Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Ethnic groups in Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — Most edits to this page are WP:CT/CASTE violations. Cadddr (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Done Sennecaster (Chat) 22:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

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.

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 [22] 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 [23] 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: [24]. They discuss both tags explicitly here: [25] 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 [26] 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" [27] Dershowitz was only one signatory of over 500, so why did Simon title the section this way? Was this guilt by association? Here [28]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 [29]

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 [30] 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: [31] [32] [33] 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. [34]

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 [35]. The editor added why Buidhe’s warning was unwarranted: [36]

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 [37]. 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

@Rosguill@Vanamonde93 This is my first time here. Can I please have a second chance? I think you will find there won't be a problem in the future. I came here to build an encyclopedia and I will try my best to do that. I think this is very harsh. Slava570 (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

I'm involved inasmuch as I added the "disputed" tag[38] 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[39], that inline tag got reverted[40] and the tag was removed again[41]. 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

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

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: [42] which they subsequently revised to [43]. 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. [44] Slava570 introduced a paragraph calling the Academic Engagement Network a group of over 500 scholars and experts.
2. [45] I replaced this with transcluded material from Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide that I felt was more neutral.
3. [46] Slava570 significantly expanded this into a "controversies" section.
4. [47] Another editor reverted Slava570s edit
5. [48] 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

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

• [49] june 1 2026, implication that editors are " politically biased and attempting to exclude opposing viewpoints for political reasons. "
• [50] same convo, when told they were doing abf, they said they did not assume bad faith, they knew other editor was bad faithUser:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

  • Talk:International Association of Genocide Scholars#c-Slava570-20260518170800-Bluethricecreamman-20260518155100 saying that i was "threatening" to use procedure to exclude WP:OR on a "technicality"User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 517#c-Slava570-20260525125600-AndyTheGrump-20260525123100 may 25 2026, claim that disallowal of wp:or was WP:Bring me a rock after at least 3 other editors showed grave concerns 1 2 3, then a bit of polemic The article is about 99% positive, and any perceived criticism is being disallowed. Wikipedia should not be publishing puff pieces that quash any mildly negative information

  User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:22, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 517#c-Slava570-20260527155300-81567518W-20260527154400 may 27 2026, in response to claims Jewish insider might be biased and inflammatory for claiming antisemitism There's nothing inherently inflammatory about calling something antisemitic or racist or xenophobic, etc. Your opinion is that it doesn't apply. (personally galling after being told im threatening when vring up policy) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

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

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

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

  Vanamonde93, is the proposal here a TBAN from PIA or a more narrow subject area? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

  I would prefer a PIA-wide TBAN over a narrower TBAN. But given my lack of time I will not oppose any course of action. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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 [51] [52].

This has all the characteristics of WP:GAMING.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification to user

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.

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

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

• I'm inclined to agree with Chicdat's assessment: reviewing JasonGen's early edits, I am highly confident that they are not a sleeper account for a sockmaster, at which point concerns about GAMEing their way into XC status, 5 years after creating their account and 300 edits since reaching XC, become somewhat moot. That aside, the three areas of concern that they identify (the edit to Leo Frank and its edit summary, the apparently disproportionate response to Alansohn at NCAG, and the seemingly spurious accusations of AI use) seem pertinent, and I would hope to see a response from JasonGen rather than judging them in absentia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

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.

> 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

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

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

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

• Given the prior logged warning, I think a TBAN from the Russo-Ukrainian War and its subtopics is the only real option here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

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.

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

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"

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

• My impression is that this report is underripe. TylerBurden may well be correct that the content at Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support is not properly framed and/or WP:UNDUE, but I don't see Talk page discussion that would make any of Yevrowl's edits in the initial report appear outright tendentious. The diffs identified by Lacanic are much more concerning, but they're from entire years and hundreds of edits ago; that would be a cause for concern if the edits highlighted by TB were of the exact same quality and using the same sources, but they're not. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

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.

What exactly am I supposed to answer to here? This is another case where the same three editors are throwing everything at the wall, hoping something sticks.

I thought my nomination of MVBW's userpage falls under BANEX, because I found at least two BLPVIOs on it, as I explained in the AfD thread. If it is a violation, then per ArbCom "everyone gets one" and now I understand that it was a violation.

The second diff is presented dishonestly by Uhoj. I urge everyone to go and read the talk page comment I reverted, the TA said: This is not neutral, I understand you trying to help Ukraine cause, but by promoting Nazi Ukrainian POV, whitewashing and genocide denying, trying to normalize usage of Nazi Ukrainian flag you only promote Ukrainian crimes and Ukrainians as Nazi collaborators, genociders and criminals Is that a constructive contribution by a TA?

MVBW is whitewashing Nazis, fascists and Nazi-collaborators. He has already been blocked by ArbCom for genocide denial. Just two days ago he removed the category "Fascists in Ukraine" from Stepan Bandera with the comment He is not defines as a fascist in the lead or infobox. "Fascism" has specific meaning. Bandera is described as a fascist in the body of the article and his values and ideology described as fascism. This is a clear provocation and testing of boundaries. These aren't isolated incidents, MVBW has a history of downplaying Nazi collaborators, genocide denial, removing "neo-nazi" labels from notorious neo-nazis, and so on.

Helpful Cat is an SPA who has been hounding me, trying to get me sanctioned at every turn. Every ArbCom, AN, ANI, NPOV/N, AFD, etc. thread involving me, MVBW and/or TylerBurden, Helpful Cat comes with a wall of text in defense of MVBW and TB, while asking for sanctions for me. Helpful Cat's only two interests on Wikipedia are editing about Volodymyr Zelenskyy and trying to get me sanctioned. This is a clear case of WP:HOUNDING.

TylerBurden said there's "quite the infestation" on WIkipedia. The implication being that anyone who disagrees with TylerBurden is vermin that should be removed. When I brought TylerBurden to AE the thread was closed without action and a warning. TylerBurden has been reported twice since AE by uninvolved editors for behaviour in two different CTOPs at AN/ANI: one time TB didn't participate at all, just came to do a victory lap after it was over; the second time nobody even mentioned the previous warnings/behaviour.

These three editors are clear POV-pushers and I have been POV railroaded from the moment we crossed paths. I'm not at all surprised to see them three clamoring for another sanctions on me. There are also Administrators sympathetic to their cause of wanting me sanctioned.

It was actually Voorts who closed TylerBurden's AE report with a warning, but then subsequently ignored every AN/ANI thread about TB. But he is here now to call for sanctions on me, as they do in every thread. One time I asked if there are exceptions to a TBAN for BLPVIOs, and Voorts said "no" (straight up wrong information), and another editor had to inform me that BANEX exists. It's blatant favouritism and selective application of Wikipedia policy, going so far as to give me wrong answers to questions.

@The Bushranger you say I tend to leave when I get into "hot water". Yeah, when I am clearly being piled on I leave. What else am I supposed to do? It's the same group of editors against me every time. When an editor or two do say something in my defense, or notice something isn't quite right, they are ignored. When I try to point out that it's the same editors every time, I get called out for pointing it out.

Where is the evidence of disruption in the "Russia and Ukraine" topics to warrant a TBAN? A single TBAN violation? A post saying an editor, who has been blocked by ArbCom for genocide denial and has a history of removing labels and downplaying connections with Nazis, is whitewashing Nazis? Or is it enough for 3-4 editors to get together, and simply demand an editor be sanctioned, over and over and over and over again?

I don't even edit in the "Russia and Ukraine" topic area. I noticed MVBW's edits cause those pages were on my watchlist from before (I have an interest in WWII history). A TBAN from "Russia and Ukraine" isn't going to affect me at all. What does affect me is that the community at large and ArbComs/Admins are letting a group of editors get away with hounding another editor. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 07:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

Turbo decides to return from yet another "break" and rather than recognizing their own issues, continues to deflect and blame others, with zero self awareness. It's clear they're not going to change and they need to find something else to do with their time. TylerBurden (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

Regarding TSA+'s statement: anyone can see from my edit history that I am not a SPA; I'm obviously interested in Ukraine, but also other topics, and how are my editing interests relevant? As for WP:HOUNDING, I have interacted with TSA+ only twice since their TBAN in March (on MfD and here), both times on noticeboards which are intended to be widely visible. TSA+ doesn't address the canvassing or incivility, but just exhibits the same persecution complex that has always been their response to criticism. This message shows TSA+ has no insight into their conduct and no intention to change. I think another TBAN is the minimum, but I agree with the multiple people who have suggested throughout TSA+'s editing history that they are WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. If there are really issues with MVBW or any other editor, anyone who hasn't thoroughly disqualified themselves can raise them with evidence. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 09:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Re: Placeholderer: non-RUSUKR Ukrainian history would still be WP:CT/EE if I understand correctly. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 01:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

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

In the latest episode Turbo changed my edit on a disambig. page [53]. 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 [54]

As about my another edit [55], 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 [56], 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

Turbo makes unsupported accusations about several other contributors here, on NPVNB and previously on WP:ANI. For example, they refer to this my edit [57]. But the edit summary was correct. According to the first phrase on the page, Stepan Andriiovych Bandera ... was a Ukrainian far-right leader of the radical militant faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, the OUN-B., and the infobox does not say "fascist". Importantly, we have policies and procedures in place. If anyone disagree with my edits, they are very welcome to revert them and start a discussion on talk per WP:BRD. But I am not currently involved in any unresolved content disputes. Turbo does not want to follow our procedures. They make a post with request to sanction other contributors on NPOV noticeboard (diff #1) without even trying to resolve the content issues they complain about by following normal WP:Dispute resolution. Why? Probably because they would lose the argument by following the normal procedure to resolve content disagreements. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I get the impression that the TBAN violations, which would be the clearest reason for action, are at least debatable, with the argued BANEX for #3.

Conduct issues in broader Ukrainian history that don't fall under RUSUKR aren't, to my understanding, in any CTOP. Doesn't that make the conduct concerns here fall outside the scope of this page? Placeholderer (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Re: Helpful Cat: Ah, noted Placeholderer (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

• The first of those is not related to RUSUKR. (削除) The third is not related to RUSUKR (削除ここまで). The second could be, but only in the sense of 'the "Nazi Ukrainian" phrasing is a dogwhistle for Russian propaganda' POV; it does not directly mention the conflict, just Ukrainian-Polish relations, and I'd say it's more related to the 'Subtopic of Poland' which TurboSuperA+ is not topic-banned from. (削除) This is, IMHO, a nothingburger. (削除ここまで) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
  • Regarding Helpful Cat's commentary - TurboSuperA+ has a history of, multiple times, announcing a wikibreak once they get into hot water and then immediately continuing to edit/resuming editing the very next day regardless. Given the continued inability to avoid getting into drama on this subject, perhaps the RUSUKR topic ban needs to be expanded to "Ukraninian or Russian topics" full stop, or at least "post 1939". The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Could you please explain how the third isn't related to RUSUKR? It seems very very clearly related to me. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 05:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

  The third one is clearly related to CT/AP, but strikes me as the usual "Trump + Russia" thing that has been going on since (at least) 2016, not a RUSUKR thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

  If you look at the page at the time it was nominated there's clearly a lot of Russo-Ukranian war content there so the nomination itself is a violation, as is any edit to it IMO. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 15:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

  <squints> Ah. Yeah, that's...that's blatant. Sigh. I keep hoping Turbo will do better, but at this point... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

• I think the "Ukraine topics and Russia topics" TBAN is appropriate, although I do have some concern that an editor with as much experience and who has participated at conduct boards as much as Turbo would intend to comply with such a ban given the evident lack of care towards proper conduct displayed thus far. No-showing here doesn't help either. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• Given the above, and the statement by Turbo that has no sense of reflection or possibility that their editing might not be helpful, I'm fine with a topic ban from "Ukraine topics and Russia topics". Ealdgyth (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

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

Instead of responding here, CSGinger14 has responded at the AfD and is continuing to deny the RfC consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

CSGinger14: the issues with your conduct, as I see it, are that you are bludgeoning discussions with walls of text; exhibiting battleground/ownership behavior around Ryan Call (politician); ignoring consensus/not listening; wikilawyering; accusing editors who disagree with you of acting in bad faith; and refusing to abide by clear rules (e.g., you've just blown past the word limit twice, including after you were advised that you should request an extension first and told that you wouldn't be granted one). voorts (talk/contributions) 18:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

CSGinger, you should not delete content once other editors have responded to you. Please restore it and strike through, as such: <s>strikethrough</s>. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1365813593

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.

Have been off wiki for a bit taking a WP:BREATHER. Response'll be up by tonight, thanks for patience. Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Responding first to @Voorts's most recent update on my responses at the AfD (diff). What I said is correct. It is still supported by other parts of WP:NPOL. That isn't negated, as you seem to suggest, by the determination made in the RfC. There's no reason to press that point further unless it's to make the claim that I'm engaging in either WP:OWN or WP:DICC, which would be a radical misinterpretation of those statements. I'd otherwise like an explanation of why you'd still be advancing a point I've repeatedly disproven.

'

The AfD was closer to immediate determination, my responses were no WP:WALL, I wasn't editing prolifically in spite of this proceeding, and I only made 3 edits totaling a 1500 character change all within a 20 minute span of each other, performing none thereafter. Moreover, I had to go to urgent care like 12 hours after posting the WP:BREATHER message cause I got glass in my eye, so was out of commission for a few days on that account anyway. Given I have a word limit and five different claims made against me I have to respond to, I thought it best to avoid this discussion until after my pain med regimen finished. I'm still in classes and juggle work and family matters on top of it, so I'd appreciate it that you not raise up my WP:CHOICE not to engage when I didn't feel I could do so in best fashion as a policy violation.

Further response will be posted shortly,

CSGinger14 (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Rosguill That is a massive misinterpretation of my statement. I stated that it locally applied to the Ryan Call article. That is a guideline on NPOL which he does fall under, even if it is simply restating WP:GNG. Nothing I said in that regard was false. I did not state that that applied to all state chairs in any of the replies referenced here by Voorts other than my stated interpretation of site guidelines.

'

This doesn't feel fair at all, and I don't know how I'm supposed to explain why I'm frustrated without being told "this isn't the place", "you're the focus of this inquiry", "take a break", "get over it"; especially when I only have 500 words to do it. It feels as though people are only reading half my statement then exclusively responding to and criticizing me for my frustrations.

'

If my statement barely warrants line-by-line analysis, what am I expected to respond to? The most I've gotten in response to "I know what I did was wrong, I don't challenge that I deserve punishment for it, but ask that some simple acknowledgement be made of the acceptable limits of other users' conduct" is WP:BRIE or WP:BAIT, which I never claimed were invalid. I have not once argued that I'm not accountable for my actions. I presented them in the context of my WP:AUTISM, but I never said that I wasn't accountable. That seems to be the only argument really advanced to justify not granting an extension, which I don't feel is reasonable.

CSGinger14 (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Rosguill Fine, stated directly: I acknowledge that my overstepping civil conduct requirements represents a valid, enforceable violation, but feel that my conduct was catalyzed by that of other editors, as explained at length above.

I appreciate your frankness and acknowledgement of my position; I will say that I stand by my statements made in this arbitration and don't regret making them. I won't dig the hole further but my commentary here already explains what my feelings are about this process and the editing culture that produced it, and nothing I argued or made reference to isn't proven by receipts. I will respectfully disengage, but will not retract my position.

CSGinger14 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

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

• It doesn't matter, in the end, if you were baited into being uncivil; it might be mitigating, but you still chose, yourself, to be uncivil. Also note that hatting parts of your comment doesn't make it not count against the word limit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• @CSGinger14: per the rules of this noticeboard, please keep all statements within your own section, thank you. Left guide (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
  • You are wildly over the word limit. Please do not reply further without requesting and receiving an extension. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• I think a logged warning to CSGinger14 to avoid WP:BLUDGEON and WP:OWN, and personal attacks is the appropriate remedy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosguill (talk • contribs) 20:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Regarding CSGinger14's reply to voorts: CSGinger14's reading of an NPOL-based exception for major local politicians is not correct, as it is clear from the context of that portion of NPOL (and particularly the footnote attached to the "major local political figures" statement) that it is merely restating GNG. Further, WP:BRIE--even if CSGinger14's arguments were airtight, that doesn't give them license to WP:BLUDGEON or otherwise engage in WP:OWN behavior.

  Having skimmed CSGinger14's further fait accompli request for extension, I don't see anything that helps their case and would thus decline further requests for extension. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

  CSGinger14, the general expectation is that you will provide a justification for the diffs in the report, which you already did, and to respond to any further directly addressed questions. Your explanation made it clear that you're acting in good faith, but got carried away. Further expounding on the point is particularly ill-advised when one of the main complaints here is that your participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Call (politician) was excessive to an unconstructive degree. I would say that in general on Wikipedia, unless someone specifically prompts you for your opinion, there is almost never a reason to respond to the same discussion more than 2 or 3 times. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

  CSGinger14, I'd encourage you to reconsider your statements before you talk your way into a block. You are arguing technicalities and belaboring the point in a situation where the only thing you are asked to do is to give the acknowledgments that you already have done, and then disengage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

• A logged warning seems good here. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

• Topic banned from Taiwan since 2025 for very similar behavior.

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

Rosguill, if it's any consolation, JaredMcKenzie wasn't the most intense POV pusher trying to slant the article—for that we can look at comments by إيان, followed by Alaexis who tried to fix the problem by tilting it in the other direction instead of just reporting the original WP:CPUSH disruptors like they should have—but JaredMcKenzie was the one who continued escalating it the most afterward. Separately, I think you misread the image discussion, as they were discussing several different categories of images; only one being linked to does not retroactively change the types of images that were being discussed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

If the end result is that there are bigger fish to fry, I have no objection to working with the people making such a case to bring similar reports toward a few of the more egregious POV pushers in the area. There's no shortage of people who are trying to slant these articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Rosguill, see:

• pics showing the war's destruction of Gaza
• photos to show the destruction of the vicinity
• an image depicting the war destruction in Gaza City
• the pics should prioritise the largest physical impact and the largest Humanitarian displacement from this war
• the war would still be summed up from the unprecedented historic damages
• a Palestinian majority for damage/destruction imagery and an Israeli majority for military imagery

In addition to the general WP:SOAPBOXing that doesn't get into specifics. And for what it's worth, use of bold text is not my concern and I don't see how that would call for a warning, and if anything it distracts from the main issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1365907429

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.

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.[58] 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

@Thebiguglyalien - I didn't escalate; I made a fair proposal. One that is difficult to justify opposing as I said we should have a montage of both damages to Palestinian and israel. But veggie made plenty of disruptive replies that diverted attention away rather than engage it. They misrepresent as if I asked for Palestine-only pics. I didn't. Later they won't address proposal but start a semantics debate (saying I wrongly presumed they oppose adding Palestinian damage pics). I told them I was willing to talk to them if they addressed my proposal, but not going to engage with side topics and making dispute personal on talk as it takes away attention from proposal to something unproductive and inflammatory. That's why I disengaged.

Btw admin is offering you a warning but they expect acknowledgement. I count 4 experienced editors agreeing RGW isn't committed. Doubling down right now leaves admins with no choice. So drop the allegation, strike out your accusation of RGW in thread or you may likely risk the sanctions yourself.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

(削除) 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. (削除ここまで)

(削除) 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 - [59] and [60] 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. (削除ここまで)

(削除) 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. (削除ここまで)

(削除) 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. [61] 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. (削除ここまで) JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

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 received AE warning [62] 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. [63] 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

Please note Veggie already received an AE warning for their involvement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1356088824 Astropulse (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

While we are not here to right great wrongs, neither are we here to hide anything. Indeed, we are here to document in a neutral manner. This is really an WP:NPOV issue. Reading the TP, I see some less than civil posts by @Veggies::

• I have a feeling they just want to erase any hint of Israel suffering during the war.[64]
• The article has many illustrative images. Have you tried actually reading past the first sentence?[65]
• That's the most farcical argument I've heard, especially in light of all the pictures that the article has. No one is "censoring" anything. Stop acting so self-pitying[66]

I am seeing more useful comments from JaredMcKenzie. Looking at the first provided diff in this filing, JMK was responding to another editor when they posted: @إيان I agree it kinda resembles a bit like censorship...[67] which is a quite mild start, not an accusation. In the second diff, they were agreeing with the posts by three other editors, not on a singular POV mission.[68] Their other statements also seem mild to me – not a cause for an AE filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It is perfectly reasonable to propose adding images to the lead of an article about a war, and perfectly reasonable to disagree with it. Reading the discussion, I see a fairly typical mix of helpful and less-than-helpful edits, but one edit deserves particular attention: Thebiguglyalien's attempt to shut down the discussion in their preferred direction by threatening to report anyone who argued against it. Not only threatening it, but actually doing it. Thebiguglyalien is who this case should be about. Zero ^talk 14:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

To editor Rosguill: The talk page guidelines allow for bolding to be used "judiciously" on talk pages. That word is not defined, but please reconsider whether Jared's usage crosses the line. Zero ^talk 04:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think it would be better if Thebiguglyalien could dial back the credence they assign to their ability to reliably identify POV pushing and RGW violations based on the feedback they receive. They may not have the capacity to do that, but they could try. Doubling down on what appear to be bad faith assumptions, aspersions and threats (having looked at that discussion), is not the right way to do things in this topic area in my view. There is, and should be, a diverse set of views and some of them will cause discomfort. It's better to go the other way, let talk page processes play out and avoid trying to model the minds of other editors, which is pointless and disruptive. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

• Other than misuse of bold text, I don't see how the diffs of JMK's behavior represent anything sanctionable. If they had gone straight to the article itself to edit war their preferred imagery into the lead that would be one thing, but participating in renewed discussion of a question hardly seems inappropriate. RGW is imputed in this filing, but arguing to depict the impact of a war is not RGW (RGW would be arguing that we have to deviate from a neutral summary of RS to include photos that expose a side of the conflict that no reputable source has reported on). I'm also not seeing any evidence that JMK was arguing for the inclusion of shocking imagery (the only image actually included in any diff is File:Forced Displacement of Gaza Strip Residents During the Gaza-Israel War 23-25.jpg, which hardly seems shocking in the context of mainstream news coverage of this war). I would be inclined to issue logged warnings, for JMK regarding misuse of bold text on Talk pages, and for thebiguglyalien regarding frivolous accusations of RGW (both here and in content discussions) and the mischaracterization of JMK's image preferences as "shocking". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Thebiguglyalien, can you identify the specific images in discussion that you believe are shocking or otherwise inappropriate? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Thebiguglyalien, while I do agree that proposing actual images would have been more constructive, this doesn't change my mind about your use of the word "shocking", and I note that in the broader context of JMK's use of these phrases, they consistently refer back to proportions of coverage in RS and WP:DUE (although their discursive opponents could justifiably ask them to better clarify/substantiate their assertions of the balance of RS coverage). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Zero0000, I think that the level of bold use is definitely out of the norm and definitely needs at least an informal warning. I don't have a super strong opinion about formal vs informal warning here, noting that this should be a pretty easy pattern of behavior for JMK to avoid going forward. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

(削除) I’m starting this thread to congratulate Slainte for his tireless work in the area of GENSEX editing. (削除ここまで)

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:

• 27 April 2025
• 2 June 2025
• 20 June 2025
• 6 January 2026
• 4 February 2026

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

• 24 October 2025
• 13 July 2026
• 20 July 2026
• 21 July 2026
• 23 July 2026
• 24 July 2026

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:

• 19 July 2026
• 20 July 2026
• 20 July 2026

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

• 30 October 2025
• 5 July 2026
• 20 July 2026
• 21 July 2026

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.[69]

@Ealdgyth response forthcoming.

@Ealdgyth RESPONSE:

So, to address your last point first, I don't personally think that edit-warring is the fulcrum upon which all conduct turns, but outside of that you did ask for a wider pattern - and for that I'd ask for you to consider clicking on the diff of him being named at ARBTRANS, since it links to another user describing a much longer term set of conduct that you might find interesting or enlightening, and then consider that in the context of the much more recent-leaning timeline which I have presented to you here.

To present a wider pattern otherwise though, I'd have to request a diff extension. Perhaps this is my own fault for spreading my allegations too thinly.

Anyway, sorry this took so long. Life kinda hit like a truck, as it is wont to do.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[70]

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.

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

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
• Warning - large dump of text incoming.
• So the first set of diffs:
  • This diff (Feb 2026) is a talk page edit that is not "changing articles regarding trans women to remove or reduce the usage of their pronouns or referring to them as women"
  • This diff (Jan 2026) is just merging two sentences together, which, yes, does mean that the "she" was removed as the subject of one merged sentence, but there are still plenty of references to McDonald as "she" or "her" in the lead of the article.
  • This diff (June 2025) is merging two short sentences, which does (like the Feb 2026 example) mean that the "she" as the subject of the second merged sentence is lost. But the rest of the article still has plenty of references to Thomas as "she" or "her".
  • This diff (june 2025) does support a bit more the possibility that the aim was to reduce usages of "she" or "her", but it's an extremely short article and over a year old.
  • This diff (april 2025), the edit summary says "tighter wording", which indeed was the case, and there are, still, references to "she" and "her" throughout the article.
• So we have five diffs of the alleged removal or reduction of usages of "her" and "she" to refer to trans women that span a period of almost a year and a half, but only four of them are showing changing of pronouns, and only one (the second June 2025 diff) is it a large chunk of the article being edited (but that's on a very short article) - the rest of the four pertinent diffs involve one or two sentences in fairly full articles. I really think if you're going to show a persistent pattern, you're going to need to show an actual long-term, widespread series of diffs where the changes don't just affect one or two sentences in an article, but throughout the article.
• The next set of diffs, most of these show just one addition of a particular case to one article. Only this edit and this edit, both about Ciara Watkin, are "adding to as many articles as possible", since all the other diffs show just one addition.

• Ealdgyth Mostly agreed; however as far as I can see, this edit created an entire "Criminals" section in List of transgender people and populated it entirely with sex offenders that happen to be transgender, including a marginally notable article they created themself. Black Kite (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

• This diff shows Slàinte taking on advice and moving those individuals into other sections of the article. So, I'm not seeing dogmatic attachment to disparaging by placing in a "criminal" section. I do think an informal warning to be careful in this topic area, as it can be very difficult, but I'm still not seeing the need for more. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

• The next set of diffs, this edit to mixed-sex sports, I don't see how this is "altering the language on articles and areas regarding trans people to make them sound more combative". Like it or not, the issue IS controversial, so the heading change is not outside the realm of possible wordings. Did Slàinte try to edit war to restore their preferred wording? This diff, I'm not clear why adding "monitor her social media use" is attempting to make Ghey look more combative? This diff, while perhaps not putting Ghey in the best light, is supported by the source, and would seem a detail worth noting. Did Slàinte try to edit war in this detail? If there wasn't attempts at edit warring, I'm not seeing a big pattern of concern here.
• The last set of diffs - this diff, while changing "misgender" in the article, the edit summary says "the permission was also for legal representatives to be allowed to misgender" which makes it harder for me to think they are opposed to the phrase "misgender". This diff is removing some clear commentary (the full sentence that was removed was very unencylopedic). The other changes are perhaps a bit one-sided, but it isn't horrifically bad. It could show a pattern, but as one of three or four examples, isn't egregious. The same applies to this diff, it isn't wildly outside the bounds of possible editing. The last diff is more of the same, not wildly outside the bounds of possible editing.
• Given the above, I'm inclined that at most, we're looking at an informal warning to watch how often they remove pronouns, given that it can be controversial. I'd be more inclined to be harsher if there was more sustained evidence or evidence of edit warring, but that wasn't presented. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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 [71] [72] [73], however the battleground behavior continues through revenge templating [74] and PA-ish aspersions [75] [76] [77] 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. [78].
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)

[79] [80]

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 [81] [82] 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 [83] not surprised he has been brought twice on WP:AN3 [84] [85] and has a history of casting aspersions on editors [86] ‘’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

[87]

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.

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: [88] 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:[89]

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

I do hope you are not assuming bad faith here. Why exactly is the highlighted statement "disingenuous"? [[WP:RAJ]] does indeed only apply to the works of British ethnographers and even still I understand the importance of using newer sources hence why I have not restored the older source once it’s real age was pointed out to me. I was not aware that the book was a reprint prior to that. So what exactly is disingenuous here? Ixudi (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

(talk page stalker) I came across this edit, and I have to say I'm unimpressed by Ixudi's response. They haven't responded to the issues brought up on Talk:Maukharis of Kannauj#Blatant OR and sloppy additions after they were contested [90]. Not that I'm confident in their POV-ish, unverified reverts, but their failure to address the issues further complicates their case. To say [91] "My understanding of WP:RAJ is that in (it?) 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" is entirely disingenuous when they know about reprints [92] and have been gaming to remove sources from "non-ethnographic" topics before 28th June [93] [94] [95] [96]. I'm rather intrigued as to what this editor intends to do other than gaming the system. Furthermore, Sennecaster has firmly scrutinized their additions, and to me, these are indeed unproductive and unverified. I have quickly reviewed their contributions and found some more serious problems that need to be brought up before AE workers, such as the editor's revert treating Madra as fictitious and unadjunct to Punjab-disregarding which only highlights their WP:IDHT issue-while failing to comply with sources demonstrates another POV push. Here, further CIR concerns regarding them can be seen; the snippet in the source clearly highlights Anga, but as usual, Ixudi is unable to read and verify. Cptabhiimanyuseven •[@píng mє] 11:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

• The Encyclopedia of Ancient History: Asia and Africa So initially [the Maukharis] ruled from Gaya (early sixth century ce) and later on moved to Kanauj (middle to the end of sixth century ce) and made their presence visible in the politics of North India., compared to They were likely the original branch of the Maukharis and a later branch split off from them to establish the more prominent Maukharis of Kannauj as inserted by Ixudi. Courtesy quoting for reviewing administrators.

HerakliosJulianus's initial removal uses the edit summary "fv", and Ixudi's revert says "unexplained removal". Cptabhiimanyuseven's edit re-removes the content with an edit summary saying "unverified source". User:HerakliosJulianus, "fv" does not immediately stand out to me as meaning "failed verification", and it may not have conveyed the message you wanted to Ixudi either, so you should spell it out a little bit more or wikilink in your edit summaries going forward to help avoid possible miscommunications.

User:Ixudi, when your additions are disputed, you should not revert again after a single reply. It's not your classic 3RR edit war but you were edit warring even while discussing on the talk page, because consensus had not been achieved and the pattern of edits was replying and then reverting. I do see that WP:3O was used with success to resolve the conflict.

I've only looked at the edit warring claim on Haplogroup L-M20 and the edit history of Maukharis of Kannauj, I have not actually evaluated the concerns around the unverified claim or the other diffs at this time, but as this has sat for over a week without any administrative input I figured I should at least start chipping away. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

HerakliosJulianus's #3: Archive.org courtesy link. This is, from what I can tell, a University of London thesis by someone that studied at Banaras Hindu University, pulls from contemporaneous scholarship of the era and local historical documents written in local languages, and does not strictly fall into the same issue as a WP:RAJ described source. Calling this a Raj republication as fouling Sitush's essay is not accurate. Citing a 1937 source is not inherently wrong, either, especially if you're quoting. But if a newer source exists, Ixudi absolutely should not be using a source from 90 years ago in a fashion to support Wikivoice. And anything that is remotely a PhD thesis is not going to be reliable without careful justified review of the source, WP:THESIS explains more. I do not see that in this case, so Ixudi should not have cited that source without further justification and certainly should have looked for a more contemporary source that isn't a PhD thesis or dissertation.

Skipping point #4 as more verification that I don't have mental space to analyze.

Point 5: World History Encyclopedia, per their own Wikipedia page, says "All users may contribute content to the site, although submissions are reviewed by an editorial team before publication." They have a detailed editorial policy and clear guidelines of what they accept, but their editorial team is not specified beyond being staff members and I find that lack of transparency concerning. WHE as an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, so should be used very sparingly since Wikipedia is also a tertiary source. Ixudi is more correct here in removing this, and a source that hasn't been discussed at RSN can still be unreliable; trust me, I remove plenty of such sources at CCI. I am not about to open up the can of worms about the short description because I am not qualified or knowledgeable.

Point 6: that's a PhD dissertation that the content was cited to. When looking at the actual diff given as an example of Ixudi knowing what BRD is (and thus ignoring it on Special:Diff/1358878056 as claimed by HerakliosJulianus), Ixudi is reverting a partial removal from the infobox but not the body of the text, which is different than challenging content in the body of an article. Ixudi's removal is correct if the PhD dissertation is not justified as to why it is reliable to be cited, which the talk page has nothing. Their edit summary is not, however. I need a break before looking at Cptabhiimanyuseven's response.

I request that an uninvolved administrator with more experience in analyzing claims of ethno-POV pushing chime in. If the diffs do not hold up to Heraklios's accusations of his abysmal WP:NPOVOR and The editor keeps disrupting page from their ethno-regionalist Pov, then Heraklios needs a warning, informal or otherwise about these assertions. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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 [[97]] 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

[98]

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.

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

@Red-tailed hawk: and other responding administrators: I apologize for the gratuitous use of rollback. Please remove my rollback permission. I will not rerequest it in the next 24 months and will only do so if in the three months prior to request date I have done sustained patrolling / anti-vandalism (this condition is a suggestion). Please don't take this as a SUPERMARIO-like maneuver, this is a tangent. —Alalch E. 08:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

Thank you, User:The Bushranger, for explaining how an AFD closure to Redirect is not the same as a bold Blank and Redirect. I think that the subject editor, User:Alalch E., was acting in good faith in thinking that a redirect after AFD is equivalent to a bold BLAR, and so was in good faith trying to allow the community to decide whether to restore the redirected article. At the same time, User:Alalch E. was redirect-warring, and was pushing 3RR, and is an experienced editor who knows that edit-warring is the wrong answer to a number of questions. If the proper way to try to restore the article is now AFC rather than any of discussion at the parent article talk page, DRV, and replacing the redirect, then the reviewing admins should state that AFC is the only proper means for reviewing a draft article. User:Alalch E. was acting in very mistaken good faith and should have known better and should be admonished that future edit-warring will result in topic bans and blocks. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

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.[102] After I reverted their edit, they demanded I self-revert in a pretty abrasive reply.[103] Alalch E then followed this with posting a warning on my talk page over content blanking.[104] 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

I had opposed the creation of this article in the last AfD but now I am convinced it needs to be created.

Alalch_E. does not even edit this area so much. I believe no sanctions are warranted at this time. Wareon (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

As a matter of policy, from what I can tell, WP:BLAR points to this RfC, which found that Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting. The question here is whether there is an form of speedy redirection analogous to speedy deletion. This is a lacuna in current policy, which doesn't mention any means of speedily blanking and redirecting an article following its correction. As far as the letter and spirit of the policy indicate, any contested blanking and redirect must go to WP:AFD. I do not think that the recreated article satisfies WP:G4 and I think any deletion on those grounds would be rightly overturned at WP:DRV, though I can see how there could be a difference of opinion on that.
I disagree with The Bushranger that "the result of an AfD" is different than a BLAR. WP:BLAR is a very common result of an AfD, not a different action. What differs in these different circumstances is whether there was a consensus to implement the BLAR or if it was implemented boldly. Editors at a talk page or at AfD may come to a consensus to blank and redirect (BLAR) an article.Katzrockso (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

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
• What I would like to see a bit more of from the reported user is an explanation for why that user believes that the person's notability would have changed since the AfD, or alternatively what new there is that justifies a standalone article. That new thing could be that we have more sources now, for example, or that the target article's content now warrants a fork for reasons that arose after the close of the AfD.
  That being said, the community came to a (presumptive, pending DRV) consensus on merging based on the information at the time of the AfD. There are times where procedure for procedure's sake gets in the way and should be disregarded, but ignoring rules still requires some reasonable justification based on common sense. I would like to hear more about why that consensus is moot for being dated, or what other reasons the reported user believes that re-creation is justified. It’s just a bit hard for me to swallow the re-creation while the DRV is pending unless there's something more sourcing-wise or something really important that is now the case that was not the case when the AfD was closed. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 13:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm inclined to agree that the AfD consensus didn't actually preclude re-creation in light of subsequent coverage after reading respondent's comment. I do find the reflexive urge to blank the page a bit odd upon further reflection, because there was enough materially different.

I also think it's helpful to look in the context of the broader edit war, which looks something like this:

Upon sorting through this all, I'm no longer of the opinion that the bold restoration was itself frustrating to the DRV. There was clearly a dispute as to whether or not the article subject has become notable since the prior AfD, and forcing the community down the path of DRV as a prior restraint is not something supported by policies or guidelines. What we as a community should have done was not have let it get to edit number 30 in the back-and-forth blank-and-restore war, and someone should have just taken it to AfD. The article, when Alalch E. restored it, was materially different enough from the deleted article that a new AfD was warranted.

I disagree that the restoration in the 31st, 33rd, and 35th edit I've listed above were materially disruptive to the DRV in that light, because a DRV result is not material when the question is whether or not new sources have rendered the person warranting an article in his own right, and restraining those edits on the basis of an open DRV would fait accompli cause the DRV to be a prior restraint. However, I am concerned regarding the use of rollback in the 35th edit because it doesn't seem to be in line with WP:ROLLBACKUSE.

This is of course a bit long and rambling, and I'm not sure what to conclude here for final resolution. But it's helped me to collect my thoughts, and hopefully other admins can help weigh in on what the final answer should be. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Longewal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

Zalaraz (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. 22 October 2025 Zalaraz finishes the nomination for the World Herbal Encyclopedia AfD.
2. 22 October 2025 Orientls drops a Delete vote repeating the exact same rationale less than 60 seconds later.
3. 3 October 2025 Zalaraz edit at Today Hong Kong AfD.
4. 3 October 2025 Orientls edit at the exact same AfD exactly 6 seconds later.
5. 29 March 2025 Zalaraz talk page edit at Dhurandhar: The Revenge.
6. 29 March 2025 Orientls talk page edit overlapping within 45 seconds.
7. 25 March 2026 Zalaraz reverting an editor on Dhurandhar main article.
8. 25 March 2026 Orientls tag-teaming to revert on Dhurandhar main article within 60 seconds of Zalaraz.
9. 28 May 2026 Orientls restores an older version on Garba (dance) after days of the article being stable.
10. 28 May 2026 Zalaraz arrives within 2 minutes to fix a spelling error in Orientls's restore.
11. 29 May 2026 Zalaraz restores again to avoid the 2-revert rule.
12. [105] Evidence compilation by User:Gotitbro showing 8 more instances of coordinated overlap on CT topics.
13. Archive 372 User:UnpetitproleX documenting a solid case regarding this exact coordination.

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am reporting a pattern of coordinated editing between Zalaraz (talk · contribs) and Orientls (talk · contribs). This coordination is being used to tag-team AfDs and circumvent strict revert-rules on CTOP pages. To avoid redundant filing, I am keeping this report in Zalaraz name, but this concerns Orientls too. I have notified both about this filing.

While there is ample interaction data indicating coordination, the clearest proof is their interaction times on AfDs and article reverts.

Editing the same page within exactly 6 seconds of each other (Today Hong Kong AfD), formulating matching AfD rationales in under 60 seconds (World Herbal Encyclopedia), or tag-teaming to revert editors on CTOP articles within 60 seconds (Dhurandhar) shows a clear circumvention of dispute resolution and edit-warring policies.

Given the timestamp evidence of coordination being used to skew AfDs and circumvent edit-warring restrictions, I request administrators review this pattern and apply appropriate sanctions.

Disclosure:

• Zalaraz filed an AE report against me (result: dismissed with no action).
• Orientls filed a separate AE report against me (result: warnings for Orientls and me).

— Longewal (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Red-tailed hawk: Valid question. I chose AE because of repeated CTOP violations, which were bypassed by tag-teaming. My goal is to address that behavioral issue supported by timestamp evidence, which I think would be better suited for a review here by admins, rather than a technical CheckUser request at SPI. That was the thought process. — Longewal (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Note to admins: Zalaraz's latest comment misrepresents Black Kite's reply to UnpetitproleX.

Black Kite's response clarified (and rightly so) that introducing diffs of Orientls and Zalaraz's coordination into an AE report about my conduct was unrelated.

In fact, Black Kite had clarified earlier: "If you want to start an AE case about Orientls and/or Zalaraz (who is completely irrelevant to this case), then start a new one".

So, Zalaraz's claim that this is "re-litigating," and that admins "rejected" the evidence already is not accurate.

— Longewal (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Diff of notifying Zalaraz
• Diff of notifying Orientls

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.

The difs here have been cited in a grossly misleading manner. Let me refute the cited diffs one by one:

• Diff 1 & 2 involving October 2025: this edit came 8 minutes after the AfD was listed across multiple AfD listings,[106] contrary to "60 seconds later" as falsely claimed by Longewal.

• Diffs 3 & 4 incolving 3 October: I made my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Today Hong Kong, Tomorrow Taiwan, Day After Tomorrow Okinawa on 01:51, 27 September 2025, while Orientls made his !vote 6 days later. It is disingenuous to present the activity here as coordinating editing.

• 5, 6, 7, 8 diffs involving 26 March - 29 March on Dhurandhar: The Revenge. I edited this article since 19 March.[107] It ranked as the most viewed article in those days.[108] To claim that two editors were engaging in coordinating editing only because they were dealing with problematic edits together with dozen other editors is disingenuous.

• 9, 10 and 11 diffs involving Garba (dance) - Orientls did not edit this article for the first time on May 2026 but on 15:29, 3 October 2025. This alone proves the fact that Orientls did not arrive there for the first time after me as falsely implied by Longewal but was already editing the page for a long time. However, Longewal edited this article for the first time only to revert me.[109] Similarly, Gotitbro[110] and Unpetitprolex[111] arrived to this article for the first time only for removing the same content as Longewal. All these 3 editors had no edits to this page ever before. It is hypocritical of Longewal to yet accuse others of "arriving".

• Diff 10 and 11: These are just misleading diffs and blatant WP:PAs. They cannot be cited as evidence. By citing them, you are endorsing their battelground behavior and inviting sanctions for yourself especially when you had the logged warning just a few days ago.[112] Zalaraz (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Longewal is still doubling down with his false accusations.

This filing comes after Black Kite has already rejected evidence like this on the previous AE report against the filer by saying, "All your evidence shows is that there are a number of editors who agree with each other on certain CT/SA issues, but on the other hand there are a number of editors who also have the opposing view and edit in the same way as well."[113] and telling the editor to go to SPI or ANI instead[114]. This is simply an attempt at relitigating the same again. WP:BOOMERANG is in order, in lieu of the recent logged warning and the fact that filer narrowly escaped topic ban (proposed by Toadspike) during the last AE report. Zalaraz (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

• @Longewal: Why choose to report here and not WP:SPI? Either venue could work at some level, but I want a bit of insight as to why you've chosen to come here instead of there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Peachy1621 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

Norik History (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan—user to be enforced is not EC which is required to edit Armenia–Azerbaijan topics (AA)

1. July 9 2026 editing AA just 2 days after a notice i gave them
2. July 10 2026 discussed on a talk page about an Armenian-related topic, which is disallowed per the GS
3. July 20 2026 restored an entire Armenia-related page after a warning
4. July 26 2026 moved the Armenia-related page he was editing.

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

1. March 21 2026 (from another user). the first warning.
2. July 7 2026 i warned them, on their talk page, long after they had already begun editing AA.
3. July 27 2026 a warning that came after another AA related edit they made.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

let me know if i did this right, i filed this on a phone and this is my first arbitration enforcement request.
"if i can’t do it, edit it for me, otherwise i’m just going to restore the page anyway"

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. Notif, July 28 2026

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

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Rosguill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe, failure to comply with careful editing in compliance with guidelines and policy

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

1. LLM misuse - while this comment is not wholly written by an LLM, note the citation of a completely fake guideline, WP:NTRIGUE. When questioned, they confirmed that this was the product of asking Google what policies would help their case, and then copying the magic words. While they don't appear to have been aware that Google was in fact serving up an LLM response, this calls into question basic competence

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

1. Logged warning from Rosguill for an entirely frivolous accusation of LLM use at Talk:Battle of Lumë, as well as clear evidence of WP:MEAT/WP:CANVASS 30 June 2026
2. AE case referred to DRN by Rosguill and Sennecaster 9 July 2026

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This LLM misuse is galling given that I had to previously issue a logged warning to them for making frivolous accusations of LLM use, as listed above. DRN produced a clearer bibliography and an RFC question, at which point I decided to participate as an editor. My impression of the course of discussion since that point at both Talk:Battle_of_Lumë#RFC_on_Infobox_for_Battle_of_Lumë and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Lumë (2nd nomination) is that Magapetro mimics the format and policy-quoting of others' contributions, but does not actually understand the policies in question, and is liable to misrepresent others' arguments or ignore inconvenient text in their preferred sources on an alarmingly frequent basis (see discussion at Battle of Lumë RFC). To their credit, they apologize when I have called them out, but I don't think that excuses the repeat instances of tendentious arguments, and given the course of discussion at Battle of Lumë thus far, I do not trust that they would be nearly so deferential to an editor who isn't an admin. My overwhelming impression is that in discussion, they arrive at their conclusions first, and then contrive an argument from the sources to try to back it up (charitably; it might just be Google AI). I think that a WP:TBAN from Albanian history is needed to allow Magapetro to learn how to constructively edit in topics that they are less personally invested in. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

So first off I want to apologize to Rosguill, reviewing admins & community for any inconvenience. I dont believe i've caused much disruption but even so I apologize for the repeated mistakes search. English isnt my native language & in a high pressure dispute which went from an infobox results parameter to a AFD case I looked for an extra guidelines to support my position, my argument wasnt based off that "guidline", I already wrote my argument based on GNG and just added that which was provided by a faulty Google ai search summary without verifying it first, it wasnt careful editing on my end I can admit that, I didnt check the link before hitting publish, sorry and my first warning for accussing someone of ai use for giant walls of text was backed by another senior editor, I shouldnt deserve any sort of ban I've contributed alot to wikipedia specifically eastern european politics & history. Magapetro (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Sirfurboy: I want to address everything User:Sirfurboy said, I got the citiations at Sqepur from Google Books, I just accidentally used cite journal instead of cite book so it came out badly formatted, its a matter of bad formatting, nothing to do with LLMS, you can audit all the books & pages yourself on google books if you think anything is fabricated. About unresponsivness on the Reform UK rfc I wasnt deliberately ignoring pings I just got caught up by the whole Battle of Lume case. Also about me being an alt account or somebody else whatever Im an independent editor & you can do any SPI or CheckUser verification the admins deem necessary, or open up a case if you'd like to check, and prove I have nothing to do with anyone else Magapetro (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'd like to address some other allegations, I havent acted in bad faith or deliberately misrepresented anyones arguments and I'd like to bring up something else. The filing admin says that I "grossly misinterpreted" their position, looking at the literal text, my interpretation was completely reasonable, they said, "I'd consider an argument to just write "Serbian victory" but the inclusion of dates is a nonstarter." because Option A was was in a package/backed by those exact dates ("Serbian victory (15 November – 5 December)"), saying that Option A's parameters are "nonstarter" therefore should probably be invalidated under MOS:MILRESULT was literally a direct reflection of the text. There was absolutely zero intent to deceive anyone & I immediately apologized when @Rosguill: said they felt misrepresented. While the filer says that I'm treating it as a battleground all you need to do is look at the immediate timeline you'll see that the opposing party, User:FranéRogoz is actively conducting a systematic campaign of targeted harassment and wiki-stalking against my account. As soon as this dispute escalated FraneRogoz tracked my edit history to a biographical article I created.Ramadan Zaskoci and started an aggressive WP:AfD, as another editor said, the subject has extensive hits on Google Scholar and 100% meets WP:GNG. FraneRogoz is openly weaponizing the deletion system to retaliate against a content opponent, which is WP:BATTLEGROUND. So I ask the reviewing admins to clear my record based on the clear text of the policies and to address the systemic hounding campaign being weaponized against my account. Thanks Magapetro (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm concerned that a series of edits at Sqepur may show signs of LLM usage. E.g this edit [115] which adds a reference without title or authors, so obviously fictitious and introduces a bit of text about the dialect that seems pretty random. Other references in there are fictitious (or, charitably, incomplete). Also at page Talk:Reform UK, on 20 July a new user started an RfC with LLM generated text. I bold closed that on 21 July, but on 25 July, this user opened a very similar RfC on essentially the same question, and their text looks to me like it is LLM generated again [116]. Note how it makes all the right non specific claims whilst providing no sources, and one completely fictitious wikilink. They have been unresponsive to pinged requests for them to supply the sources they claimed exist, and this despite still editing elsewhere on the encyclopaedia. There may be a more general LLM issue here. As to whether they are connected to the user who started the previous LLM generated RFC, I have looked at their editing history but cannot see enough to take this to SPI. I'll assume in good faith, that they are unconnected. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Also see Ramadan Zaskoci (7 July), idk how far this goes back Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

[117] from Sep 2025 has markdown (see External links) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

now at ANI, WP:ANI#Disruptive collapse of RFC via inaccurate AI detectors on Talk:Reform UK Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:41, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

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