Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:AE (disambiguation).

This page is used to report:

• conduct that violates an Arbitration Committee decision
• misconduct in a contentious topic (CTOP) requiring user or page restrictions, including community-designated contentious topics
• violations of restrictions imposed under the CTOP or community-imposed general sanctions (GS) procedures

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).
• You must make your statements (including replies) in your designated section 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.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best when a variety of administrators lend their expertise to indvidual cases. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A few reminders:

• Even if behavior described in an enforcement request is not restricted by ArbCom, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Contentious topic restrictions and enforcement measures should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and maintain its efficiency; use administrative discretion where necessary.
• More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure they are investigated.
• Word counts may be added using the following template: {{ACWordStatus|page=AE|section=REQUEST NAME|user=USERNAME}}. Extensions may be granted using the following template: {{ApprovedWordLimit|words=NEW TOTAL|sig=~~~~}}.

Closing a thread:

• Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. Hatted requests will later be archived by an admin after at least 24 hours (up to a week).
• If a dispute is too difficult to resolve at AE or the report regards administrator conduct, consider referring the case to ARCA.
• You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
• Please list sanctions in the arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

• File an enforcement request
• File an appeal
• Quick enforcement requests
• Check your word count
• Request a word extension

Aesurias

Aesurias is topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. TheNewMinistry is subject to a one-way interaction ban with Aesurias. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Aesurias

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TheNewMinistry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Aesurias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:AC/CT

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

1. 19 September 2025 Responded to second warning from admin by asking the same admin to engage in WP:PROXYING on their behalf
2. 23 September 2025 Added WP:FALSEBALANCE to politician's article with weasel-wording about their support of Palestine relief group UNRWA - they had previously tried to insert the same unsourced information into the article back in March ()
3. 28 September 2025 Reclassified an Israel-sponsored trip by right-wing political figure, implying such trips are not controversial
4. 29 September 2025 Removed sourced quote from pro-Israel politician's article where she equated Palestinians to barbarians
5. 2 October 2025 Removed passage identifying group's founder as Gerald Ronson and his connection to Netanyahu - Aesurias acknowledged the information is correct and should be in lead instead, but chooses to delete everything
6. 3 October 2025 Removed passages explaining that Israeli-Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican in the 2012 US Presidential Election, and that democratic socialist Bernie Sanders is Jewish
7. 9 October 2025 Admonished another user for removing a tag from an article they created, telling them "DO NOT REMOVE A TAG WITHOUT IT BEING DISCUSSED, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS YOUR OWN ARTICLE"
8. 10 October 2025 Tagged The Holocaust and the Nakba for deletion, but was widely rebuked in the AFD discussion and it failed
9. 11 October 2025 Deleted passage from The Holocaust and the Nakba explaining its views on Israeli Jews
10. 12 October 2025 Removed notability tag from JEXIT, an article Aesurias created, without allowing any discussion
11. 13 October 2025 Created page on the pro-Israel Zioness Movement, with half the sources either dead links or direct links to the Zioness website
12. 14 October 2025 Removed sourced passage explaining that Israel's doctrine they use to justify denial of the Gaza genocide was authored by biased individuals
13. 14 October 2025 Removed a passage explaining that the Australian Jewish Association defended a former neo-nazi
14. 18 October 2025 Moved List of companies of Palestine to draftspace, saying the formatting is incorrect
15. 18 October 2025 Started an AN investigation into a userpage having a vague reference to Hezbollah, which was promptly closed after the consensus was that Aesurius was wasting everyone's time
16. 21 October 2025 Moved article on Track AIPAC, a watchdog group monitoring pro-Israel group AIPAC to draftspace, calling it improperly sourced and non-notable
17. 21 October 2025 Created page on Better Australia, a group supporting pro-Israel politicians, using only five sources - two of which are primary, and one of which is a blog
18. 22 October 2025 Reverted my addition of Template:Promotional to Zioness Movement page they created without making any changes to content or sourcing

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None.

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 11 September 2025 by Helpful Raccoon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for condiuct in the area of conflict on 19 September 2025 by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor is clearly inserting pro-Israel messaging into Wikipedia's articles and suppressing criticism of Israel, and a topic ban on any material covering the Arab–Israeli conflict would be appropriate. Their New page reviewer permission should be revoked. TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Aesurias

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 Aesurias

I previously opened an NPOV discussion against this user, here, over an image taken of a political candidate in 2007, which the user uploaded to Wikimedia as their 'own work'. The user, paradoxically, insisted that they had no COI with the candidate. Other editors questioned the user about this, because by insisting on 1) the image being their own work and 2) them having no connection to the person in the image, they were lying about at least one thing.

After I opened that discussion, I was incessantly hounded by the user, who has been reprimanded by administrators for his behaviour here, but didn't acknowledge it.

• They thanked me dozens of times, spamming me with notifications, seen here.
• Their recent edit history, seen here, is made up almost entirely of my articles -- they created talk pages for more than a dozen of them, adding the 'contentious topics' tag to each one, notifying me.
• Their recent edit history also shows they were adding tags onto my articles without explaining why on the talk pages.
• On Better Australia, they added an NPOV tag and opened a talk page discussion (the only page where they explained why they added the tag!) here. I was receptive to this, adding things they wanted to the article. The user then stopped replying. Another editor replied to the talk page saying I didn't need to add any of what this user wanted in the first place, as it was not relevant.

Additionally, they previously received a 48hr ban for personal attacks against me, seen here. They have received other bans of various types, including another ban for personal attacks on other users.

Creating articles on Wikipedia is not a crime, as the user is trying to insinuate. Other editors approved these articles with no problem. I stand by all of my own reviews of pages, they weren't ready for mainspace. Cherrypicking a few of them relating to Israel-Palestine and ignoring the dozens that weren't is disingenuous. My edits were fine -- for example, the Israeli-American one was false info, it was a poll asking Israelis in Israel who they would theoretically vote for if they could, which is why I removed it. I removed some parts of 'criticism' sections because they didn't contain criticisms, rather they contained things that the editor who added them didn't personally like. A failed AfD is not relevant, some editors agreed with me, some didn't.

This request is unserious. The user's assumption of bad faith, accusing me of "inserting pro-Israel messaging into Wikipedia", is not only offensive to me, but offensive to the dozens of well-respected editors who have approved my pages.

• User:Sean.hoyland I had not seen this post before you sent it, and although I have a Reddit account I am not active in that subreddit. I would have disclosed this in the AfD if I had seen it prior.

• I don't believe a topic ban is warranted. If I am allowed to go over 500 words, I can rebut each claim and explain each edit. Aesurias (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• I'm requesting that I be allowed to go over the 500 word limit, to explain each edit. I don't feel that these accusations have validity and would like to discuss each point! Thank you. Aesurias (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  The allegations against me are flawed -- I have a 200word limit but some examples: Accusation #6 falsely claims I removed info about Israeli-Americans from an article about American Jewish politics - the edit history would show that it was actually a poll of Israelis living in Israel who can't actually vote (therefore shouldn't have been in the article). #8 is about an AfD (irrelevant), #9 was an approved edit from AfD discussion, #11 and #17 were just me creating articles (one of the points of Wikipedia...?), #18 was me removing a tag placed without explanation in talk page as part of their harassment campaign they were indef blocked for. Only of my only genuine errors in these accusations is #1 -- I had just begun editing and wasn't aware. The other editor in the convo kindly explained contentious topics rules but because my writing had no issues, it wasn't reverted and there was no issue. Aesurias (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by TheNewMinistry

Asilvering (talk · contribs) is literally the administrator who advised me on October 15, 2025 to open an investigation on this very forum when I asked them for advice regarding Aesurius' biases in Israel/Palestine editing:

As for Aesurias, if you have npov concerns regarding Israel-Palestine, the place to raise those is at en:WP:AE.

For Asilvering to claim they are an uninvolved administrator is laughable. I'm politely asking @Asilvering: to recuse themself from this investigation. TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect Asilvering (talk · contribs) - I last thanked Aesurias (talk · contribs) before today on October 12th, according to the logs posted above. I only thanked Aesurias once, today, after they left contact information on your Talk Page so you could both discuss ways to retaliate against me offsite. Again, @Asilvering: - please recuse yourself from this investigation since you clearly hold a grudge against me. If you did not direct me to this forum in good faith in your advice to me here, as I had assumed, and instead thought you could lure me here to punish me for non-related matters, as you imply in your edit here - that is quite disturbing. TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

The following line caught my eye.

• 10 October 2025 Tagged The Holocaust and the Nakba for deletion...

Looking at the timing and the fact that the nomination for deletion was, I think, Aesurias' first visible interaction with that page, I would be interested to know from Aesurias whether the action was in response to this Reddit thread or perhaps another site. If so, I do think for ARBPIA, for processes susceptible to external influence like AfD, it would be helpful if people just openly described the off-wiki discussion/social media post etc. that caused them to take action on-wiki whenever it happens as part of the nomination. That way we might have better visibility into the off-wiki/on-wiki causal connections that exist. Just a simple - saw this post/discussion... - might help. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Aesurias. I take that to mean that you also think that something like a WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT for these kinds of things might help. If so, that probably makes a total of two of us. It's a start. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Aesurias

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

• Disclosure: I was the administrator who warned TNM about hounding Aesurias (), having earlier blocked TNM for harassment regarding the same. I have also responded to Aesurias's questions about where to take various disputes, and about the word limit in AE proceedings. I do not feel that either of these prejudice me unfairly in this case, but am more than willing to move my comments up if other admins think I ought to. Regarding the evidence against Aesurias, I have not fully investigated but it looks at least good enough that we should investigate, not reject this filing out of hand for being retaliatory. However, the filing is quite clearly the most recent salvo in a pattern of harassment that I warned TNM over just yesterday. Clearly, some sanction for harassment on the part of TNM is required, regardless of the ultimate outcome regarding Aesurias. -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, @TheNewMinistry, I told you to raise complaints at AE. A week ago. In the intervening time, instead of raising concerns at AE, you continued to harass Aesurias, and I then gave you a final warning, as I stated. As I have said, if other admins think I should move my comments up, I am happy to. I have, however, only been involved here in an administrative capacity. -- asilvering (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding Aesurias's assertion that TNM has been cherrypicking, I'm not sure that can possibly be true, given that, unless I am much mistaken, TNM's evidence does not contain anything about Talk:Pallywood, Aesurias's most-edited talk page. That discussion has also spilled out to WP:NPOVN#'Pallywood' (though, note also the personal attack on them here ). Their position appears to be that Pallywood is "real". Pallywood is both a slur and a conspiracy theory. Someone who cannot distinguish between Pallywood and Misinformation in the Gaza war should not be editing in WP:CT/PIA. -- asilvering (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Aesurias, you can have another 200 words. -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Well, I think asilvering is fine to participate. I also think that Aesurias deserves a topic ban at minimum from PIA. TNM should get an interaction ban with Aesurias for the harassment at this point. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• I have blocked TNM indefinitely for their comment above in which they acknowledge that they used the "thank" button in response to an edit by Aesurias that they characterize as part of a conspiracy to "retaliate against me offsite"—obviously not sincere thanks, but a continuation of the same harassment Asilvering warned them for. I might have gone with a p-block from thanking, or a longer tempblock, but their complete lack of self-awareness that this is harassment suggests a problem broader than this one issue, and so for now at least an indef siteblock is the least restrictive remedy that addresses the disruption. This is not an AE action, and should not lead to an early closure of this thread. For now I have no opinion on TBANning Aesurias, but support an IBAN on TNM, blocked or not. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Tamzin, if you agree with a PIA tban for Aesurias, that leaves us at unanimous consensus and you're clear to close the thread. -- asilvering (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Asilvering: I think I remain neutral on a TBAN. Not neutral in the sense of having a long analysis at the ready of the pros and cons, but neutral in the sense that the evidence doesn't quite click for me and, if not for the overlapping matter of TNM's conduct, I would have just not commented here. Please don't delay a close on my account, though. 3 support to 1 neutral is still a rough consensus. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• I also support a TBAN for Aesurias from PIA and an IBAN for TNM with Aesurias. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• @Asilvering, Tamzin, Callanecc, and Sennecaster: How do you feel after reading Aesurias's latest post? I see consensus for a TBAN here, but given that an extension was granted the material in it should be considered. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  I remain the most concerned about the AN thread they started about the userbox, which is what ultimately persuaded me. I'd be fine with a warning, informal or formal, but I don't think this is a close without action situation because of that thread. Unrelated to this AE, Aesurias, you should probably start using more precise draftify reasons than the one you used in diff 16 (Identical to other page). Sennecaster (Chat) 17:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  The issues raised in the recent post are irrelevant to my own reasoning. -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the evidence myself, I concur with my colleagues that a TBAN is warranted. Aesurias's conduct at Talk:Pallywood makes me believe they will not be able to edit this area in a policy-compliant manner. I also agree that TNW requires an interaction ban. Closing with this result, given the rough consensus here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Lumbering in thought

Lumbering in thought is warned for adding unsourced information and restoring it after it was challenged. They are encouraged to better familiarize themself with WP:V going forward, and cautioned that even beyond contentious topics, repeatedly adding unsourced information may lead to a block as a regular admin action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Lumbering in thought

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Longhornsg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lumbering in thought (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block 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

1. Adding OR and info not supported by RS or in the article body to the lede of Jewish lobby
2. Readded OR and wrong information after reversion asking for sources
3. Refusal to provide an RS for additions to lede on talk
4. Continued to add OR to the page and not engage with RS on talk

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,

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Clear disregard for the need for RS in this topic area.

Despite multiple requests to present RS, multiple times, none were presented. Diff 4 was after several attempts for RS. I just reverted but am not interested in getting into an edit war.

The diff shared is further evidence that they don't know how to constructively edit on Wikipedia, especially in contentious topics. What I did was WP:BRD. I reverted, discussed on talk page, and we achieved consensus.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Lumbering in thought

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 Lumbering in thought

I take issue with 1-3 to the point of belief that the plaintiff has committed WP:BLUD, as for 4 [] you can see the plaintiff didn't revert my revert when I started the request to get consensus. My revert being allowed to stay when we entered the talk was confusing. Thus arguably, the plaintiff's established pattern of behavior is worse than mine as per Special:Diff/1318135022. Lumbering in thought (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

In response to the plaintiff's latest, recognizing that I never broke the 1RR per WP:PIA, I should have replied to their message on my Talk page, an attempt to establish a pattern of behavior which didn't have an invitation to the article Talk page done in coordination with their first edit summary revert reason [] implying satisfaction with edit summaries, with an invitation to the article Talk page and a reminder that they should be discussing the article substance.

Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that a re-revert edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond without risking an edit war. See also WP:QUO. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, or invite the editor to the talk page if they insist on using only edit summaries, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle.

Lumbering in thought (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

A couple of comments for what it's worth.

• It's probably debatable whether the entire article is covered by PIA restrictions resulting from its relationship to 'the Arab–Israeli conflict, a contentious topic'. Maybe the ARBPIA template should have |relatedcontent=yes. Either way, it is currently unprotected.
• I'm not sure I agree with the way Longhornsg has constructed this complaint. Isn't the right question - are the additions consistent with WP:LEAD? Other rules like OR, RS aren't pertinent because it's the lead. So, maybe it's about whether or not the changes are trying to crowbar content into the lead that is not present in the article body (always a red flag in PIA) i.e. it's not a valid summary, or is it? I haven't actually checked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Lumbering in thought

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

• I think this just barely falls into PIA, in that LIT is talking about diaspora Jews at the deliberate exclusion of Israeli Jews, and then on talk drawing a distinction between the Jewish lobby and Israel lobby. With jurisdiction established, I'm pretty concerned here about what reads as a basic failure to understand WP:V. LHSG has repeatedly asked LIT for sources for their edits, and they've blown right past that while leaping to claims of bludgeoning. I'll stress that, while citations are generally not needed in a lede, the lede is expected to follow the body, and the body has nothing to back up LIT's edits, so LHSG's request for sources is valid. Furthermore, I'm pretty squeamish about seeing the word "predisposed" anywhere around ethnicity. Maybe that was just poor wording, but combined with the rest decreases my confidence. I'm not sure whether or what level of sanctions are necessary here, but something needs to be addressed in some way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with Tamzin that the additions are problematic. WP:LEAD offers no exception to the policy on verifiability; it only allows for providing citations in the body of the article. Lumbering's conduct is only marginally mitigated by the lead as it stood also being unsupported by the body. For a first offence I would suggest a logged warning. If they continue to miss the point, a TBAN is inevitable, although I would also consider a block as an ordinary admin action for adding unsourced content. As an aside, this is an excellent example for my oft-repeated position that contentious articles should not only allow but encourage citations in the lead. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with a logged warning for WP:V (in particular, to provide an in-line citation to a reliable source for any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• It looks like there's consensus here for a logged warning - Tamzin? -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Chronos.Zx

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 Chronos.Zx

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Chronos.Zx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation

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

The participation of several editors at Sati (practice) and Sati (practice) has left a lot to be desired. But Chronos.Zx has approached the topic with a degree of aggression that is not appropriate to a contentious topic.

1. 28 September, 29 September: Edit-warring (same content), assumptions of bad faith ("whitewashing").
2. 1 November; more edit-warring, claiming source misrepresentation without evidencing this on the talk page.
3. 28 September Assumptions of bad faith, selective reading of the source to support content contrary to its intended meaning.
4. 15 October Source misrepresentation: see my explanation in reply.
5. 18 October continued inability or unwillingness to understand the nuance in the phrase "largely historical".
6. 27 October misrepresenting article history; see my explanation in reply.
7. 1 November, 1 November further assumptions of bad faith.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions that I can see.

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

Chronos.Zx's multiple accounts and username changes make the history at AE difficult to track. They were given a GS/CASTE notification here and an ARBIPA notification here, in October 2023, and participated in an AE discussion with their previous account here, in April this year. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The recurring theme here is a "give them no quarter" battleground attitude that has precluded any meaningful discussion of this complicated topic. Chronos.Zx is not the only offender here - if an uninvolved admin would like to give that talk page some attention, it would be appreciated - but their aggressive approach has been among the worst. This topic is a complex one, with a long history. Editors need to be willing to discuss differing interpretations in good faith, with sensitivity to nuance: Chronos.Zx has been consistently unable to do so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that Chronos.Zx continues to portray people he disagrees with as claiming the practice of Sati has ceased, which is not a position I or anyone else has taken. The failure to understand the nuance in "largely historical" is the heart of the matter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Chronos.Zx

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 Chronos.Zx

Addressing all the mentioned diffs:

1. I said "no stonewalling" here because removal of sourced content by UnpetitproleX was backed with the "get consensus first for your WP:BOLD changes to longstanding WP:STABLE version of lead" instead of justifying their removal of the content. This is frowned upon by WP:STONEWALLING which says "Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion." Similarly, this is not "assumptions of bad faith" because UnpetitproleX was indeed removing reliably sourced content by falsely asserting "source misrepresentation".
2. This is outright misleading. You are describing a partial revert by wrongly terming it as "more edit-warring" and falsely asserting "claiming source misrepresentation without evidencing this on the talk page," when the evidence of misrepresentation was already provided on talk page in lengths. It was only after that I made this partial revert. The editor who was actually edit warring has been page blocked for 2 weeks.
3. This is also misleading because UnpetitproleX was indeed removing reliably sourced content by falsely asserting "source misrepresentation". UnpetitproleX failed to justify their false assertion after another editor got on the point before switching their opposition to claiming "it fails WP:LEAD" instead of "source misrepresentation" anymore. UnpetitproleX was wrong about that as well because the article body covers the content at Sati (practice)#Opposition to the ban. Vanamonde93 removed the concerning sentence without ever discussing it, however, the content was re-added to lead by another editor with almost same wording.
4. There is no source misrepresentation there. This is my whole response. Where is the misrepresentation? Both sources confirm Sati practice has not faded away.
5. This is purely content dispute. Nothing to do with conduct.
6. I linked to this version because this is the last version that required page protection.
7. This is no "assumptions of bad faith" here. As for this, I am sure that the charge of "second time you have tried to misrepresent this particular source" is wrong, and so is how UnpetitproleX trying to treat the word "may" to be indicative of a false claim.

Crux of this complaint is, that saying Sati practice still happens or arguing anyone who says the contrary is either "misrepresentation of source" or "assumption of bad faith". Anyone who reads Sati (practice)#Current situation will not doubt that the practice does happens to this day.

Talking about "misrepresentation of source", Vanamonde93 clearly added an inaccurate summary of the source on the main article, and failed to justify their edit on the talk page by completely evading the point. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill and Sennecaster: I acknowledge the issues, and promise to do better.

I would like to inform about two things that have came to community's attention only after this report was filed. It is that the long-standing version said "is a practice, a chiefly historical", not "largely historical". See past versions such as this, this, this and it is easily more accurate in comparison. These revelations can be found here. If these facts were known earlier, then I think that things would be far better as I would have simply supported this wording over the options that were available so far.

It is not like I am not amenable. For example, you should see my edit here which was reverted for being against the basic standards of editing in this subject. I did not justify myself. I opened a talk page discussion to acknowledge the problem with my edit and for helping others become aware, in case their edits are having a similar problem.

Getting back to the report, I note that this is a single page issue as of current. I can confirm that there has been significant improvement in my editing across Wikipedia. I ensure the highlighted issues wont resurface. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I said "the long-standing version said "is a practice, a chiefly historical", not "largely historical"." This is different from comparing just "largely historical" with "chiefly historical". The difference between "is a practice, a chiefly historical" and "is largely historical" is that the former is first ensuring that there is a practice before talking about its extent while the latter is directly talking about its extent. There is a subtle difference between "Chiefly" and "Largely" here because "Chiefly" means mainly, while "Largely" means to a great degree in terms of relative frequency. Therefore the argument I made would have been more valid in favor of "chiefly".

It is not just me who is seeing the importance of the difference between these two words but multiple users have on talk page, well before I made my comment right above. Chronos.Zx (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Chronos.Zx

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

I am unimpressed by the amount of WP:ABF shown in the diffs and extremely unimpressed by the retaliation diffs provided. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reviewing the diffs here:

1. is indeed edit warring by Chronos.Zx (and also Unpetitprole). I'm particularly, unimpressed by Chronos.Zx's repeated assertion here that Unpetitprole's edit falsely assert[ed] "source misrepresentation". It is indeed fair and due for Unpetitprole to cry foul when a source, which in its totality casts doubt on the prevalence of sati and its prominence in British accounts, is used solely to support a claim that in the Wikipedia article's context suggests that sati was prominent and popular among Hindus.

2. Here I don't see edit warring--there's one revert, and there's explanations on the talk page from other editors. That having been said, at least some parts of the explanation given by the explanations that Chronos.Zx highlights seem inaccurate: India before Europe does in fact emphasize the Rajput vs. Muslim divide, contra Orientls's claims in diff 19.

3. This is essentially part 2 of the repeat assertion I noted in point #1. A bad look to baldly double down on the assertion by saying :That said, you should refrain from engaging in whitewashing with misleading excuses..

4. I'm inclined to agree with Vanamonde93's assessment on this point, and Chronos.Zx's responses here seem to be crossing into IDHT territory. A source that states Whatever the reason, sati has not disappeared completely. While relatively few in numbers... very much supports the framing that it is a largely historical practice; the use of the word "largely" directly accounts for the fact that the practice continues, albeit sporadically. Chronos.Zx would have a valid point if their discursive counterparts were asserting that the article should just say Sati was a historical practice. Other sources regarding the prevalence of the practice could be brought to bear (read: I am not making a content judgment of what the article should say), but it is disingenuous to present Ahmad 2009 as a source that categorically disagrees with the description "largely historical".

5. I don't think that this diff in itself is a violation, nor does it present any new perspectives not already addressed above, although it is consistent with the IDHT perspective.

6 Mu -- Vanamonde93 appears to be correct about the overall history of the page's status quo, and Chronos.Zx's methodology in highlighting the revision they chose is a little odd, but it's not totally unreasonable and I think it's jumping to conclusions to conclude that this had to have been a bad faith assertion.

7. The first diff here doesn't seem to have any issues; the second repeats the POV-pushing accusation

In light of the above, there's a clear failure to assume good-faith, and a pattern of reading into sources what they evidently want to see to support their arguments rather than what the sources say in their totality. Charitably, if we assume that the rest of the bibliography that Chronos.Zx and other editors on their side of the dispute cite is decisive, this is still a failure to collegially engage with editors' discussion of RS coverage of the topic (n.b. the ongoing RfC participation does not currently suggest that the broader community finds the outcome to be one-sided). The evidence brought to bear does not suggest that Unpetitprole is misrepresenting sources or falsely accusing others of the same, and thus Chronos.Zx appears to beg the question of Unpetitprole's misconduct to justify their own terseness. All of that taken into account, I'm currently waffling between a logged warning and a topic ban. In reviewing AE and ANI logs, I note that Chronos.Zx under their prior aliases has been an avid participant at the drama boards, mostly raising cases against others, but in the process I do see that about 9 months ago they were sharply, if informally, admonished by Black Kite for edits to Bangladesh that leave very little room for assumption of good faith. With that in mind, I'm leaning towards a topic ban from CT/SA, as the battleground attitude appears to have occurred across the topic area. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Chronos.Zx's reply, I don't think that there is a meaningful difference between "chiefly historical" and "largely historical", and this grasping at straws to justify their position does not inspire confidence. Unless there is additional input from other administrators, I think we can move towards a close here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't find the following rejoinder insisting on "chiefly" persuasive in the context of the discussion on the relevant talk page. N.b., Vanamonde93 identified that the status quo ante version included "chiefly" on October 27. Chronos.Zx proceeded to !vote "no" and present several follow up arguments on November 1st in a section titled RfC: Chiefly historical or not?--granted, the actual question in the RfC says Should...describe sati...through a descriptor such as "a largely historical practice", but nowhere in their responses do they indicate any qualification to their "no" suggesting that they might support another near-synonym in the lead sentence. That they're now changing their tune while under cross-examination does not change my opinion of their conduct in the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, Chronos.Zx, you've exceeded the 500 word limit for your responses here. Please do not respond further unless specifically requested to by an administrator. You are allowed to request extensions, although I don't really see much reason to grant one at this time (but perhaps in response to another admin's participation it could become relevant). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Finally, to cap off what I’m realizing became a bit of a tangent: the crux of the issue here at AE is not whether Chronos.Zx was correct/incorrect to argue against the inclusion of “largely”. The issue is the disingenuous argumentation and lack of AGF demonstrated in their responses to those who were advocating for “largely”, given that these arguments were not baseless. It may well be that “chiefly” is better suited due to the numerical connotations of “largely”, but that doesn’t explain the insistence that editors arguing for “largely” were engaged in source misrepresentation, nor does it explain Chronos.Zx’s arguments regarding Ahmad 2009 and its use in the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• After reviewing a sample of the diffs, I would consider Chronos.Zx's edits (both article edits and talk page comments) to be substantially in keeping with WP:NPOV/WP:V. However, there is a stark inability to pose comments or questions in a manner consistent with WP:AGF. It is not enough to have a good grasp of the sources or to have editorial policy on your side. Editors also have to keep the peace with other editors, even at times of disagreement. I would support a short site-wide block, but not a topic ban at this stage. Arcticocean ■ 10:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  Arcticocean, I'm not sure what that prescription would accomplish, as it seems more like an arbitrary punishment than a preventative measure. I know we use short blocks to address incivility, but that's typically in the face of persistent incivility that is ongoing when the administrative decision takes place. With that in mind, a logged warning seems like a more appropriate alternative rather than a short block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  I suggested a block because it would be preventive. The conduct has been slowly paced out – looking backwards, it last occurred on 1 November (7 days ago), 27 October (12 days ago), and 18 October (21 days ago). It's an analogous situation to slow edit warring, where once the pattern becomes clear, it can be interrupted with a block, even where the last instance was some days prior. I don't oppose a warning, but I don't think it will be effective. Arcticocean ■ 18:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  I see. I think I’d stand by my original suggestion of a topic ban based on such an assessment: given the slow pace of the edit warring, I don’t see a block providing a “cool off” effect that is often salutary and sufficient in other disputes. Meanwhile, the bad faith assumptions seem to clearly be attached to perceptions of culture war in Indian topics, so my sense is that a topic ban would be ideal for both halting the disruption and providing a clear path for regaining the community’s trust. Pinging Sennecaster for their thoughts on which sanctions are most appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  What duration of topic ban did you have in mind? I may support your proposal, if the duration were proportionate, on the basis of the behavioural policy violations. Arcticocean ■ 19:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  My thinking was indefinite, with expectation that a successful appeal could be considered in as soon as 1-3 months, depending on the quality and quantity of contributions in the intervening period. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  I think a topic ban would be a good idea. Indefinite duration, because their activity is fairly spread out. I'm amenable to Rosguill's suggestion of considering an earlier appeal, but have no real strong opinions about it. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Rap no Davinci

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 Rap no Davinci

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NicheSports (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rap no Davinci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:PIA. Requesting TBAN due to repeated LLM misuse in topic area.

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

The user has repeatedly misused LLMs in and out of the PIA topic area. Diffs are in the order that I became aware of them.

1. Draft talk:Nayda § High likelihood unreviewed LLM-generated text I became aware of this user after finding an article they created via the 1325 edit filter logs. I draftified it after noticing that nearly every claim in the lead failed verification. They seemed to misrepresent their use of LLMs in their response to my note on their talk page
2. 14:31, 1 November 2025: Today I noticed that this addition to Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi seems to be composed of unreviewed LLM-generated content. Five of the sources they introduced here have dead links/resolve to 404s. .
3. 15:39, 17 September 2025: I found this today while looking for other cases of LLM misuse in PIA. There are multiple material content verification failures here. Example: and are provided as the only source for the claim ...with a recent show in Amsterdam featuring a Palestinian flag on stage and renewed chants. despite neither article mentioning Amsterdam
4. They were previously warned about the diff above on their talk page, a warning they deleted

I do not edit in the PIA space. This user was warned multiple times about LLM misuse prior to their recent edit to Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi and after seeing it I decided I had to file here.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

I think they are aware because they have extensively edited in the PIA topic area, but most of these do not apply.

• Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic: at Special:Diff/1311408607 they !voted in support of a Deletion review request that explicitly referenced Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Rap No Davinci's explanation does not make sense given how they fixed the broken references. In every case, they replaced the broken URL with links from a different publication. See the table below (triple-checked, at least broadly correct, but as always mistakes are possible).

NicheSports (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Rap no Davinci

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 Rap no Davinci

• Thanks for raising this. After looking back at my edits on Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, the issue seems to have been mainly with the references: some links were wrong or dead, not with the content itself. I’ve already fixed those citations without changing any word in the “Resignation” section.

The source errors are my own, mostly from working too fast. However I take full responsibility. I’ll make sure to slow down and double-check each citation, especially for sensitive or conflict-related topics like this one.

I am still relatively new here, I have never been penalized before. If admins believe a sanction is still warranted, I will accept the decision and continue participating in a responsible manner. My goal is to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith and within policy.

Cheers!

• Reply to @Arcticocean and Asilvering:

To clarify my earlier point, I never denied using LLM but rather: I did not use it to generate the content, I used it to help me paraphrase text and format citations for Wikipedia source. I believe that formatting of all info to be source-suitable is what caused the citation errors/changes. I understand what went wrong. I should've double-checked the sources afterwards, but due to working a bit too fast I missed it, and I take full responsibility for that oversight. This is also why I mentioned it was easy to fix the 'resignation' section, as all the info was factual and the quotes accurate. Thanks for your attention.

Result concerning Rap no Davinci

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

• I am not convinced by Rap no Davinci's claim that the five sources in one edit were coincidental human errors, not LLM hallucinations. Where did they find the sources? What sources did they intend to use? As the user has been previously warned against disruption through use of AI-generated content, also in this topic area, I think a sanction is necessary. I'd welcome views on which sanction would be proportionate. Arcticocean ■ 09:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  As the user admits using an LLM, a further warning would be appropriate. As this is the second warning, further AI misuse is likely to result in a sitewide block. Arcticocean ■ 06:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Rap no Davinci, can you please answer Arcticocean's questions, above? Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
• Tentatively in favor of AGFing and leaving this at a logged warning for misuse of LLMs, with the understanding that any further issues will be a TBAN at minimum if not just a siteblock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

EilertBorchert

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 EilertBorchert

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JaggedHamster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

EilertBorchert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:COVIDDS

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

1. 09:19, 1 November 2025 Long conspiratorial screed promoting the lab leak theory
2. 19:19, 21 October 2025 More of the same, apparently copy and pasted from "The DisInformation Chronicle"
3. 11:09, 11 October 2025 Incorrectly claims "There is consensus that the 27 scientific workers (signers) dit not mention the truth in the scientific Lancet Paper"

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 09:43, 9 January 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I give 3 diffs above but I could have picked basically any from their contribution history, their only contribution is promoting lab leak conspiracy theories on various talk pages. They seem fixated on repeating various irrelevant/disproven points and end up derailing discussions about how to improve the articles.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning EilertBorchert

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 Alpha3031

Wow, I had somehow missed the copy and paste in the history. I've tagged it with the usual, but if any of the admins here get there first it should probably be RD1ed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning EilertBorchert

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

• I have completed the revision-deletion requested by Alpha3031. For the benefit of any non-admins reading along, the diff contained a complete copy of this substack post. I also note that the text in diff number 1 is lifted from this HSGAC press release. As for the substance of the request, it seems fairly clear to me that EilertBorchert is unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue with their fellow editors, and I'm inclined to think an indef is warranted. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• All of this user's contributions relate to COVID-19, and there is evidence of tendentious editing from the beginning and throughout. I'd support either an indefinite topic ban from COVID-19 or an indefinite site wide block. Arcticocean ■ 09:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
• Seeing no opposition to an indef, that's how I'll close this. -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Countryboy603

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 Countryboy603

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Countryboy603 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

GENSEX

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

1. Nov 14, 2025 Vandalism in violation of MOS:GENDERID
2. Nov 14, 2025 Ditto
3. Oct 4, 2025 Changed a trans BLP's name in article to their deadname
4. Oct 4, 2025 Changed "transgender man" to "a transgender that identifies as a man"
5. June 10, 2025Jun 9 2025 Harassing and outing a trans editor by posting his picture to wikipedia.
6. October 29, 2024October 29, 2024 Changing a BLP's pronouns because A person cannot changer their sex.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Can we indef him please? He's clearly NOTHERE.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Countryboy603

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.

Result concerning Countryboy603

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

• I'd rather not indef on a first block. I just gave them 31 hours for WP:DE as a unilateral action. If that doesn't help them change their mind and/or if they start digging themselves a very large hole, I have no objection to anyone extending it. -- asilvering (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)