Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21aebb85850c125

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Gun control   24 July 2026 3/0/1
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Gun control

Initiated by Extraordinary Writ (talk) at 09:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

I have just closed the tomat-long discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lightbreather and gun control editing, where there is no consensus for any action but a widespread sentiment that the community hasn't been able to adequately resolve the issues. Many editors think that this is the sort of complex multi-party dispute that would benefit from a full case. (Those editors might want to suggest possible parties in addition to or instead of the ones I've listed above.) Another option would be to resolve this request by motion, for instance by reïnstating some of Lightbreather's restrictions (which were rescinded in November 2025) and/or restoring the contentious topic designation for gun control (which was rescinded in February 2026). I am wearing my closer hat here and don't have a firm opinion at this point on what the best way forward is.

Statement by Lightbreather

  Lightbreather's statement contains 469 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I don't want to endure another ArbCom. I also do not believe I deserve another topic ban. I have explained why I started editing in this one area of gun subjects.[1][2] (scroll down) I have edited in good faith. I have apologized for sparring with Anastrophe.[3] I do NOT plan on editing in this area once the sockpuppet's bad-faith edits are mitigated. (It is too stressful.)

I am going to concentrate here on Springee. Springee mostly remains civil, but he engages in gaming. Examples: Stonewalling; negotiating in bad faith[4][5]; repeatedly pooh-poohing reliable sources[6][7]; WP:BLUDGEONING -- not just by sheer volume of comments,[8] but by wanting more and more sources,[9][10] and/or saying he needs to review/survey the given sources.[11][12].

Arguing UNDUE/WEIGHT

  1. 05/20/26 TP "Magazine"[13]
  2. 06/02/26 TP "Magazine"[14]
  3. 06/19/26 TP "Republican Party"[15]
  4. 06/26/26 ES "Republican Party"[16]
  5. 07/07/26 TP "Republican Party"[17]

Claiming No Consensus

  1. 11/23/25 TP "Republican Party"[18]
  2. 05/22/26 ES "Magazine"[19] (undid all, not just individual items he objected to)
  3. 05/22/26 TP "Magazine"[20] (saying he objected to individual items)
  4. 07/06/26 ES "Republican Party"[21]
  5. 07/07/26 ES "Republican Party"[22]

Requiring Clear/Precise/Specific Definitions

  1. 10/28/25 TP "Republican Party"[23]
  2. 05/20/26 TP "Magazine"[24] (also, pickup beds and hot dogs?)
  3. 05/30/26 ES "Gun show loophole"[25]
  4. 05/31/26 TP GSL[26]
  5. 07/03/26 TP "Magazine" [27] (more unrelated comparisons)

Suggesting Keyword Search Results/Sources Are Bad Somehow

  1. 05/23/26 TP "Magazine"[28]
  2. 06/27/26 TP "Republican Party"[29]
  3. 07/04/26 TP "Magazine"[30]
  4. 07/07/26 TP "Republican Party"[31]

Commenting on/at Other Editors

  1. 11/25/25 At Temp Account[32]
  2. 05/22/26 At Lightbreather WP:IDHT[33]
  3. 06/09/26 At OwenX[34] (supervote accusation; backpedaled after)
  4. 06/27/26 At TA again[35]
  5. 07/09/26 At LB WP:RGW[36]

Lightbreather (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If they are willing to participate -- and I understand if they aren't -- I think @Darknipples, Dlthewave, and K.e.coffman: and others may be able to support my claims and/or add more diffs.

I would also like to point out the obvious: Anastrophe's statement has zero diffs. Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot. When I created an RfC 07/02/26, I notified two lists to get a wider group.[37] Less than 24 hours later, Springee notified WP:GUNS[38] and WP:MIL[39] -- but didn't mention it at the RfC. That seems a little like WP:CANVASSING. Lightbreather (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To K.e.coffman's experience: As of today, AR-15-style rifle[40] and National Rifle Association[41] are Springee's third and fourth most-edited[42] TPs. (Republican Party,[43] which I was pinged to, is his second most edited TP.) Lightbreather (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see there has already been one vote supporting another arbcom. If this does go forward, I agree with others here who have asked to add Qwirkle and Hemmers. I would also suggest User:AadamentAardvark, who has been editing less than six months and whose top edits are at Talk:Magazine_firearms[44] and WP:ANI[45]. He accused me of canvassing more than once, but never gave an actual diff.

@CaptainEek: You wrote that this would be my third arbcom, but I only remember one other. Which was the second, please? Lightbreather (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anastrophe

  Anastrophe's statement contains 456 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Much of this is already part of the record; however I think the sequence matters more than any single item.

1. The Subject - Lightbreather - was site banned in 2015 for an abundance of egregious violations; this editor had no knowledge of the site ban proceedings, and thus did not participate in the discussions.
2. Subject appealed site ban seven years later, tendering "Dear Community"[46], which included: "One question is how I'm going to avoid the behaviors that resulted in being banned. [...] FIRST, I won't edit gun, gun control, or gun politics articles or comment on associated talk pages. Not just because of my topic ban, but also because I do not want to edit there. The topic still interests me as a person, but not as a Wikipedia editor."
3. This editor did learn of unban appeal, and participated in the community discussion in favor of revoking the ban, in part due to 'Dear community' as above.
4. Subject's site ban was rescinded, but with six strong constraints, including a topic ban on gun-related articles.
5. Subject contributed productively and without conflict for several years.
6. Subject appealed for removal of the six constraints, again tendering "Dear community", and importantly, making this statement: "In a nutshell, I would like to put the past - 10 years past - behind me and further prove myself. I promise I will not let the community down." This editor "voted" in favor of recission on all but one, the topic ban; that constraint was rescinded however.
7. Subject returned to editing in the topic subject was formerly banned from, five months later.
8. Subject resumed behaviors that had resulted in the topic ban, contrary to their prior promises to ARBCOM and the community.

I acknowledge my own bad behaviors and lapses of judgement, and my contributions to the conflicts that arose both in talk-space and at ANI. I've been uncivil, aggressively blunt, and countering unpleasantness with the same level of energy, rather than de-escalating. But my feelings and behaviors aren't explicitly at issue here, notwithstanding sanctions that may fall on me in consequence.

What should be patent from the above: Subject broke multiple promises to ARBCOM and the community, upon which loosening of constraints by ARBCOM was predicated.

Subject's statement in "Dear Community" closed with this:

"Finally, I acknowledge some think I am a leopard that will never change its spots. I doubt that I can say anything to change their minds. Rather I would reiterate that I am a human being who has learned from past mistakes and given the chance I believe you will see that is true."

ARBCOM and the community gave Subject that chance.

The former topic ban should be reinstated. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

I have to agree that the community is having trouble resolving the issue one way or the other. Given the difficulties of the topic area, and the long histories of the people involved, I think it would be an extreme challenge to achieve even a rough consensus on the fundamental issues.

I am not a neutral third party, in that I expressed that I think a topic ban for Lightbreather and a logged-warning for the others would resolve the issue, but I do think there's real value in an ArbCom investigation of everyone involved, even if it wouldn't have been my first choice at the start. There have been various allegations of off-site canvassing (on both sides of the issue), and while I don't agree with their interpretation of the history, credible editors have suggested that there's tag teaming in this topic to prevent changes. An ArbCom case could resolve this more cleanly now that it's looking like the community can't. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies to our favorite Grump, this isn't the area to resolve questions about the wisdom of gun control or to determine whether English Wikipedia's articles on the topic are too American-centric. We're here about the conduct of the editors discussing these issues, and the more liberalized notion of gun rights in America than other Western countries is neither here nor there. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Zacherystaylor, it's out of ArbCom's jurisdiction to decide whether the content is too slanted one way or the other on gun control, only whether conduct has been inappropriate, so if you're looking for a determination there, I don't think you're going to get one. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Jessintime, I'm not sure your example quite illustrates your point. Yes, that's a tedious conversation, but it's generally a reasonably courteous one with two people discussing whether the lead should acknowledge that a term is than a precise legal category or whether the focus should be on the underlying information, whether or not it bounds a category. Reasonable people can disagree without it being a problem. The worst part of that discussion is Lightbreather jumping in to make it personal and snipe at Springee in the third comment. Lightbreather's contributions are easily the worst part of that discussion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Star Mississippi

Lower case involved here by virtue of Talk:Magazine_(firearms)/Archives/2026/June and closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-capacity magazine ban. I did not participate in the just-closed ANI as I wasn't sure what the best course of action was. It's clear that something needs to be done since the interested parties appear to be at a place where they cannot reach a conclusion due to-in part-intractable behavior and these discussions have gone on far too long and consumed too much user energy without any resolution. I'm still not super familiar with ArbComm procedures so please let me know if anything further is needed. Star Mississippi 14:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: I think/hope that some leeway will be given to Springee when they return to editing since this appears to be the opposite of a typical ANI flu, they were told they shouldn't participate and didn't. There's no indication they even saw Lb's followup to SFR. Star Mississippi 15:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jéské Couriano

I'm thinking the easiest way forward here would be to reinstate Lightbreather's topic-ban. I doubt that reinstating the GC CTOP would do much good (it was rescinded as mostly redundant with AP2 if memory serves). What concerns me more is Springee's conduct in this discussion - or more accurately, the lack thereof. Thanks to that remedy and this rather unfortunate clarification that seems to be at odds with WP:BANEX I'm a bit concerned that Springee is going to end up essentially handcuffed on the cart to the headsman at Helgen sooner rather than later due to the remedy from TGH. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Look out it's Jimothy! 15:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm working under the assumption that they took your clarification at face value, the thread started going into a direction where they would need to violate said clarification to defend themselves, and they responded by lying low until things blew over. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Look out it's Jimothy! 05:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AndyTheGrump

It seems to me quite obvious that beyond the immediate behavioural issues (which involve multiple contributors, and not just Lightbreather, and I'm unconvinced she is the worst offender), the systemic bias that I have noted in previous gun-control-related ArbCom threads is at the root of much of the problems this topic has attracted right from the start. This bias is evident in the thoroughly distorted manner in which what ought to be a global topic is overwhelmingly dominated by the narrow heavily politicised discourse of the US gun control debate. This is grossly unencyclopaediatic, and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The United States is very much the outlier in terms of firearms legislation, and likewise an outlier in regard to the extent that this is seen as a party-political matter, and treating it as the central focus of content, with the remainder of the world tacked on almost as an afterthought, is frankly obnoxious. I'd have to suggest that if Wikipedia can't write about this topic without making the whole process look like debate in a bar in Kalamazoo, maybe it would be in the best interests of our readers not to write about it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

  Guy Macon's statement contains 425 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I see below that some arbs are asking for evidence that this is not a one-editor problem, and that's fair. I would also ask anyone who thinks that other editors are a problem to post diffs establishing that claim.

I do not, however agree with the assumption that arbcom should not address one-editor problems in general. Assuming that this really is a one-editor problem (I am waiting on diffs that confirm or refute that) if this isn't a textbook example of a one-editor problem that ANI is unable to resolve I don't know what is.

Arbs, please consider the possibility that, even if none of the other participants in the dispute did anything that should be sanctioned, they most certainly did behave in such a way as to make it effectively impossible to resolve this issue at ANI and that this alone justifies the more structured approach of arbcom.

An alternative approach might involve sending this back to ANI with restrictions on word count and number of comments, and mandating that all discussion should occur in a separate section from !votes. Mandating the question to be asked at ANI would also be a huge help. It could very well be that with a bit of structure ANI could handle this without bothering the arbs.

If anyone has a list of diffs that they feel they are unable to post here, they can email them to me. I will evaluate them, and if I agree that they are relevant and that I can defend posting them, I will post them under my name -- a diff should stand by itself and not by whoever searched for it and found it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the assumption. If we don't see need for a case focused on multiple editors, we would most likely just vote here on whether to restore the topic ban (or other remedies) that we imposed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather § Remedies and rescinded 8 months ago. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion that would not be an optimal decision even if you don't see need for a case focused on multiple editors. I have been struggling to compose a good argument as to why I think this but the response at Statement by MarkBernstein explains it better than I could. As that comment says, "We need a new approach, not another ban or two leading to new trips to AN and AN/I, more offense and defense, and a return here." Or, as I would put it, more rounds of Whac-A-Mole. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steve Quinn

Steve Quinn's statement contains 566 words and is within 10% of the 550-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 550 words. Daniel (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant to participate in ARBCOM at the moment due to time constraints. However, I am hoping my input throughout the process will be helpful. What is the deadline for these opening remarks because I have more to say? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

48 hours after the request was filed and 24 hours after there is net-4 to accept, when it's clear there won't be net-4 to accept, or however long a motion takes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that ARBCOM does not need to take this case. Given the merits of each ivote and related discussions in the ANI I believe the correct assessment of no consensus on a reinstalment of the ban was achieved. For example, the OP, Thebiguglyalien, provided this diff [47] which seems to point to a PA [48] by Lightbreather on TALK:Gun show loophole. First, it seems the PA was removed, if you read that discussion [[49], so this is moot.

Second, it appears User: Springee and Lightbreather have a history based Lightbreather saying (to Springee) "...If you want, I can provide plenty of diffs of you disputing the definability of 'gun show loophole', among other widely used common names.." [50]. Then she says, " If it were the first time you made the argument, I would agree. But you've made the same argument many times and that seems rather tendentious, as in 'repeated attempts to insert or delete content in the face of the objections of several other editors, or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions' ". [ [51] Notice that Lightbreather provided two quotes (based on prior decisions somewhere?).

Also, if you read the relevant thread on TALK:Gun show loophole, you will see that Springee's view is quite different from the others' in the conversation. It doesn't take long to read through [52]. All this amounts to run of the mill editing behaviors on related gun control articles, where there is plenty of editor disagreement. This situation exemplifies the the input, during the ANI, from the other editors advocating for the ban. But I only have 500 words. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am uninvolved, except for ANI and ,now, one RSN thread. Contrary to CC's comments above, I think Andy the Grump's and Zacherystaylor's comments are highly relevant and germane. Also, evidence seems to show that it is doubtful that Lightbreather is solely responsible for any disagreements and arbiters should not be quick to reinstating the ban Steve Quinn (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I am in total agreement with EaglesFan37. They seem to have accurately and concisely described the editing behaviors that occur across the related gun control articles. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: can you please clarify your claim that Lightbreather claimed a patent is RS? Although that is the subsection title, in the actual thread she says it is WP:PRIMARY [53]. So, I think it is best to employ AGF and say there was confusion in the heat of the moment of the discussion. This is because it could be argued that a self description of the patent is primary as long as the participants in the discussion agree (in this instance). And in this case there seemed to be no agreement. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek, sorry, no clarification needed. I am instead making this my assertion. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zacherystaylor

As I already indicated I oppose a ban, and think this would set a bad precedent where a small majority could ban someone for a disagreement, especially since from what I've seen she hasn't made any clear violations to merit this. I haven't sorted out all the disagreements, since there are so many; but I've known for a while that there's a strong 2nd Amendment advocate group, coordinating or not, trying to ban much if any discussion of Gun Control, especially after mass shootings. It appears that, intentionally or not, they might be trying to ban people with opposing views, which would be a bad precedent. I stated in the previous discussion that An article from eight years ago Pro-gun Wikipedia users spark fierce editing war shows this has been a pattern of behavior for a long time. And there was another incident seventeen years ago where gun control opponents opposed views from one of the most credible academics on preventing violence even though most of his research focused on other causes of violence. A closer look at the gun control issue to make sure 2nd Amendment advocates aren't dominating the issue may be more important than this one ban. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EaglesFan37

I'm a neutral party in this dispute (never have even edited gun/gun-control related topics) and only commented at the ANI case that it should be referred to ARBCOM.

I read through recent discussions at Talk:High-capacity magazine Talk:Magazine (firearms), Talk:Drum magazine, Talk:Gun show loophole, Talk:High-capacity magazine ban.

It appears that a a decent amount of the current conflict stems from Lightbreather reverting edits made by Iljhgtn, who is now blocked for being a sock puppet of PapaTakaro. These reverts are opposed by Springee, which leads to repeated protracted talk page back-and-forths between the two. Then, essentially the same group of users tend to jump in and things continue to devolve further into incivility and personal attacks. Eventually, another editor or two will be able to briefly restore order, until things then devolve in another discussion on the same page.

In particular, Qwirkle appears to frequently be either toeing the line, or outright crossing it, in regards to incivility: [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]

I would recommend adding Qwirkle to the case as well. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall If the topic area is a walled garden where neutrality can't get in, that's arguably a matter for ARBCOM in itself since then there is WP:STONEWALLING and WP:POVPUSH happening from a group of editors across a topic area.
There also seems to be an assumption among many here that only Lightbreather would be sanctioned if an ARBCOM case was accepted, which I doubt would be the case. As shown in the diffs in my prior comment, Qwirkle frequently engages in conduct that could veer into personal attacks. In the talk pages, Springee seems to be engaging in WP:TE and has over 100 comments in some of the talk page discussions in the past few months (a volume only rivaled by Lightbreather). I'm not as familiar with Anastrophe, but they have acknowledge that their talk page etiquette has not been stellar in these disputes. There's enough parties (or potential parties involved) for it to be worth ARBCOM taking this case. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek There is also possible incivility/personal attacks from Hemmers: [63], [64] ,[65].
There also were repeated canvassing/socking allegations made all-around at the recent ANI, and if there is any private evidence of that, ARBCOM would be the place for it. EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ Could you please add Qwirkle as a party? EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the committee accepts a case we'll decide on the party list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish Noted. EaglesFan37 (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

Lightbreather uses sources appropriately. Lightbreather does not remove sources inappropriately. Lightbreather has a point of view diametrically opposed to the POV being pushed by gun advocates and is thus deeply resented. Lightbreather has been sanctioned before and thus represents an "easy" target to be attacked and bullied. A great deal of verbiage has already been wasted in this attempt at a purge. No consensus at ANI resulted. Now the closing admnistrator is rushing over here for another round... Reject this case request. Carrite (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

The statements by Arbs along the lines of "we'll just ban Lightbreather again, they're obviously the problem" are ... (shakes head). If you can't produce an actual reason to reinstate the topic ban, then you should reject the case. This isn't rocket science. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stikkyy

I haven't received the history lesson required to make sense of the context behind the dispute, but the rate at which the ANI devolved into a generic ballot was unfortunate, albeit given the length, probably unavoidable. I don't think that booting the issue back to the noticeboards could reverse this trend, regardless of the structure that it takes. Stikkyy (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GUNS and WP:MILHIST are the two WikiProjects listed in the banner shell at the top of [66], I wouldn't consider notifying those projects canvassing. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Article_alerts (automated) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts#RfC. Stikkyy (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

Lightbreater's behavior has certainly been problematic. What's really needed is a milder restriction than a topic ban. The ANI only proposed a more severe restriction (a topic ban) and so was not fully played out. Suggest a reopened ANI to discuss a milder restriction. An Arbcom case is not called for at this point. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by S Marshall

Lightbreather's conduct arises from trying to bring neutrality to a walled garden. If you want to end the disruption as quickly and quietly as possible, you could tban Lightbreather; that leads to peace and quiet and the sleepy restoration of the old, longstanding POV.

If you want content that's actually NPOV according to our core content policies, then you need to not tban Lightbreather, because her knowledge and passion will be so helpful to the arduous cleanup project we'll need.

And that means Arbcom is the wrong venue for this problem. We don't need the Highest Court of Conduct. We need the Highest Court of Content that Wikipedia doesn't have.

I hope the committee doesn't take this case. You're a hammer and this isn't a nail.—S Marshall T/C 23:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • EaglesFan37, it isn't a nail but it also isn't a rivet. I've got no evidence or diffs to show the kind of POV pushing that would interest Arbcom. This is boring, ordinary POV pushing that happens when a group of articles are written by a self-selected group of American gun enthusiasts. They have shared, unchallenged assumptions and a genuine belief that their content is neutral, even when to my eye it's comically skewed. This is a problem that the community has made no effort to fix and, outside long discussions about Lightbreather's conduct, little effort to even discuss. The resolution will involve content RFCs, not sanctions.—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Katzrockso

I see no reason for the committee to accept this case request, certainly not framed in this particular manner and with this specific scope.
Moreover, I am appalled at ArbCom's suggestion that the remedy here is to reimpose Lightbreather's topic ban. It's almost surreal that the ANI thread got as far as it did. Numerous evidence-free claims made about Lightbreather and gobbled up by unsuspecting editors, and seemingly now ArbCom members. If all it takes to get an minority voice banned in a topic area characterized by mendacious representation of sources is a few editors groundlessly claiming disruptive conduct has occurred, then ArbCom should sanction every editor on this page. I hope ArbCom does not confuse disagreement with disruption or conflict with personal attacks.
Anyone supporting a sanction on Lightbreather should be able to show relevant diffs. In the ANI discussion, the only relevant diffs showed conduct outside of the gun control topic area (relevant to Talk:Republican Party (United States)), Lightbreather's past statements during her appeal of her site ban and the fact that there have been more talk page discussions than in the past on gun-related pages. As far as I'm aware, none of those are relevant to whether a gun control topic ban should be reimposed.Katzrockso (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

I'm very much with S Marshall and Black Kite. ArbCom should either accept and review the conduct of all involved editors or reject outright. Reinstating Lightbreather's topic ban, by itself, just to bring peace to a walled garden, is not the answer. TarnishedPathtalk 03:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GhostOfDanGurney

If I'm understanding this correctly, a user is reverting edits by a factionalized sock (in line with P&Gs) and because this specific garden is so walled, they have been brought to ANI and now ArbCom for it? If I am, those certainly aren't good optics. Reject this, please. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 04:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If @CaptainEek: finds it appropriate to search for diffs when no one else is, perhaps they should recuse and/or become a party here. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 15:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ContentEditman

Originally this was brought against Lightbreather. But after reading I think Boomerang applies against those pushing this. It seems some have even posted on outside forums to try and gang up on Lightbreather to get them banned? You can see such comment here... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1365389301 So there is a lot more going on with this from the other editors and this topic as well. I'm guessing this has been going on for a while and is not getting better. ContentEditman (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newslinger

Much of the opposition in the ANI discussion is in response to Lightbreather being the only editor for whom restrictions were proposed. While reading the discussion, I noticed the battleground conduct displayed in discussions involving Anastrophe: "My loathing is getting the best of me" ([67]), invoking Lightbreather's 2022 site ban appeal in conduct content disputes from this year ([68] [69]), and multiple comments indicating that a two-way interaction ban between Lightbreather and Anastrophe would be helpful ([70] [71] [72]).

My first impression was that Anastrophe's and other editors' conduct hadn't been subject to the same level of scrutiny due to the initial ANI comment only assigning blame to Lightbreather, and I suggested that the discussion be referred to ArbCom as a case request, which has now been done. Since then, I've examined the top-edited talk pages by Lightbreather and Anastrophe and found less evidence of recent misconduct in the topic area than I'd been expecting based on the divisiveness of the ANI discussion. With apologies to the editors who cited my ANI comment in the discussion, I'm not sure if a full case is needed here. EaglesFan37's findings appear valid but can probably be also be addressed by motion, if needed. — Newslinger talk 17:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC); corrected word 04:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by wbm1058

@CaptainEek: re: trying to claim that patents are RS (they clearly aren't) – per WP:RSPRIMARY, primary sources can be both reliable and useful in certain situations. They generally are reliable, when not intentionally spreading mis- or dis-information. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've not followed all the gun article debates, but I have kept an eye on one particular page, Magazine (firearms), which many of LB's diffs also point to. This RfC (uh, "straw poll") closed as accept the proposed draft introduced by Lightbreather on 30 May 2026, but Springee objected to that close, and a lengthy discussion ensued with the poll's administrative closer. Still unsatisfied after that, filed a close review which has since auto-archived without being formally closed. Administrators with the time to read and close these lengthy debates are in short supply. I might yet take a stab at it, but this sort of thing is a bit out of my wheelhouse. Maybe, before taking this case, someone could close it? In sports leagues, coaches only get so many challenges, and when they've used them all up, it's sorry, out of luck. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein

The fundamental problem is not a question of conduct. The problem is that the Wiki Way has no good answer for topics, like Gun Control, in which large populations hold views that cannot be reconciled.

It is sometimes possible on esoteric topics to gain peace without honor by driving off one side or the other. The Gamergate case tried that. It did not work for (checks notes) "ethics in games journalism" or (check other notes) "not harassing women in computing"; it’s certain to fail in Gun Control, just as it is currently failing in PIA.

There exist plenty of people who strongly favor gun control. There exist plenty who strongly oppose gun control. No acceptable neutral ground may exist. This leads Wikipedia to treat long-term content disputes as an exercise in editor attrition, as opposing editors hope to ban opponents and to seize control of the page before replacements arrive. That is no longer a realistic ambition for topics that receive considerable attention, but it doesn’t stop people from trying. The eagerness of Arbs to embrace the hope that just one more topic ban will bring peace and quiet is vain.

It is easy to find diffs that show a specific miscreant was uncivil. It is hard to show diffs that show a good-deed-doer showed sense and patience in the face of provocation. It is impossible to show diffs where an editor silently acquiesced to changes that they believed harmful to the project and the public.

We need a new approach, not another ban or two leading to new trips to AN and AN/I, more offense and defense, and a return here. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jessintime

For those looking for evidence of examples not involving LB, here’s Springee engaging in a tedious talk page discussion with another editor. See Talk:Gun_show_loophole#Lead_changes. (As a disclaimer, LB was minimally involved in the discussion but most of the back and forth was with another.) If we were to broaden the scope beyond gun control I could point to numerous examples in other politically touchy subjects. Jessintime (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman

I edited the area in question in 2018, after the Parkland high school shooting. The articles I edited were AR-15–style rifle (then called Modern sporting rifle); National Rifle Association; and various gun manufacturer pages. The challenges in the topic area were well described by this article from The Verge: "How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page: After Parkland, gun control information was strangely hard to find" (source).

I did not interact with LightBreather, because they were banned at the time, but I was generally familiar with the story, such as the infamous incident of person who Cannot Understand Normal Thought (I paraphrase). I did interact with Springee and other editors affiliated with WP:GUNS project and related editors. The experience was not pleasant. This can be seen in this AE filing: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive233#Thewolfchild. Among other things, an editor attempted to recruit WP:GUNS project to determine "what, if any, further actions or sanctions are required" & "This should be examined, this should all be examined, and thoroughly." [73].

The editor in question was sanctioned for "personalizing disputes, making personal attacks, ridiculing or disparaging other editors, impeding the formation of consensus, and canvassing". That pretty much summed up my experience with the project as an 'outsider', infringing on the protected turf. Given my quick glance at the topic area now, it may still be going on, especially the part about impeding the formation of consensus.

I believe it would be a mistake to single out LightBreather for sanctions as they are one of the few editors attempting to maintain neutrality in the topic area. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by REAL_MOUSE_IRL

Re CaptainEek Unless I'm missing something, the chief reason it became spicy is LB.

The spurt of activity at Gun show loophole after Iljhgtn was blocked shows it was getting spicy quick before LB touched the topic. [74] Granted this specific comment is from Riposte who is now CBAN'd, I don't think the surrounding conversation is much better. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlthewave

I was active in this topic area back in 2018 when wrote about my experience in the Signpost. Back then it was very common for editors with an anti-gun-control veiwpoint to derail discussions with questions like "We don't mention the D.C. sniper attacks in the Chevrolet Caprice article, so why would we mention the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in the AR-15–style rifle article?" (Answer: Because per WP:DUE we follow what reliable sources say, and reliable sources frequently discuss the connection between one but not the other.) Sadly it seems that not much has changed since then, as I see a similar trend in recent discussions: At "High-capacity_magazine"_material_should_be_merged_into_this_article the discussion should have focused on how reliable sources define and discuss high-capacity magazines, but instead the conversation is sidetracked by editors linking gun manufacturer marketing material and making bizarre comparisons to high-capacity washing machines, extended-range electric vehicles and long-bed pickup trucks which have nothing to do with the topic. Using these analogies to impede the formation of consensus instead of focusing on the sources is a behavioral issue that needs to be addressed, since it is still happening 8 years later.

You'll notice that I linked a discussion instead of providing diffs. Unfortunately if we're going to see any change in this area, admins and arbs are going to have to read through some very long and tedious discussions to see the big picture of what is happening. Do not be misled by editors who link a single diff where someone made on ostensibly uncivil remark while neglecting to mention the many paragraphs of "civil POV pushing" which came before it. –dlthewave ☎ 17:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Qwirkle

First, let me express my amazement that someone can be mentioned here, repeatedly, without being given notice.

Essentially we have a choice between two sub-optimal alternatives, the products of what I will call Team Springee and Team Lightbreather.

One will create a reasonably accurate article that neglects or underplays one part-and a minor part; the article would be almost identical if private use of detachable magazines was eliminated.

The other will create a coatrack -no, a series of coatracks- based on tendentious, and rather sloppy research.

Which would you chose? Which is better for an encyclopedia? Qwirkle (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hammersoft

The job of the committee at this point isn't to determine whether any party to the case is in the wrong. The job here is to determine if there's sufficient reason to start a case, propose a motion, or insufficient reason to start a case. CaptainEek, you in particular are already calling out LB's guilt in this, and even presenting evidence to support it. To be blunt, shame on you. Stop deciding this case before it's even opened. Furthermore, just because there's smoke doesn't automatically mean that LB is the source of the fire. I have no opinion on LB's behavior, but to conclude guilt now is categorically wrong. At least try to have some appearance of impartiality, even if you don't believe it. Wow. Just...wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Robert McClenon (Lightbreather)

I think that there is agreement that ArbCom should take some action. I see a question about whether ArbCom should reinstate the previous topic-ban by motion. It is my opinion that, whenever there is an apparent case that a user should be sanction, ArbCom should open an evidentiary case to determine whether there are other editors who are partly at fault, such as by baiting the editor in question.

I am puzzled by the statement by User:S Marshall that Lightbreather's conduct arises from trying to bring neutrality to a walled garden. Maybe I have missed something, but I don't see where a walled garden has been mentioned. Has the walled garden been written by gun enthusiasts from the United States? If there is a walled garden of articles, is it being gatekept by a tag team.

I see evidence to warrant opening a case on Lightbreather and others, with its scope to include baiting, improper coordination, and other misconduct by gun enthusiasts. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

CaptainEek appears to be firmly predisposed against the case subject; I suggest they recuse. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

I don't go anywhere near gun control articles, so I'm looking at this as an outsider. I agree with Carrite; throwing Lightbreather under a bus might be the easiest option, but not necessarily the best one.

I also agree with Hammersoft that CaptainEek seems far too keen to want to throw Lightbreather under a bus, and needs to step back a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Gun control: Clerk notes

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

Gun control: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Unless folks can clearly point to other editors who are being a problem, and not just because they were interacting with Lightbreather, it appears that the root of the issue is Lightbreather. Reinstating her gun control topic ban appears to be the easiest solution, and firmly in our wheelhouse. That can be resolved by motion. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Perusing the ANI and the various threads and diffs, here's what stood out to me: LB snipes at Springee, LB and anastrophe swat at each other, LB and anastrophe swat at each other more, LB snipes at Springee by trying to claim that patents are RS (they clearly aren't), More anastrophe/LB, Qwirkle snipes at LB, Qwirkle snipes at LB more. The common thread...is LB. Now, could I see anastrophe walking away with an iban, and qwirkle with a civility warning? Maybe. And would we likely uncover more evidence if we held a full case? Sure. So I lean more towards opening a case than I had at first glance. But lets be honest, if LB becomes the subject of her third ArbCase (and given that she was previously banned), she's probably not gonna walk away from it. Thus my solution to mercifully restore her tban by motion. As to the topic area generally, we revoked the gun control CT, and its not like the topic has melted down since. Unless I'm missing something, the chief reason it became spicy is LB. I reject that the Committee somehow has to let a disruptive editor run around in a topic area just because it has a POV that is different than hers and there aren't many editors with her POV in the topic. At any rate, the topic remains generally covered by the AMPOL CT. So bottom line, something should be done here, but I'm still not seeing that a case is the best solution. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of folks have brought up the patent conversation. A patent is a primary source. Primary sources can be reliable, but Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately ... they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. .... secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. ... All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. LB opened a thread titled "Suddenly patents are not RS?" She then claimed she was using a patent in an RSPRIMARY compliant manner. I disagree. She was using a patent to provide analysis, i.e., to support her personal crusade to describe things as "high capacity." A patent is not a good indicator of DUEWEIGHT. But the issue in that thread is just as much about LB's approach as it is her defense of the patent. She was brusque, called out Springee (contrary to focus on content, not the contributor), and unwilling to consider she might be wrong. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hammersoft, I included those diffs because others suggested I was not providing an actual reason to restore LB's topic ban. I have no intention to presuppose anyone's guilt. I was simply trying to come up with a resolution short of a case, and folks wanted me to expound. Unfortunately, that effort appears to be failing, so we'll likely see what a full case brings. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept This issue belies a simple answer, and it appears a full case is necessary. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pondering, though I want to hear from the community members who say that the problem is not centered on Lightbreather, preferably with a sample of diffs. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 10:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm hearing the names Anastrophe, Qwirkle, Lightbreather, and Springee. I'm certainly open to examining all of their conduct in the context of a case, but I'm not willing to impose restrictions by motion. There were many lessons that ArbCom should've learned from the Iskandar323 saga at the beginning of the year. One is the wisdom in WP:ARBPOL limiting resolv[ing] the dispute by motion to instances [w]here the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed. That's not true here. (I think topic banning Lightbreather would be permitted by the letter of ARBPOL because ArbCom may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time—including by rescinding the rescission of the topic ban. However, I don't think it meets the spirit of the rules; more importantly, I don't think doing so would be wise.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like rescinding the topic ban was a mistake. As with others, will be interested to see if there is evidence of broader issues that the community needs us to solve. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jéské Couriano, this was the state of the discussion when I told Springee that they were correct that they could not engage. Not exactly a BANEX situation. I'm in agreement that I'd like to see, as HB has said, a sample of diffs showing broader issues that Arbcom is needed to address. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept, I think there's enough reasonable concern about other editors and HB makes a solid point about facts being substantially undisputed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused - Aoidh (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am waiting for statements --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Requests for clarification and amendment

Shortcuts

Submitting a request for clarification or amendment

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

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

Motions

Requests for enforcement

Shortcuts

This page is used to report:

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

Before participating here, please note:

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


Quick enforcement requests

Shortcut

South Asian caste violations

User has resumed WP:CT/CASTE violations. Special:Diff/1364115669, Special:Diff/1364123103. Jfire (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ECP protection for Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine

Caste edits by ~2026-35041-66

India/Pakistan border edits by Camouflagedrover

Caste edits by क्शत्रिय

ECP for Guha (surname)

Third strike by Rana Vidhyut Singh

ECP for Musunuri Nayakas

Caste edits by Tusharkatochkashyap

ANI report

The Regulator 1

Can I get a second opinion on whether The Regulator 1 is gaming extended-confirmed? (See User_talk:Pppery#c-Pppery-20260715213500-The_Regulator_1-20260714094200) * Pppery * in solidarity 03:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looks like gaming to me. I've revoked XC. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Israel

WP:CT/PIA ECR violations by ~2026-40319-86 after CTOP notification and reinforcement on my own talk page. Jfire (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TA is clearly here to push a POV; blocked indef as NOTHERE. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Poland WW2 editing

Wikipedia:CT/EE#Subtopic of Poland violations by AnonimKonto. Warned several times, asked me if I was a socialist, and said the term "Polish Nazi concentration camps" was a form of anti-Slavism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediholicRat (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As they do not appear to have been notified of the contentious topic, I have done so. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Their response was not promising. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They did it again. WikipediholicRat (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User is clearly here solely to WP:POVPUSH. Indef'd as a normal admin action as WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:VolantCrow

Has been notified and further warned about WP:CT/A-I restrictions, but continues to post to talk pages of EC-restricted pages within the topic area: Special:Diff/1358658685, Special:Diff/1358636016, Special:Diff/1366266415. Special:Diff/1359658020 is also an ECR violation. Jfire (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GordonGlottal

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 GordonGlottal

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
GordonGlottal (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
This is a procedural filing, stemming from the recent filing about Tiamut. In this filing, multiple administrators, including myself, stated that based on their interaction history, including the timing and nature of GordonGlottal's interventions on pages they had not previously edited, that they appeared to be following Tiamut with intent to disrupt their contributions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted [80] in November 2023.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am filing this in a procedural capacity, as part of the administration of the previous thread. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GordonGlottal#c-Vanamonde93-20260615205200-Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion_2 notified. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning GordonGlottal

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 GordonGlottal

Can someone clarify the process here? I understood Tamzin to say at the other thread that they did not believe that I was following Tiamut. I also would appreciate a description of what pages Vanamonde believes I followed Tiamut to, and what evidence they think indicates that. The accusation makes no sense to me and I'm not sure how to respond to it in the abstract. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin I explained on Talk:Aramaic square script why I was there: I came here from Andrevan's talk, which I was looking at re Iskandar's ARB case.
On Talk:List of Palestinians, I had a lengthy 1-on-1 conversation with Tiamut which I actively attempted to resolve both by good-faith discussion and then by bringing in additional editors.
The content dispute was over whether to include Marie-Alphonsine Ghattas. A consensus had agreed that the list should be limited to people who lived in Mandatory and post-Mandate Palestine, and a separate page was split off to list pre-Mandate residents. Tiamut had added a requirement that all entries have Palestinian national identity, to avoid listing Zionist residents. My concern was consistent criteria. Ghattas survived a few years into the Mandate period, but there is no evidence that she had any specific political identity, and no source claims that she did. Tiamut added her anyway, saying She fully belongs here. I do not accept her removal. I have already accepted the removal of Palestine's entire history. She and any other person fitting the definition in the charter and alive post-Mandate stay.
This was not a dispute about wording. I don't think there's any possible language for the criteria which would limit the page to specific attested national/political identities without excluding Ghattas. Still, Tiamut reacted to my challenging Ghattas by changing the lede from "nationalist" to "national". I immediately explained to her that It is not possible to simultaneously argue "X person doesn't fit the criteria" and "the criteria should change to fit Y person" in a rational fashion. We need a dependent variable to be productive.
I'm a process-minded person and I try to protect my own and other editors' time by intentionally organizing discussions. Here I had argued that the correct path was 1) Splitting the page so that one set of criteria determined each list, 2) creating however many internally coherent lists we needed to satisfy all editors. We first reached consensus to split the page. I had previously said several times that arguments over the criteria are a distraction because they don't necessarily relate to accuracy - we can have several separate lists which each follow their own criteria, so long as each is internally consistent.
My edits are almost all earlier history. I edit modern PIA mostly to add something from an Arabic or Hebrew source, and I've never really been involved in this kind of discussion before. Truly I would appreciate a detailed description of how we are expected to handle similar disputes. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiamut

For reference, this is what @User:Tamzin said. Tiamut (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC) And @User:Vanamonde93 and @User:Black Kite's observations can be seen in this diff and the comments above them. Tiamut (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not set the criteria for the page List of Palestinians that requires they be a part of the Palestinian people as defined by the Palestine National Charter. It was there long before I started editing the page. Gordon followed me to that page, and did not notice the footnote with the definition, and blamed me for how it was defined. Tiamut (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am also shocked that Gordon is still repeating his misrepresentation of how "nationalist" got into the lead, and still ignoring that it was by way of my own typo that I tried to correct and that he refused to let me do until other editors got involved. Tamzin mentioned this stonewalling as problematic in her first statement that both she and I linked. There is zero recognition of it by Gordon. And he continues this pattern in every discussion I have with him which has made collaborative editing impossible, and led to me disengaging from pages when he appears, like the one I created on Aramaic square script. If he could just be more respectful of me as an editor, and admit he has been needlessly aggressive, condescending, and obtrusive when it has come to my contributions, and pledge to stop, I would ask this report be dismissed and let bygones be bygones. I do agree with Slava that he holds a unique knowledge set that can be valuable here. Other editors do too though. And as Huldra points out, he seems to have a unique grudge against me that he will not reflect on or admit. Tiamut (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC) (modified at Tiamut (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC))[reply]

Whatever you think is necessary is fine by me, though I wish @User:GordonGlottal just acknowledged his missteps as I requested above. If there are restrictions I have to abide by under a 1-way TBAN, please clarify them for me @User:Tamzin. Tiamut (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Slava570

I would like to urge the administrators to give GordonGlottal a second chance. While I have not looked at the pages in question, I have seen him at talk:Golan Heights and other pages. He has a rare expertise in several subjects, and I don't think banning him would help Wikipedia. I also have never seen him act poorly in other places or with other people, and we have overlapped quite a bit. Even at his most recent discussion with Tiamut at Golan Heights, he has remained civil, and his contribution has helped improve the page. Please give him one more chance. Slava570 (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Note the report GG filed on Tiamut; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1223#h-Off-wiki_WP:canvassing_by_@Tiamut-20260518003700 accusing her of canvassing me (my nick misspelled Hulda) and Katzrockso, stating that "Neither had ever edited the page or participated in previous discussions". The page is List of Palestinians, which I first edited in 2006, and is no 3 in terms of edits (!)[81] (Needless to say(?) Tiamut never contacted me off-wiki about the list.)

Also his statement 1:09, 18 May 2026: "[...] I have been 100% confident that she canvassed EasternSahara since December, it was obvious from the random way they templated me right after Tiamut despite no previous interaction with me or the page.[...]". My question is: Why on earth would Tiamut canvas EasternSahara? She could just as easily have templated GG herself. GG shows an almost absurd form of WP:ABF about Tiamut, IMO, Huldra (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boutboul

I edited List of Palestinians and participated in the discussions that led to the split of the page.

I am surprised to see the Marie-Alphonsine Ghattas dispute presented as evidence of stonewalling. My recollection of that discussion is that it took place immediately after the split, at a time when the inclusion criteria for the new page had not yet been settled.

In fact, the split proposal that achieved consensus explicitly left the criteria for List of Palestinians to be discussed afterwards. The disagreement over Ghattas arose precisely because editors had different understandings of what those criteria should be. Gordon argued that inclusion required evidence linking an individual to the modern Palestinian national collective. Other editors argued that reliable sources describing a person as Palestinian were sufficient. Whether one agrees with GordonGlottal's interpretation or not, it was a reasonable interpretation of an issue that had not yet been resolved by consensus. I did not always agree with GordonGlottal's arguments, and I think the discussion about "nationalist" versus "national" went on longer than necessary. However, I do not think that persistence in an unresolved content dispute is the same thing as stonewalling. The discussion shows an editor arguing for a particular interpretation of the criteria, not an editor refusing to engage with them.

I would also note that this dispute did not occur in isolation. For months, editors had been debating the distinction between geographic and national uses of the term "Palestinian". The Ghattas discussion was simply another manifestation of that broader disagreement.

I think it is relevant that GordonGlottal does not have a substantial history of sanctions or enforcement actions. Looking at the discussion as a whole, I see a difficult content dispute and an editor who was at times overly persistent, but I do not see compelling evidence of deliberate obstruction, bad faith, or conduct warranting a topic ban.Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A few additional points for consideration:
  • On volume/dominance of this talk page: XTools data for Talk:List of Palestinians shows GordonGlottal ranks 6th among editors of that page, with 41 edits (7.5%) and 17,297 bytes added (5.6%), well behind Tiamut, who accounts for 196 edits (35.9%) and 107,555 bytes (35.1%).
  • On his block log: GG's block log shows only one block, in February 2021, for a 24-hour BRD violation at Donald Trump ; unrelated to the PIA topic area and over five years old.
  • On tone: Reviewing the talk page discussion, I'd also note an asymmetry worth considering. GG's comments there are consistently focused on sourcing and definitional questions (e.g. asking repeatedly for a source establishing a national, as opposed to geographic, identity). By contrast, several of the personalized remarks in the thread come from the other direction, e.g. You are quite frankly being anti-Palestinian and denying Palestinians a right to define their own identity and you are not a reliable source on who is a Palestinian. I don't think the record supports a one-sided account of who was personalizing the dispute.
Taken together, I don't think this amounts to an established pattern of disruptive conduct, either on this page specifically or across the topic area. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GordonGlottal

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Noting once again that I am filing this administratively as part of closing the previous thread. For simplicity I will say that although participants are likely to have read GG's previous comments here, those do not count toward the word limit. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's any confusion about my comment, to summarize: I think the evidence of hounding (as in following Tiamut around) is a mixed bag, with at least some cases where the overlap is clearly innocent and one article, Aramaic square scripttalk, that GG showed up to after Tiamut created it, although not without background in the topic area. So on its own I think the hounding claim isn't conclusive either way. On the other hand, I think my linked comment lays out a clear case for why GG's participation at the List of Palestinians talkpage has devolved into stonewalling—dragging Tiamut and others into a long back-and-forth based on an inclusion rule that the list does not actually have, and reverting to retain an additional inclusion rule that there was never consensus for and only added by Tiamut by mistake. I can only view that as trying to disrupt efforts to improve the article. That fact pattern may make one less inclined to AGF on the hounding claims; either way I think this is sanctionable with or without the hounding. Thus I support a topic ban from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed as to include matters of Israeli and Palestinian national identity. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93, this has sat open for a while - do you agree with tamzin's call here? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I was hoping for more than two opinions but it is what it is. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tamzin and Vanamonde93: Do you perceive any recent issues with GordonGlottal's editing in the topic-area other than on this one particular page? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newyorkbrad: Yes, unfortunately. The entire reason I flagged their behavior in the previous report was the evidence of following Tiamut's contributions. My reading of this evidence is that even if it is not hounding in the sense of following with intent to cause distress, it is at best following with the intent of participating in the hot-button disputes. Their conduct at Talk:Golan Heights does not fill me with confidence in their ability to edit neutrally, but isn't IMO sanctionable in isolation. Is there a different remedy you would propose? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if recent disruption were limited to a single article, I might suggest that any remedy could be limited to that article, at least initially. The question is whether to try that and see whether problems continue, or to go with a broader topic-ban now. Tentatively I might suggest the former in the hopes that we wouldn't soon be back here; but my instincts are always to leniency, so feel free to discount for that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tamzin: Do you have further thoughts here? NYB and I are in mild disagreement. I would not be dead set against a p-block from the lists of Palestinians, but I would want that accompanied by a one-way IBAN with Tiamut. I would prefer a PIA TBAN on the whole. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a p-block would be sufficient when the Palestinian-identity aspect transcends those two articles, but I'd be on board with a TBAN from Palestinian identity (i.e., who does or doesn't count as a Palestinian) and a 1-way IBAN from Tiamut. Courtesy ping to make sure Tiamut is aware that's being considered, since even 1-way IBANs can indirectly have negative effects on the other party sometimes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester Millner

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 Sylvester Millner

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Gotitbro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Sylvester Millner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:CT/SA (notif1, notif2), WP:GS/UYGHUR (notif)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  • [82], [83], [84] Came across genocide denial added by the editor using fringe sources, reverted and warned them but it was restored again. I started a discussion at the fringe noticeboard. Led to bizzare accusations of "personal gain" [85], was warned again with sanctions by another editor [86] but the editor continued with the same behaviour elsewhere [87].
  • [88], [89], [90] Encountered the user again at this article where they've repeatedly reinserted unreliable WP:RAJ era sources to insert [unrelated] fringe into the article. Continues despite being told to desist [91].

These are the articles where I came across their fringe edits. Looking into it, problematic behaviour appears quite serious (also at simplewiki where for instance pushed fringe cruft regarding origins of Urdu [92]).

  • Denial of Uyghur persecution using fringe sources [93], [94]
  • [95], [96] twice added a conspiracy theory book about Gandhi despite being reverted
  • [97] litany of problematic removals and additions at Muhajir (Pakistan) for which eventually blocked (below)
  • [98] repeated OR removals and insertions.

This may have been a competence issue (itself problematic) but repeated fringe additions and removals motivated by ethnonationalist POV lend to a view of battleground disruption/tendentiousness which asks for sanctions.

So as soon as the user returns here with nothing to show for addressing their fringe conduct and bizarre allegations of COI (something they've done before [99] as I note above), they continue edit warring with RAJ-era fringe [100] elsewhere (the edit summary calling fringe concerns "vandalism"). I no longer see this as a competence issue, clearly WP:NOTHERE. For the blatantly false and misrepresented claim of added a claim that the Pakistanis have in fact attempted to deny the genocide or dispute the claims in books and documentaries (which as the diffs show is clearly not what they did), also pinging other uninvolved who noted those fringe additions @AndyTheGrump, Agnieszka653, and Cadddr: at the fringe noticeboard. Gotitbro (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs of previous relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
  1. [101] Blocked for edit warring at Muahjir
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[102]

Discussion concerning Sylvester Millner

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 Sylvester Millner

Some of these edits the person who filed this strange request is referring to go back years and have been brought up here even though I hardly touch Uyghur-related topics. My edits there were to create a WP:BALANCE and to ensure WP:NPOV of information, rather than a one-sided claim being passed off truth. Just because some of the sources are questionable or not 100% commonly used, does not show evidence of "genocide denial" on my part. This users accusations are far out of proportion and borderline defaming my conduct. Then in the Anti-Bangladeshi sentiment article, I added a claim that the Pakistanis have in fact attempted to deny the genocide or dispute the claims in books and documentaries. I even cited a documentary in my edits to verify the claim that they in fact have attempted to deny it. Instantly, this person accused me of "genocide denial" and promoting "fringe." He then used my previous edit wars on the Muhajir article with another banned user who was promoting the subject and engaged in repeated copyright violations. Even other people on the article talk page of Muhajir complained about the article subject being promoted. The same banned user seems to have a direct connection with the article subject (see userpage). But the filer (user:Gotitbro) mentions none of that and took that whole situation out to context to put the blame on me and mischaracterize me and my edits. Not coincidentally, after erasing my edits on the anti-Bangladesh sentiment article, this user showed up on Indus Valley and revert my sourced edit. Shortly after I restored the edit I saw nothing wrong with, he filed this report, calling my edits "fringe." Looking through this users editing history, he seems to have a long history of edit wars spanning over a wide scale and puts the "fringe" label on any edit he sees as unacceptable to himself. I request that when such requests are filed with such heavy allegations, the filer themselves be investigated in terms of conduct history and motives behind these filings.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223 (2)

I saw the comments regarding Uyghur genocide and had a look at the sources being referred to as fringe. Some of them are. Nobody on Wikipedia should be sourcing statements to the Gray Zone (WP:GRAYZONE) and, while I would hesitate to call a socialist publication from Canada fringe without something to support said statement, we shouldn't be using any article to launder quotes from the Global Times(WP:GLOBALTIMES). On the other hand they're using a VOA article which quotes statements made by an Arab League delegation. I am not a fan of VOA but I would suggest that it's remarkable, considering VOA's bias, that they would publish this statement and that source is likely due (with attribution) if it isn't already being used. I am not speaking about any comportment outside of the Uyghur Genocide diffs. But on those diffs, and only those, I'd say the editor is demonstrating not so much a pervasive promotion of a fringe view as a remarkable lack of judgment regarding Wikipedia's sourcing standards and have kind of thrown everything at the wall to see what would stick. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Agnieszka653

I would be more convinced it was a competence issue and an unfamiliarity with how the RS Noticeboard works if the editor didn't insist on putting the same content back using the exact same sources. Additionally the editor does seem to have a clear ideological bias reflected in their use of sources when it comes to the 1971 Bangladesh War of Independence. Furtheremore echoing Simonm223 the use of the news website the Gray Zone is not a good look if the editor in question is trying to assert they are injecting articles with more nuance as the Gray Zone is not allowed to be used on Wikipedia and has questioanble ties to authoritarian regimes and governments which colors its reporting. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Result concerning Sylvester Millner

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

Slava570

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 Slava570

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Paprikaiser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Slava570 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA, including the page-specific enforced-BRD restriction at Zionism
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

The diffs below demonstrate a pattern of disruptive editing. Specifically, they show editor rotation to continue a tag-revert sequence (WP:EW/WP:GAME), an apparent violation and possible further violation of the article-specific enforced-BRD restriction, continued restoration of maintenance tags during an active removal discussion, and apparent bad-faith tag proliferation and disruption of the consensus-building process (WP:TAGWAR/WP:OVERTAGGING/WP:CONSENSUS).

  1. 14 June 2026 Slava570 restored the article-wide factual-accuracy tag after another editor removed it, asserting that The consensus was that the contents of the article are disputed.
  2. 25 June 2026 After Loodog restored the NPOV tag at 13:51 and restored it again at 13:58 after another removal, Slava570 stated Consider this my revert then. Loodog's second restoration violated 1RR and also appears to violate enforced BRD because Loodog reinstated the reverted change only minutes after discussing it rather than waiting 24 hours. An editor warned that Loodog was violating 1RR and should self-revert.
  3. 25 June 2026 After another warning that both editors were continuing the edit war before discussion concluded, Slava570 argued that the tag can be reverted by a different one.
  4. 25 June 2026 Slava570 restored the tag with the summary per talk, a different editor can revert on this page, explicitly rotating in after Loodog exhausted the revert allowance. Another editor clarified that Loodog had clearly violated 1RR and that, although Slava570's individual revert was technically permitted under enforced BRD, continuing the tag edit war was unwise.
  5. 26 June 2026 An editor removed the factual-accuracy tag Slava570 had restored on 14 June, triggering enforced BRD as to Slava570's change.
  6. 26 June 2026 Slava570 discussed retaining the tags at 11:32 and reinstated the factual-accuracy tag at 18:44. Enforced BRD requires a talk page post discussing the edit followed by a 24-hour wait from that post before reinstatement, so this appears to be a direct violation. Another editor then warned Slava570 to stop edit-warring over maintenance tags.
  7. 27 June 2026 While the tagging dispute was already under discussion, Slava570 added another inline dispute tag without supplying contrary sourcing, then began arguing that the quantity of inline tags justified article-wide tagging.
  8. 28 June 2026 After an editor asked why the inline tag would not suffice, Slava570 said inline tagging would result in large portions of the article being tagged.
  9. 28 June 2026 Slava570 escalated this to several dozen new tags, treating editorial disagreement itself as grounds for proliferating tags.
  10. 28 June 2026 Another editor removed both article-wide tags, citing overwhelming consensus to remove the NPOV tag and consensus to remove the factual-accuracy tag.
  11. 28 June 2026 Four minutes later, Slava570 restored both. As to the factual-accuracy tag, this may be a further enforced-BRD violation because Slava570 immediately reinstated their own reverted change without discussion or a 24-hour wait.

The May AE result warned that reverting solely because affirmative consensus was absent was disruptive and that tag-team edit-warring could result in topic bans. Slava570 expressly used editor rotation, ignored repeated warnings, appears to have violated enforced BRD, and continued restoring and expanding tags during an active discussion.

Diffs of previous relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
  1. 10 February 2026: Warned for edit-warring at Genocide
  2. 28 April 2026: Warned to self-revert a potential ARBPIA 1RR violation
  3. 28 April 2026: Slava570 acknowledged making two reverts and not understanding the applicable rule
  4. 15 May 2026: Warned again for edit-warring
  5. 24 May 2026: Warned that repeated reinsertion at International Association of Genocide Scholars constituted long-term edit-warring and was entering WP:DE territory
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them
  • Alerted about the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic on 16 April 2026. Slava570 acknowledged the alert the same day. The alert specifically explained the 1RR restriction, the obligation to comply with page restrictions, and the prohibition on gaming the system.
  • Slava570 also demonstrated detailed awareness of the page-specific enforced-BRD procedure in the 25 June comments above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Samuelshraga: The only comparable case is Loodog, whom I intend to file. Calling Slava570 the 4th participant obscures that this refers only to 25 June: he was the fourth editor involved, but only the second restoring the tag. Intervening editors removed it because no actionable article-wide neutrality problem had been identified and Loodog's second restoration violated 1RR. least active is unsupported: Slava restored article-wide tags on 14, 25, 26 and 28 June despite multiple talk-page challenges that they lacked a policy basis. Others either removed tags or made isolated edits, without combining repeated restorations, editor rotation and apparent enforced-BRD violations. I believe enforced BRD applies when your change is reverted, even if that change restores an older version. Diffs1-5-6 show restoration, reversion and reinstatement without the required discussion and 24-hour wait from the talk reply; this was repeated on 28 June (diffs10-11). Clarification if these are not violations would help. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

AE notification

Discussion concerning Slava570

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 Slava570

Firstly, I'd like to say that there was no attempt to discuss this with me on my talk page before coming here.

Diff 1: The talkpage banner linking to this RFC says the RFC's closer said there was a "mismatch between sources and article text" and the RfC's results "indicate a lack of consensus and confidence in the accuracy of our prose." The closer also said if someone does tag the claims mentioned in this RFC, to avoid edit warring, please don't remove tags without consensus on the talk page.

Diff 2: The NPOV tag says Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. The relevant condition being There is consensus on the talkpage […] that the issue has been resolved. Maybe I’m interpreting incorrectly, but that says to me that adding an NPOV tag requires that there be a dispute (not the same as consensus) while removing the tag requires consensus. I wanted to prevent us from getting bogged down in a procedural issue, and I thought the most expedient way to do that was to say that I also am able to revert once, so we should move on.

Diff 3: I’m discussing procedure on the talkpage. I don’t understand the issue.

Diff 4: Why am I not allowed to do this? I gave several reasons in the edit summary, and the tag should not have been removed by the previous editor. If this was not the correct way to handle it, I won’t do it again.

Diff 5: Here another editor removed both tags. Paprikaiser is misunderstanding the RFC consensus. Later a completely different editor restored one tag, and yet another editor removed it, followed by removal of an inline tag, followed by a revert of text. (we are currently discussing these reverts on this editor’s talk page, with an admin’s help).

Diff 6: A misunderstanding of the RFC consensus.

Diff 7: I don’t understand why I’m not allowed to add an inline tag in good faith. I tried to discuss this with the editor who added it [103] and another editor (the closer above) agreed with my interpretation Talk:Zionism#c-Beland-20260629063200-Samuelshraga-20260628101100

Diff 8 and 9: What’s wrong with this? This is my good-faith honest opinion.

Diff 10/11: This is a different editor who removed both tags at once (the factual accuracy tag against RFC consensus) I then restored them. Slava570 (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion My response to your headcount [104] was that you missed one editor who explicitly stated their position, making it 6:3. However, no direct question was asked. Several other editors that you didn't count expressed NPOV issues. My good faith assessment is that the sentiment is 50/50. If anything, we should ask those editors directly before excluding them. Slava570 (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They refer to tags in plural here: [105]. They discuss both tags explicitly here: [106] so they should be included. Slava570 (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m seeing some very over-the-top language when it comes to characterizing me. My intention is always to argue in good faith. It doesn’t mean I’m perfect, but this extreme language is unwarranted. I apologize if I’ve crossed any lines. I could’ve been more careful with my language in places. I’m not trying to accuse anyone of bigotry, including Raskolnikov, but I strongly feel that we need to be able to discuss bigotry in general. In the future I will try to make my statements as general as I possibly can, but I don’t feel I should be silenced about the topic entirely, especially when it is so everpresent in this field. In diff 2 below, I show that Raskolnikov’s edit conflated Zionists and Jews, and this was not what the source said. AFAIK I have never used the argument that my argument is “objectively true.” I’m saying my argument doesn’t concern Raskolnikov’s intentions at all, and I welcome them to argue that my statement is false regarding the edit. In the diffs linking previous AE cases, if there was something questionable about my behavior, I think the admins would have told me then. It’s not fair to use those against me now. Slava570 (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Simon223

Firstly I would like to say that the way I dealt with Whiplash was genuinely a mistake. It was my first time hearing about WP:MEAT and I was not aware of this rule at the time. I will not do something like this again. However, I never, ever engaged in off-wiki collaboration with them. Neither one of us ever emailed each other. I am not in contact with them, now or ever. If anyone wants to check my email records, I welcome it.
Simon's Diff 1: This was a perfectly reasonable addition to the text, with three sources added. I took the language directly from a source.
The first source was challenged as being primary, despite the fact that the page is full of primary sources. The third source, a valid secondary source, was also challenged. A lengthy noticeboard discussion [107] largely agreed that the source was reliable, and it ended up being used in the end.
Simon agreed that the information in my edit was WP:DUE in a talk page section he titled “Dershowitz open letter” [108] Dershowitz was only one signatory of over 500, so why did Simon title the section this way? Was this guilt by association? Here [109]Simon admits he was being overly glib calling it the Dershowitz letter
Presumably, he also knew he was being “glib” when he added Dershowitz’s name in diff 2, though here at AE he claims this addition was more neutral.
Here another editor gives two additional reasons for why Simon's addition in diff 2 was not neutral [110]
Simon claims diff 3 is a significant expansion. He was the one who expanded my original two short sentences into a large paragraph. I did not delete any information that he added. I only reinserted the number of signatories that Simon had inexplicably downplayed (changing over 500 to several hundred) and put in a new heading, since such a long paragraph was no longer appropriate in a list.
Despite the fact that my edit did not delete anything of Simon’s and added nothing substantial, the following editor reverted it in diff 4 based on WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. That made no sense because nearly all the (allegedly) recent/undue material was introduced in the previous edit by Simon, not by me. So why did he only revert my edit? I then reverted to the previous edit before that because Simon’s edit was the one that would’ve introduced the recentism, not mine.
Simon has mischaracterized my edits before. Here [111] Simon apparently surveilled my edits at the Genocide definitions page, and wrongly said that I seem to edit to minimize Wikipedia discussing genocide as a unique category of crime. The exact opposite was true. Some diffs to prove it: [112] [113] [114] Slava570 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Buidhe

How could I have understood such a policy when it is not written anywhere, and Buidhe did not provide a link to explain it? It sounded implausible, so I went to the Teahouse to understand the rules. [115]
An editor said that deleting content added nine months previously is ultimately a revert, but no, that revert isn't a problem.
Two of the above warnings came from Buidhe, including one when I had just started editing. After the first one, I received a barnstar for civility [116]. The editor added why Buidhe’s warning was unwarranted: [117]
I suggest Buidhe refamiliarize himself with WP:BITE

Re:Bluethricecreamman

First diff: I’ll repeat what I said earlier: I’ll be as careful as possible when discussing bias in the future. However, the argument in this diff is based on a valid Wikipedia policy: WP:BIASED.
Second diff: Against policy, an editor said they wanted to exclude a source based on the author’s political leanings. It’s not possible for two policies WP:BIASED and WP:AGF to contradict each other such that pointing out someone is not following one policy means violating another.
Third diff: This definition of threaten is: to announce as intended or possible [118]. I did not want to exclude WP:OR. Bluericecreamman has misunderstood or mischaracterized my comment.
Fourth diff: I brought two questions to the Noticeboard. First about the primary source. The second one was about the secondary source, so totally different question. After telling me I’m not allowed to ask a second question, this editor didn’t comment again for the duration of the discussion, which ultimately concluded I could use the source.
Fifth diff: Irrelevant. Comment is about a source. Slava570 (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 I will reread WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and try to focus less on minutiae in the future. @Vanamonde93 Can I please have some extra words to respond to Lf8u2? Slava570 (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

As the person who removed the tags the last time, I'll point out that there was a clear and unambiguous 3:1 consensus to remove the NPOV tag (and a less clear-cut but still reasonable consensus to remove the other, with a majority of people who weighed in supporting it); see the discussion 43#Removal_of_factual_inaccuracy_tag_and_RFC_consensus here and 43#Removal_of_factual_inaccuracy_tag_and_RFC_consensus here. I was genuinely shocked that Slava570 restored the NPOV tag; as I pointed out there, the discussion was three-to-one in favor of removing it. The discussion for the other tag, for the record, is five-to-three in favor of removing the tag, by my count (Tashmetu, Raskolnikov.Rev, VR, Katzrockso, Aquillion for removal; Chicdat, Slava570, Samuelshraga for inclusion.) Obviously quick nose-counts are just a starting point, and there are various valid arguments that could be made against it; but it's necessary to rely on something like that to avoid an endless cycle of RFCs, and everyone pushing for removal of the article tags was willing to accept a compromise of text or section-level tags. Slava570's bald insistence that the discussion was 50-50 (and especially their instance that the NPOV tag was 50:50) seems indefensible to the point of being actively misleading. More generally, this sort of blunt intransigence in the face of an overwhelming consensus, and flat misrepresentation of the state of talk, is disruptive because it slows editing to a crawl; we need people to accept obvious consensuses on talk if discussions are ever going to proceed. --Aquillion (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the editor Slava570 says I "missed" did not weigh in on 43#The_neutrality_of_this_article_is_clearly_disputed that discussion at all; they have no comments in the relevant section. Slava570 seems to be assuming that because they supported their perspective for the other tag, they can be relied on in another discussion, which is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Furthermore, they did so one-sidedly, ignoring editors who weighed in only on the second article but clearly opposed article-level tags in general. Either way, even if we counted them, "it's only 2:1 against this tag!" is not a particularly compelling argument, and still makes their "50:50" statements a drastic misrepresentation. I do not think an editor should be so aggressively edit-warring something into an article when their own calculations say that a rough nosecount is 2-1 against it. --Aquillion (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Samuelshraga

I'm involved inasmuch as I added the "disputed" tag[119] following the RfC close: Given the mismatch between sources and article text and simultaneous lack of remedy, It might be fair to tag this article with {{disputed}} or the specific claim with {{disputed inline}} until a stronger consensus is obtained that the lede and body are accurate and non-contradictory. I'm not going to add any tags, but if someone does tag the claims mentioned in this RFC, to avoid edit warring, please don't remove tags without consensus on the talk page.

I think this is a clearer analysis of the evidence presented:

The factual accuracy tag:

  • Diff 1 doesn’t explain what the violation is. Slava was following the RfC close.
  • Diff 5 Paprikaiser says that the re-removal of the tag triggers BRD on Slava’s revert (two weeks earlier) in diff 1. This ignores that diff 1 shows Slava reverting a contested change, not making one.
  • Diff 11 doesn’t show a BRD violation on the factual accuracy tag. For one thing, that places Slava as the “originator” of the tag, when they were actually restoring the status quo.

NPOV Tag:

  • Diff 4: Slava restores the tag.
  • Diff 3 shows Slava explaining why their revert (which they hadn’t done yet) is compliant with enforced BRD.
  • Diff 11 (again) is another restore of the tag by Slava.

Other:

  • Diff 7 shows Slava adding a tag. I’m not sure the violation. The explanation for the tag is in Diff 9.
  • Diff 8 doesn’t seem to show a violation either. Diff 10 is of another editor.

The worst thing here is restoration of the NPOV tag in diff 4/11. In mitigation, diff 4 was Slava's first revert, and in diff 11, Slava had ample justification for reverting the disputed tag part of the edit, less so for the NPOV tag part.

But that leaves open the question: Why did Paprikaiser, who best I can tell is totally uninvolved in this dispute, choose Slava to report? Take diff 4: Slava is the 4th participant in the edit war; after they restored the tag one of the prior participants (WP:POINTily?) inline tagged the tag[120], that inline tag got reverted[121] and the tag was removed again[122]. Why are we focussing only on one of the least active participants in the edit war?

Admins should consider protecting the page, with the disputed tag preserved and not the NPOV one, pending a fuller discussion. And if they're considering sanctions here, they should consider sanctions for all the edit warring parties. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Raskolnikov.Rev

I wanted to post this before I saw this case and don't want to make a duplicate so I'll add it here, I hope that's alright. I'm the one Slava refers to in diff 7 and the responses I got to a routine content-source accuracy edit aren't acceptable I believe per WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Here's my edit restoring recently altered wording because, as I noted in the edit summary and talk, it accurately reflects what the cited source states.

Slava accused me of "falsely claim[ing]" the wording was longstanding and my edit was "clearly designed to add yet another negative connotation" (diff1). He then characterized my edit as expressing "a bigoted attitude" (diff2). Note that in neither reply did Slava provide any evidence to contest the content-source accuracy, nor provide alternative citations. He was also wrong about the wording not being longstanding as he later quietly admitted on talk without withdrawing the accusation and while still attempting to justify it (diff3).

Slava then came to my talk page, accusing me of violating 1RR and initially also threatening to "go to the admins" unless I self-reverted (diff4). He later removed that part (diff5). He also repeated the inaccurate claim that tags can only be removed with consensus, which multiple editors, citing the rules, pointed out isn't true.

In my response I pointed this out, objected to being accused of making a false statement to advance an agenda, said it wasn't conducive to productive consensus-forming discussions, and noted he was wrong about the 1RR violation, as was already clarified to him by @Asilvering when Slava accused me of it just a month ago.

Rather than withdraw his accusations, Slava doubled down, denied saying I made a false claim, and said my edit was "clearly designed" to produce a negative connotation, "serves a bigoted agenda" and "contributes to" a "bigoted campaign" (diff6). He attempted to thinly veil it by adding that all this was "irrespective of your underlying intentions".

It wouldn't be acceptable to accuse Slava of serving a bigoted anti-Muslim or anti-Palestinian agenda, and say it's an objective assessment made irrespective of his intentions. That's a "my aspersion happens to be objectively true" defense.

This isn't isolated. Here are other instances where Slava characterizes editors' contributions as involving "bigotry" and/or a political "agenda": diff7, diff8, diff9, diff10, diff11, diff12.

Repeatedly portraying editors' contributions as dishonest, deliberately designed and/or objectively part of bigoted agendas violates WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA, and WP:BATTLEGROUND and undermines productive consensus-forming discussions. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding lesser sanctions require acknowledgement of fault and pledging to stop the disruptive behavior. Slava hasn't done that.
Instead in his response to me there's a hedging/conditional non-apology ("if", "could've") and doubling down on baselessly accusing me of objective bigotry: "In diff 2 below, Raskolnikov’s edit conflated Zionists and Jews, and this was not what the source said."
This is inaccurate. My edit restored stable content accurately reflecting the source.
There Slava accused me of improperly distinguishing "the Jews of Israel" from "the Jews of the Zionist movement", calling that a "bigoted attitude" (diff2). So I'm objectively bigoted because I improperly distinguished and improperly conflated, both of which are inaccurate.
In his reply he also suggests he'll continue accusing editors of objective bigotry: "I will try to make my statements as general as I possibly can, but I don’t feel I should be silenced about the topic entirely, especially when it is so everpresent in this field". Slava can point out bigotry, but it has to be evidence-based or it's ASPERSIONS/NPA/BATTLEGROUND. Per previous reply it's also not the first instance of Slava being asked to stop that disruptive behavior to no apparent effect. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223(3)

I've been following this AE filing with some concern because I think this is demonstrating a bit of a pattern in Slava570's editing. I was engaged in a protracted content dispute with Slava570 regarding our treatment of the International Association of Genocide Scholars This was a relatively complicated dispute that was derived from a dispute about how to appropriately represent this academic association in the context of its statements concerning the Gaza Genocide. This discussion was happening at the same time that User:Wh1pla5h99 was facing escalating blocks and, after being blocked, they contacted Slava570 on their own talk page and tried to solicit Slava570 to make edits on their behalf. I cautioned Slava570 about WP:MEAT and suggested they tell Wh1 not to make such requests. Slava made this statement: [123] which they subsequently revised to [124]. I didn't pursue this farther at the time although I remained concerned that Slava570 was actively inviting off-wiki collaboration with a blocked editor. I have concerns about Slava's neutrality throughout this discussion however there's one specific set of interactions I feel is quite telling about why I see this as a pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND comportment notwithstanding the implication of off-wiki collaboration:

  1. [125] Slava570 introduced a paragraph calling the Academic Engagement Network a group of over 500 scholars and experts.
  2. [126] I replaced this with transcluded material from Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide that I felt was more neutral.
  3. [127] Slava570 significantly expanded this into a "controversies" section.
  4. [128] Another editor reverted Slava570s edit
  5. [129] Slava570 then reverted my edit back to their original version. While it is not wikilinked their argument appears to be WP:GOOSE which is odd since I'm not the one who did the revert on their subsequent edit.

Between their open flirtation with off-wiki collaboration with Wh1 and their tendency to treat anyone who supports the representation of the Gaza genocide as genocide as if they were part of an opposing team whose edits were interchangeable I'm quite concerned that Slava570 is engaging in a protracted campaign of battleground editing in this topic area of which this filing is merely the most recent instance. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mark Bernstein

1. In a domain where most editors have strongly-held beliefs, congruence of opinion can be indistinguishable from tag teaming.

2. If some editors in this domain are not employed by states, NGOs, or equivalent entities, that would be remarkable.

3. I draw your attention to Lir, Shlomit. Between conflict and contribution: Jewish editors and the politics of knowledge on Wikipedia, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565261459183, a recently published academic study (Sage).

4. We are witnessing a series of retaliatory AE complaints. I do not see much improvement in the nature of discussion at Zionism and elsewhere. Do we see sweetness and light and the coming of the Peaceable Kingdom?

5. In niche topics that engage only a handful, it may be practical to find peace and quiet with the banhammer. That did not work, for example, in ethics in videogame journalism. There is no hope that it will work here. To attempt ban all editors with strongly-held convictions is to boil the ocean.

6. We can, I think, learn something from some of Wikipedia’s LTAs. It appears that a remarkable number of individuals and small groups are willing to devote remarkable resources to advance agendas that most people find unfathomable. Arbpia is not unfathomable.

7. I think it is clear that resolving this will require Arbpia6 or some other Community Process. AE cannot do that. The concern at AE should not be to discourage editors who appear disruptive; on this topic, the world has provided us with an inexhaustible supply of disruptive editors. The concern at AE ought to be to lower the temperature and to retain experienced and potentially-valuable editors who will advance the new Process, when Arbcom or the Community figure out what is to be done. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

fwiw these examples are relatively old and i had thought slava had been slowly improving wrt learning wikipolicy as a relative newcomer. I have not read nor do i have opinion on latest diffs (as im massively behind on anything recent on zionism page), these are here mostly to contextualize slavas full history. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Vandamonde, if i may be devils advocate, i slightly prefer a final logged warning to a tban for a first time at AE without strong misconduct User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 06:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah key emphasis on slightly, above my paygrade to make decisions. Might even wanna retract my comment above atp. May admins do admin decision and finish this already. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:19, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buidhe

I was disappointed to discover in May that this editor didn't understand revert policy and doubled down when I pointed it out. To be fair, not all of these reverts were explicitly in the Arab—Israeli topic area. (t · c) buIdhe 02:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lf8u2

Two recent examples bear on the concern about Slava570's unwillingness to properly apply NPOV and DUE or edit collaboratively in the PIA CTOP.

On 13 July, Slava570 told Vanamonde93 they would revisit WP:DUE and WP:NPOV (statement). Soon thereafter they added a Hasbara lead footnote making a categorical claim (edit). The cited etymology page did not support that claim, and applying a general account of the word's development to a case it did not discuss constitutes WP:SYNTH. The following day, Slava570 expanded the accompanying quotation (edit), although it did not mention propaganda or support the claim about the term's historical meaning. I removed the footnote and replaced the quotation with the accurate one from the source (correction).

In the discussion, Slava570 cited another unrelated source to defend the same generalization (discussion edit; follow-up). Zero and I objected on the grounds that this constitutes SYNTH.

Nevertheless, on 25 July Slava570 re-inserted the disputed interpretation into the lead in Wikipedia's voice and removed the accurate quotation (edit). This gave undue prominence to a selective reading of the source, presented an interpretive claim as fact, and disregarded the objections already raised, contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH and WP:ONUS. Zero removed it under ONUS (removal), while noting this in the discussion.

This suggests that neither Slava570's assurance about reviewing the relevant rules nor the pending case has had much practical effect on their behavior.Lf8u2 (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Slava570

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • It looks to me like Slava is actually copping to edit warring, esp. in their response to #10. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the strongest report brought to AE. The dispute over whether the tags should remain on the article is extremely silly, as tagging disputes tend to be, and everyone there would do better to dispute the actual content. That said, taken in toto, Slava's edits amount to placing a badge of shame on the article to an extent nobody else seems to be doing. The disputed content is already tagged inline, after all. I would support a logged warning here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my comment on my talk page, Slava570 may have an additional 500 words to respond specifically to evidence put forward by Simon223 and Raskolnikov.Rev Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Slava, you may have 250 words, which is approximately what those two edits have used. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted above, the initial diffs in the report are not the worst, but taken in totality, the evidence suggests a persistent unwillingness to understand or apply NPOV and DUE, and also a willingness to argue over minutiae in a manner that isn't compatible with collaborative editing. I'm inclined to think a TBAN is necessary here, but a logged warning is the minimum needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Wh1pla5h99

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

Statements may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

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

Appealing user
Wh1pla5h99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – * Pppery * in solidarity 02:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction being appealed
Indefinite block
Administrator imposing the sanction
Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
Special:Diff/1362770073

Statement by Wh1pla5h99

From utrs:113916

I recognize that my approach to discussions was in some respects disruptive and counterproductive. In thinking about it this can be explained in a few ways: I was spending rather too much of my time seeking out (mostly through noticeboard discussions on my watchlist) conversations which may lend themselves to bias. Naturally these fell in CTOPs. Once I saw what I perceived as bias I then obstinately argued with people beyond the point at which there was any likelihood of minds being changed. Regardless of how right or wrong I may have been, I now see that this was a mistake, because it creates an adversarial atmosphere out of which not much good can emerge. Too often I would write responses in a state of agitation, which is never necessary and almost invariably a mistake. Some time off has given the needed perspective that there is no emergency; flaws in the encyclopedia are problems to be solved coolly and rationally rather than opportunities to sound the battle cry. I have also been paying attention to how other people navigate disputes, and been impressed by collegiality (i.e. treating each other as colleagues, obviously, rather than ideological opponents) even from those who I had disagreed with. It seems that, in the long run, the most productive approach is to assume good faith (and common interest) and respond accordingly, or, if that is not possible, find something else to do. As my article contributions will show (here's a couple: [132] [133]), I am able to contribute effectively to the project. I would like to get back to this.

Comments by Pppery: in the UTRS comments, SarekOfVulcan has supported unblocking and Newslinger has opposed. I'm copying this to AE to try to unstick it, since it has languished on UTRS since June 16. * Pppery * in solidarity 02:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from UTRS:

To address the topic ban violation: I admit I had not read wp:tban, and I now know (what should have been obvious) that discussing a banned topic on my own talk page is included in the ban. If my talk page access is reinstated I will be careful to respect tbans across all pages including user pages.

* Pppery * in solidarity 23:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from UTRS:

I believe any proxying is necessarily ruled out by my commitment to respect topic bans throughout the project, but as instructed I will treat it as a separate offense. I have a couple of clarifying questions: WP:PROXYING says "Editors… are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor". This reads as if it is aimed at editors carrying out the edit; should I also read it as targeting the one who is doing the directing? Secondly, would this apply to making someone aware of certain information/sources without giving any "direction" to make any specific edit? If the answer to both of these is yes then I fully acknowledge that I was proxying, and I commit to not doing so again.

* Pppery * in solidarity 23:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from UTRS:

Arcticocean makes the point that "their disruptiveness increased as the sanctions escalated". This may be true; I received a topic warning on 11 May, a topic ban two days later, and an indef two days after that. This was probably a concentrated period of disruptive (adversarial) editing, a boiling point of sorts. It would be a shame if I were deemed irredeemable because these sanctions, progressed as rapidly as they were (and justifiably so), fell on deaf ears at the time. I have attempted to demonstrate how I have reflected on these measures and recognized wrongdoing, committing to avoid it in future. Arcticocean further says that the explanations in my appeal "are limited and provide little confidence that things would improve after an unblock", without explaining how this is the case. I would be glad to provide any additional explanations if pointed towards that which requires explanation. If thought necessary, as another commitment, I would readily accept a ban (formal or informal) from contentious topics in general until I have regained trust in the community. I'm not making this appeal to return to those conversations, but to general editing of the encyclopedia in my free time, which happens to be abundant atm.

--v/r - TP 02:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Theleekycauldron

I don't think I have the power to reverse the block or waive protections on it unilaterally, as it was imposed by a consensus of AE admins. i don't have much to say on the merits of the appeal; the admins forming that consensus would probably have more substantive comments. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:53, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

Part of what Wh1pla5h99 has characterised as seeking out ... conversations which may lend themselves to bias was them inserting themselves into discussions about Australian politics, which I was involved in, so that they could continue their trolling. Their actions have contributed to make an article I brought to GA objectively worse by joining in arguing to continue to include a shit source in the article when a WP:GREL source covering the same event exists (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 517#Clarification and Talk:March_for_Australia#Addition_of_contentious_material_from_Sky_News_and_Herald_Sun). This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE and should be given short shrift. TarnishedPathtalk 09:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Wh1pla5h99

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Wh1pla5h99

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • If we were simply considering the behavior before the sanctions were imposed, the above appeal would be sufficient for me. But after the sanctions were imposed, Wh1pla5h99's talk page contributions were remarkably disruptive, including a lot of incivility and topic-ban violations. And from the sound of it the appeal was lodged less than a month thereafter. If they are sincere about being a productive member of the community I would like to see an appeal after serving at least 3 months of a block, and I think that's quite lenient. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would note that it's good the appeal is here; while UTRS would need to be used to begin the appeal, given the TPA revocation, as this was a arbitration enforcement block by my read it must be discussed at AE, AN, or ARCA to be overturned before a year is up (barring the blocking admin, @Theleekycauldron:, agreeing to lift it). That said, while the appeal is a good start, looking at their talk page post-tban and post-block, I see things that make me very hesitant. I would like to see them productively edit on other projects (Commons, Simple English Wikipedia, etc.) for a while to demonstrate that their turn towards collegial collaboration is a genuine long-term change and not just a short-term 'buyers' remorse' sort of deal. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, your interpretation of the rules is correct. There's no standalone UTRS carveout for reversing AE blocks within the first year by an active admin. It's blocking admin, AN, AE, or ARCA. Left guide (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sanctions (both initial topic-ban and later block) were well-warranted when they were imposed and I don't believe Wh1pla5h99 is disputing them. The only question now is whether to modify the block going forward. It is good that Wh1pla5h99 is willing to disclaim an editing style based on locating the most controversial content dispute of the day and throwing gasoline on the fire (although it would clearly have been better if he or she had not adopted that style in the first place). Wh1pla5h99 does appear to have made some worthwhile contributions when not seeking out controversy for its own sake. I might be inclined to consider downgrading the sitewide block to one or more topic-bans, but the problematic editing spans a variety of controversial topics, so it's not clear to me what the correct scope would be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a public discussion, and there is no private information in my comment on the UTRS appeal, so I am re-posting it here (with words appropriately linked) because Wh1pla5h99 would likely find the feedback useful for strengthening their appeal:

    Wh1pla5h99's current block is an arbitration enforcement action implemented less than one year ago, so they would need to appeal to the enforcing administrator (theleekycauldron) or one of the three designated venues (AE, AN, or ARCA) per WP:CTOPAPPEALS if they want to be unblocked. Wh1pla5h99 is using UTRS because their talk page access was revoked when, while they were blocked, they violated their topic ban from WP:CT/A-I to ask another editor to make edits within WP:CT/A-I on their behalf (i.e. proxying), which resulted in an ANI discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1223#Pull TPA for Wh1pla5h99). As a result, the goal of an unblock request via UTRS should be to demonstrate that Wh1pla5h99 is capable of properly using their talk page for an appeal of their block in accordance with WP:CTOPAPPEALS; a successful appeal would justify restoring their talk page access. However, Wh1pla5h99 did not address their topic ban violation or their attempt to proxy their edits through another editor while they were blocked, so this UTRS appeal should be declined.

    When an editor restriction was placed on reasonable grounds (which is the case here for all of the applicable restrictions), the editor is generally expected to acknowledge the key parts of the conduct that led to the restriction before the appeal is seriously considered. Wh1pla5h99's UTRS appeal did not do this, so they should receive appropriate feedback informing them of this expectation, which is the purpose of my comment here. I believe Wh1pla5h99 is following this AE discussion, and any administrator can copy their replies from UTRS to here as needed. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wh1pla5h99's 7 July reply shows progress but stops short of acknowledging the proxying attempt. If Wh1pla5h99 also acknowledges the proxying attempt and commits not to repeat that, then I would support restoring talk page access, which would make a future appeal of the indefinite block less burdensome. — Newslinger talk 18:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wh1pla5h99: For your case, in addition to being a violation of your topic ban from WP:CT/A-I, your talk page comments are effectively an attempt to circumvent (i.e. evade) your sitewide block (which was implemented as a sanction in WP:CT/AP). Even if you were not topic-banned from WP:CT/A-I, the comments would have been an infraction that typically results in the revocation of talk page access.
    In general, an editor who makes a proxying request is considered to be engaging in block evasion, ban evasion, and/or meatpuppetry, depending on the specific details of the situation. This includes providing sources or information to another editor to use or incorporate in edits within a topic or page that the editor who provided the content is restricted from participating in.
    I now support restoring talk page access for Wh1pla5h99. — Newslinger talk 00:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many opportunities were provided to Wh1pla5h99 to take advice and to engage constructively in discussions, but if anything their disruptiveness increased as the sanctions escalated. The appeal provides some explanations and attempts at insight, but they are limited and provide little confidence that things would improve after an unblock. As no lesser sanction would be effective, the block has to remain and I would decline this appeal. Arcticocean ■ 21:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WareWolf665

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 WareWolf665

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
HistoricalWriting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
WareWolf665 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/SA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. Diff 18:06, 3 July 2026 On Talk:Sayyid dynasty, I opened a sourced proposal concerning the ethnic-origin description used in the corresponding list article.
  2. Diff 18:57, 4 July 2026 User:WareWolf665 removed the entire proposal citing an rfc against primary sources, as justification to wipe the secondary source he is attempting to remove
  3. Diff 09:05, 5 July 2026 I restored the proposal once after objecting to its removal.
  4. Diff 10:44, 5 July 2026 WareWolf665 removed it again after my objection.
  1. Diff 18:32, 3 July 2026 On Talk:List of Pashtun empires and dynasties, I opened the corresponding sourced article-improvement proposal.
  2. Diff 19:04, 4 July 2026 WareWolf665 removed the entire proposal.
  3. Diff 09:14, 5 July 2026 I restored it once.
  4. Diff 10:46, 5 July 2026 WareWolf665 removed it again.
  1. Diff 20:17, 4 July 2026 WareWolf665 justified the removals by claiming that the article talk pages could only be used to request edits
  2. Diff 13:34, 5 July 2026 I repeated the source, because I intend the proposal concerning possible improvements to the articles to be featured and relied on reputed secondary historical scholarship not considered in the older discussion (I also featured corroborating authentic primary sources better than at the time of the rfc 4 years ago, as well as a reputed 20th century historian debunking a listed Indian ethnic origin on the article that User:WareWolf665 is trying to remove). He stopped replying to me.

The talk page discussion that is improving the article, including the works of a reputed historian whose work debunked a currently listed false ethnic origin on it, has been removed repeatedly.

WP:TPO states that the basic rule is not to edit or remove another editor's posts without permission, subject to specified exceptions, and that cautious removal should normally stop when there is an objection. The deleted material consisted of sourced proposals directly concerning improvements to the corresponding articles. It was not prohibited material, a personal attack, vandalism, or general discussion unrelated to the articles.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This complaint is being made about the talk page disruptions of User:WareWolf665, the article proposal itself is fully supported by a respected modern secondary historian, including another historical scholarship and secondary source [a historian whose work is cited in works of a scholar literally cited in the article itself!!] that rejects a competing ethnic origin currently presented in the article text itself. This request does not arise from uncertainty of evidence. The historical case is sound; the complaint is about the presented work being repeatedly deleted. HistoricalWriting (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reply feature for User:WareWolf665, but the reputed 20th century historian debunking a listed Indian ethnic origin on the article, that he is trying to remove is S.H. Hodivala, of works written from 1939-1944, published in 1957 as part of 'Studies in Indo-Muslim History'. This work is firstly a critical commentary, a historical scholarship, even is cited in works of a scholar cited in the article, 'Simon Digby'.[Reference 1] On the article [i'm referring to Sayyid dynasty] there lays out the name of a "Malik Mardan Bhatti", which S.H. Hodivala addresses in his work as a false name[Reference 2], as miswriting of a historical source called 'T̤abaqāt-i-Akbarī' which he abbreviates as T.A. in his work, can be seen in his 'list of abbreviations' in the work I want to cite[Reference 3]. User:WareWolf665 does not want this to be shown, that is apart our disagreement.
The other disagreement being the secondary source he is trying to remove, an Indian historian who mentions Khizr Khan (founder of the dynasty, from the 'Sayyid dynasty' article), was an ethnic Afghan.[Reference 4] User:WareWolf665 does not want this to be shown either, and that is our other disagreement. Now if there is a problem here, with this historian Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvī who is cited across Indian history here on wikipedia, then there should be more work done to ban the citations of S.A. Abbas Rizvi across wikipedia for consistency, rather than my passages on an article's talk page being deleted. HistoricalWriting (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger since when was that the issue? I never edited the article. You are right that there is no issue with either historian, there is no issue with their work, there is no issue with their inclusion. You are clearly wrong that User:WareWolf665 does not "not want this to be shown". He's just left a comment still arguing against it, he says its from 1957 so it cannot be included. He deleted the entire talk page discussion on two different articles citing an rfc against primary sources, with the intended purpose of deleting the secondary sources I provided. HistoricalWriting (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro and I also beg you not to topic-ban me, I can give you my word that I believe/believed (??) the editing restriction is for Indian castes and Indian history, not extended to the entire national histories of Afghanistan and Pakistan (I understand and can demarcate what constitutes Indian history vs Pakistan's 1947- history). I also assume full freedom to commentate, or atleast request edits on talk pages of Indian castes, and Indian military history. I see I have violated wikipedia's rules by having edited Indian castes/Indian military history, but I want to comment that I did not disturb anyone's editing, nor innovate any article my edits are just adding citations to the works of other people. My crime was against Wikipedia not the works of any other editor, not disturbing them, and I have made no major contribution to Indian history or caste articles. HistoricalWriting (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Simon Digby cites S.H. Hodivala's "Studies in Indo-Muslim History" in his work Dreams and Reminiscences of Dattu Sarvani a Sixteenth Century Indo-Afghan Soldier Vol-II Issue 1
  2. ^ if unfamiliar with the region, the name implies Indian ethnic origin
  3. ^ Studies in Indo-Muslim History - Supplement = Volume II: A Critical Commentary on Elliot and Dowson's History of India as told by its own historians by the late Shāhpūrshāh Hormasjī Hoḍīvālā pp. 152-153
  4. ^ Shāh Walī-Allāh and His Times by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvī (1980) Ma'arifat Publishing House Canberra


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

04:02, 6 July 2026 — Notification of this enforcement request left on WareWolf665’s user talk page.

Discussion concerning WareWolf665

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 WareWolf665

First of all, this user failed to demonstrate how I violated WP:CT/SA in these diffs. Preventing a non-ECP user from editing a contentious article's talk page (that too for discussing the origin of a dynasty) is actually in-line with WP:CT/SASG rather than in violation of it. If anything, this just proves how THEY continued to edit on restricted topics and violate decisions of the Arbitration Committee despite constant warnings from 2 ECP users (see here).

Apart from CT/SA, this user is in violation of other policies too. In the first diff ([134]), the user POV-pushes an alleged Afghan origin for the Sayyid dynasty using 4 references; 3 of which are translations of primary sources (in which a further 2 vio WP:RAJ and all 3 vio WP:PRIMARY), and 1 of which "debunks" an origin that is not even relevant to the founder of the dynasty (Khizr Khan)! Infact, the user seems to use this single source to "debunk" a totally different, well-sourced origin theory for the dynasty (possibly WP:SYNTH). Even if this source was relevant to his discussion, it would be discarded due to WP:FRINGE and WP:AGEMATTERS (published in 1957 when newer sources are available).

Not to mention the fact that there is already an existing RfC on the page that dealt with this exact topic but they refused to acknowledge that (WP:IDHT).

I believe this is enough proof that his edits were non-encyclopedic and not adding any value or improvement to the page which is why I reverted them as per WP:TALKNOTFORUM and WP:FORUM (and was thanked for that too).

Not to cast any aspersions but it's quite obvious that not only did the user use an LLM to generate this complaint (see comment of User:Sutyarashi), but also possibly copied the reverted content from an ethnonationalist blogsite or Twitter threads.

I request the administrators to take the appropriate corrective measures against this individual, and let me know if I made any mistakes. Thank you for your time and regards.

Thank you for taking the time to comment. I believe the first part of @Gotitbro's statement is not relevant here since I already apologized for my earlier vios of CT/SA and suffered the consequences of that.
As for this allegation of "gaming the system", the first clause of WP:PGAME states that "making unconstructive or trivial edits to raise your user access level" is not allowed. They are yet to prove how my edits from 22nd May (first edit after block) till 4th July (last "normal" edit) are either "trivial" or "unconstructive". Redlinks that do not comply with WP:REDLINK need to be removed and such edits would not constitute as being "trivial" considering that there is an entire policy dictating that.
Similarly, adding the names of figures in their native language to article lede is a common theme on Shahmukhi/Urdu-related articles and well-supported by MOS:AR, hence proving those edits were not "unconstructive" either. Infact, I have been doing that way before I was even close to being ECP confirmed (see here and here and here and several others). This is also quite literally the reason I added Babel userboxes on my userpage.
The "slight imp." edits were suggested to me by Wikipedia itself on my homepage. Since they were mostly random topics, I only made minor edits to those.
Coming to the second clause of PGAME, it states that "the purpose of having these access levels is to help people get (and demonstrate that they have) the practical experience needed for certain kinds of editing. Edits that rapidly reach the technical level but don't get the person any real experience are often considered gaming the system". I believe I have had enough experience after editing a fairly wide range of topics and read through most of Wikipedia's policies to gain ECP status. I started editing in October 2025 so not only did I pass the 30 days limit, I have been intermittently active for almost 9 months now and in no way did I "rapidly" reach ECP status.
Furthermore, Gotitbro states that "as soon as EC status was received started dabbling in edit wars and contentious topics only related to caste (from 5th July)" without citing any policy which mentions that "one cannot start editing on contentious topics on the same day as gaining ECP status". If such a policy exists, I will be happy to revert all my recent edits myself. I have also provided decent justifications for each of my "contentious" edits in edit summary and am fairly confident that any administrators would agree with them.
Gotitbro also accuses me of "POVPUSH relating to Punjab and castes" but fails to cite any examples of such. I believe they are referencing my early edits and subsequent dispute with them on Lawik dynasty (for which I suspect they may still be holding a grudge). Just to clarify, that was back in March when I was a fairly inexperienced editor. I have learnt a lot since then and agree I was in the wrong there after reading through the relevant policies. I do not even remember making any significant, content-changing edits on caste pages until after gaining ECP recently, but if I did and POV-pushed anywhere prior to that, I apologize for that too.
I believe that not only is Gotitbro casting aspersions here, but also fails to demonstrate any sign of assuming goodwill yet again which is very disheartening to see from a fellow experienced Wikipedian.
I urge the administrators to take the most appropriate action as they deem fit. I am willing to fully comply and will currently withdraw from any further editing on contentious pages out of good faith until they give the final decision. Thank you for the time and regards. WareWolf665 (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE AS OF 8TH JULY: Since opening this discussion on 6th July, the filer has made further edits on article Battle of Maiwand (see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) . The battle clearly falls within the scope of WP:CT/SA/IMH (see Clarifications and amendments Clause A) as it involves the entity of British Raj. The filer was even warned here by experienced editor Sutyarashi but paid no heed. I believe this is enough proof that the filer has no respect for community sanctions and reported me out of spite for the same reason that they are ACTIVELY violating (a classic case of WP:SHOT). I request the administrators to take the strongest possible corrective measures against this bad-faith individual. Thanks and regards. WareWolf665 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sutyarashi

I am an uninvolved editor who happened to have some of the articles linked above in his watchlist. I cannot help but notice that HistoricalWriting has been continuously violating CT/SA:

...and dozens of such examples

Infact, the filer appears to have been editing WP:CT/SA topics exclusively. They are obviously familiar with the WP:CT/SA restrictions (CT/SA notice at their talk page here, posted and explained in clear words to them on 24 February 2026) and how WP:ARE works despite their short edit count (133-ish at the time of this statement) so the whole request appears inexplicable unless, which I suspect, they used LLM to generate it, which is unfortunately becoming increasingly a common occurrence at Wikipedia. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gotitbro

Tban for both, particularly an indef for CT/CASTE and CT/IMH and EC rescission for WareWolf665. WareWolf665 has been consistently violating ECR restrictions for these ever since the user started editing, even after receving no less than 6 CTOPS/ECR warnings and acknowledging them each time simply didn't stop. I finally brought this to Quick AE 2 months ago and the user was blocked for a week by asilvering on 1 May: [135]. The response was this As far as my edits are concerned, they are not disruptive, neither do they break any Wikipedia policy. Please clarify if the sole reason for this block was editing as a non-ECP user (which I admit was my fault). If so, further clarify if this block will affect my profile once I get ECP status. If it's not the sole reason, kindly cite those disruptive edits so I can do some self-improvement [136]. Clearly no lessons learnt, the user started WP:GAMING (apparently "well-aware" [137] not to do exactly this but oh well) to reach EC status (from 4th July with all edits being "rmv redlinks" or "slight imp." or "added native name") [138] and as soon as EC status was received started dabbling in edit wars and contentious topics only related to caste (from 5th July) [139]. Even beyond this clearly sanctionable conduct, the issues with POVPUSH relating to Punjab and castes therein are apparent from their Talk and edit hist but the afore should suffice restricting any edits related to caste and milhist in South Asia. Gotitbro (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning WareWolf665

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

JasonGen

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 JasonGen

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
JasonGen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm having issues with JasonGen that need to be reviewed and addressed. After reverting me, I posted a WP:CIVIL question on their talk page asking for clarification regarding his objections. Jasongen removed my note with the summary Removing per WP:RUC. I don't come on here to be abused. While the editor is entitled to remove comments from their talk page, they left a note on my own talk page accusing me of personal attacks subsequently barring me from their talk page. On Talk:National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, JasonGen left an attack accusing me of making "an LLM-generated comment". They then followed me to a different page, to revert an edit I made at Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinian activism, an article that they had never edited before.

I think that this is evidence of hounding, though nothing I would not be able to handle on my own.

However, this is an account whose editing history looks suspicious. After a handful of edits in 2021 almost entirely devoted to a single AfD, they returned in February this year and performed 500 edits almost uniformly on the topic of greyhound racing in less than two months. Receiving EC status on March 26 and three days later they started editing at Gaza genocide in this edit. Topics in the ARBPIA space have continued to be a major (though not exclusive) focus of their editing after having received Extended Confirmed status (for example [140] [141].

This has all the characteristics of WP:GAMING.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification to user

Discussion concerning JasonGen

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 JasonGen

Statement by Chicdat

I don't think JasonGen is gaming. They seem to have three main areas of editing, those being greyhound racing, Australia, and Jews/I-P. Excluding the I-P part, this has remained consistent throughout their Wikipedia editing career, as has their style of editing. Gaming is unlikely. However, I see multiple things in their editing history that indicate possible disruptive editing.

  • This edit to Leo Frank, changing Modern researchers agree that Frank was innocent to The prevailing view among modern historians is that Frank was innocent. They claimed their change was standard consensus language. Edit was reverted by JayBeeEll with the edit summary "standard consensus wording" = a thing you decided is "standard" how?
  • At Talk:National Committee for the Administration of Gaza. Pretty standard content dispute until JasonGen decided to make it about conduct. Contrast As always, I look forward to your response... thanks for catching my error regarding the Reuters source you had added with First, do not ping me multiple times to elicit a response. I am in a different timezone, had not been editing, and am a WP:VOLUNTEER. This is not the first occasion that you have repeatedly contacted me about the same topic unnecessarily within a short period. If this pattern of repeated unwanted contact [linked to WP:HARASS!] continues, I will raise it at the appropriate noticeboard. This is in response to Alansohn pinging them twice in three days about an ongoing content dispute.
  • Twice accusing Alansohn of AI use, without citing any AI signs as evidence. Instead, their justification was that Alansohn did not address a number of concerns in my previous comment. Not a reason to throw a serious allegation around, especially considering that JasonGen likewise failed to address some of Alansohn's concerns.

So JasonGen has casted aspersions without evidence on multiple occasions and been uncivil, in addition to making an edit that elevated an antisemitic fringe theory (implying that a minority of modern historians view Frank as guilty). The Frank edit is pretty innocuous on its own, but combined with the rest of the editing history, it may be suspicious. (Of course, it could also be entirely in good faith.) Not to say that Alansohn has been constantly civil either. Calling an edit a blind revert isn't really AGF. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 18:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JasonGen

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

NeboRadar

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 NeboRadar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Lacanic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
NeboRadar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 19 July 2026 Hours after an attack on the Lukianivska (Kyiv Metro), user added it was near "military infrastructure" without any source or ref
  2. 27 June 2026 Similarly, after attacks on Ukrainian Railways, user added "and military use" providing any refs that did not mention this
  3. 19 July 2026 Using TASS as source of otherwise unsubstantiated claim, as well as claims that were not listed in other provided refs
Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
  1. 8 June 2026 Previous AE resulted in warning to "NeboRadar is reminded to ensure their edits comply with our policy on verifiability"
  2. 12 February 2026 Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User main focus, including page creation specifically related to Russo-Ukrainian War - after warning and self stating "I can see the issues that my edit may have caused. In the future, I’ll make sure that anything mentioned is clearly verifiable." - today, hours after an attack, edited the Lukianivska (Kyiv Metro) to say it was near military infrastructure with no source.

Similar edits on other pages and topics. Pages created (and deleted for various reasons) or edits that follow typical Russian disinformation and propaganda. Would ask a topic ban from Russo-Ukrainian War content, broadly construed, is requested.

  • Additional edit -

I'll echo sentiment by Joko2468 that a topic ban until proven improved standards is a good idea. The strain on other editors to clean up and patrol all revisions on CTOP, is undue burden on other editors.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification on Talk Page

Discussion concerning NeboRadar

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 NeboRadar

> User added it was near "military infrastructure" without any source or ref

In this case, the source was the Wikimedia Commons image included with the statement, which clearly shows a significant military-industrial asset in the area. This paragraph is a direct translation that can be found in both the UA and RU language versions of the page, as well as on Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons. There are plenty of further sources which can back this. If you felt it wasn't enough then you can add them without needing to create a whole ANI. I wrote the paragraph based on an article from The Guardian, and should have included that, it was my wrong call to rely purely on the Wikimedia image for that.

> user added "and military use" providing any refs that did not mention this

Well, this is clearly mentioned throughout the rest of the page, its not necessary again. Nonetheless, I have added them there again to reinforce those statements.

> Using TASS as source of otherwise unsubstantiated claim

Its literally a syndicated statement from the CPC, the company which operates the oil terminal. Shocker, a company based in Moscow releases press statements to TASS. In many cases, TASS is often the only available source for official releases, although I have also included the official statement from the Kazakh FA ministry now. Note that the actual contents of the press release stated in TASS is syndicated in both the report from Kazinform, Reuters as well as the official Telegram channel of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium. Sb— Preceding unsigned comment added by NeboRadar (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have definitely screwed up again. The use of Wikimedia and other Wikis as a source was wrong now that I look at it. Regarding TASS, I still would maintain the view that it was valid in the context I used it in, but I think I'll just have to concede on that point. I'll voluntarily take a break from this topic for some time, maybe with the oversight of someone like User:Joko2468 NeboRadar (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[to Joko2468] Yeah fair enough NeboRadar (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have TylerBurden chiming in, a blatantly partisan editor who has a link to a drone snuff film on their talk page, who themselves is subject to multiple disciplinary actions, and is constantly engaging in edit-warring, mass reverting and raising of ANIs. NeboRadar (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Joko2468 As you mentioned it earlier, would you mind if I asked how you would think I could demonstrate improved standards, just to be clear NeboRadar (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger Oh right, yeah sorry about that. NeboRadar (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joko2468

Disclosing that I filed the previous AE and have taken this user to a couple of ANIs (see the 8 June AE). Unfortunately this behaviour isn't new, NeboRadar has been extensively warned about WP:SYNTH-- see 28 March 2026 during the first ANI and what appears to have been their first warning on 13 March (their edits relating to the 28 March diff were made prior to this). It's a shame because I think they could make a decent editor but their standards simply do not appear to be improving in spite of a number of warnings. I personally would support a topic ban for WP:RUSUKR-- I don't think this repeated behaviour ought to be acceptable for a contentious topic. Joko2468 (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of reliable sourcing, their earliest warning was apparently on 8 November 2025, with further warnings on 14 November, 14 February 2026, 13 March (above), and by me on 26 March. Joko2468 (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@NeboRadar I appreciate that but I think a topic ban would be the appropriate way to handle this. Once you're able demonstrate that your standards have improved, you could get the ban lifted-- it's effectively the same as what you're proposing but less taxing on other editors' time. Joko2468 (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@NeboRadar, you'd be better off asking an admin but to my understanding you would have to be able to demonstrate a history of good quality editing away from this topic. It depends on how frequently you edit, to my sensibilities that could be a month or several? I'm not sure. Joko2468 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TylerBurden

I agree that a topic ban is more than warranted here, considering the repetition of behaviour.

In regards to their response about me ″chiming in″, I believe going on the offensive and resorting to WP:PA's in response to me voicing my opinion only further indicates just how unfit they are for this topic area. I'm not the one being reported here (or who has ever received a topic ban), you are. --TylerBurden (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning NeboRadar

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

NeboRadar, images on Wikimedia Commons are not reliable sources. the source was the Wikimedia Commons image included with the statement, which clearly shows a significant military-industrial asset in the area is your own interpretation of the image, which is textbook WP:SYNTH. both the UA and RU language versions of the page, as well as on Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons - none of these are reliable sources; Wikipedia is not a reliable source. TASS is often the only available source for official releases If it is the 'only available source' then the fact being sourced should be left out as TASS is also not a reliable source. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NeboRadar: Please only comment in your own section, not in other editors' sections. (AE doesn't thread like a normal talk page, so no worries about not knowing that.) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Lacanic: My comment was moved to Results because I moved it there to where it properly belonged. Also your comments should all be in the initial section with your initial filing. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yevrowl

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 Yevrowl

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
TylerBurden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Yevrowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:RUSUKR
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 20 July 2026 Adds unattributed statements in Wikipedia's voice on Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support despite being informed about the contentious topic and WP:NPOV several times, and being warned that repeating this would result in a report.
  2. 25 May 2026 Another example.
  3. 21 May 2026 More of the same, unattributed statement in Wikivoice concerning specific military unit and not the article sibject itself.
  4. 6 April 2027 In this edit, aside from the usual Wikivoice, they cite a Russian website's article named ″Nazis threaten Odessans with drones and missiles Nationalists in Ukraine threaten Odessans after conflict with TCC″, a source rather obviously aligning with Russian WP:FRINGE narratives. Also contains WP:BLP violations.
Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
  1. 22 May 2026 Notified of contentious topics.
  2. 30 June 2026 Notified that they are violating WP:NPOV, their habit of writing in Wikivoice also pointed out.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The article in question contained and still contains numerous issues, a large amount which seems to have been added by this editor as they are the most frequent contributor, who seems to have little interest in presenting it from a WP:NPOV standpoint. After finding the article I raised these issues with them, and they have more or less doubled down on everything and continued doing the same thing, I think an enforcement action is necessary here.

In response to Lacanic: I wasn't aware they were causing similar trouble on other articles, it's starting to increasingly look like another rather obvious pro-Kremlin WP:SOAPBOX effort.

In response to Yevrowl: Like I said on your talk page, you claiming to be a victim of harassment because your disruption in a WP:CTOP is being called out is a serious bad faith accusation, and obviously not accurate. If you are going to claim to only cite WP:RS, how do you explain the fourth diff?

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Yevrowl

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 Yevrowl

The published information is based on the internet resources of the National Police of Ukraine, the State Bureau of Investigation of Ukraine, accredited news agencies of Ukraine and other WP:RS.

If you feel that the media reports are not entirely neutral in tone (or this media is not an appropriate source), no one is stopping you from making edits, but for some reason you chose WP:HA instead.

Read "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" and see attempts at baseless labeling, which clearly falls under the definitions of WP:CIV and, possibly, WP:PA. And very similar to WP:AAGF. In view of the above, will refrain from further polemics. Wish everyone goodness and a peaceful sky above their heads. Yevrowl (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Statement by Lacanic

Wiki editors can make mistakes, but expectation is learning from mistakes or warnings from other editors. Fixation on Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support as mentioned by User:TylerBurden is not helpful to creating a quality article, editor clearly has no interest in WP:NOV or fixing the mistakes, only changes when called out. Some other similar behaviors on other (broadly related WP:FRINGE of WP:RUSUKR) pages:

  • Wikivoice on Neo-Nazism in Ukraine - and in the edit, the ref doesn't reflect the tone or fact in the diff
  • User created Federation of Jewish Communities of Ukraine only to then be reverted for slipping in unsourced / biased claims, or "What kind of biased writing is this?" revert on this diff
  • AfC submitted many times to where other editors ask "Please stop wasting the community's time."
  • Article created on sanctioned journalist Kremlin aligned journalist, which was stubbed "due to unattributed, poor quality translation from ruwiki"

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Yevrowl

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

TurboSuperA+

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 TurboSuperA+

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Uhoj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
TurboSuperA+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
topic banned from WP:RUSUKR
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 21 July 2026 NPOV/N regarding a Ukrainian military officer
  2. 17 July 2026 Deletion of another editor's comment on a talk page related to Ukraine
  3. 24 June 2026 MfD regarding user page content related to Russia and Ukraine
Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
  1. 25 June 2026 "a probable topic ban violation"
  2. 25 June 2026 "This nomination is in blatant violation of an indefinite topic ban."
  3. 7 March 2025 A separate topic ban imposed on this editor in another area.


Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notice delivered

Discussion concerning TurboSuperA+

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 TurboSuperA+

Statement by TylerBurden

While there appears to be no direct topic ban violation here, getting into emotional discussions/disputes regarding ″Ukrainian Nazis″, a favorite theme in Russian propaganda, is not a fantastic look when being the recent recipient of a RUSUKR topic ban, nor is the canvassing in the first diff. --TylerBurden (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also support Bushranger's proposal, there seems to be an obvious capability to contribute, just not when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, where their emotions evidently get the better of them. TylerBurden (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Helpful Cat

I agree the NPOV/N Melnyk post isn't RUSUKR, but TSA+'s conduct there is untenable.

  • blatant canvassing of two uninvolved editors who were sympathetic to TSA+ in previous disputes (note: they did nothing wrong here, it's TSA+'s fault for canvassing)
  • flinging accusations of Nazi whitewashing and rehabilitat[ing] an antisemite, including at Joko2468, who has written high-research articles like Melnykites that go into detail about OUN Nazi collaboration and certainly has no such record; then immediately announcing a wikibreak but continuing to lash out anyway
  • finally devolving into: Every time you respond to me or write on my talk page I get literal heebie jeebies. I shiver at the thought of reading your posts. Reading the words you write makes me sick to my stomach.

How is that acceptable? The uncivil, aggressive, volatile behaviour has just continued outside RUSUKR. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 11:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I support Bushranger's proposal of an expanded TBAN from Ukraine and Russia. Whatever the merits of TSA+'s editing in this area, they can't behave. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 00:54, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by voorts

This would be TurboSuperA+'s third topic ban. Given their history, I don't think it would end the disruption. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joko2468

From what I can see, Turbo is a valuable contributor who sometimes lets disputes get the better of them-- I'm only aware of these being Nazi-related. I think this would suggest that they are personally too close to Holocaust history to maintain high standards of editing. Anything more than a topic ban would be draconian in my opinion. Joko2468 (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not personally aggrieved at the accusations that were levelled at me and subsequently retracted, I've also had my moments. Joko2468 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

In the latest episode Turbo changed my edit on a disambig. page [142]. Please note that I clearly explained the reason for my previous edit in the edit summary, and that Turbo never edited this page before. No one objected to the edit by Turbo. This suppose to be the end of it. Or perhaps a discussion on an article talk page should follow. Or perhaps Turbo was surprised by my edit and could politely ask about it on my talk page. That would be fine. But instead, Turbo posted this [143]

As about my another edit [144], I have also explained it in the edit summary. Strong sourcing is required in this subject area, as was previously emphasized by Arbcom. Note that someone else marked this poorly sourced content as problematic prior to my edit. Also note that the first phrase in the removed text was unsourced and says about the Melnyk attempting to suppress pogroms. Removing this, as I did, is not the way to "whitewash" the subject. This has been restored [145], but I still doubt that Substack and Youtube record in Ukrainian are sufficiently good sources for this subject area. I think this is a WP:Battle by Turbo. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TurboSuperA+

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

CSGinger14

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 CSGinger14

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Voorts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
CSGinger14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

All edits are from the past two days, and all involve casting aspersions, bludgeoning, walls of text, and battleground/ownership behavior around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Call (politician); CSGinger14 is the author of the underlying article.

  1. Special:Diff/1365707947
  2. Special:Diff/1365661488
  3. Special:Diff/1365773802
  4. Special:Diff/1365768083
  5. Special:Diff/1365766887
  6. Special:Diff/1365813149
Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any


CTOP alerts no longer required.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  voorts's statement contains 322 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I don't think a block or TBAN is needed, but I think CSGinger14 needs to be warned to adhere to WP:CIVIL etc.

CSGinger14 wasn't baited into anything. They didn't have to bludgeon the AfD; request an RfC, not participate in it, and then assert the consensus is not valid because they allowed it to SNOW close rather than offering a reasoned !vote; or post walls of text in multiple places (including here) accusing everyone who disagrees about the scope of NPOL/this AfD of being disruptive deletionists. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To give some more context: an AfD was started for Ryan Call (politician). CSGinger14 argued that NPOL applies because Call was chairman of the state Republican party. CSGinger14 then went to WT:NBIO regarding NPOL's application (permalink). Myself and other editors argued that NPOL is not applicable. I eventually told CSGinger14 that they would need to obtain consensus, asked if they wanted to have an RfC, and they responded yes. I started an RfC at VPP. It was SNOW closed with consensus against a bit over 24 hours later (permalink). I then !voted for deletion at the AfD for failing to meet GNG. Thereafter, CSGinger14 left the above-linked comments at the AfD, on their talk page, and on their user page. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CSGinger14:
  • This AE is about your conduct, not the conduct of other editors.
  • Many editors, including several admins, are autistic. Your autism is not an excuse for allowing your frustration to get the best of you and it does not give you license to engage in disruptive editing (or to ignore the word limit imposed on AE discussions). I recommend reading User:Tamzin/On mental health and Wikipedia:Autistic editors.
voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1365813593

Discussion concerning CSGinger14

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 CSGinger14

Statement by NorthernWinds

  NorthernWinds's statement contains 39 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I don't wish to get in-depth here but I'll note that diff 2 was not in response to a warning on their talk page; it appears that it was not directed at any editor in particular NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning CSGinger14

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

JaredMcKenzie

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 JaredMcKenzie

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
JaredMcKenzie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:CT/A-I
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Original dispute:

  • May 12 2026 – Accuses others of "censorship" because the article at Gaza war doesn't WP:RGW with "photos to show the destruction of the vicinity and weaponry used in this war".
  • 12 May 2026 – POV pushing toward shocking imagery to RGW.
  • 12 May 2026 – Further POV pushing toward RGW
  • 24 May 2026 – More of the same
  • 24 May 2026 – And so on. I suggest reading the back-and-forth with Veggies (who also doesn't come out looking great, but I see there was already a logged warning for this).
  • 25 May 2026 – Post on Veggies' talk page trying to defend the RGW.

Resumed dispute:

  • 25 July 2026 – Resumed POV pushing, now arguing that the righting of great wrongs should be done without consensus and discussed afterward.
  • 25 July 2026 – Continuation of the previous link. Accuses me of censorship for describing the POV pushing.
Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I stated that I was going to report the next person who tried to misuse the project by righting great wrongs with images in the lead of the Gaza war article, and here we are. I contend that JaredMcKenzie either doesn't understand the issue with righting great wrongs and thinks they're helping spread The Truth, or does understand it and chooses to disregard it. Either is disruptive to any contentious topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1365907429

Discussion concerning JaredMcKenzie

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 JaredMcKenzie

Editors are free to discuss pics in terms of due weight or how RS widely sum up this war. Nobody should intimidate us with sanctions for that. It is also not productive for Thebiguglyalien to make ONLY one reply in the thread where they voted for no pics and jumped straight to making threats of administrative sanctions without even engaging with any of our specific proposals.[146] Per WP:NOTCENSORED, graphic images from war zones are not inherently soapboxing when they illustrate documented events. No editor here has an authority to unilaterally pre-ban categories of content (pics that show "horror of war") via intimidation. Plenty of War articles in Wikipedia like Russo-Ukrainian war commonly use such imagery when due.

What they did is possibly serious misconduct. They presented a false authority claiming editors are now commiting an offense if they try to add pics showing war devastation in lede - and will be reported just for suggesting it.The newer or less experienced editors may be feel intimidated and i can't blame them. They had no right to do this.

So yes - I stood up. I responded to their vague threat by saying it "seems" like censoring to report/punish those who want to add images to Gaza war that shows the effects of war but wiki is not censored. And wars are graphic by nature. War articles on wiki can (and often do) include images of destruction, displacement and unpleasant fact of the war and it is not inherently a RIGHTGREATWRONGS violation to propose them.

It was that action where I opposed behavioral intimidation which made them report me as if I committed a serious misconduct. They should not be rewarded for such procedural escalation and so I request Admins to strike out their harmful threat in thread and given the age of their account where they should have known better - to consider sanctions on them.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I had misunderstood user Thebiguglyalien but they seemed to imply that they will report any editor who adds in images to lede that shows the "horrors of war" in Gaza; by arguing it violates WP:RIGHTGREATWRONG. If that's what they are saying, then I disagree with that. Adding appropriate pictures of war destruction to war articles is a common practice and doesn't violate RGW.

Also they wrote that I advocated for shocking pictures? I feel like such wording risk misrepresenting me. It's not like I'm asking to add in shocking pictures of dead children. I want to make it crystal clear I never asked for any bloody gore pics. I explicitly proposed these two pics - [147] and [148] in addition to a map plus a pic showing damages done to Israel. All war pics on Wikipedia are "shocking" but my proposed pics are appropriate for wiki.

After I proposed those pics, I wanted discussion. But the thread got heated when Veggies started falsely misrepresenting my proposal instead of addressing them. (they received just a warning) so I stepped away from the discussion. I only recently came back after witnessing an experienced editor telling everyone that (it's against WP:RIGHTGREATWRONG to add war destruction pics to lede). I felt that had to be addressed and pointed out that wiki isn't censored and that as long as pictures are due weight, appropriate and available from wikicommons - we can add them into the lede.

Reporting me to punish me for RGW is going too far and sets a bad precedent. As disagreements over whether images are encyclopedically appropriate should not itself be treated as misconduct. If anything, I think threatening ANI Arb actions to pressure all other editors to not consider pics showing the well documented devastation of the war - is prob itself a conduct issue. [149] And I disagree with their other characterizations of me - as requesting pics of destruction to be considered for lede - is a reasonable editorial position, not advocacy or soapboxing or RGW. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Astropulse

Note: Previously edited as Cinaroot.

The proposal is to replace the lede image of the Gaza war with a collage with pictures from the war based on its due weight. There are many war articles that use collage like Syrian civil war 2006 Lebanon War and many more. No one has proposed shocking images like Thebiguglyalien is claiming. First consensus to use a collage is to be reached, and pictures will be selected based on their due weight and shock value at a later time. Both myself and JaredMcKenzie have agreed to have pictures from both sides (Oct 7 attacks and Gaza) to be included in the collage. There is debate on the split.

Veggies was warned [150] for their battleground conduct and personalizing disputes in the above conversation.

There is a fair proposal. Thebiguglyalien made the following comment I'm considering reporting at WP:AE the people who were attempts to use this article or its images to WP:SOAPBOX or WP:RGW about the horrors of war if they make further attempts to do so. I think this is totally a baseless accusation violates WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. I think threat's by Thebiguglyalien is meant to discourage legitimate content discussion and could also be WP:BATTLEGROUND.

I asked them how this violates WP:SOAP. [151] They did not respond.

JaredMcKenzie has done nothing wrong and has not pushed a POV. Conversation got heated up because of Veggies’ uncivil attitude and battleground conduct. Astropulse (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also JaredMcKenzie joined wiki on 5 October 2025, and topic banned on Taiwan on 9 November 2025. New users often struggle on Wikipedia, and I think the previous sanction should not be held against them here.
They consciously stepped back from editing (because it was emotionally taxing) after WP:CT discussions on another thread. I advised on them here Astropulse (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning JaredMcKenzie

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

Slàinte mhath a chàirdean 2

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 Slàinte mhath a chàirdean 2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Snokalok2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Slàinte mhath a chàirdean 2 (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

I’m starting this thread to congratulate Slainte for his tireless work in the area of GENSEX editing.

Though many of Slainte’s edits are benign gnoming edits, as readily observable from his edit history, a notable exception occurs within the area of GENSEX - where he wastes no time, effort, or resources in:


Changing articles regarding trans women to remove or reduce the usage of their pronouns or referring to them as women:

Adding to as many articles as possible every time a transgender woman is convicted of a sexual offense:

Notice the evolution here, from simply adding inflammatorily worded SYNTH to tangentially related articles, to adding transgender offenses committed to Trans History in the UK, LGBTQ People in Prison, creating an entire section at List of Transgender People to fill with sex offenses. Notice how much of it was in the last two weeks.

Otherwise altering the language on articles and areas regarding trans people to make them sound more combative, such as the Murder of Brianna Ghey - all in the last week:

Watering down language that is supportive of trans people, again see how recent:

For the sake of presenting a balanced account, I should say that not all of his GENSEX edits are necessarily like this. Sometimes his edits are just, benignly documenting the latest loss for transgender rights where others might not think to document it.24 June 2026

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In any event, he was named at ARBTRANS, though somewhat outside of the very limited healthcare-related scope of the event, hence why I imagine he got off without sanction.[152]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[153]


Discussion concerning Slàinte mhath a chàirdean 2

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 Slàinte mhath a chàirdean 2

Hi, and I’m grateful to have been informed by Snokalok2 that he has submitted my name. I confess to being surprised to see the degree of analysis that has been done on my editing history and commend him for his work. I know I added a section listing trans criminals who are noteworthy due to the nature of their crimes or the consequences that followed - I noticed it was missing and thought it helpful to add it. I have been updating out-of-date articles to reflect changes that have occurred as a result of the Supreme Court Court decision last April, such as changes to policies of sporting organisations - I understand that some people may not like to see these changes being made but surely updating articles is the right thing to do. Anyway, I believe my edits have all been genuine attempts to update, improve or make more neutral, and I am happy to be judged on them. For example, changing a section title ‘Transgender Inclusion’ to ‘Transgender controversies’ was done to reflect the first sentence which uses the phrase transgender controversies. The next two edits highlighted about Brianna Ghey were both done to more accurately reflect the BBC article - that (as I understand it) is what we should all be doing. Thank-you. Slàinte mhath a chàirdean 2 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Slàinte mhath a chàirdean 2

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Regardless of the merits of the case, "I’m starting this thread to congratulate Slainte for his tireless work in the area of GENSEX editing." is needlessly combative and should be struck. All it is telling me is that the filer is edging into WP:BATTLEGROUND territory themselves, which is not a good thing for them, and I am suggesting striking it in the filer's best interests. Please do strike it. I'll try to look at the diffs later in the day when I have more time to devote to that. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ixudi

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 Ixudi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
HerakliosJulianus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Ixudi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:CT/SA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 21 July 2026: Reinstates his abysmal WP:NPOVOR, the following excerpt “They were likely…Maukharis of Kannauj” is apparently unsupported by Wiley [accessible through WPL].
  2. Edit warred over their confusion between predominantly South Asian Haplogroup L-M20 and West Asian L1-M22 for contentious inclusion in infobox, reminded of disruptions, onus & consensus [154][155][156], however the battleground behavior continues through revenge templating [157] and PA-ish aspersions [158][159][160] for which he was reminded of WP:CIV but disregarded.
  3. 28 June 2026: Proceeds to use and cite source from 1937. While having been aware of Age matters & Raj republication. [161].
  4. 24 June 2026: Nowhere in neither cited sources propound that The Maukharis have been associated with the Magadha region since the Maurya Empire. On the contrary it goes as "By a consensus of opinions the whole argument sounds unconvincing". Cited Wiley, which also opines of multiple origin theories from Punjab to Gaya, disregarding NPOV to limit origin to their desired place.
  5. On the same page he claims World History Encyclopedia to be unreliable and thereafter omitted the citation when there is no such established consensus on RSN. The editor keeps disrupting page from their ethno-regionalist Pov by subtly changing description from "Royal dynasty of India" to "Early medieval dynasty in the Gangetic plains" aligning with their ethno-regionalistic push.
  6. 11 June 2026: Removal of all sourced contents with vaguely described summary, so far it can be read, sounds well encyclopedic. Even so, there has been no efforts for discussion and improvement been made while being familiar of WP:BRD and unilateral removal of longstanding version.
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

[162][163]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It's concerning to see a statistically experienced user to face WP:CIR & WP:IDHT issues. He was also involved in several edit wars with Sutyarashi over undiscussed changes [164][165] on Taank Kingdom and failed to provide their reasoning, then again on Gheba (tribe) showing no interest on the talk page but quick enough to reverse additions [166] not surprised he has been brought twice on WP:AN3 [167][168] and has a history of casting aspersions on editors [169] ‘’blocked for mass additions of unsourced content’’, clearly not here to build Wikipedia, rather exerting their Pov pushing mainly on regional origin confined to his fixation on Magadh, Bihar and Gangetic plains by often misinterpreting sources, disregarding NPOV or omitting sourced sections. Moreover it's for them to answer their rationale on selective citation of WP:RAJ & WP:AGE MATTERS sources and outright removals. I reckon he has frequently displayed a persistent battleground mentality with problematic and unconstructive editing and should be deemed for not being able to contribute productively in SA-TA. Heraklios 18:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[170]

Discussion concerning Ixudi

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 Ixudi

I'm not really understanding the issue here and you seem to be listing various content disputes I've been involved in which have now all been resolved. In relation to the recent content dispute on the Maukharis of Kannauj article, you have not even chose to discuss the edits on the article talk page which is very disapointing.

My understanding on WP:RAJ is that in only applies to the works of British-era ethnographers but even still, I used it as a source as Google books incorrectly lists it as a work from 1989: [171] As you have pointed out that its a much older work, I have not added it back to the article.

I'm not sure why you are accusing me of being an "ethno-nationalist". You have removed one source which was old which I not agree with but what are the problems with the other sources I have added and why are you not taking this to the article talk page? Content disputes are usually discussed there.

I can see you mentioned a dispute on Haplogroup L-M20. I was the one who actually took the initiative to take this to WP:3O myself and once it was explained to me that the haplogroup for the paper I was citing was downstream of the article subject, I left it at that:[172]

Is getting involved in content disputes and taking steps to resolve them against Wikipedia policy? In each content dispute you have cited, I was the one to take initiative to get uninvolved editors involved to sort the issue out before it escalated.Ixudi (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ixudi

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

Alalch_E.

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 Alalch_E.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Spartaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Alalch_E. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 18/9/25 The user was warned about revert warring in contentious topics
  2. 26 July 26 edit warring in a contentious topic after I restored the outcome of an AFD as an administrative action
  3. 26/7/26 reverting the outcome of an AFD as an editorial decision while it was at drv
  4. 26/7/26 Relevant DRV discussion
Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
  1. Link to warning above
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Alalch E. Is disrupting an ongoing DRV about a BLP concerning an Indian political leader that was redirected after an AFD. The redirect was challenged by another editor and discussion remains ongoing at [[173]] and then subsequently at the DRV in the diff above. While that discussion was ongoing he reverted the AFD close to restore an article that was being challenged at the talk page as substantially the same and still having LLM traces. I restored the AFD outcome until consensus was clear. He then reverted me back and despite being warned this was a CT and reminded he had been warned about this before he refuses to undo his revert. I'm asking for appropriate action to be taken to end the disruption and endure this editor no longer revert wars in CT topics.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[174]

Discussion concerning Alalch_E.

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 Alalch_E.

I have written in the DRV, and I have also left a comment at Talk:Abhijeet Dipke#Recreated. I am satisfied with how what I have written at both places represents my position in this dispute, and I encourage administrators to read them, but I will also leave my statement here.

The accusation is that I disrupted a DRV. Both diffs are article edits. I made no edit to the DRV beyond commenting, and my comments are on-topic. I am mindful of DRV and concerned with proper conduct of process there. Proper process at DRV is DRV not pretending to be an article creation committee. Deletion review is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. The issue here is recreation of an article, with different content, months after an AfD.

At 10:49 EarthDude blank-and-redirected the article Thilsebatti had recreated (with substantial changes) that morning. EarthDude erroneously claimed that he is reimplementing the May AfD outcome (which concerned a different version). At 19:45 I contested that BLAR. At 21:05 Spartaz again blank-and-redirected the same recreation. At 21:13 I reverted that illegitimate repeat-BLAR. If a legitimate BLAR can be contested by reverting, an illegitimate repetition of one can be contested at least as readily. A single editor cannot be permitted to enforce blanking an article against good-faith opposition, out of process. No single editor can do that on Wikipedia. AfD is that way.

Neither of my edits "reverted an AfD close", and Spartaz’s edit did not restore one. The AfD close attached to the article as it stood on 29 May. What was blanked on 26 July was a different page, rewritten that morning with substantial new coverage, which I determined myself based on my independently done review (while Thilsebatti authored the changes). I am a new page reviewer and member of Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup, and I checked for LLM-related problems and did not find them. DRV does not create binding decisions based on such reviews to create/recreate an article outside of removing technical obstacles to creation (protection etc.). When (re)creation is already enabled (by default), bold editing applies, and DRV cannot hinder it.

Boldly recreating an article is a necessary part of the editorial process. One cannot enforce a blank-and-redirect after a recreation. One would have to start an AfD. A single editor is authorized to add a page, and the community may then decide to remove it. A single editor may not remove; they have one shot to try a WP:BLAR. A BLAR is not contested by talking, it is contested by reverting, and then the editor who wants the page removed must start the process to get the community’s backing. Spartaz has no special authority over content to supercharge his blank-and-redirect edits with admin-power. In Special:Diff/1366201077 Spartaz believes he did what he did as an "administrative action", which is concerning. He should more clearly see the line that separates administrative issues from content issues.—Alalch E. 00:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger I review AfC submissions as an NPP and the page has passed my review, and I had marked it as reviewed, which is a higher level of review than an AfC pass. About your description of the diff—is that a description of Special:Diff/1356700632/1366203074?—Alalch E. 00:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what The Bushranger wrote about how he believes that the edits that have blanked and redirected the article after a recreation are not the WP:BLAR-kind of blanking and redirecting, but an administrative type of action that implements an AfD consensus. It is indicative how he mentions G4 in this context. If this were originally a deletion instead of redirection, this recreation is several times over what would be required to make the recreated page G4-immune. But my standard for what constitutes a legitimately different page is far stricter than G4-ineligibility: As per my edit summary in Special:Diff/1366184905: the content is different and a good-faith attempt to overcome the reason for not having a standalone article has been made; this counts as a recreation—follow WP:BLAR: this is a contested BLAR, so do not re-redirect; if contesting this edit, start a new AfD—Alalch E. 06:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

This case is an unfortunate tangle between an admin and an experienced editor that is really about a procedural question, which is how to ask the community for consensus on whether to overturn a decision to blank and redirect an article. It seems that the editors who want to restore the article are trying three different approaches, discussion on the parent article talk page, Deletion Review, and replacing the redirect with the article. The reviewing admins have a two-part responsibility, to deal with disruptive conduct, and to clarify how to request review of an article. Different editors have different ideas on how to review the BLAR of the article, and it is as important to instruct them about the procedure as to deal with the disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EarthDude

This is the first time I've interacted with this editor and it has been quite a bizarre interaction. Alalch E had reverted twice before being warned by the filer for edit warring. However, while this AE was ongoing, Alalch E continued edit warring, by reverting to their desired version a third time.[175] After I reverted their edit, they demanded I self-revert in a pretty abrasive reply.[176] Alalch E then followed this with posting a warning on my talk page over content blanking.[177] This article dispute, after a lot of edit warring, had finally begun the process of resolution; however, Alalch E has significantly disrupted the process (especially the DRV). At the very least, they should be warned to not engage in such disruptive conduct and urged to work cooperatively with the community. — EarthDude (Talk) 07:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Alalch_E.

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Looking at the article in question, the first half, at least, is not different from the version that was AfD'd, just some words rearranged in an attempt to make it look different, and most of the second half's added content is about the party, not the person. This article should be reverted to the redirect and any recreation go through WP:AFC. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alach_E - Yes, that is the diff I was comparing. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Robert McClenon: This is the result of an AfD, not a BLAR. BLAR-ing is a bold action that is objected to by reverting (and then, if the original BLAR-er still believes redirect is appropriate, a trip to AfD). A result of "redirect" at an AfD is (as we see here) considerably more binding, and a simple reversion, or a reinstatement that doesn't significantly change the content that was AfD'd, is, functionally, G4-able by restoring the revert. The argument here is that the new content is significantly different. I don't believe so, but further input is needed. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=1136596190"