 (see the system log linked to above).


            Additional comments by editor filing complaint

            After another user requested on their talk page that they self-revert they did so. I believe this is WP:BIGOTRY, but there may be other guidelines that are more apt.

            Hi, I would like to add that I'm sorry for coming here with so few diffs. I felt this behavior was egregious, and I also felt that I had no other remedy, as I made a very short comment saying they should not use Israeli nationality as an argument against a source, and secondly asking them for examples re: their assertion of misinformation. They responded very heavy handedly by saying I'm wasting their time. If I had tried to engage further either on the talk page or their user page, it would've basically amounted to harrassing them, so I felt I had no choice but to go to the administrators. Black Kite, they used the plural "they" in their statement, which I think can only refer to the four authors of the study: "...talks about Israelis as if they [the authors] weren't Israelis themselves." It shouldn't matter if the authors are Israelis. That doesn't mean there aren't other valid arguments against the source. Also, I used ambiguity in my original comment using the singular, so I edited it above. Sennecaster, I don't think a 1000 word limit will help, as the entire interaction with me occurred over two comments and 50 words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slava570 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Black Kite So, in both of the diffs you linked, the objection was based on the fact that the authors are conservative and/or Zionist. I don't think this is correct as per WP:BIASED. However, this is fundamentally different from saying the source should be rejected because the authors are Israeli. That is where the bigotry comes in, as nationality is a protected group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slava570 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            @Swatjester I think this is one of those issues where different people can read the same words differently. But I'm not the only one who saw the comment as discriminatory against Israelis . I would also ask anyone reading this to question whether their reaction would be the same if the group in question was a different one. I'm not saying you're not allowed your opinion, even if different from mine, but would you react the same way if the comment was, for example: "I've no objection to people seeing what [insert racial, ethnic, national group] produces." Slava570 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


            Discussion concerning NadVolum

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

            Statement by NadVolum

            Statement by NorthernWinds

            The user appears to have extensively bludgeoned Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 50#Removal of extraordinary claims regarding "evaporation" by thermobaric weapons, writing two thousand words across 26 comments. For reference, the second place for amount of words (Aquillion) used 695 words, and the second place for most comments (Cinaroot) wrote 8 comments. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            I concur with Vice regent. This editor appears neutral to me; it would not make sense to examine their edits through ideological lens. I will say though (somewhat nitpickingly given my agreement) that looking at diffs before 2026 would not be that productive, given how frequently people change their minds on these topics NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by Bluethricecreamman

            The second diff by nadvalum in slavas section was obviously poor, which I asked to undo here . Nadvalum might have regretted and accordingly does the appropriate revert here with message to disregard. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


            Statement by Vice regent

            asilvering, NadVolum is not a POV-pusher. They have frequently applied high sourcing standards regardless of whether it favours the Israeli side or the Palestinian one. Since no one is accusing them of being anti-Palestinian, I'll only mention instances of their pro-Israeli view.

            • NW correctly points out that NadVolum bludgeoned vaporization of Palestinians discussion. But NadVolum did so in defense of the IDF, insisting on very high standards of evidence before we accuse IDF of vaporizing Palestinians.
            • They opposed adding large Palestinian famine death figures to the lead.
            • Here's an example of NadVolum opposing the "most Gazan casualties are women and children" (again seemingly in defense of Israel) when it was clear the data didn't support that.
            • On the one of thorniest PIA-related RfC to have taken place on the English wikipedia (whether we can say Israel is committing genocide in wikivoice), they didn't !vote, but they did !vote on a somewhat related RM, insisting that there was insufficient scholarly evidence to accuse Israel of genocide.

            VR 20:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by (username)

            Result concerning NadVolum

            This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
            • Slava570 Yes, but my issue there is along the lines of "if this diff is problematic, why wasn't it when the other two authors said pretty much the same thing first in that discussion, even though they might have phrased it in a less blunt manner"? Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am struggling to see how NadVolum's comments can be interpreted as discounting a source because of nationality. At worst it appears to be discounting a source because of the terminology used therein. Their broader participation on that talk page though is concerning. There is a tendency to excessive verbosity and argument not grounded in policy, e.g., , , . I'm not sure this is a PIA issue so much as a general issue with their editing. I am not certain how best to handle this; I would default to beginning with a logged warning, but I would consider more innovative options. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • Spitballing here, but if it's just PIA where they're displaying concerning talk page behavior, we could try BER, or a word limit on PIA talk pages per thread, not just the topic-wide formal discussion 1000 word limit. I'm not sure of the magnitude of the concerning talk page behavior just yet, but we have some less-used tools available that might work here. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see how the first diff is an example of bigotry. Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding, it reads as if they're saying it's poor methodology. I do think the second half of that sentence "I've no objection to people seeing what Israel produces" carries a troubling implication that they're generalizing one source's apparently poor work product as to being representative of Israel in general. That's edging close to WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior to me, but still not a clear-cut violation. The second diff is a bit curt/short, but I likewise don't see it as being inherently problematic. They are entitled to hold the opinion that they think you aren't willing to budge on your beliefs and that it wouldn't be useful for them to respond. One can make an argument as to whether that's done in good faith or not, but it doesn't seem like you're making that argument here and I don't see anything that facially suggests this instance crossed a line. I also think VR's contraexamples are important context. I could see a world in which a logged (or unlogged, I don't really care) warning to be more careful with wording would be appropriate but I'm not seeing the argument for more than that. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Patrick.N.L

            Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. 

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

            To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

            Appealing user
            Patrick.N.L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            Sanction being appealed
            Topic Ban on the midfle east
            Administrator imposing the sanction
            Sennecaster (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
            Notification of that administrator
            Appeal copied by enforcing admin, so they're aware. Left guide (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by Patrick.N.L

            I have tried to be non disruptive and to follow guidelines of Wikipedia, i have not modified the protected page of gaza genocide for which i had a sanction but instead i have made a single request for edit with sourcing. I have also made a single good faith edit with credible sources such as bbc and other journals wich are considered serious journals such as bbc and Nashaniva, relatively to a page, gaza genocide denial, which is not protected, to add new information to a list with credible sources as i have always done and when it was reverted, i have followed previous instructions and went to the talk page to ask for the modification and to discuss and the reason for the reversal was explained to me. I fail to understand how i did not follow previous instructions. Making edits and then going to the talk page to discuss reversal is how it has always been. I do not agree with the ban and would have it lifted. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by Sennecaster

            This was posted on my talk page. As this sanction was imposed via consensus from AE admins, I am not accepting the appeal outright. Its original placement is of no fault of Patrick N.L. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 14:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            I mean, I'm fine amending it to Gaza, but I also share concerns about Patrick understanding scope here. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Statement by (involved editor 1)

            Statement by (involved editor 2)

            Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Patrick.N.L

            Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

            Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

            Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

            Result of the appeal by Patrick.N.L

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

            Arbcom Maghreb violation

            DUPLICATE REPORT
            Further discussion is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Direct violation report: Skitash. Closing this one to avoid splitting up the case resolution. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

            Skitash did atleast one edit about Libya. []. He sneaked it into a page outside of the Maghreb but edited about a country within the Maghreb as it is defined in the case. Bananakingler (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

            Reported to WP:ARCA#Direct violation report: Skitash per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Direct violation reports. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
            Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=1136596190"