Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Gun control 2 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 15 Aug 2026 29 Aug 2026
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Requests for clarification and amendment

Shortcuts

Submitting a request for clarification or amendment

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 Request a decision be amended or rescinded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

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

Motions

Requests for enforcement

Shortcuts

This page is used to report:

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

Before participating here, please note:

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


Quick enforcement requests

Shortcut
This section is for short requests for enforcement that a single administrator could answer. This may include requests to impose a page restriction, to enforce obvious violations of an existing sanction, or to revoke extended-confirmed permissions from an editor. Any editor may also revert violations of a restriction. Full requests for an editor to be blocked, banned, or given other editor restrictions should not be made here – for those, create a new full enforcement request.
To add a quick request here, copy the following text box, click to edit this section, paste in the copied text at the bottom, and replace "Heading", "Page title", "Requested action", and "Short explanation" with full descriptions. For how a quick request should look when properly formatted, see this example request.
=== Heading ===
* {{pagelinks|Page title}}
'''Requested action''': Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated). ~~~~

Ethnic groups in Nepal

2026 Leipzig Airport drone incidents

2026 Leipzig Airport drone incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — Anonymous editor ~2026-42278-84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ignoring mulitple WP:RUSUKR warnings. ECP of page should fix. Lacanic (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. and User(s) blocked: ~2026-42278-84 (talk · contribs) blocked. for multiple ECR violations after warning. The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

~2026-42884-50

~2026-42884-50 -- Given awareness here of A-I CTOP for discussing the Twelve-day war, an ECR violation (CT/A-I). They blanked it in awareness. Warned again subsequently to stop bringing up the Twelve-day war in talk page discussions due to topic restrictions, violation #2. They blanked that and attempted to counter-warn me. This is itself violation #3, as it is not an example of a properly formed edit request, which is the only engagement with this topic they are allowed. This is also the third time now they've built up strawman arguments claiming I said something I didn't (I've never accused them of editing the Twelve-Day War article and they are well aware of that and simply do not care to understand that this is applicable EVERYWHERE, not just on the article in question, and continue to keep bringing the topic up). I'm involved in a talk page dispute with them, and cannot issue the sanction myself. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 14:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I never even expressed an interest in Twelve-Day War.
Please also see my response here (subsequently deleted by Jester). ~2026-42884-50 (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
And this is the type of gaslighting and dishonesty I've been dealing with. I'm not referring to the article, and it's clear that I'm not referring to the article -- I even said that explicitly above in literally my previous comment on this page, which presumably that you've read: I've never accused them of editing the Twelve-Day War article and they are well aware of that and simply do not care to understand that this is applicable EVERYWHERE, not just on the article in question, and continue to keep bringing the topic up. You have, in fact, repeatedly mentioned the Twelve-Day War -- you were the one who first mentioned, it and outside of me warning you to drop the topic, so far remain the only person who has mentioned it and continues to mention it, in that discussion. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 14:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
It's clear now that this is your position. It was not at all clear before. In fact, I asked you very specifically what you were talking about, and you gave a misleading and condescending response.
So at the least, very avoidable. ~2026-42884-50 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
There was absolutely nothing "misleading" or "condescending" about my response, and I've linked the diffs above for the reviewing administrators to judge that for themselves. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 14:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't think you linked to the condescending part. ~2026-42884-50 (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Funny thing: You don't even link to the alleged violation that triggered this distraction. That's weird, isn't it?
I maintain that I never showed any interest in Twelve-Day War. I merely wanted to make a point about the veracity of infobox content in THAAD, and picked the phrase at random. ~2026-42884-50 (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Y'all see what I mean? I have pretty scrupulously linked everything above; and those links themselves also contain diffs. You can see exactly where I linked the multiple violations above; and you can click through to them to see that the original warnings also contained the requisite diffs. And the argument that you "picked the phrase at random" doesn't particularly fly -- it's neither a believable "random" topic -- nor explains why you continued to keep using it after being told at least twice not to do so. If the TA can't be honest and forthright about their actions here, then they shouldn't editing. This is not behavior compatible with good faith, collaborative editing -- this is tendentious and disruptive. Simple as that. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
You linked a lot, but not the alleged violation. Why is it dishonest to point that out?
Looking at THAAD's infobox, it's the simplest item of the first list in that infobox. Maybe that's why I picked it. Honestly I didn't give it much thought, I was focused on THAAD at the time. ~2026-42884-50 (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The violation is right here. @~2026-42884-50:, remember that ECR on a topic applies to every page in every namespace. @Swatjester:, note that "awareness" is no longer required. Both of you, take a deep breath, step away from the computer for a little while, get a nice hot cup of tea, and come back with a refreshed sense of good faith and civility, and we'll all be good here. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Agreed, I'll take a break. Have fun! ~2026-42884-50 (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Sure. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Could you please point to the part describing what specifically is frowned upon? Thanks! ~2026-42884-50 (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
You mentioned the Twelve-Day War. Arbcom has determined that the Iran–Israel conflict falls within WP:CT/A-I. A-I (aka PIA) imposes extended confirmed restrictions. As (being a TA, by definition) you are not extended confirmed, you are not allowed to reference the Arab-Israeli Conflict, broadly construed, on any page in any namespace in Wikipedia, barring making simple edit requests (correcting simple facts, typos, and similar) on the talk pages of pages within the topic area. Note that ECR =/= ECP; while ECP is often used to enforce ECR (and PIA specifically mandates that), it is not always, and pages on which only part of the page falls within the topic area are usually not ECP'd preemptively. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:04, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Smg20837

Smg20837 (talk · contribs) Recurring WP:IMH ECR violations . Cptabhiimanyuseven •[@píng mє] 07:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note that diffs 2-7 there all counbt as a single "revert" as they were back-to-back edits by the user with nobody else's edits in between. Regardless, user given a warning. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
And Shahu I ECR'd indefinitely as it falls primarily under IMH. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Harry Pettit

Extended confirmed protection: Vast majority of article falls under PIA and that area has been edited by multiple non-XC users in violation of ARBPIA remedies.—BrechtBro (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

NeboRadar

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

Request concerning NeboRadar

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

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

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

  • Additional edit -

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification on Talk Page

Discussion concerning NeboRadar

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

Statement by NeboRadar

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

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

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

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

> Using TASS as source of otherwise unsubstantiated claim

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

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

Statement by Joko2468

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

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

Statement by TylerBurden

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning NeboRadar

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

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

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

Yevrowl

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

Request concerning Yevrowl

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

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

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

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

I can add that since the report, Yevrowl has more or less doubled down, being very selective about what portions from the source they choose to include in their edits as seen in this diff, contrary to WP:NPOV. A smaller issue is that despite repeated requests to stop adding WP:BAREREFS and being shown a tool to format easily on their talk page, they completely ignore this. Refusing to put in bare minimum effort in a WP:CTOP is not exactly a great sign of a collaborative editor. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Yevrowl

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

Statement by Yevrowl

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Statement by Lacanic

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Yevrowl

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

TurboSuperA+

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

Request concerning TurboSuperA+

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


Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@The Bushranger I agree with expanding the topic ban from WP:RUSUKR to "Ukraine topics and Russia topics". Uhoj (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notice delivered


Discussion concerning TurboSuperA+

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

Statement by TurboSuperA+

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

Statement by TylerBurden

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

I also support Bushranger's proposal, there seems to be an obvious capability to contribute, just not when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, where their emotions evidently get the better of them. TylerBurden (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply
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
Response to My Very Best Wishes: Given the clear WP:BATTLEGROUND approach and genuine belief that they are a victim of things such as hounding and apparently some kind of arbcom/admin/community conspiracy against them, no. This is an editor who has spent who knows how many hours trying to get people they have gotten in content disputes with blocked, all the while accusing others of being "toxic", only to go on spewing WP:PA's like the above. If there is any intention to collaborate at all, it is clearly not in the topic of Russia and Ukraine. TylerBurden (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply
There could very well be a general WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE issue, it's quite rare to see editors get sanctioned and still only try blame others for everything. I'm not going to protest an indef, but given that despite what Turbo says (not being concerned about Russia/Ukraine, apparently a topic ban won't affect them), that's where they always lose their cool. If a topic ban from this subject would result in a permanent break/retirement the problem would be solved, if they move on to something else and manage to be productive there then the problem is solved also. At a bare minimum there needs to be a wider topic ban here. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Statement by Helpful Cat

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

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

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

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

Statement by voorts

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

Statement by Joko2468

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

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

Statement by My very best wishes

In the latest episode Turbo changed my edit on a disambig. page . 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

As about my another edit , 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 , 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 . 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
  • Will Turbo work collaboratively with others? Based on their AE statement, Turbo has no such intention. Quite the opposite. Is it something limited to Russia and Ukraine subjects? Turbo said it is not. Indeed, here and on other noticeboards (like diff #1) Turbo focuses on several contributors, rather than on any actual content issues related to Russia or Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@TylerBurden. Just as Joko2468, I think that content editing by Turbo was not particularly problematic. This is all about interactions with other users. Worst of all, Turbo frequently misinterpreted their edits and complained about them, instead of resolving the disagreements in discussions. If Turbo would simply promise to avoid contributors mentioned in their statement and not complain about them in a future, this could work, but I am not sure. Most probably, Turbo would find someone else. But since Turbo did not promise this in the AE statement, he will most probably continue following the same contributors outside the Russia and Ukraine areas and do the same. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Statement by Placeholderer

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TurboSuperA+

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

JaredMcKenzie

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

Request concerning JaredMcKenzie

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

Original dispute:

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

Resumed dispute:

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

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

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


Discussion concerning JaredMcKenzie

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

Statement by JaredMcKenzie

Editors are free to discuss pics in terms of due weight or how RS widely sum up this war. Nobody should intimidate us with sanctions for that. It is also not productive for Thebiguglyalien to make ONLY one reply in the thread where they voted for no pics and jumped straight to making threats of administrative sanctions without even engaging with any of our specific proposals. 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

@Thebiguglyalien Those are WP:DUE proposals, not WP:RGW.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

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

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

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

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

Statement by Astropulse

Note: Previously edited as Cinaroot.

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

Veggies received AE warning 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. 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

Statement by Objective3000

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.
  • The article has many illustrative images. Have you tried actually reading past the first sentence?
  • 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

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… 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. 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

Statement by Zero0000

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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 04:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

Statement by ~2026-45140-41

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JaredMcKenzie

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
  • Concur with Rosguill; on the basis of the material presented here, I do not any see sanctionable behaviour by JMK. I don't see JMK's responses as completely unreasonable, when from their perspective being accused of RGWs appeared to them as an attempt to engage in a content dispute by other means. JMK being told to refrain from bolding should be clear enough. I'm in two minds on the role of the Thebiguglyalien; no doubt there's an element of good faith effort to ensure NPOV is upheld, but this particular escalation also appears as over zealous policing. However, I'd prefer to fall on the good faith side of all and see both walk away with unlogged warnings (refrain from bolding, don't preface engagement with threats of escalation). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    I'm amenable to the unlogged warning solution. signed, Rosguill talk 15:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Ixudi

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

Request concerning Ixudi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
HerakliosJulianus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
User against whom enforcement is requested
Ixudi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:CT/SA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 21 July 2026: Reinstates his abysmal WP:NPOVOR, the following excerpt “They were likely…Maukharis of Kannauj” is apparently unsupported by Wiley [accessible through WPL].
  2. Edit warred over their confusion between predominantly South Asian Haplogroup L-M20 and West Asian L1-M22 for contentious inclusion in infobox, reminded of disruptions, onus & consensus , however the battleground behavior continues through revenge templating and PA-ish aspersions 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. .
  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)

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 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 not surprised he has been brought twice on WP:AN3 and has a history of casting aspersions on editors ‘’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

Discussion concerning Ixudi

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

Statement by Ixudi

  Ixudi's statement contains 354 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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: 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:

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

Statement by Cptabhiimanyuseven

(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 . Not that I'm confident in their POV-ish, unverified reverts, but their failure to address the issues further complicates their case. To say"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 and have been gaming to remove sources from "non-ethnographic" topics before 28th June . 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

Statement by Cdjp1

I would just like to comment on how expansive Ixudi's reading of WP:RAJ (full title User:Sitush/CasteSources) seems to be. While replacing such historical sources with newer ones is what we should seek, WP:RAJ concerns such historical sources as they relate specifically to caste within the former British Raj. When looking at the "Kangra State" article as an example, Ixudi chooses to remove all historical sources, even for information that does not relate to caste, such as the date the British conquered the territory, and what the British chose to call the territory. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Result concerning Ixudi

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
I can take a look over the next couple of days; this is a bit of a fact-heavy exercise. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Red-tailed hawk courtesy followup ping.
I really don't want to leave this in limbo but my ability to handle the report is entirely dependent on how fast I can get IRL responsibilities done. I have no internet where I live until early September. If any admin or combination of admins can pick up where I left off in analyzing the diffs left in the additional comments section and looking at Cptabhiimanyuseven's diffs, I likely can do something here but fully analyzing everything will take far more time and mental energy than I have and will have for two weeks and that simply is not fair to everyone here. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Zalaraz

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

Request concerning Zalaraz

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. 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:

— 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
@Red-tailed hawk: - The diffs and descriptions provide a clear case of tag-teaming but if you're looking for a smoking gun it's their activity at the AfD for World Herbal Encyclopedia where Zalaraz finishes the nomination and here, and then somehow, within less than a minute, Orientls finds the brand new AfD page and drops a Delete vote here repeating the same rationale. No normal independent editor finds a newly created AfD and formulates a vote in under 60 seconds without off wiki coordination. I am at capacity and cannot provide further examples right now, but perhaps @Kautilya3:, @Gotitbro:, and @UnpetitproleX: who have also documented this editing pattern earlier can add more color. Reviewing technical logs is a logical next step, though I want to clarify that I am not alleging sockpuppetry, but meatpuppetry. — Longewal (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning Zalaraz

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

Statement by Zalaraz

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, contrary to "60 seconds later" as falsely claimed by Longewal.
  • 5, 6, 7, 8 diffs involving 26 March - 29 March on Dhurandhar: The Revenge. I edited this article since 19 March. It ranked as the most viewed article in those days. 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. Similarly, Gotitbro and Unpetitprolex 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. 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." and telling the editor to go to SPI or ANI instead. 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
The user has now been temporarily blocked by Rosguill for edit warring by violating the enforced BRD restriction on 2025 Pahalgam attack.Zalaraz (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Red-tailed hawk and Tamzin: Take a look at my response. I have already debunked the diffs provided by OP Longewal. I have been already through a different SPI. It is not rare in this area to see people accusing others of socking when they cannot win a content dispute. Now if we are really going to investigate coordinating editing, then the case of Longewal with UnpetitproleX makes actual sense. Even this report filed by Longewal significantly replicates the series of comments made by UnpetitproleX to defend Longewal during the last AE report. With so much apparent coordination, the best these users could do is not falsely accuse others of tagteaming but Longewal is still doing it even after Black Kite rejecting their claims.
Recently, Longewal was temporarily blocked by Rosguill for edit warring on 2025 Pahalgam attack, however, he is now engaging in WP:IDHT at Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack#August 2026 by repeatedly making efforts to derail the discussion about sources to discuss the veracity of the Indian government and the victims. He justifies it by saying, "Solid questions to be asked."
Significant problems also exists with this edit by him (made before block but after this report) where he wikihounded me to the page and is stating a BLP figure to have "lied" and engaged in "political deception". This issue was brought to BLPN where Longewal was pinged but made no response.
Note that these problematic edits, recent block and this baseless AE (that actually establishes his battleground mentality) comes after he was warned just 2 weeks ago. Zalaraz (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Statement by UnpetitproleX

I had presented evidence (here and here) relating to TAGTEAM for the purpose of meatpuppeting and editwarring by some editors (likely part of a bigger group) including Zalaraz and Orientls. Zalaraz is continuously misrepresenting Black Kite, they did not "reject [my] evidence", but rather adviced me (here) to open a fresh report specific to this behaviour and these editors either here or on a different venue. Kautilya3 had initially sounded the alarm about tag teaming in that report, without naming names, but I had been observing this collusion for some time already, so I thought it pertinent to present evidence in that report.

@Red-tailed hawk and Tamzin: In addition to the above linked evidence in that report, I am adding the following:

All of the above is in addition to the collusion on Dhurandhar:The Revenge (see article timeline and article talk page timeline, see also evidence presented by me here) and on Sati (article timeline and article talk page timeline). I was going to report this (and more) evidence eventually, but now is as good a time as any. UnpetitproleX (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Statement by Srimant ROSHAN

Teaming is quite alluding or should I say obvious, below more recent findings clear any doubt if this is just mere collision of interests but a broader and coordinated off-wiki canvassing and ergo CU is unhelpful for this case.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Zalaraz

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

Never17

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

Request concerning Never17

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:28, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
User against whom enforcement is requested
Never17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBMJ#Never17 topic banned
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Topic ban violations:
  1. 06:26, 8 August 2026
  2. 06:38, 8 August 2026
  3. 17:59, 10 August 2026
Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Never17, yes - you can update The Lion King, the Cursed Child, and any play not related to Michael Jackson, but those related to Jackson, including MJ the Musical, you have to leave for other editors.
This seems to be a misunderstanding on Never17's part about the nature of their topic ban; if they can understand and acknowledge that they cannot edit anything about Jackson, then I'm happy to withdraw the report. BilledMammal (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk:Never17#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Discussion concerning Never17

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

Statement by Never17

One page is directly updating sales figures provided by the RIAA and other global bodies on the List of best selling artists article, if such figures were updated for The Beatles, Queen or other legacy acts i would have updated them too but they were not.
One page is directly updating gross for all active musical theater productions using Broadway world, including adding Harry Potter and the Cursed Child's 351-357 Million gross revenue and ticket sales which was not present in the article. I updated every single active broadway production in the same edit - General All-Incompassing
One edit was directly updating sales figures on the list of best selling singles article to reflect new certifications that had been reported.
These are 1-1 direct edits using what's been reported on the global music / broadway theater production pages. Not a single one involves any edit related to any of his personal / topic area pages at all. I have not once edited those and have abided by the restrictions
a ban whose practical meaning is “never alter any MJ-related data anywhere on Wikipedia, not just outside his topic area or pages but even single incidentally during dataset-wide maintenance for generalized articles and statistics” should have been made unmistakably clear when imposed especially for a newer editor such as myself if this was true.

I'll say a example Broadway World updates box office every Tuesday for all of its active productions, most of the time this article remains outdated without updates (currently it is outdated in fact and needs a update). Are you telling me that i'm expected to update every other broadway production each week and simply leave MJ the Musical outdated in isolation? Never17 (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply

[Response to BilledMammal's comment:]

That should have been specified to me right from the beginning in that case, i was never aware that this ruling was that specific. As you notice i have NOT participated in any edit in his direct page series or topic area. Which means i have fully complied with those rules, i did not realize or understand that when the ruling was made that it extended to any passage in any singular article.
Since this point was made clear now, i acknowledge this ruling and understand what you meant then. I'm glad it was just now specified in detail Never17 (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Never17

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

Cbowsie

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

Request concerning Cbowsie

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
User against whom enforcement is requested
Cbowsie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Contentious topics/The Troubles and/or Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 21:43, 10 May 2021 Adds "centre-right" to infobox with edit summary of See talk page
  2. 21:17, 26 September 2022 Adds "centre-right" to infobox with edit summary of Previous refs credible and discussed before. DUP policies, particually economic, are too liberal to be classic right-wing
  3. 20:56, 29 September 2022 Adds "centre-right" to infobox with edit summary of sources set out their positions and policies indicate their position. This was debated over a year ago and agreed
  4. 03:54, 30 November 2022 Adds "centre-right" to infobox with edit summary of see previous discussions
  5. 02:07, 02 March 2025 Adds "centre-right" to infobox with edit summary of political position referenced and reflective of other sources already within. Sec title correction
  6. 22:53, 23 August 2026 Adds "centre-right" to infobox with edit summary of position with sources readded
Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

n/a

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

All the diffs referred to use a combination of four references, three of which are rejected at Talk:Democratic Unionist Party/Archive 1#Political Position 2 while the fourth is the DUP's own policies on their website so irrelevant. For the duration of the diffs, Cbowsie has made a single talk page post, in the discussion just mentioned. This comment was a complete non sequitur, since the reliability of the references has never been questioned simply that they do not support the claim Cbowsie is adding. They say The party is very much right-of-centre and the DUP, which is pro-Brexit and right of centre on many issues, which doesn't necessarily mean "center-right" since both "right-wing" and "far-right" are also "right-of-centre". Every other editor in the discussion mentioned disagrees with Cbowsie, so it remains a mystery how their single talk page post resulted in a consensus in their favour as claimed in diffs #3 and #4.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Cbowsie

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

Statement by Cbowsie

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cbowsie

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

Boutboul

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

Request concerning Boutboul

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
BrechtBro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
User against whom enforcement is requested
Boutboul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:CT/PIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 4 July 2026 Created one-sided article in controversial subject area pushing what have been called "Global Muslim Brotherhood" and "Hamas Support Network" conspiracy theories.
  2. 19 August Reinserts POV after most glaring issues have been addressed
  3. 19 August Reinsertion of POV to lead (part of a series of edits), after some edits had been made for neutrality.
  4. 24 August Prior edit to lead having been reverted, re-adds POV to lead with summary, "Following talk on NPOV noticeboard," part of a series of edits re-implementing POV in direct contravention of discussions at NPOV/N and article talk, while claiming this is per those discussions.
  5. 24 August Giving possible FRINGE opinions additional weight in an opinion section.


Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
  1. 20 April 2025 AE warning
  2. 20 April 2025 Page block in PIA with warning
  3. 6 May 2025 PIA topic ban (lifted October 2025)


Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Problems with this article have been discussed in multiple threads at article talk (notability concerns, NPOV, Background section, sentence by sentence, Using the court opinion in wikivoice, COATRACK and DUE WEIGHT), at AfD twice, and NPOV/N. Talk page also gets into other verification, source integrity and paraphrasing issues. In discussion, Boutboul has a habit of being selective in reading, here asking for a link which is already provided and then quoting me out of context. He has also mischaracterized the outcome of a RS/N discussion pertaining to the article. There are some challenges in weighting this article because I believe it is a POVFORK, some sources that contextualize it don't discuss it directly, but this has been brought up multiple times and the issues go beyond Boutboul's sourcing itself to how he uses and weights these sources, while engaging in one-sided in-text bias attribution.—BrechtBro (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of Boutboul

Discussion concerning Boutboul

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

Statement by Boutboul

Statement by Simonm223

I found out about this dispute via a noticeboard some time ago. At that time I was one of a group of editors who expressed concern that one of the sources Boutboul was using, specifically Vidino, was within the bounds of WP:FRINGE due to his ties to the Eurabia conspiracy theory. At the time I pointed out that Boutboul was being very selective in their quotations of reviews of Vidino's books to make Vidino appear better-received than they actually were. The conversation was eventually archived without consensus. However there remain, in my mind, serious and reasonable concerns over the use of a fringe source with ties to conspiracy theories to describe people who are explicitly targeted by those conspiracy theories. Boutboul has, subsequently, pushed very hard not just to use Vidino as a source but to emphasize their perspective on this marginal historical event. We should not be using explicitly Islamophobic sources to imply that Islamic groups are funding terrorism. I agree with BrechtBro that Boutboul's activity on this page constitutes WP:COATRACK although I think my sourcing concern is narrower and more specific than theirs. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Boutboul

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=1136596190"