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.

Initiated by EarthDude at 18:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Indian military history 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:

• EarthDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

In the Indian military history case, WP:GS/CASTE was rescinded into WP:CT/SASG. Before that, in 2023, a discussion at AN had led to GSCASTE's application being updated to "pages related to South Asian social groups, broadly construed". However, the official wording of SASG uses the old application of GSCASTE, that being "social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal". Looking through the Indian military history case, I couldn't find any reason as to why the old GSCASTE application was used instead of the newer one. In the December 2025 ACRA request regarding SASG, there appeared to be some confusion as to whether SASG is applied as "broadly construed". I have noticed SASG being applied as if it were broadly construed in places such as WP:RFPP (I have also seen the opposite, with some of these requests being declined on the basis that SASG is not applied as broadly construed). This inconsistent application extends beyond just RFPP. It is all very confusing.

This clarification request basically boils down to:
1) Is SASG applied as "related to" and "broadly construed"?
2) If not, then why?

Responding to the ping, and to the second half of the request, I agree that the decision to make SASG not be broadly construed (or more precisely, to exclude political parties, which would otherwise be well within the range of its broad construction) is confusing and will continue to be confusing. No opinion on the first part of the request regarding the use of an old framing vs. the current one. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'll link my previous comment on the matter for anyone who is interested. Briefly, I think it is desirable to remove the wording about political parties. Non-EC editors make a very large proportion of the constructive contributions to election-related pages; it is the caste-adjacent material that needs to be ECR. I would argue that "caste, broadly construed" is closest to the intended meaning of the original sanctions regime.

If you do stick with "social groups", I repeat my request that you clarify whether that encompasses religion. We should not be in the habit of making a broad ruling intended to be narrowly enforced; that opens the door to gatekeeping behavior that is already rife in this topic. That is, if religion is included, I ask that you make it explicit, such that the ECR may be uniformly enforced. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• The former GSCASTE was a CT authorization, but the new WP:CT/SA designation covers everything related to South Asia broadly construed. The only two remedies applicable only to caste issues are ECR and optional preemptive protection. I don't know if this was a conscious choice, but the text of those remedies does not include the words broadly construed, so I would say it is not broadly construed. In any event, admins can still ECP pages under CT/SA that fall outside of SASG. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:ECR "applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed", so any ECR is broadly construed.
  The preemptive protection remedy is a tougher question, but it is there to be a rule about the ECR topic, as an implementation of it, so I'd say it also incorporates its broad construction. This remedy is still limited by a reasonable belief that the page will be disrupted. If the page fully relates to the ECR broadly construed, then the countervailing concern for the protection is just that it prevents non-EC users from violating the EC restriction, which ECR is supposed to prevent anyways. (See also ECR's "If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.") ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't disagree with what my clerkly-inclined colleagues have said above, but I think this reaction misses the forest for the trees. This ambiguity in the GS/CASTE takeover were present in the original decision, commented on editors and admins then, and will continue to cause us problems until we fix them. Tagging in Vanamonde93 and Rosguill as I recall they both had things to say about this back when the original PD came down. If either of you think of anyone else to tag in, please do. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by automatic template check at 03:40, 31 January 2023.

Motion implementation notes

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Passing	Support needed	Notes
Israel-Lebanon	9	0	0		.
Johnski	9	0	0		.
Lyndon LaRouche	9	0	0		.
Midnight Syndicate	5	1	0		1
Race and intelligence special appeals procedure	6	1	1		.
Regarding The Bogdanov Affair	8	0	0		.
Sathya Sai Baba	7	0	0		.
Scientology	6	0	0		.
The Hunger Project	5	0	0		1
User:PolishPoliticians	6	0	0		.
Yoshiaki Omura	5	0	0		1
Automatic sunset (contentious topics)	0	4	1		6
Abortion (contentious topic)	0	2	0		6
Abortion (other remedies)	5	0	0		1
Climate change (contentious topic)	1	0	1		5
Climate change (special noticeboard remedy)	2	0	0		4
Gun control (contentious topic)	1	1	0		5
The Troubles (contentious topic)	0	3	1		6
The Troubles (1RR)	2	0	1		4
The Troubles (terms of probation)	2	0	1		4

Notes

Support:

1. These are really showing their age. The first is not good practice and the second is not necessary given the present broader CTOP. asilvering (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Also axing the enforcement provision in favor of the standard WP:CT. Courtesy pings to @Izno, Asilvering, and SilverLocust. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2. Remedy 1 allows blogs to be used as sources, which is a content decision. Remedy 3.1 allows admins to ban editors from a particular page if they edit war there, which is wholly redundant to WP:CT/PIA. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Re Remedy 1: I see the allowance of blogs here as fitting into the same sphere as allowing the reliable sources restriction in the context of contentious topics, and so from this perspective it does not actually mark itself as a content decision. I.e. we are not mandating some content be (dis)included, we are simply permitting the use of blogs. The real reason it should be removed is because blogs are rarely WP:RS and certainly in the context of PIA we should even more rarely be entertaining anything that whiffs of less than professionally edited work. Remedy 2 just is strictly unnecessary today as superfluous to either the contentious topic designation or policy and practice behind WP:EW continuing to evolve since 2 decades ago. Izno (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   And now that I'm looking at it, I wonder if we should chuck remedy 2 also. What a message to send about editing in PIA. Izno (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   co-signing. -- asilvering (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree; added. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

4. Unhelpful or redundant. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 10:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. Aoidh (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
8. This has the practical effect of nullifying all of Israel-Lebanon, but I believe Arab-Israeli conflict covers the issue in a better, more modern approach. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
9. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Support:

1. Admins can handle disruption of this nature through normal processes just fine. asilvering (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Remedy 1 authorizes admins to semi Dominion of Melchizedek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been unprotected since 2007. It also allows admins to indefinitely block Johnski or their sock/meatpuppets. Neither of them need special rules to do so. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per House. Izno (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 10:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. Aoidh (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
8. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
9. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Support:

1. These remedies let admins... issue proportional blocks for misconduct. The contentious topic designation for American politics also encompasses "closely related people", such as LaRouche. Bye. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not needed as specific remedies. asilvering (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. We have WP:COI and WP:NOR these days, among others. (Though just looking at these remedies I am reminded of WP:ARBSCE.) Izno (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. No longer needed, and not how we would handle remedies these days. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 10:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. Aoidh (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
8. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
9. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Support:

1. These remedies were suspended for 90 days in 2009. When I initially raised this on-list, there was some confusion over whether the suspended remedies are now in effect or not. This motion ends that confusion; Midnight Syndicate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is quiet. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. No comment on whether the involved editors' contributions are any good, and no prejudice against any editor reporting any of the involved editors at WP:ANI for any future or ongoing disruptive editing. I just don't think we should keep a tban on the books that everyone forgot about for more than 15 years. asilvering (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. I hear what Izno is saying, but per asilvering above, support rescinding. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. I tend to think that if nobody notices a restriction is in place, it is effectively lapsed. Any future disruption can be handled by admins through processes that are well-established these days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Somewhat moral opposition, since both of the users named in remedy 1 have been flagrantly ignoring the ban, but I expect the committee to tend toward the practical. Izno (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   And just to be clear, the relevant users and activity are IDd at the below discussion. Izno (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Support:

1. This motions says you should contribute to the featured content processes if you want to be unbanned. While feature content is always welcome in an appeal, there are myriad things besides featured articles that demonstrate you can edit productively. It's just generally WP:CREEPy. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per House. Izno (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Odd and unnecessary. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 10:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Aoidh (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Partly per Eek, partly because I disagree with HB's interpretation, partly because I'm sensing some contempt for the featured content processes that I obviously disagree with but which isn't relevant here. I see nothing problematic or "creepy" in providing a route map for an editor to return to good standing, nor with explicitly encouraging engagement with high-quality articles as one possible path towards rehabilitation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I agree that its a weird provision, and I don't see a historical explanation for the bespoke remedy. But...some of those banned editors are still giving us trouble. I wouldn't allow them back without them "demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors" and proving that they can actually make useful content. So, while I think the default process can handle them just fine, the standard expressed is instructive. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

Support:

1. Bogdanov affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is quiet and does not need special restrictions on WP:COI editing. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Izno (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. asilvering (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 10:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
8. Not sure this is necessary or helpful but it doesn't do any harm. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Support:

1. Honestly, these remedies are a bit confusing to me. I do know they are content decisions which can safely go into the dustbin. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. What these remedies are is WP:BLP in its infancy. I have no objection to removing them as such since we now have BLP. Izno (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. per Izno. asilvering (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 10:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. Again, not sold on the utility but I agree with Izno that the more-mature policy framework of 2026's Wikipedia makes these redundant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Support:

1. These remedies make open proxies super-duper-ultra-mega-banned in the topic area, even if you requested WP:IPBE because you need to edit with a proxy. They also create special rules about socking, and give admins pseudo-CT authority to issue topic bans (even though we removed the CT designation four years ago), and create a novel definition of WP:INVOLVED. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Turns out scientology also has the FA clause. Added that to the list of things to remove. Courtesy pings to @Izno, Asilvering, Daniel, and Elli. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Fine with me, confirming still supporting. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Same. -- asilvering (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2. We haven't heard anything since removal of CT designation. So. 5.1/8/6: I think the existing normal machinery is sufficient to handle (COI) POV-pushing here, and it's not like we can control whether named accounts use proxies (only block them when we identify misbehavior). EP2: Basic involved is fine, yes. Izno (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Indeed, disruption in the topic area can be handled just fine without any of these specific remedies. -- asilvering (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Aware that Scientology has been a perennial hot-button issue on the Internet in general but I agree with my colleagues that the standard mechanisms should be sufficient for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Support:

1. The Hunger Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is quiet, and these remedies also get a little too close to content decisions for my liking (especially remedy 2, determining the circumstances in which negative information can be included). Remedy 2 also has a carve-out to 3RR for reverting information lacking a reliable source, which would still be disruptive (see WP:STOPIT and WP:BLUESKY). Remedy 3 says that, with remedies 1 and 2 in place, the Committee has determined that editors with a COI are clear to edit, which makes no sense without remedies 1 and 2. Remedy 5 is also unnecessary; ARBPOL says The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time. We won't reopen that case by motion, so we shouldn't retain the invitation to ask us to. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. 5 is fine to toss. Similar comments to my previous about 1/2 and having policy/guideline now to account for these issues without need for a standing 'remedy'. 3 being tossed is subsequently fine. Izno (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Support:

1. asilvering (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. ECR and civility parole are two of my least favorite things. This combines them. Yuck. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per House. Izno (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. Not sure what purpose is served by revisiting a case older than several sitting arbs, but I don't see a reason to oppose this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Support:

1. This remedy asks admins to play whac-a-mole discovering more people with the same disruptive pattern. This topic is also covered by WP:CT/CAM. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. This one overlaps with WP:SOCK esp. WP:MEAT. Izno (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Can be handled through the CTOPS procedure if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Support:

Oppose:

1. I think this is a terrible idea. If future arbcoms want to sunset CTOPs that haven't been used in some time, they can always do that by motion when they think it's appropriate. An auto-sunset will just lead to confusion and won't actually save any effort for future committees, since someone's got to do the work of checking whether there are logged actions and formally writing up the revocation of the CTOP anyway. Not to mention that lots of blocks happen with CTOPs as an aggravating factor without actually being logged as AE enforcement blocks, so just checking for logged actions doesn't give a full sense of how the CTOP designation might be being used. -- asilvering (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Asilvering. Izno (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. Better to have the Committee in the loop rather than a static rule. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. What Asilvering said. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I am not totally opposed to this for specific CTOPs in very specific circumstances (which should be considered at the time of voting for it), but I don't think it's a good idea as a blanket for all. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

I'm not sure I actually support this motion, but I think it is worth considering. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I take the feedback from the community seriously; at the same time, I'm not going to spend time improving the wording if it has no chance of passing in any form. Heck, I'm still not sure I support this concept. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

Oppose:

1. Abortion remains a highly contentious topic irl and has the potential to flare up in the news again. That its getting occasional use is reason enough to keep it around, even if it had no actions last year. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with Eek. Some of the disruption might be contained by the American Politics CTOP but the heat around abortion is not limited to the United States. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

There were three page protections plus a custom 1RR in 2022, three bans in 2023, four actions (all page protection and all covered by AMPOL) in 2024, and nothing in 2025. I am weakly in support (this is quite minimal disruption), but I am open to persuasion. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ, for bringing this up! I am throwing in the IP editing remedy as well. The remedy is silent on whether Editors in good standing who wish to edit such topics under a single additional account not linked to their identity may do so under the provisions of WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. was supposed to expire after three years; if it expired, it doesn't hurt to remove it; if it is still on the books, WP:SOCK is sufficient. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sure. Izno (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. asilvering (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. I don't see a problem with 2.1 (but I suppose if a move can only be made by an admin, there is an expectation of consensus these days). Binning 1 is fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Support:

1. Nothing in 2022, one protection in 2023, another protection in 2024, and nothing in 2025. Two actions (both of which could occur without a CT designation) in four years; adios. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. The controversy is not quite dead so the dispute could flare up again, though I think a lot of the noise is coming from the United States so the provisions on American politics might be sufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

Support:

1. Not needed; the community can create noticeboards if it wishes. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Noting Asilvering's point but I don't think we lose anything by rescinding this, regardless of whether the CTOP stays or goes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

• I don't understand the point in revoking this? It's a statement about a particular moment in time. It's not saying "we can never have this board again" but "the board that exists now shall not any longer". -- asilvering (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The second sentence (Any future sanctions requests should be based on the discretionary sanctions imposed above and the other remedies in this decision, and discussed in the standard location, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement (AE)) is no longer true if the CT is gone. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, I think a more targeted remedy is needed than just revoking the whole thing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. The part of gun control that is super contentious on Wikipedia is covered by AMPOL. I'm not disputing that this is a hot-button issue, or a political issue in other countries, but the stats tell a clear story. There were zero actions in 2022, a handful of protections in 2023 (obviously, admins can protect pages without a CT) plus one ban which was covered by AMPOL, a single protection and ban of an IP(?!?) in 2024, and nothing in 2025. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   After a brief conversaion with the blocking admin, the IP address ban has been revoked as out of process. I would recommend ignoring it in judging the usefulness of this CT.

   Without it, we have a total of five logged actions in as many years: Four protections plus one block covered by AMPOL. Of those actions, one was in the last 2 years. I think that it has clearly outlived its usefulness. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I've seen disruption in this topic area spread to articles about specific shootings, types of firearm, and other articles that aren't obviously in-scope for AMPOL. Speaking as an admin who was active at AE before being elected to ArbCom, the topic area is quiet at the moment largely because of robust enforcement enabled by the CTOP and previous DS structures. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

• A ban of a what in 2024 -- asilvering (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

Oppose:

1. I think it would be wiser to take this in stages; see my vote on the following motion. -- asilvering (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. To be revisited in the not-too-distant future if everything remains calm even without 1RR. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Recuse. My editing interests include articles covered by this CTOP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

Stats: a couple of bans in 2023, a warning for socking, a page protection, an indefinite block, and something covered by BLP in 2024, and one semi in 2025. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. Removing this additional restriction but retaining the CTOP designation looks to me like a good way to test if the CTOP designation is required at all. -- asilvering (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per asilvering above and myself below. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Recuse per previous motion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

I am leaning towards supporting this remedy and keeping the CT designation so admins can respond to problems (in what I consider to be the unlikely event that problems recur). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. Reverting IP/TA editors counts as a revert. Or, at least, should count as a revert. What this enforcement provision called probation is what morphed into the topic-wide 1RR, so it's unclear what this provision is currently doing. Assuming it is a carve-out to the blanket 1RR restriction, it is superfluous if 1RR goes away, and even more crazy if we keep 1RR on the books. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. asilvering (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Recuse again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

• These motions are designed to take a step towards reducing WP:CREEP by taking old, unused restrictions off the books. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to restate my general position on largely-unused contentious topics: the "it's preventing invisible disruption" argument gets trotted out pretty much every time we remove a CT/GS designation, and I respectfully disagree with that view. Every time it turns out the fears were unfounded.

    Consider the 2022 removal of discretionary sanctions (the predecessor of contentious topic designation) for images of Muhammad. There were concerns that, without DS, the issue would flare up. Images of Muhammad is certainly a small-c contentious topic in the real world. ArbCom even delayed the implementation of its motion by two months to give the community time to replace it with its own GS regime. And what happened as soon as the motion passed? Nothing. I can't find any community discussion on creating a GS. In my time lurking at AN(I), I don't think I have seen any nasty discussions about Muhammad images. The designation was just dead weight.

    CT is a very particular tool. It isn't magic pixie dust that makes everything Better, or we should designate the entire encyclopedia as a CT. It wasn't making Muhammad articles better. It wasn't making Scientology articles better. It wasn't making Landmark Worldwide articles better. Or Falun Gong articles, or drug prices, or the other former contentious topics in Category:Historical contentious topic summary pages. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a few initial comments:
  • There is a small error in the Race and intelligence motion - Bans from the may be appealed in the usual way at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. is obviously missing at least one word, but I'm not sure if "from the" is correct either. I suspect this was incompletely rephrased at some point during Arb's pre-discussion.
  • My gut reaction is surprise at the Gun Control CT designation being rescinded, but I haven't yet investigated if my gut is just out of date.
  • If The Troubles CT designation is rescinded, there might need to be a consequential amendment to the motion that rescinded Remedy 1.1 of Great Irish Famine.
  • If almost any of these motions pass, I'm going to have to spend some time updating User:Thryduulf/Arbitartion amendments after a decade! Thryduulf (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, fixed the typo. I don't see a need to modify the motion about the mentorship of the Great Irish Famine; when we amend remedies that were previously amended, we are amending the remedy, not the previous amendment motion. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I was surprised to see Gun Control on the table as well but I suppose it hasn't been front and center for the past few years.

  When I was more active in that area around 2018, the conflict centered around the inclusion of negative information like mass shootings in gun articles. We had editors who presumably had a strong American Politics motivation arguing about whether gun articles should cover an Australian or European shooting.

  I'm wondering whether this falls within the broader scope of American politics, or whether we may be at a point where CT is no longer needed. –dlthewave ☎ 17:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think they'd be considering removing the CT designation if it didn't fall within the broader scope of American politics. JHD0919 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  More or less. Evidence throughout the CT's history (including its inception at the case) indicates the majority of the issue falls into AMPOL.

  Now, whether that means arbitrary page about a gun model also falls into AMPOL I'm less certain, and I know those are susceptible to edit warring (common I would suspect is assault rifle which doesn't necessarily have AMPOL tones even if I would suspect most editors warring in this way are doing it because they're, uh, of the American-conservative bent), but I would also guess most of that fits into behavior which can be remedied without a CT present in the area. Izno (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Always good to see these. Another one I noticed recently that could definitely go is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Administrators instructed. Whatever the situation was in 2011, we now have fairly clear expectations on undiscussed moves, so this poorly drafted (does it really apply to all moves, however uncontroversial?) and long-forgotten remedy isn't serving any useful purpose. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, added a motion to that effect. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Every January 1, any contentious topic designations not used in the preceding two years (except for protecting pages) are automatically terminated. Contentious topics designations may not be automatically removed in this manner until they have existed for a full year. Seems like this is trying to say that a CTOP needs two years of inactivity to expire. So perhaps the second sentence should say two years instead of one year. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No designation can be used before it exists, so all CTOPs start with not having been used for two years. Perhaps it is intentional that new CTOPs expire at one year, but old ones that have actually been used require two years to expire. Toadspike [Talk] 09:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Toadspike has it correct; the thought process is that CTs which were literally never used are treated a bit more strictly than other CTs. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  For clarity, I suggest separating these two cases. For example: "Every January 1, a contentious topic designation is terminated if any of the following conditions hold for the contentious topic in question: (a) if there has never been an administrative action placed under the authority of the contentious topic framework since the designation was made at least one year ago; (b) if no administrative actions have been placed for the contentious topic under the authority of the contentious topic framwork in the two preceding years." isaacl (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it can be simplified further: Every January 1, the log of each contentious topic designation placed at least one year ago is examined. The designation is terminated if either of the following conditions are met:

  1. There has never been a logged administrative action placed under the authority of the designation, or
  2. No logged administrative action has been placed under the authority of the designation in the preceding two calendar years.

  Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Skinny McGee and GuardianZ don't appear to have been notified about the motion affecting their bans (#Midnight Syndicate). I'll do that now as the former has at least edited a month ago, and violated their ban as relatively recently as December 2025. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  GuardianZ has a sock identified in the log as Ebonyskye who edited the topic in 2020 and other times before that. There's merit in reminding them even if (or perhaps when) the AC removes the topic ban above that they should be avoiding topics with which they have a known and clear conflict of interest. Izno (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Because reminders have helped so much in the past. I can't really complain in response to the only oppose-voting arbitrator but without even an appeal, the main reason for the topic ban removal appears to be that its violations have been belatedly noticed. As long as WP:BMB exists, I don't think "let's remove the ban without even notifying, let alone asking the affected users for a statement", and burying that under a load of seemingly-uncontroversial maintenance motions, is a good response to "we just noticed someone ignoring a ban for years".
  If the users want to continue editing about the topic they were banned from, they can appeal the ban at WP:ARCA at any time, preferably not just two months after a decade-long series of ban violations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused as to why an IP TBAN is so jaw-dropping, especially given the battleground editing and POV pushing behavior noted in the log. JHD0919 (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you post this in the right place? Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Almost certainly this refers to @HouseBlaster's comment at #Gun control (contentious topic) a single protection and ban of an IP(?!?) in 2024. If so then JHD0919's comment is in the right place. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thryduulf is correct. I consider logging t-bans & blocks of anonymous users under arbitration enforcement to be normal (in fact, a temp account was indeffed recently) so I don't understand why House and ASilvering were so surprised. JHD0919 (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  We block IPs and TAs all the time. We rarely ban them. (See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding automatic termination of contentious topic designations: I agree the proposal could benefit from some details on how it would be practically implemented. Since clerks or arbitrators will have to update the appropriate pages and templates to remove the designations, will they be able to prepare the changes and then make them as close to the threshold date as possible? Or will the termination only take effect once the pages are updated? isaacl (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  For article talk pages, would it make sense to hide the template or set it to some sort of placeholder status in case that CT is reinstated? –dlthewave ☎ 17:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The talk page notices could be changed so that they will be hidden for expired designations, and then gradually removed from each talk page. Personally I wouldn't suggest keeping them around indefinitely on the speculation that the designation is reinstated in future. But should this proposal pass, perhaps delaying removal for some period of time should be considered, to help mitigate the effort should the automatic termination approach not work out. isaacl (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe allow a fast-track restoration by request to the committee within say 6 months of an automatic sunset (e.g. in case the possibility of CT sanctions was providing a deterrent effect), with the talk page notices hidden until that period expires and then removed afterwards? Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Anything like that would only be a fast track to trouble, when an editor disrupts a recently expired topic area, leading to a mess of wikilawyering over whether or not CT was in effect at the time of disruption. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If we have to have even one conversation like this, an auto-sunset will have caused more trouble than it could ever have saved. -- asilvering (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My comments were related to logistics only, and not a suggestion regarding the desirability of the concept of reinstating a designation. I appreciate a tension between balancing the effectiveness of a contentious topic designation and reducing the number of designations by the arbitration committee as much as possible, to leave it up to the community to decide how to handle disputes. I don't think I favour a procedure to re-instate a designation on the basis of a simple request. I think I agree that if this is deemed necessary, I would prefer to instead revisit the automatic expiry procedure and adjust the criteria, or drop the procedure. However, although there has been some experience with dropping discretionary sanctions authorizations/contentious topic designations, I'm not sure there's enough data to understand the effect of a sunset provision. isaacl (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There's only one that we've had a significant tail on, and that's MI. The other two with baked-in sunsets (HE and YSK) haven't had those kick in yet. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The Midnight Syndicate motion has a grammar error. It should say something along the lines of All topic bans issued in accordance with both remedies are also rescinded. JHD0919 (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Only the second remedy allowed admins to place additional bans. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Then that should be clarified in the motion. JHD0919 (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I can do that. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• When was the last time Richardmalter (talk · contribs) or any sockpuppet thereof edited? This would be like revoking the (frankly weaksauce) sanctions in WP:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis simply because the user was globally banned and then forced to take a break by court order. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Principle 3 says that remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. This motion makes the remedy target identity rather than behavior. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My reading of it is that the behaviour marked the identity. See also LFM#Temporary injunction, which is predicated on the same argument. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• From my own reading of the matter, any and all Sathya Sai Baba-related BLP remedies are void due to the subject being dead since 2011; BLP only covers decedants for two years at most postmortem. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the reason Inzo referred to it as "BLP in its infancy" was because Sathya was still alive at the time the remedies under scrutiny here were handed down. Comment stricken due to me misreading Jeske's. JHD0919 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Both remedies 2 and 3 remain ongoing since there remain organizations affiliated with him even after his death. Izno (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• For those wondering why User:Igor B. isn't amongst the people in the ban list for ReBA above, the Bogdanovs died Dec. 2021/Jan. 2022 due to COVID-19, and Igor's account was globally locked at that point as deceased. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed that as well. While I don't necessarily object to this, I do wonder if consistency would be preferable. There are a number of other deceased users under ArbCom sanctions, including Sk8erPrince (ArbComBlock), Abd (IBAN), and Doncram (suspended IBAN). If ArbCom wants to create an across-the-board policy of removing sanctions on deceased users (even, making it something clerks can do without need for a vote upon stewards confirming death), I think that could be a good idea, but I don't know if it makes sense to just unban one of several users who've died post-sanction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is, the motion doesn't say that those not named in the revised Remedy 1 would be unrestricted from editing that page. So I'm not sure if Igor's editing restriction would be removed as a result of the revised remedy. JHD0919 (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would consider any ArbCom sanction on a user who has since died as de facto void/rescinded since, barring some form of necromancy or convoluted tax evasion scheme, there'd be no way for the sanctioned user to potentially breach it or cause the issues to recur. Same as with the BLP-related Sathya Sai Baba remedies above (since they relied on the article continuing to be a BLP/BRDP). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This was an opportunity taken since we were looking at Old Ones. I agree that a systematic approach is probably better than piecemeal removing remedies etc. should we continue to consider the issue. I do think it's probably worth having a procedure around it. Izno (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the easiest way to handle it is that any sanction on a user whose death has been verified is automatically rescinded. Igor isn't the only user so affected; Beckjord comes to mind as well (although he passed within a year of his case closing). And, as mentioned above, User:Sk8erPrince and User:Doncram would also easily fall under such a blanket and commonsense rule. (Abd was community- and later global-banned, so any IBAN would be superseded by those to begin with.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  When people are under a CBAN and a lesser ArbCom sanction, lifting the CBAN doesn't automatically lift the ArbCom sanction, so while the sanction is redundant I wouldn't say it's superseded. What does supersede both sanctions, ofc, is the death of the sanctioned party. I wonder if the solution to this would just be an addition to WP:BAN § Other considerations, something like All local bans, sitewide or partial, terminate upon the death of a user. If a banned user's death is confirmed (usually by a steward at the time of locking their account), any present-tense indicators of the ban—such as userpage banners or entries at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions—should be removed. Courtesy blanking of historic discussions may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW I contacted the WMF in relation to Abd, who was banned by the foundation, when we learned of his passing. They stated they have no objection to whatever decision the community takes regarding the userpage and user talk. Fortuna imperatrix mundi (under their previous username) reinstated their talk page but left their user page with the ban notice pending further discussion, which never actually happened (see Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Archive 3#Abd). It seems likely that this would also apply to other foundation-banned editors who we learn to be deceased, although this was not made explicit (I didn't ask a more general question, so this is not a criticism). Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive365#JiruAuriverde is a CT/TROUBLES request from this month that, in all honesty, I indeffed as a regular admin action to save myself the paperwork. The recent disruption that led to me making a DE block was 100% Troubles disruption. You can interpret this how you will, as I don't have an opinion to share, but AE is still seeing a rare request amongst the PIA parade. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to express my strong opposition to the Automatic sunset proposal. (I have no problems with any of the ideas about specific remedies.) For me, this isn't a matter of needing to revise it; it's just a very bad idea. First of all, there is no need to make this automatic, because it's not going to be something happening on such a large scale that ArbCom cannot deal with it case-by-case. Similarly, there's nothing substantial to be gained by letting it happen automatically, but with a fast-track to reinstatement. The fact that a given topic area has quieted down might mean that it no longer needs protection, or it might mean that the hiatus is only going to be temporary, and will spring up again in response to a new development in the real world. A good example of this problem would be the GMO topic area, where I was the filing party to the original case. After a flurry of AE actions in the year or so after the case, the topic area became blissfully quiet for quite a few years. (This was because the original bone of contention, whether GM foods were dangerous to eat, has become a matter of settled science, and is no longer particularly controversial.) But in the past year or so, a new dispute has emerged in the subtopic of agricultural chemicals, because the science may be changing about the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, and there has been external commentary criticizing Wikipedia, leading to a Signpost article that led to some heated talk page discussions here. Fortunately, those discussions eventually worked out in a positive way, without needing any admin actions, but it was a close call, and this could come up again any day. I know this was discussed by some Arbs just a little while back, and I'm happy (and relieved!) to see that GMOs are not listed among the motions here. All of that is by way of saying that there is no good way to deduce automatically from some particular amount of quiet time whether or not a particular CT is still needed. And ArbCom should figure this out manually, case-by-case. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• @HJ Mitchell: When you said there are arbs younger than the User:PolishPoliticians case, who are you referring to? JHD0919 (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @JHD0919 that case will be 22 years old this year. I don't think it's a secret that not all arbs are that old but it certainly wouldn't be my place to conduct a census. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, PP was decided in the first year of ArbCom's existence. Given how relatively simplistic the 2004 cases are relative to today's cases (hell, WIK painfully obviously predates the concept of WP:3RR), I wouldn't expect much more changes to them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This section may be used for short requests for enforcement intended to be answered by a single administrator. This can include requests for page restrictions or requests to revert violations of a restriction, but it should not be used to request that an editor be blocked, banned, or given other editor restrictions – for those, file a long-form enforcement thread.

To add a quick request, copy the following text box, , paste in the copied text at the bottom, and replace "Heading", "Page title", "Requested action", and "Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated)" to describe the request:

=== Heading ===
* {{pagelinks|Page title}}
'''Requested action''': Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated). ~~~~

• Wikipedia:Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One-revert restriction: Changes on this page are frequently reverted back and forth. User:Example (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This doesn't involve any contentious topic, so an admin doesn't have discretion to impose a one-revert restriction here. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Alaexis (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:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

3 Feb 2026 - Alaexis adds to the BLP article of Hussam Abu Safiya (a Gazan doctor who was has been detained without charge by the Israeli military since Dec 2024) that "Abu Safiya holds the rank of colonel in the Directorate of Military Medical Services. The directorate is part of Hamas but is separate from its military wing." This was sourced only to two Arabic language sources of unestablished (and seemingly dubious) reliability,^[1][2] and to a Times of Israel article.^[3] Alaexis' edit summary was simply: "position".

Their edit was reverted per edit summary of "This is WP:SYNTH, combining unrelated reporting from weak Arab language sources to an unverified Israeli military claim in ToI [Times of Israel]. It also fails WP:DUE and WP:BLP. Seek consensus".[14]

Alaexis' edit was made immediately after an edit adding similar content was removed per "JP [Jerusalem Post] cannot be cited for controversial claims, and ToI [Times of Israel] cites it back to an Israel lobby outfit NGO Monitor. Needs stronger source base for inclusion in a BLP".[15]

I believe this is a clear BLP violation and very similar to the edit Alaexis was previously warned over. The sources cited are not sufficient to establish this information is DUE, and the statement that "the directorate is part of Hamas" is disputed by Al Jazeera[16] and Drop Site News[17] and implies "serious accusations of involvement in a designated terrorist organization. As such, WP:BLPCRIME considerations apply."

 Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2 Oct 2025 Given a balanced editing restriction by @Vanamonde93.

1. 31 Aug 2025 Warned "to be more careful when interacting with primary sources, especially regarding living or recently deceased people" by @SilverLocust.

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

See "Notice of a logged contentious topic warning" above.

 Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Not only was this edit made by Alaexis but they continue to argue for it's restoration in the talk page discussion,[18] putting forth more poor sourcing to justify their edit, citing the Times of India (a problematic source per WP:TIMESOFINDIA), the Jerusalem Post (which "should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict"), and two sources of unestablished reliability (Misbar (Arabic) and The Media Line).

The Misbar source is titled (per machine translation) "The title "Colonel"... How did the occupation turn an administrative title into a terrorism charge against Dr. Abu Safiya?", and one user's analysis of it states that the article "provides effective reasoning for opposing inclusion of the "colonel" information absent the necessary context it provides, for doing so legitimizes the Israeli campaign to justify his detention and abuse. It explains that titles like "colonel" and "military medical services" are civilian administrative designations with no operational military meaning, and that deploying them outside their specific administrative and legal context produces a misleading perception (تصور مضلل) of military affiliation where none actually exists."[19]

Replying to Alaexis' statement: That the Military Medical Services in Gaza is "overseen by the Hamas-run health ministry" is not "basically what I [Alaexis] wrote", which is that it is "part of Hamas". The Military Medical Services was established by the Palestinian Authority prior to Hamas' takeover of Gaza and also operates in the West Bank. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't really know what the 2 Arabic sources Alaexis cited are. One user said they are "a Hamas website" and "a Fatah website". Alaexis doesn't seem to know exactly what they are either: [20] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could I be granted some words to respond to @Arcticocean? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I request 400 words to respond, half of which are quotations necessary due to the complicated subject matter. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to arcticocean's statement that Alaexis' edit "appears to have been appropriate and necessary for a full coverage of the subject: if he is affiliated with Hamas as a doctor, that clearly would be an important secondary occupation in the subject's life." First of all, what's due for inclusion in BLPs is based on what "high-quality, reliable sources" consider due for inclusion. None of the 6 sources put forth by Alaexis are high quality, all being either unknown/unestablished or having explicit caveats about their use. The Times of India article is abysmal and says that Abu Safiya "is allegedly a colonel in Hamas, The New York Post reported, citing the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Jerusalem-based watchdog group NGO Monitor." These three sources the Times of India cites are all unreliable sources of misinformation. The Times of Israel article also cites these same three sources.

Second of all, Dr Abu Safiya is not "affiliated with Hamas". The Al Jazeera source is titled "Debunking the smear campaign against Dr Hussam Abu Safiya", and that's exactly what this is, a smear campaign. Per the Al Jazeera source: "Israel has made a number of claims to justify his incarceration, some of which were recently repeated in an article in the New York Post. But are any of them true? Claim one: Dr. Abu Safiya was a member of Hamas. This claim is false."

The Times of Israel article says that Abu Safiya was "wearing a Hamas uniform". This is nonsense/misinformation. Per the AJ source: "Abu Safiya's uniform only signifies his employment by this directorate, the Military Medical Services, and in no way indicates membership in Hamas." + "Kamal Adwan Hospital, of which Abu Safiya is the director, is part of the Palestinian Directorate of General Military Medical Services. It's a government organization that provides medical care to Palestinian police and security officers as well as civilians. The Directorate also operates in the occupied West Bank under the Palestinian Authority and its medical staff are often seen wearing similar uniforms."

It is notable that the more reliable sources which cover this topic do not mention this colonel information, and Alaexis' edit stating the MMS is "part of Hamas" is wrong, poorly sourced, and BLP-violating.

This is exactly the kind of misinformation and slander that BLP's insistence on using high-quality sources seeks to avoid. This is not only a BLP violation, it is a BLP violation of the worst kind, given that these claims are being used to justify the ongoing unlawful incarceration of a medical professional in a prison notorious for its inhumane conditions and use of torture. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BLP:VICTIMIZE: "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems" & "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." & "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[21]

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is yet another example of removing sourced information which without any policy basis which has happened a lot in this topic area.

There are no sources that dispute the key facts (the rank and affiliation with the Directorate of Military Medical Services). Whether it's due is now discussed at the talk page, this is exactly what is supposed to happen when there is a disagreement. Several other editors also believe it's due.

When there is a disagreement in RS on whether the said directorate is part of Hamas goverment or not we should present all main viewpoints rather than censoring one of them.

This statement by IOHANNVSVERVS is misleading the statement that "the directorate is part of Hamas" is disputed by ... Drop Site News[22]. The Drop Site tweet says that The article itself inadvertently admits this, writing that “Safiya’s photo appeared on the Gaza Medical Services’ Facebook page — a group overseen by the Hamas-run health ministry,” an admission that Abu Safiya belonged to a government health institution, not an armed faction which is basically what I wrote in my single edit of the article in question citing the ToI The directorate is part of Hamas but is separate from its military wing [23]

The edit summary of the revert shows the fundamental misunderstanding of the WP:RS policy. RS are allowed to use non-reliable information sources and do this all the time. Editors cannot use Youtube videos as a source but RS are allowed to do it because we assume that they do the due diligence. So using a source we deem unreliable is not a valid reason to remove a RS.

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs), regarding the two sources I used, I did reasonable due diligence

1. They are mentioned on the "Media Contacts" page of the Palestinian Prime Minister's Office website. I mentioned it at the talk page. I've googled them again today and saw that Watan is mentioned by the BBC here.
2. They are used on English Wikipedia [24] [25], Al Watan more than Al Rai

I concluded that these sources are appropriate for the affiliation and rank of Abu Sufiya. Based on the information that other editors found later about these sources, it appears that one of them is affiliated with Fatah and another one with Hamas. This is not automatically disqualifying - if both Hamas- and Fatah-affiliated sources tell us that he holds a senior position in the government, there is no reason to doubt that this is true, especially since no sources dispute that.

It seems like Alaexis is being reported for including a claim in a BLP that 2 GREL sources have reported (in their own voices) - that the subject is a colonel in the directorate of Military Medical Services. The filer repeats false claims such as that Alaexis included an "unverified military claim in ToI", but the content sourced to ToI is said in their own voice, not attributed to a military claim at all.[26]

As for the the use of the Palestinian media sites (Al-Watan and Al-Ray) to establish the subject's rank in their organisation is not the way that I think we should go about this, but their reliability for this claim in this context - that "Abu Safiya holds the rank of colonel in the Directorate of Military Medical Services" - is easy to defend. This was basic non-controversial biographical information at the time they published it.

Alaexis was including the content after 2 GREL and 1 MREL sources covered it in detail in published articles, while the contrary sources that Alaexis is accused of ignoring here are: a tweet[27] and a youtube short posted after Alaexis' edit[28].

There are of course real content issues of WP:BLP and WP:DUE which are being discussed on the talk page, but I'm surprised to see this alleged as a conduct issue. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a mere content dispute, it shows deliberate and repeated violations of core WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME policies, in a way that would lead to grave real-world harms to the BLP's subject, Hussam Abu Safiya.

@Alaexis states There are no sources that dispute the key facts (the rank and affiliation with the Directorate of Military Medical Services). This is inaccurate.

Sustained high quality RS reporting states that allegations of Hussam Abu Safiya being a "Hamas colonel" lacks evidence. NBC News reports the Israeli military said without providing evidence he held a rank in Hamas, as do CNN, AP, BBC, and The Intercept. Further, Amnesty and RS note he was arbitrarily detained, is subjected to ongoing torture, and has not been charged with the alleged Hamas membership.

Misbar was selectively cited by Alaexis to support inclusion of the allegation. But Misbar refutes it, citing Physicians for Human Rights Israel saying that if the allegations held substance, Israeli prosecution would have filed formal indictment: To date, no such indictment exists against him, which legally refutes the claims. As noted, RS reporting confirms no formal charges have been made and no evidence for the allegation has been provided. Alaexis mischaracterized this source to support inclusion, violating WP:V.

Alaexis' edit itself violates WP:RS and WP:OR. The first part states in wikivoice: Abu Safiya holds the rank of colonel in the Directorate of Military Medical Services. It cites two 5+ year old websites. Al-Ray is a Hamas propaganda website. Al-Watan is a partisan Fatah website associated with controversial figure Mohammed Dahlan.

The PhD dissertation has been published. Al Watan voice is the source cited by Alaexis. It is analyzed as a partisan factional operation lacking reliability: There is a fundamental difference between the political websites of established democratic governments and Palestinian political websites – whereas, there is transparency relating to the political websites of democratic countries, the Palestinian political parties operate websites which are not officially identified with the party. The websites do not include the name of the party, for example, but rather the Palestinian consumers know according to their content, as I was repeatedly told. Moreover, there are niche websites within the political factions, for example, the website ‘alwatanvoice’ that is identified with Mohamed Dahlan, of the Fatah party. A participant who does not read the Palestinian websites expressed his view, a typical response from participants in reference to political websites: ‘I do not read the Palestinian websites. They do not have good language and no good journalism. There is no formal journalism training. Western English speakers will not rely on the information (S., July. 2008, London).

Neither meets RS standards for WP:BLP/WP:BLPCRIME claims.

Alaexis' responses to the lack of reliability of these sources has shifted. On February 4: what's wrong with the sources? Both Alray and Al Wattan Voice are real media outlets (https://pmo.pna.ps/en/Article/4794/media-contacts) and there is no reason to doubt their reporting in this case.

On February 16 Alaexis admits not checking the reliability of these sources, and continued to defend their use for including the allegation that RS reporting states lacks any evidence: I wasn't aware of their affiliation when I used them and I'm not 100% sure it's the same one as there are plenty of media outlets called Watan. But I'm not sure it's that important. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - a source may be not generally reliable but nevertheless be reliable for a certain claim. If both Hamas- and Fatah-affiliated sources tell us that he holds a senior position in the government, there is no reason to doubt that this is true, especially since no sources dispute that.

Crucially, the sole source for the allegation in the relied on deprecated WP:NYPOST and pro-Israeli advocacy group NGO Monitor report are these years old context free references to Hussam Abu Safiya in Al-Ray and other Palestinian sites. Al Jazeera fact-checked the NYPost piece as being false.

Alaexis appears to have recreated the NYPost allegation by citing these sites in the first sentence directly, and then in the second indirectly through Times of Israel, which in turn relies on the NYPost report.

Engaging in WP:OR in the second to confirm the "Hamas colonel" allegation, Alaexis added: The directorate is part of Hamas but is separate from its military wing, citing ToI.

To defend this edit in the talk discussion Alaexis cited WP:JERUSALEMPOST, which has additional considerations prohibiting its use for controversial claims, and also relies on deprecated New York Post/NGOMonitor; WP:TIMESOFINDIA, which has additional considerations and relies on NYPOST/NGOMonitor; The Media Line, a pro-Israel advocacy outlet whose founder and CEO works for Jerusalem Post, and also relies on NYPOST/NGOMonitor.

The allegation thus circulated solely in highly partisan pro-Israeli outlets relying on the deprecated NYPost/NGOMonitor, far below the bar for WP:BLP/WP:BLPCRIME allegations of this magnitude. Engaging in OR/RS violations to establish the appearance of a stronger source base by recreating that report constitutes a fundamental breach of BLP obligations.

Alaexis further argued others should produce sources disputing the allegation. This inverts WP:BURDEN. Under WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME, absence of refutation does not permit inclusion of serious allegations lacking a sufficient RS-basis and when high quality RS state no evidence exists.

This is part of a pattern. Alaexis was sanctioned for 1RR violation (Aug 2025), warned about BLP source handling (Aug 2025), received a balanced editing restriction (Oct 2025), and received topic bans from PIA (30 days) and Hamas article (90 days) for edit-warring (Dec 2025). Lf8u2 (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the Palestinian sources is largely a distraction. Abu Safiya's rank in a Palestinian government organization is probably not due but not a BLP concern. The problem is extrapolating from that information to imply membership or affiliation with Hamas. This is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that is not supported by any unbiased mainstream sources and flatly contradicted by Al Jazeera. After the initial direct allegation of Hamas membership from another user was reverted, Alaexis choose to misleadingly frame the MMS as "a part of Hamas" here to imply the association. They then advocated on talk for inclusion of this serious allegation as a potential "interpretation" here and here, and by claiming censorship here. It is worth considering that Alaexis has subsequently walked back attempts to mention a Hamas link (albeit after the filing of this request). EvansHallBear (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I am not sure that adding that claim into the article could have breached WP:DUE or WP:BLP. It appears to have been worded in appropriately neutral and encyclopedic language. It also appears to have been appropriate and necessary for a full coverage of the subject: if he is affiliated with Hamas as a doctor, that clearly would be an important secondary occupation in the subject's life. Next, I would reject the filing user's claim that Times of India is an unreliable source, as that exaggerates the concerns documented at WP:RSP. I think the only live issue in this enforcement request is whether Al Watan Voice and Alray were unreliable sources. The filing user describes them as having "unestablished reliability" but I note they both support the claim, apparently independently. They appear to me not to be obviously questionable sources, but if other users have information to the contrary, that would be highly relevant. Arcticocean ■ 22:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Arcticocean above that the reliability of the two Arabic sources is the heart of the matter here. I don't really like that Alaexis is willing to use sources whose provenance they are uncertain of for content they know will be contentious. But the rest of the complaint feels like a non-issue to me. Alaexis did not use the inflammatory "Hamas colonel" language; that was another user on the talk page, who would have received a warning for it did it not predate a logged warning they just got at AE. Alaexis is also correct in stating that the convenience of a piece of information for its subject is not relevant to Wikipedia, as long as it is appropriately sourced. Both the OP and the respondent may have an additional 500 words to address this matter specifically. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Having read the addenda, I still do not consider the specific edits under discussion to be a bright line violation of the sort that I would want to sanction in isolation. The arguments against Alaexis's addition are largely a matter of due weight rather than active source misrepresentation or sanctionable misuse. There is some evidence of lack of care, but in isolation, this is not sufficient for me to support formal action. I will wait for further input from other admins, but I'm minded to close this without action.

  That said, this is the fourth AE report in the space of a year in which Alaexis's conduct has been less-than-perfect. Taken in toto these reports are concerning, and Alaexis needs to be aware they are skating on thin ice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The mainspace edit Alaexis made here doesn't support a case for a sanction. The two Palestinian sources wouldn't have been my first choice. But the claim that Abu Safiya is a colonel in the MMS is backed up by the Times of Israel source Alaexis provided, and ToI in turn cites MMS for that claim, not NYPost or NGO monitor. Iohannvs misleadingly truncates Alaexis' added text to make it look like Alaexis said that MMS is "a part of Hamas" (and by extension that Alaexis was making "serious accusations of involvement in a designated terrorist organization" wrt Abu Safiya) but Alaexis made it clear right after that MMS is not military, and it is a concerning breach of candor on the part of the filer to present the evidence this way. It's also concerning that Alaexis has cited some weak sources for a contentious claim, but there's no glaring BLP issue with their edit that would require AE intervention. But I'll echo Vanamonde that Alaexis is still skirting the line with their behavior in general.
  on a related note, I don't love that several editors here and on the talk page seem to have decided by fiat that Times of Israel is not reliable for contentious claims or that it is somehow subordinate to Al Jazeera when the two disagree. The consensus of the community, as relayed at RSP, says that both are reliable for facts, and concerning the conflict, the community says that ToI is "potentially biased" while "most editors seem to agree that" Al Jazeera is biased. This suggests to me that topic area regulars may be substituting their personal feelings on a source based on its bias for the community's stated consensus on its factual reliability. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Helpful Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

TurboSuperA+ (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:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian war

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

1. 5 Feb 2026 - TSA+ removes relevant information calling it "fluff". When challenged, TSA+ starts WP:SEALIONING and WP:GASLIGHTING to deny that Kapustin's statement - that he doesn't understand why American extremists have some sort of a complete obsession with Jews, like Jews control everything - is about antisemitism. They remove my reworded version again, and only give in when everyone opposes them.
2. 7 Feb 2026 - TSA+ insinuates that GeogSage is a Nazi sympathiser for saying one can recognise Soviet atrocities without diminishing Nazi ones.
3. 29 Dec 2025 - 3 Feb 2026 - WP:FORUMSHOPPING by opening an RFC on a tangentially related article in an attempt to call the Azov Brigade far-right in wikivoice, 8 months after they didn't get their way in their RFC on the brigade's article. They claimed the second RFC was different because it was about 2018-2019, but this is questionable because they made no arguments about why the brigade was far-right in 2018-2019. I addressed the time argument in my comment, citing RSes saying the brigade had started to deradicalise by 2017 (and therefore couldn't be called far-right in wikivoice); TSA+ repeated meaninglessly that the RFC was about 2018-2019.
4. 28-30 Nov 2025 - TSA+ agrees to my suggested wording, which says some foreigners allege they were coerced into joining the Russian military. 14 hours later, they U-turn and insist nobody was coerced, and decide they simply don't believe every RS (with the WP:OR argument that human trafficking victims can never receive any healthcare or succeed in contacting the press). They make the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that recruitment into the Russian military has nothing to do with the Russian military, but WP:GASLIGHT three hours later that they never disputed Russian involvement.
5. 20 June 2025 - pushing WP:FRINGE theories. TSA+ says a subject-matter expert's statement - that Russia is a repressive authoritarian regime, and that the 2024 Russian presidential election was fraudulent (with that expert's estimate of Putin's true support) - is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim.
6. 7-14 May 2025 - in their first Azov RFC, TSA+ made false accusations of canvassing against me and another user who !voted not to call Azov far-right in wikivoice, hiding behind secret evidence until ArbCom said they had received no credible evidence against anyone. TSA+ apologised, but walked it back by misrepresenting ArbCom, saying as ArbCom saw, the accusation was not baseless. Many users proposed sanctions (from a formal warning to a topic ban or even an indef), as TSA+'s behaviour was already well-known, but the ANI thread was archived without action. TSA+ continued making wild accusations within the ANI thread.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182#TurboSuperA+ closes - topic-banned from closing discussions
2. User talk:TurboSuperA+/Archive/2025#Warning: Assume good faith - admin warning about failure to WP:AGF in WP:RUSUKR

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

User talk:TurboSuperA+/ArchiveCTOP#Contentious topics alerts (January 2025)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

My complaint has nothing to do with the current dispute about the Denis Kapustin (militant) lead; I've never objected to the neo-Nazi label. TSA+ has a long history of disruptive POV-pushing in the WP:RUSUKR area, including misrepresentation of other users; obstructionist conduct in discussions; and false accusations and personal attacks. WP:PACT. Sanctions against TSA+ have been repeatedly proposed, but not implemented; I hope we can end the disruption.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1338826880

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.

HC wrote a 3500 word report at AN (thread is still live) and then directed editors here to AE.

Diffs:

1) This is what I removed: He has said he does not understand the focus on antisemitism of his American counterparts[29] Fluff and irrelevant to his political views. Other editors chimed in (thanks to me staring a discussion at NPOVN), said it should be included and I accepted the consensus.

2) I objected to GeogSage's argument (I could have done it differently, but I was heated at the time given the context). GeogSage wrote: The Nazis were bad guys, however, after studying history a bit, I don't know of many true "good guys." This is a known trope used to minimise the crimes of the Nazis. Not saying that was GeogSage's intention, but I objected to the argument.

3) In the Kapustin RfC I started HC kept implying impropriety on my part, even after telling me to go ahead with the RfC: Feel free to start a new RFC [30]. They kept repeatedly pointing out a previous RfC was held: [31] [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. It is not against P&G to start a "similar" RfC 7 months later on a different article. The question was neutrally worded. The RfC didn't go "my way". I accepted the consensus and didn't bring it up again.

4) Misleading. I didn't do a "U-turn". I raised the issue of "coercion vs deception" before and after HC's comment: still deception[38] Deception, yes, but not coercion. and These people went...willingly.[39] There is a difference between deception and coercion.

5) Misleading. I never disagreed that Russia is a repressive authoritarian regime. I said that it is not appropriate to add extraordinary claims some analyst made at a conference I was referring to: "a quarter of Russians support Putin", which is a guess without evidence. "Thuggish" is not encyclopaedic language.

I don't see how this is relevant. The article in question, Vranyo, was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vranyo. I did not participate in the AfD. Editors thought it problematic and it was deleted by consensus.

6) This happened 9 months ago. I was a brand new editor. I was distressed that I was called a "wikivatnik" because I started an RfC. Allegation of canvassing was not unfounded, though perhaps misdirected. It is not a "wild accusation" when there is literally someone canvassing off-wiki to get me banned.

Re: POV pushing. An ANI report from May 2025 that went nowhere is not evidence of "long history POV pushing". There were no reports since then. Which POV would that be anyway? Here is somebody accusing me of working for the Ukrainian government. Here is me saying we can't change an infobox to "Russian victory". Here I added a video of Ukrainian soldiers shooting down a Russian jet, etc. I can provide more examples if needed. If one side says I'm pro-RU and another side says I'm pro-UA, that's neutral editing. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 21:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uninvolved with this dispute & am mostly unfamiliar with the material in question, so I hope I can give an outside perspective here. Broadly, my initial reading is that these issues occurred due to TSA+ having a stricter interpretation of wording then HC.

1) I understand TSA+'s logic with the first revert as Kapustin's statement only refers to a specific antisemitic trope rather then antisemitism as a whole. I do not know what their objection to your reworded version was though, however I'll say that conceding the point after realizing consensus was against them is a virtue in editing.

2) I don't think that response was at all necessary, but I wouldn't interpret it as TSA+ insinuating GeogSage was a Nazi sympathizer. I may understand where their kneejerk jab at the phrase "The Nazis were bad guys" came from, but TSA+'s remark was unconstructive.

3) You did directly tell them to start that RFC [40], so I don't think it's fair to object to them doing just that.

4) TSA+ has already addressed this as not a change of position, but rather a dispute over specific word choice. There's also a difference between saying the recruiters in question were directly part of the Russian military & saying that their was Russian involvement in the process.

5) Again, TSA+ has already addressed this as their issue was with the specific details, not the expert's position.

6) They said their concern over canvassing was not baseless, which was true. The concern over canvassing was just unrelated to you, of which they apologized to you & you said you accepted it.

While I definitely think TSA+'s style of writing can come off as argumentative & I hope they work on that, I also have concerns over how HC seems to be interpretating many of these situations in the worst possible light. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is a pre-existing thread on another behavioural noticeboard about TurboSuperA+ at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#TurboSuperA+ not listening and misusing the guidelines this should probably be closed. TarnishedPath^talk 04:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Helpful Cat did not initiate the most recent report at AN, nor were they the only editor complicating that discussion with lengthy responses that made it nearly impossible to follow. Several editors suggested that this was the appropriate venue to address the alleged behavioral issues raised by multiple contributors. I disagree that this matter should be closed due to the existence of a prior AN thread. That thread can be closed, and the issue can be resolved here. Nemov (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful Cat may not have started the latest AN report. They did however start one at AN/I last May (archived w/out action, but with a near-consensus to TBan TSA+). Meantime, TylerBurden opened the most recent AE against Tyler Burden (brought by TSA+) closed a month ago (closed with TylerBurden being held to his promise to do better in the topic area, and a warning that recidivism would likely see them TBanned).

The phrase A plague o' both your houses! springs to mind, and I'd be surprised if this wasn't increasingly the view of AE admin regulars; perhaps a few regular players on both teams should be removed from the pitch. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tyler Burden and apologies; I've corrected my comment, and also added the warning as to your possible (future) TBanning. Apologies again! cheers! —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what Fortuna imperatrix mundi means above, I have never opened an AE request against TurboSuperA+. What did happen is TSA+ opened one against me, the rather lengthy one that is linked, so perhaps you read it wrong?

Either way I find it ironic that TurboSuperA+'s initial reaction to finding themselves reported on this board included complaining about HC ″compiling evidence″ against them, something that judging by the aforementioned report created by TSA+, they have nothing against when they are the one creating a report, since the depth of their report would have required not only close monitoring of my contributions, but specific combing/compiling for over a dozen diffs spread over several years they felt strengthened their position.

This hypocrisy aside, my position on TSA+ is that they seem to have an issue staying objective in this topic area, demonstrated by several instances of attempting to downplay or outright remove on false premises the use of foreigners by the Russian military. If an editor is truly neutral as TSA+ claims to be, they shouldn't be misrepresenting what reliable sources are saying or outright deny them, like the examples I provided in the administrators' noticeboard , and I don't think the three diffs provided to demonstrate how neutral they are outweigh multiple pretty clear WP:TENDENTIOUS incidents. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

• AE procedure is something I don't want to wade into because it's hard to keep the arb hat separate, but since it's been a bit and no one's weighed in, I'll suggest to other admins (with no weight on the consensus assessment) that AE shouldn't take this case unless AN can't handle the case; if the thread is archived or closed with no consensus or a consensus to refer here, that'd be a good time to step in, but otherwise I wouldn't encourage parallel or duplicate proceedings here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  +1. Valereee (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]