Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive370

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

Veggies

Logged warning for Veggies for battleground conduct and personalizing disputes. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Veggies

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Cinaroot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:27, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Veggies (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

Veggies was blocked for personal attacks in Jan 2026 - after their unblock request was denied - they removed it from their talk page saying (lmao) meaning "laughing my ass off"

In a recent discussion on Gaza war - veggies tells another editor That's the most farcical argument I've heard......No one is "censoring" anything. Stop acting so self-pitying

I asked them to strike it down and follow WP:FOC - but they ignored it.

Since then they have continued to focus on editors and or attack them.

Other comments made

Have you tried actually reading past the first sentence?

I have a feeling they just want to erase any hint of Israel suffering during the war

Also I find it amusing (but not surprising) that after telling me not to use WP:OCON, you reference the Russo-Ukrainian War article with a straight face. Unnecessary sarcasm

"Unfortunately for you, you don't get to be the end-all, be-all final say on what's NPOV

Veggies shows increasing hostility as the discussion progresses. When i posted about it on their talk page today - They immediately revert it.

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
  • @asilvering I want to note that - Veggies is misrepresenting and being misleading. From the start - I have proposed to include 1 pic of Oct 7 attacks or damage from the Israeli side. Then they said Who is even arguing for a Palestinian-only gallery? The person who implicitly made the point that the "Oct 7 attacks are a very small part of the Gaza war"
Even after JaredMcKenzie said I will support one pic of Israeli damage alongside 4 pics of Palestinian/Gaza damage
Veggies continue to argue that we are advocating for Palestinian-only gallery
Veggies said So, no... a Palestinian-only gallery is not due weight. Is this disruptive behavior? 🐈Cinaroot   09:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning Veggies

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 Veggies

I think Cinaroot has some odd fascination with me. He's a user with two blocks already under his belt. a one-week forced vacation and a two-week forced vacation, both for edit-warring. Evidently, he doesn't like my tone in the discussion and thinks my talk page is actually his. When i posted about it on their talk page today [122] - They immediately revert it. If by "immediately", they mean over an hour later after I'd read it, then, sure. Apparently, Cinaroot is not aware of WP:TPO, where it's explicitly permitted to remove other people's comments entirely on one's own talk page. Apparently, that completely normal and permissible behavior was the final straw that tipped him over the edge and brought him here. I don't know what to say except, "🤷‍♂️, it's my talk page." -- Veggies (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Veggies

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

    Selbstporträt

    Closing without action. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Selbstporträt

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Riposte97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Selbstporträt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons; Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Race and intelligence
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 20:28, 24 May 2026 This edit by the user is relevant to the hot-button issue of the institutional legitimacy of the subject.
    2. 01:37, 25 May 2026 I challenged the edit.
    3. 01:39, 25 May 2026 Two minutes later, the user reverted my challenge with the editsum 'no'.
    4. 01:46, 25 May 2026 The user appears to suggest on the article talk page that my revert was not made in good faith.
    5. 01:48, 25 May 2026 I requested the user self-rev their revert of my challenge.
    6. 01:49, 25 May 2026 The user deleted my message again with the editsum 'no'.
    7. 01:53, 25 May 2026 The user denies violating BRD.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any


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

    This edit suggests they understand BRD applies.

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I am just requesting a warning to abide by the CT restrictions at this page, so that normal editing can resume. Otherwise, we will be unable to advance past the stone wall erected around this particular point. Riposte97 (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

    The user has now opened a talk page discussion, so I am content for this to be closed without action if arbs agree. Riposte97 (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    After raising this matter on their talk page, the user asked me to stay away. I'd be grateful is someone could notify them for me.

    Discussion concerning Selbstporträt

    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 Selbstporträt

    BRD has not been imposed, so there's no violation. The claimant is new on the page, and the first move made is a revert.

    The claimant had no ground to revert: I commented my edit saying that the current citations we had on the page only supported the claim I corrected. The revert invoked another citation without adding it to the page. Once added, that citation would not support the claim I corrected.

    (The "2022" changed to a "2023", or better use both citations and add "2022-2023".)

    I made a note on the talk page to explain what a real affiliation looks like.

    Then I intended to wait a bit, for I have other things to do for one hour or so.

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Selbstporträt

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • is enforced BRD active on the page? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
      Not as far as I can tell. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
      yeah, i'm good to close without action. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    • I concur with my colleagues, and I will add that even if enforced BRD was in force, I would be disinclined to action an edit that, by any reasonable reading, brought the article into closer compliance with WP:V. If better sources are available, just provide them, rather than edit-warring on the basis of their availability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

    Kautilya3

    No action. Editors advised to work collaboratively in spirit of their shared goals. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Kautilya3

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    EarthDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Kautilya3 (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. Removal of reliably sourced content without explanation and falsely claiming they themselves are reverting such action. Dismissed subsequent requests for clarification while being WP:UNCIVIL.
    2. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:PERSONALATTACK: You have even declared on your talk page that you are aware of WP:CT/SA. So you need to start acting like a grown-up. No more gaslighting.
    3. False accusation of WP:CANVASSING against an editor and then assuming that a country-based noticeboard is more likely to attract editors biased towards said country.
    4. In summary, a generally WP:UNCIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    Placed on a 'casting aspersions' sanction.

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

    Alerted another editor of WP:CT/SA.

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Kautilya3 has responded with a retributive comment, trawling through months of my edit history in an attempt to find anything to nail here, and their response is deeply misleading and often simply false. For instance, they claim that I "received a logged warning", when that was already overturned by the same admin just a few minutes later. Such issues are present across Kautilya3's retributive response. — EarthDude (Talk) 14:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Kautilya3

    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 Kautilya3

    All right, let us look at EarthDude's conduct. He had received a logged warning for edit-warring under WP:CT/SA within the last 12 months.

    In this instance, at 17:21, he wrote a talk page message stating he didn't understand why his edits were reverted. Three minutes later, he reinstated his edits, claiming "explained at talk" (which is obviously false). Reinstating disputed edits without achieving consensus is obviously the beginning of an edit-warring cycle. Next morning (in UTC), he gave me a warning message saying that my edit summaries were misleading, And, after I wrote detailed messages explaining what my edit summaries meant, he still didn't get it, but saw it fit to reinstate his edit for a second time. For an editor who routinely uses Special/Diff, it should be a simple matter to look at his own diffs and figure out what he had deleted? This is by no means mature conduct from an editor that exudes such confidence.

    We have had long term edit-warring and POV pushing issues with this editor. As a recent example, check 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. He had himself requrested WP:3O on the issue of calling Sangh Parivar "Fascist", and a volunteer editor from 3O pointed out that plurality of reliable sources was lacking. EarthDude still maintains that categorising it as "Fasicist" satisfies WP:CATDEF.

    His POV slant is exemplified by huge discussions at numerous pages: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Sangh Parivar, Hindutva (1) Hindutva (2), Jammu Praja Parishad etc. Early on my interaction with EarthDude, I had asked him how he applies the WP:NPOV policy to the kind of issues he is discussing. He refused to engage. I believe every editor in a contentious topic should strive to be an NPOV-editor. If they believe their only job is to push a POV and everybody else's job is to fight them, it is not sustainable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

    Regarding the suspected canvassed tagging, the RfC itself had a template asking us to tag them. There were good reasons to suspect the concerned editor of having been canvassed, since they never participated at WP:RSN earlier, and did not discuss the particular news source elsewhere either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

    In response to Cadddr. who suggests that EarthDude merely exaggerated the narrative given by Goodrick-Clarke rather than misrepresenting it, I should point out that EarthDude added all this content in replacement of the line that said "Much of what he wrote reflected views he had already held." which squarely contradicts everything that has been written. That line came from a book-length biography of Savarkar (the author of the book) published by the Princeton University Press, by no means a source to be taken lightly. I continue to believe that EarthDude's project is to shoot down and delegitimize all the Hindu concers that gave rise to Hindu nationalism, so that the latter can be branded as "far-right" or "fascism" or whatever. This is the battle we have been up against from the beginning. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg here. If Caddr can also read the narrative of Christophe Jaffrelot that has been cited, they can see how much the picture has been distorted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Longewal

    Disclosure: I am an uninvolved editor who's has had differences with Kautilya3 myself. However, I don't see any diff in this request for arbitration that comes close to a sanction against Kautilya3. Waste of admin-time.

    On the other hand, Earthdude's pattern of edits on Wikipedia show a clear POV-pushing stance. While I get their hate for "Hindutva," Wikipedia shouldn't be a playground for hammering one's hate-boner in every article. Their category tagging spree is a great example of that. In fact, Kautilya3 has rightly called out Earthdude's edits that violate WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:DUE, but Earthdude's hell-bent on WP:IDHT.

    After, reviewing the evidence posted against Earthdude, I am seeing a case for boomerang. Propose TBAN from WP:CT/SA for Earthdude.

    — Longewal (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Joshua Jonathan

    Two reverts from 18 and 19 april, with clear explanations ("unexplained deletion of sourced content"; the irony). The two dismissals of "subsequent requests for clarification" read like clear further clarifications. So, what's the real issue here? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Vanamonde

    Earthdude and Kautilya, you are among a relatively small group of editors who work on incorporating scholarly sources into our coverage of South Asian politics. At the risk of annoying everyone involved, might I point out that a feud between you is hurting goals you share, and allowing that the other may have a point worth considering would go a long way. Earthdude, you are being aggressive with your reverts and your labels in a way that hurts your case. Please recalibrate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Gotitbro

    Just realized that an AE had been filed for what appears to be content disputes between the editors (likely this, where I follow this from). This is surprising and unbecoming. Disclosure: Have interacted with ED at many a core India-related articles before, the general sense is of WP:RGW/WP:BATTLEGROUND regarding Hindutva and a lack of commitment to NPOV (particularly WP:LABEL as mentioned by Vanamonde above) in that contentious area (including me facing self-confessed PAs/general abrasiveness), running into disputes on every third of one's edits should already encourage self-reflection. There is also a poor (or deliberate) misunderstanding of P&G and consensus (CIR), one can point this even in the latest edits: at RSP, ED adds this for Firstpost "it cannot be used for coverage of controversial topics, especially those related to politics and social media stories, from an RfC (which they started) closure which says none of it . Of course there have been serious issues with their understanding of RfC closures previously as well . I would recommend this request be withdrawn, lest ED's own conduct be under the lens. Gotitbro (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Cadddr

    I was involved in the dispute at Talk:Essentials of Hindutva and have interacted with both editors in other places too. I generally have found the conduct of both Kautilya3 and EarthDude to be lacking, but I also think they both made points that brought a lot of value to the conversation. I agree with Vanamonde93's statement: it's quite unfortunate that these two editors, who both bring value to Wikipedia, are having a feud. I think it might be good for both Kautilya3 and EarthDude to get warnings, but I hope neither one is topic banned. I agree with Gotitbro's recommendation that the request be withdrawn.

    • On EarthDude: EarthDude seems to constantly use Wikipedia as a battleground, doesn't seem to have a good understanding of WP:NPOV, and makes aspersions against people who disagree with them. As someone who is personally strongly opposed to Hindutva, I tend to be biased in favor of EarthDude's views, but it's very clear to me that EarthDude is POV-pushing and often greatly exaggerates things to that end. The incident at WP:RSP, brought up by Gotitbro, is a good example, and I independently expressed concern about it elsewhere. EarthDude, as someone who agrees with your general point of view, I would strongly urge you to try harder to be neutral and resist the temptation to try to right great wrongs.
    • On Kautilya3: When I first read the following comment at Talk:Essentials of Hindutva, I figured Kautilya was probably right, and EarthDude was probably greatly misrepresenting the source:

      And this paragraph that you reproduced here is also WP:OR. You cite pages 43-44 of Goodrick-Clarke to claim "it was in reaction to these social-political events that Essentials of Hindutva was written". But there is nothing remotely like such an explanation in the source. This was completely made up by you and constitutes serious source misrepresentaiton.

      Moreover, this source is about a completely different subject, and has nothing to do with the book Essentials of Hindutva. ...
      — User:Kautilya3 11:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

      But when I looked at the source, I found that Goodrick-Clarke does discuss Essentials of Hindutva and describes these events as the context in which it was written. Technically, EarthDude's wording was slightly stronger than the wording used by Goodrick-Clarke, who doesn't explicitly say Essentials was written "in reaction to" these events (though he does heavily imply it). But to say that it was completely made up by [EarthDude] is a gross exaggeration and, in my view, constitutes an aspersion and a failure to assume good faith.

    Cadddr (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

    Responding to Kautilya3's response: I agree that EarthDude tends to POV-push, but I still think Kautilya3 is greatly exaggerating in this case. Regardless of whether Jaffrelot supports EarthDude's framing, Kautilya3's allegation that the addition was completely made up by EarthDude is simply inaccurate. Also, like 90% of the article, the sentence whose removal Kautilya3 was concerned about was originally added by EarthDude themself. EarthDude explained this in their very first comment and said the removal was accidental. Kautilya3 seemingly refused to AGF about that. Cadddr (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    Another suggestion: this dispute might not have escalated so quickly if Kautilya3 and EarthDude had reverted only the parts of each other's edits that they actually disagreed with. Cadddr (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

    Result concerning Kautilya3

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • All the diffs are from April except for one from 5 May. While "start acting like a grown-up" is not exactly collegial, it is the only diff that approaches being uncivil, and it's at best a marginal violation of civility. The canvassing accusation diff is, again, not the most congenial, but not blatantly uncivil. I'm not seeing a whole lot here to base any sanction on. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
      @Ealdgyth, there's been some participation since you weighed in - do you still think there is no basis for sanctions? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
      I remain in the same opinion as before, and urge both editors (the filer and the filee) to take on board Vanamonde's advice. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

    וויקיפדיון

    Blocked for ECRvio In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning וויקיפדיון

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    45dogs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    וויקיפדיון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 27 May 2026 ECR violation; non XC editors can only make constructive, uncontroversial edit requests within the Israel-Palestine topic area
    2. 28 May 2026 ECR violation; non XC editors can only make constructive, uncontroversial edit requests within the Israel-Palestine topic area
    3. 13 May 2026 ECR violation; Anti-Zionism relates to the Israel-Palestine topic area
    4. 13 February 2026 ECR violation; non XC editors can only make constructive, uncontroversial edit requests within the Israel-Palestine topic area
    5. 27 January 2026 ECR violation; the October 7 attacks relate to the Israel-Palestine topic area
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

    Alerted on talk page.

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I do not believe this editor is here in bad faith, but their editing in this topic area is against ECR.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified.

    Discussion concerning וויקיפדיון

    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 וויקיפדיון

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning וויקיפדיון

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

    Patrick.N.L

    Tempblocked for WP:DE, no prejudice against a new report if they don't get the hint. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Patrick.N.L

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Patrick.N.L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:PIA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 29 May 2026 Long WP:forum post on Talk:Gaza Genocide assailing wikipedia for ideological bias
    2. 29 May 2026 Breaks long-standing RFC consensus unilaterally and is warned and asked that they cannot break enforced BRD
    3. 30 May 2026 Reverts Butterscotch after being told of enforced BRD
    4. 30 May 2026 Inserts the exact same contested text to Gaza Genocide Denial

    Also likely gamed for 500 edits

    • Most edits are about the Israel Palestine conflict, dating back to 2007, likely preceding the establishment of WP:ARBECR
    • 6 May 2022 148 edits in the span of less than an hour
    • 25 edits in less than an hour.
    • , edits before 500 after imposition of WP:ARBECR in 2022 skirting rules to enter into the topic area.
    • Indeed gaming check tool seems to indicate massive amount of edits in a short time period around 2022, and revisions 250 to 450 are small edits corresponding to that time period.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any


    I see none

    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 24 March 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
    • also alerted by Doug Weller 28 March 2022
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    • Previously edit-warred back in 2024 in the topic area. for which he was warned
    • User sparsely interacts and edits on encyclopedia, but much of their real editing effort is in the topic area.
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested



    Discussion concerning Patrick.N.L

    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 Patrick.N.L

    Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

    Patrick.N.L's misrepresentation of sources - Stating that "The prosecutor of the ICC, Karim Khan, has also confirmed there was no legal case for genocide to bring against Israel" despite their cited source saying no such thing, rather the most he says on the subject is in reply to the question "so genocide is not off limits, you haven't ruled it out?", stating that "no crime is off limits if the evidence is there."

    The inclusion of fabricated quotes - . I'll note that it seems they at least partially considered my comment that Karim Khan never said that there was "insufficient evidence of genocide by Israel in the Gaza Strip" as they later removed the quotation marks, though the issue of the material still directly misrepresenting Khan's position & the second quote also being fabricated went unaddressed. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Patrick.N.L

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

    Quick Enforcement Requests: May 2026

    ECP for Bint Jbeil

    Protected by The Bushranger. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Because the Battle of Bint Jbeil (2026) is extremely recent (and ongoing, according to the Wikipedia page), most of the recent edits to Bint Jbeil have been related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and fall under WP:CT/A-I's extended confirmed restriction. So I think it should have ECP, at least for the foreseeable future. Cadddr (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

     Done Apologies for the "missing ping", I managed to completely miss that this was a request about the village page and not the battle's the first time. More coffee for me, and as reputedly the village was destroyed in the conflict, ECP applied indefinitely. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
    No worries, thanks! Cadddr (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

    WP:LOUTSOCKING by GLORIARUSSIYA

    Blocked 2 weeks by The Bushranger. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    The TA is currently blocked as an AE action for violating ECR in RUS-UKR topic area. Based on their edits, its obvious that GLORIARUSSIYA has been using the TA to LOUTSOCK, and is now logged back in to bypass the TAs block. See , in which GR swaps between accounts, and see also the replies on behalf of the TA on their talk page . nil nz 05:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

    And now Special:Diff/1353761089 speaks for itself. nil nz 05:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
    I am not "bypassing" the block, I am appealing the block if you could read, and an Administrator has already been called to address the issue here. Doing this is only going to add yourself into this discussion. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
    I hereby petition to ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nil_NZ for 2 weeks as they are now directly interfering with an open investigation as well as accusing me of "LOUTSOCKING" when I have just opened a "SOCKPUPPET" investigation into someone other than me who was using more than 2 accounts maliciously! Maybe you should read before you ASSUME! GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
    "This was my revision
    “Undid revision 1351977290 by ~2026-16974-91(talk) - NEVER delete other people's comments without giving a reason
    This is a phase of the broader Russo-Ukrainian war. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    The phase ended in 2022. The war didn't, but this specific phase did. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    Then why isn't this page in the Russo-Ukraine war page or vice versa? Almost like that's why I posted a thread. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
    The article says the conflict is “subsumed” but also that it ended in 2022. Thank you for acknowledging that there is a hypocritical stance on this article! ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
    I further petition that the reverter of this edit face a similar ban, as I edited my own comment. GLORIARUSSIYA will reply to this comment to confirm the ban of this wiki editor to ensure fairness across the board for all of Wikipedia’s policies. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
    Yes I edited my own comment, something needs to be done about the obviously Pro-Ukrainian bias as this violates the "neutral point of view policy". Therefore, I petition further that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:R0paire-wiki be banned for violation of this policy and reverting my own edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_in_Donbas done on my behalf by ~2026-16974-91 without permission or discussion from me. Further, this creates an environment of attack which it says should not be propagated by users.
    Further, I suggest that a "Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry" investigation be done into some of the accounts listed above and review their edits; besides this discussion and this edit I have not utilized multiple accounts as it should not be done unless absolutely necessary according to Wikipedia's policies. Nevertheless, an unnecessary ban by rogue moderators or otherwise would certainly fall in this category. However, coordination of edits and suppression of others' ideas by multiple accounts IS a violation of Wikipedia's policies. So, it is my opinion that an investigation needs to be conducted to review possible further potential violations to these aims. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)" GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
    duckmegaphone Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. GLORIARUSSIYA is also not extended confirmed and is also not allowed to edit the WP:RUSUKR topic area - note that both the named account and the TA have gone well beyond constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area in their talk page comments. User(s) blocked: GLORIARUSSIYA (talk · contribs). for the same time period as the TA. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

    Request word count restriction for AP2 RfC

    750-word limit per participant in this discussion placed. Valereee (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    An RfC was recently started about high-level descriptions of the party's ideology. A few previously-engaged editors have been dominating the conversation with large walls of text and relevant questions about sources are being missed in the sprawl. This seems like somewhere that a word count would be very helpful for focusing the conversation. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

     Done Valereee (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

    Standard CT/A-I remedies for List of people from Palestine (historical region)

    Page protected as a standard remedy. Valereee (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    This page was just created as the result of a split from List of Palestinians, which has long been a conflict area within WP:CT/A-I. I'm requesting that ECP be applied and a quick thumbs-up for the placement of the talk page template declaring that the page falls within the contentious topic area. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparley ∨ {\displaystyle \lor } {\displaystyle \lor }investigateᛅ 12:31, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

    ECP applied, and Thumbs up icon. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for the quick response Valereee. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparley ∨ {\displaystyle \lor } {\displaystyle \lor }investigateᛅ 13:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks for bringing something here that can be accomplished quickly! :D Valereee (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    Wish the same could be said for resolving the dispute that led to the split..⹃Maltazarian ᚾparley ∨ {\displaystyle \lor } {\displaystyle \lor }investigateᛅ 13:16, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    Maybe the split will help resolve it. Valereee (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    Haha, take a look at the talk page....⹃Maltazarian ᚾparley ∨ {\displaystyle \lor } {\displaystyle \lor }investigateᛅ 14:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    Oh, my. Well, maybe it'll at least divide up the focus of the arguments. Valereee (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

    Freekeh

    Warning and page protection done by The Bushranger. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 14:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    VolantCrow (talk · contribs) has twice deleted material at Freekeh and is ignoring that the section in question probably falls under contentious topics restrictions. He knows about them, but when asked to aelf-revert has refused. Tiamut (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

    User warned, page Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. Only part of the article falls under PIA but this is, alas, not its first rodeo. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

    WP:ECR violations in Adam Hamawy

    Not a quick request. File a case if desired. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Edittttor (talk · contribs) was warned in multiple past AE requests to not edit in ECR topics.

    They were the creator of the article on Adam Hamawy which at a bare minimum, contained substantial PIA content.

    They have also added/removed ECR content/citations on other pages , EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

    One of those edits linked is resolving two citation needed tags and no other edits. The other is reverting obvious vandalism and no other edits. I also believe that I have enough edits to have XC restored now, but just haven't requested it yet. This enforcement request seems like a stretch.
    There is more context here that must be said. I have informed EaglesFan37 that I felt they were WP:WIKIHOUNDING me multiple times 1,2, 3,4 for following me across multiple pages to disagree with me in discussions, reverting my edits, submitting several of my created pages for deletion, and deciding to report only me for the ECR violation that led to my rights being revoked when there were multiple editors in the conversation.
    Since the enforcement, I have avoided interacting with EaglesFan37. I have stayed away from pages EaglesFan37 was editing. I have been editing in other areas which I felt were not close to ECR topics. But here I am dragged to enforcement again by EaglesFan37. At this point I feel that this is harassment. Edittttor (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    I also believe that I have enough edits to have XC restored now, but just haven't requested it yet. And thus you do not have it and it's irrelevant. One of those edits linked is resolving two citation needed tags and no other edits. That doesn't matter, "resolving a citation needed tag:" is still a ECR violation, and this is not reverting obvious vandalism. And, as mentioned, the creation (and extensive editing since) of Adam Hamawy is a blatant violation. I'm going to ECP Adam Hamawy under WP:CT/PIA and I'm struggling to see why you shouldn't be blocked for repeated and blatant ECR violations after being throughly aware and warned at AE before. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    I was not aware that these minor edits would be against the enforcement ruling. I thought I was following the rules since I wasn't changing the content that was already there by simply resolving the citation needed tag that someone else added and by reverting what seemed like obvious vandalism from a temporary account to me.
    Not trying to be combative, but I do question if someone who has "This user supports Israel" openly on their user page can really be considered an WP:UNINVOLVED admin on the I/P issue because it creates the perception that they may be incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. I would prefer if an unambiguously uninvolved admin weighed in. Edittttor (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    I also want to voice my opinion that the addition of ECR to the whole article is definitely not appropriate. If you think it belongs in this BLP article, it should go in the section(s) that you think it would apply. Certainly Early life, Medical career, most of Physician in disaster zones, most of 2026 U.S. House of Representatives campaign, and Personal life are indisputably not relevant to the lock. Edittttor (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    My personal opinions in the real world are utterly irrelevant to my actions as an admin on Wikipedia, and the aspersion that they might be otherwise is unfounded. The article was clearly created due to Hamawy's actions in Gaza; in fact at the time the article was created, it was Hamawy's only claim to notability. It's not a coatracking case, but everything else in the article was (and arguably still is, as he has not been elected in his Congressional candidacy) ancillary to the actions-in-Gaza section. If you still believe the article should not be fully protected, I have no objection to your requesting the protection be lifted by another admin under the AE appeals process. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    It's not an aspersion to say that your publicly stated opinion on the topic creates the perception of a bias in adjudicating disputes involving those who may have other views. Whether or not there is a bias is separate from the perception of one, since your feelings are strong enough that you publicly declare them on your page. However, "The article was clearly created due to..." and "blatant violation" are definitely examples of aspersions because they ascribe intent to my actions when I have stated the opposite. I already said that I didn't think the minor edits were a violation, especially after seeing the "rough consensus of admins" here by @Guerillero, @Arcticocean, @Valereee, and @Asilvering: "extended confirmed restrictions are intended to prevent disruption by making sockpuppetry harder and by giving editors necessary experience before they edit a contentious topic." That conversation happened literally right above my enforcement ruling, so I was using that as a guide of what is and is not acceptable for me to do. I thought resolving the citation needed tag and reversing vandalism seemed to fit the description of gnoming to me, I even asked someone who commented on my enforcement how to find more information about gnoming.
    Plus, the subject of this article is notable for more than just his actions in Gaza, as reinforced by the unanimous AFD keep discussion. I don't view that editing as disruptive either, as I even participated in constructive conversation on the talk page how to include unambiguously negative information about the subject into the article. My version was the one that reached consensus and is still in the article. That's not disruptive editing. But after all this and you still think the gnoming that I've done is disruptive, so I don't see how posting an AE appeal wouldn't be considered a violation too? Edittttor (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    Extended confirmed restrictions are extended confirmed restrictions. There is no exception for "gnoming". AE is not under extended confirmed restrictions and thus requesting unprotection of a page using the process that editors are directed to use cannot be considered disruptive in any way. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Edittttor, that discussion you point to was about whether it was gaming to make gnoming edits. We were not at all talking about whether it was acceptable for pre-XC editors to edit in an ECR topic. We were talking about whether that editor had deliberately made a run of 500 mostly useless edits so that they could jump into PIA. It is unrelated to your case. You have had extended-confirmed revoked and may not make any PIA-related edits, gnoming or otherwise. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    At the time @Edittttor created the Adam Hamawy article, they did not have enough edits, and were less than one month removed from the AE in question.
    There are also these: , , , .
    I have not interacted with Edittttor since the enforcement request. I am not sure what pages they are even referring to staying away from since almost all of my edits in that time period have not been stuff they have ever edited on Wikipedia at any point, or even non-ECR pages tangential to those topics.
    Here's my XFD log User:EaglesFan37/XfD log. There are lots of articles about 2026 congressional candidates nominated for deletion.
    As I said at the time, I reported only Edittttor since they had already been warned in AE and they had made 250 edits in the span of one day following an editing dispute.
    Honestly, what's more concerning about this user's edits is their tendency to insert positive-leaning information/removing negative-leaning information onto the pages of progressive candidates, while removing positive/inserting negative information on the pages of their primary opponents. While one edit/page on it's own wouldn't be problematic, in culmination, it's a pattern of WP:ADVOCACY that I've noticed for months, and the only reason I didn't report it months ago is because of Edittttor's tendency to accuse anyone who consistently disagrees with them of conduct violations, as they did with @Slava070
    Pennsylvania-3:
    Chris Rabb (progressive): [14]
    Ala Stanford: [15][16]
    Sharif Street: [17]
    Michigan-13:
    Donovan McKinney (progressive): [18]
    Shri Thenadar: [19]
    Texas 30:
    Frederick Haynes III (progressive): [21] [22]
    Barbara Mallory Caraway: [23]
    Illinois 9
    Laura Fine: Talk:Laura Fine is easier to just link
    Daniel Biss: [24]
    Kat Abugazaleh (Most progressive): [25]
    EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    It is unclear to me why you continue to post replies to me when I have made it clear for months that I do not want to interact with you. You reported me here, but you do not need to continue to be involved.
    To respond to your newest allegations, I edit pages on subjects that I am informed on, and that is US politics. If you selectively cherry pick my edits on the topic you can make it look like I have some bias, but it is notable that you have not pointed to any edits that were non-neutral in content or well-sourced. You even shared an edit in the original complaint above where I removed vandalism on Sharif Street when he was running against what you call a "progressive." Seems to be an obvious contradiction to your point, of which there are more examples.
    I do not think I am doing advocacy, though it should be pointed out that WP:ADVOCACY is an essay which is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Edittttor (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Edittttor
    It is unclear to me why you continue to post replies to me when I have made it clear for months that I do not want to interact with you. You reported me here, but you do not need to continue to be involved.
    You had two paragraphs dedicated to me in your response. If I am directly mentioned on an admin page, I'm going to respond if I feel that what was said about me was inaccurate.
    The edit in question is not vandalism. It's an extremely controversial topic on Wikipedia and different pages use different terminology. An IP User should definitely not be changing the terminology either, but you should not be reverting it if you are not ECR (which you have been warned of at AE two previous time), and you have been warned of that. Additionally, and does not describe the Gaza genocide as a "genocide". obviously has a more negative connotation/paints Street in a more negative light than while he war that emerged between Israel and Hamas and [[Palestinian Islamic Jihad]] in gaza from the October 7 attacks as a "genocide".
    I have zero plans to reply to any further comments to this user, especially given their tendency to WP:GASLIGHT and WP:GAME. I'll let admins handle the rest of this thread. Ping me if further comment from myself is necessary. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    No one, not even you, have accused me of gaslighting before now. I was providing context to reviewers about our history together which I clearly think is relevant to your report. You brought yourself into this discussion, and continue to harass me even now with this new round of name calling. It is still not acceptable behavior to anyone, let alone someone who has repeatedly asked you to stop and to leave them alone. Edittttor (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

    Tina Dabi

    Protected 2 years by Asilvering Sennecaster (Chat) 23:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    This has been AfD'd twice in thirteen months after having been deleted twice and recreated (so four AfD's total). I feel like it may be a WP:CT/CASTE issue and may need to be bannered/edit noticed for that, but in addition to not being an expert in that CT, I'm heavily involved and am not comfortable even under any reasonable admin. Valereee (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

    I've protected, but for 2 years rather than the standard indef. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

    Appeal full article ECP of Adam Hamawy

    Appeal of ECP declined. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    The whole article was ECPed, but I don't see how this is justified when it looks like it would only possibly apply to a subsection of a section. Early life, Personal life, Medical career, etc. on an American politician's BLP seem unambiguously not ECR. I asked the admin who protected it to reconsider, and they told me to appeal, so here I am. Unsure if this is the right place though as I have never done this before. Courtesy ping to @The Bushranger, the protecting admin. Edittttor (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

    It is not possible to protect a section of an article; there seems to have been extensive disruption to that section which necessitated the protection. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    Isn't this what the "section" parameter in Template:Protection_padlock is for? Edittttor (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    No, that points at discussion on the talk page. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    No, I think that is for linking to a talk page discussion section 331dot (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    What about this? When only parts of a page fall within the area of conflict, if there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator. from Template:Contentious_topics/Arab-Israeli_editnotice @331dot, @SarekOfVulcan Edittttor (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
    It says "if there is confusion about which content is related"; there's no confusion here. Edits about the Arab-Israeli conflict aren't permitted by non-EC editors; a politician's/anyone's views about the conflict of aspects of the conflict clearly fall within the restrictions. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
    Oops, copied the wrong part. I meant this part: "If only parts of the article fall under the topic sanctions, use the section or related content optional parameter:"{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice|section=yes"}}." I just think editing the rest of the article besides that section shouldn't be locked down. Edittttor (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    If you or anyone who is not EC want to edit the rest of the article, you may make edit requests.
    That said, much of the article touches on the Arab-Israeli conflict; his opposition to the Iron Dome system used in the conflict, his work as a surgeon in the combat area, his views on the conflict; it's not just a small section at issue. I think protecting the article as a whole is entirely justified.
    Do you have any evidence other than your personal wishes that a simple notice will be sufficient to prevent non-EC persons from editing about the Arab-Israeli conflict on the article? 331dot (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    I have no idea what evidence there could possibly be for that. Edittttor (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    I would have been surprised if you had.
    I'll also note that post-1992 US politics is a contentious topic(though not under a 30/500 restriction). Edit requests generally are the best ways for non-EC users to get experience in CTOPs. There's every reason to have such protection in this case and no reason provided not to. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    I don't think "subsection of a section" applies, especially when it was noteworthy enough to be included in the lede. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

    Bananakingler

    Blocked 31h by asilvering with the block now expired. Left guide (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Bananakingler

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    TonySt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Bananakingler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb (With the standard exceptions, Bananakingler is restricted to one revert per 24 hours on any page within the Maghreb topic area, broadly construed. This remedy may be appealed after six months, and every six months thereafter.)
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 2026-06-02T13:27:03Z First revert
    2. 2026-06-02T13:55:32Z Second revert
    3. 2026-06-02T14:40:38Z Third revert
    4. 2026-06-02T15:05:03Z Fourth revert
    5. 2026-06-02T15:49:18Z Fifth revert
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
    • 2026-04-28T01:55:17Z -- Remedies posted at user's talk page
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Bananakingler (talk · contribs) who is under a 1RR restriction within the Maghreb topic area per WP:ARBMAG, has violated 3RR at Cape Three Forks (page history). --tony 16:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Bananakingler

    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 Bananakingler

    Yeah I thought reverts of vandalism is excempt.

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Bananakingler

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

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by CuckooCorey

    Closing without action - filing does not contain an appeal. No prejudice against opening a new filing that actually argues the case. I strongly suggest speaking to the banning admin before doing so. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

    Appealing user
    CuckooCorey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction being appealed
    Topic Ban
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    The Bushranger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator

    Statement by CuckooCorey

    I would like this sanction to be lifted because The Bushranger did not go through the arbitration process on WP:AE and I had no chance to argue my case. – CuckooCorey (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by The Bushranger

    Statement by Dennis Brown (involved)

    This has been going on for some time, years in fact, the swapping out of the membership numbers from a multiple sourced 5,000 to the primary sourced number of "mailing list" subscribers. It has been discussed multiple times over a long time, including a very recent discussion that clearly has a consensus. The editor was warned multiple times. Bushranger has been rather reserved in dealing with issues on this page, and (properly) sanctioning the editor only as a last resort. This appears to be the only thing they bother editing, a single purpose account fixated on puffing up the membership numbers (COI?), and not actually WP:HERE to improve the encyclopedia. If anything, stronger sanctions are required, and I would ask the reviewing admins to consider this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by CuckooCorey

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

    Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

    Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

    Result of the appeal by CuckooCorey

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • @CuckooCorey: Per WP:STANDARDSET, individual admins are allowed to unilaterally issue topic bans in contentious topics, so I see nothing procedurally improper with The Bushranger's action. Is there anything regarding the merits that you'd like to discuss in this appeal? Left guide (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    • This user failed to format the appeal correctly (I fixed it). They failed to notify the sanctioning admin as required (Left Guide fixed it). The appeal itself has no basis in policy and does not address the reason for the TBAN at all. I think we should speedily close this as declined. CoconutOctopus talk 20:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

    Zero Contradictions

    indeffed by Sennecaster as an AE action. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Zero Contradictions

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Zero Contradictions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Advocacy
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 6 Dec 2025 Adds link to personal website that houses profringe statements regarding race and intelligence.
    2. 22 May 2026 AfD !vote promotes pro-fringe views
    3. 23 May 2026 Multiple edit diff shows soapboxing about race and IQ in order to assert POV that views claiming black people have lower IQs from white people are not claims of white superiority.
    4. 23 May 2026 Promotes WP editors to refer to their profringe blog for views on eugenics.
    5. 24 May 2026 More of the same
    6. 25 May 2026 WP:POINTy use of edit summary
    7. 25 May 2026 Asserts profringe positions on race and intelligence on another editor's user talk page
    8. 26 May 2026 More of the same.
    9. 27 May 2026 Claims non-profit data-driven journalism source is a blog without reviewing about details that indicate otherwise.
    10. 27 May 2026 Asserts same source is unreliable because it "has an agenda" and is left-wing
    11. 27 May 2026 Compares same source to Reason magazine, calls it an "activist" website, claims it's "deluded" - no justification given
    12. 27 May 2026 Continues to assert source is unreliable despite presentation of evidence to the contrary
    13. 28 May 2026 More attempts to promote pro-fringe blog
    14. 28 May 2026 Continues profringe assertions of a genetic link between race and IQ at user talk
    15. 30 May 2026 Makes non-endorsement statement on the WP:NONAZIS essay complaining about anti-white racism and differential treatment of white pride from pride movements for visible minorities, complains that Great Replacement is treated unambiguously as a conspiracy theory and defends that people could hold a good-faith view that white people are more intelligent and industrious than non-white people without it being racism.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    No relevant prior sanctions.

    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    awareness template
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I do not believe this is an exhaustive list of diffs demonstrating the pattern of comportment at issue but they were the most alarming ones. Zero Contradictions has a habit of attempting to avoid Wikipedia policies surrounding advocating for fringe positions such as racialist pseudoscience by directing disputants to their blog, where they house some truly alarming statements. I'm generally not in favour of using anything off-wiki but, by using this tactic repeatedly in disputes, they make it hard to avoid referring to their off-wiki statements. With that being said the pattern of comportment regarding pseudoscience in the race and intelligence contentious topic demonstrates advocating for more favorable assessments of pseudoscientists, more narrow definitions of racism, and a whole lot of hair-splitting. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Zero Contradictions

    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 Zero Contradictions

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Zero Contradictions

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Talk:Jordan Lasker is a trainwreck, and I've alerted pretty much everyone that's been active there. Now, with that out of the way. Indeffed, first year AE. Zero Contradictions repeatedly has pointed people to an offwiki blog of theirs with their beliefs to understand their viewpoint on race and intelligence, completely circumventing how discussions work on Wikipedia in the first place. Their talk page contributions to Jordan Lasker are the opposite of approaching these topics with discretion, care, and in respect to Wikipedia policies, and combined with at least one concerning edit to Jordan Lasker itself I don't see how this person will ever be not disruptive in the topic. Considering this is also a BLP and the general style of argument (lots of sealioning), playing whackamole with a topic ban doesn't seem like it will curb disruption. The worst seems to have happened after being alerted to CTOP procedures, and it isn't even restricted to articles (multiple user talk diffs talking about their own personal beliefs). Sennecaster (Chat) 06:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

    Edittttor

    Blocked for 1 month for repeated ECR violations. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Edittttor

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    EaglesFan37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Edittttor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced

    Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli_conflict

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 3/23/2026 Added the following text to Donovan McKinney's article: In November 2023, McKinney joined two dozen other lawmakers, including State House Majority Leader Abraham Aiyash, in sending a letter to President Joe Biden to urge him to advance "a lasting ceasefire" in the Gaza war. The letter urged "the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, the adherence of all international laws, and aid to ensure that every person living in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank can live with self-determination, dignity and humanity."[1]
    2. 3/31/2026 Created Wikipedia Article on Adam Hamawy, with large portions of the article covering Hamawy's service as a doctor in the Gaza Strip in 2024
    3. 4/27/2026 Added the following text to Ala Stanford's article: Stanford has denied taking AIPAC money during her campaign, but the organization has supported her with more than $2.6 million routed through a Super PAC.[2]
    4. 4/29/2026 Further edited information related to AIPAC on Ala Stanford's article
    5. 5/3/2026 Created article on William Lawrence, included the following text: He has also sharply criticized the United States' involvement in the 2026 Iran war and support for Israel in the Gaza war, which he has called a genocide.[9][10][1]
    6. 5/10/2026 Expanded redirect for Waleed Shahid into an article. Waleed Shahid was the co-founder of the Uncommitted movement, as Editor wrote in the article In 2023, Shahid co-founded the Uncommitted movement, a protest campaign with the goal of pressuring the United States government to achieve a ceasefire in the Gaza war. He acted as the group's senior advisor.[6][10]
    7. 5/13/2026 Changed war that emerged between Israel and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in gaza from the October 7 attacks to Gaza genocide,
    8. 5/14/2026 Added citation for the following article text In March 2025, during an interview with Katie Halper, Cross referred to the state of Israel as "corrupt" and an "apartheid state.

    References

    1. Rahal, Sarah (23 November 2023). "25 Michigan lawmakers urge Biden to 'advance a lasting ceasefire'". Detroit News. Retrieved 22 March 2026.
    2. Grim, Ryan; Andreone, Julian (27 April 2026). "Despite Denials, AIPAC Is Now Funding Campaign of Ala Stanford In Philadelphia". Drop Site. Retrieved 27 April 2026.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 2/20/2026 Warned for ECR Violations
    2. 3/9/2026 ECR Removed for gaming/continued ECR violations pre-ECR
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

    See linked sanctions above

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Edittttor has repeatedly violated ECR after being previously warned at AE multiple times. Not only that, in the Adam Hamawy article, they displayed WP:OWN behavior to the extent that it received news coverage and devolved into what another editor described as "edit warring"

    If any administrators need me to clarify/expand any of my diffs, please ping me. I will not be engaging with this filing request again due to Edittttor's repeated tendency to accuse me or other users of conduct violations when they disagree with them and for repeated WP:GASLIGHT in past AE threads I've been involved in with them.

    @Sennecaster The user in question was already aware that they were not supposed to edit PIA content in articles, regardless of protection or not. . EaglesFan37 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

    Even during this arbitration case, the user in question is still editing ECR content (added sentence about Mahmoud Khalil (who is ECR protected) in reference to his detention (also an ECR protected subject). EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
    Struck through the prior context. @Edittttor's clarification makes sense (not sure why the Mahmoud Khalil stuff seemed like a new addition in the diff). Still not sure why you were requesting the restoration of an article with ECR content you added (although in fairness, a lot of the ECR content presently on the article was added by an ECR user today) to your user space. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
    removed the description of a Pro-Palestine rally as "controversial". EaglesFan37 (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Edittttor

    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 Edittttor

    I have to share some history here. I have informed EaglesFan37 that I felt they were WP:WIKIHOUNDING me many times 1,2, 3,4 5 for following me across pages to disagree with me in discussions, reverting my edits, submitting several of pages I created for deletion, and reporting only me for the ECR violation that got my rights revoked when there were multiple editors in the conversation. Since the enforcement, I have avoided interacting with EaglesFan37. I have stayed away from pages EaglesFan37 was editing. I have edited areas which I felt were not close to ECR topics. This is the third time they have brought a enforcement request against me (one closed no action). This is harassment. I have made it clear for months that I do not want to interact with them. Now they make new allegations of gaslighting...

    Their descriptions above are misleading. The news coverage is a fringe source that complained editors had removed a guilt-by-association attack in a BLP, when in reality we were still reaching consensus around the wording on the talk page because WP:THEREISNORUSH. My contribution to that conversation was the one that reached consensus and remains in the article now. The edit-warring accusation came from someone who agreed to the consensus and went back on it.

    As for the enforcement complaint, I have never edited an ECP article. Diff #7 I reverted vandalism by a TA. #8 are not my words so I don't know why they posted them as if they were, I resolved a WP:CITENEED tag while gnoming. #1,#4,#5,#6 are BLP for American politicians/activists that are notable for things not at all related to any ECR topic. #3/#4 are references to AIPAC, which advocates on issues besides I/P and I only mentioned their campaign contributions. Are campaign contributions I/P? I wouldn't think so. I can see how #2 is considered a violation. I created the article because I read about their relationship saving the life of my senator and thought I would be leaving out context if I didn't mention their role as a crisis doctor. In hindsight I should have just skipped that part of their bio and let another editor add that in. The article is neutrally written and unanimously survived an AFD, so I don't think this was disruptive editing.

    I didn't think my edits were a violation, especially after seeing the "rough consensus of admins" here that "extended confirmed restrictions are intended to prevent disruption by making sockpuppetry harder and by giving editors necessary experience before they edit a contentious topic." That conversation happened literally right above my enforcement ruling, so I was using that as a guide of what is and is not acceptable for me to do. I thought my minor edits fit the description of gnoming, I do not think any edits have been disruptive, and I avoided ECP pages, so I thought I was fine. An admin literally says "EC restriction is to: 1. Give new users a chance to realize there might be things they need to familiarize themselves with before they get themselves in trouble in a highly contentious topic 2. Reduce disruption because new users haven't realized the above 3. Reduce socking." This is what I was following. Asilvering told me yesterday this interpretation was incorrect. Edittttor (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

    Another misrepresentation. This resulted from merge of drafts. See WP:HISTMERGE request.. Also, is it an accurate interpretation of policy that any mention of a person is off-limits if part of their life deals with PIA? Edittttor (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
    Transparency. Edittttor (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Edittttor

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Toadspike said at the last AE thread that blocking would be the next step. The Bushranger above said that Adam Hamawy was full of ECR violations. I was the one that closed with the ECR warning originally, so I won't close this one out of fairness. Edittttor, your interpretation was indeed incorrect, and I'm glad that has been corrected, and at the barest minimum going forward you need to keep this in mind. I haven't evaluated the dispute between the two parties. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
    • I'm going to block Edittttor for a month for repeated ECR violations including this very recent one. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

    NeboRadar

    NeboRadar is reminded to ensure their edits comply with our policy on verifiability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning NeboRadar

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Joko2468 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    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. 29 May 2026 No mention of the article subject, unsourced addition (Ukrainian far-right leader)
    2. 28 March 2026, largely authored Nation Europa (organization) (presented as a pan-European far-right syndicate based in Ukraine) which was deleted in April 2026 for being entirely synthesised and failing verification (hoping administrators can access these?): , nothing on the "group"'s ideology supported by the sources; , disingenuously replaced a blog source with an irrelevant RS (this material contained an accusation against a Ukrainian intelligence service).
    3. 12 March 2026 Addition of several sources with no mention of the subject, tendentious editing, BLP violation (pro-Ukrainian reporter)
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    N/A

    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12 February 2026 (see the system log linked to above).
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Repeated tendentious synthesis despite a warning on 13 March 2026 and an ANI I brought on 28 March that wasn't brief enough to be considered. Today I took this to another ANI before being informed this was the more appropriate place for it. All these edits are on the subject of Ukraine and far-right politics (a common anti-Ukrainian propaganda narrative), with repeated verification failures most seriously entailing the expansion of a hoax article from a stub. I believe the user edits on the basis of WP:TRUTH rather than acting entirely in bad faith, nevertheless this ought to be unacceptable for a contentious topic. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

    Regarding NeboRadar's defense-- this is clear WP:TRUTH, which I informed them of on 28 March 2026. They're not leading with the sources, I think a preventative topic ban is necessary. Joko2468 (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
    Ofcourse @Vanamonde93, thank you for your time and my apologies. 28 March 2026 was actually to demonstrate that they had made "sizable" contributions to Nation Europa (organization) in case administrators couldn't access the deleted material-- these contributions were prior to the warning, I should have made that clear. I thought the Nation Europa affair was quite severe and, for me at least, this editor is out of rope (were you able to access the deleted diffs?)
    • 29 May 2026 is supposed to be regarding the reburial of Andriy Melnyk but the cited source makes no mention of him. It is instead used to shoehorn in a paragraph on the controversy about Zelenksyy naming a unit after the UPA (Melnyk's rivals during WWII, regarding an association with Heroes of the UPA) and the Polish fallout. On a less serious note the material on Bandera is in fact present in the source cited to the previous sentence but NeboRadar paraphrased "Vereshchuk declined to answer whether a reinterment of Stepan Bandera is being planned" to The government refused to answer whether the repatriation of Stepan Bandera was also planned (Banderite is a Russian propaganda term for the post-2014 Ukrainian government and this is a very sensitive subject). This appears to me a tendentious representation of the source.
    Joko2468 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Vanamonde93, the edit on Melnyk was made at 12:20 UTC and the TVP article they cite in their defense was apparently published at 14:34 UTC (right click, view page source, and ctrl+f for "datePublished"). This appears to have been original synthesis. Joko2468 (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
    I see, there's from before the edit which mentions it tangenitally at the end. It's very possible there's more in other languages. Joko2468 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
    Ping Vanamonde93. Joko2468 (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
    @NeboRadar, I'm happy with that, best of luck with your future edits. Joko2468 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    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

    1. For the following diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andriy_Melnyk_%28officer%29&diff=1356720163&oldid=1356718844

    I added: "The government refused to answer whether the repatriation of Stepan Bandera was also planned." This is mentioned in the article linked in the previous line "Vereshchuk declined to answer whether a reinterment of Stepan Bandera is being planned.", originally reported by Interfax-Ukraine: "At the same time, the speakers avoided answering whether Stepan Bandera is planned to be reburied."

    I then added "The reburial as well as Zelensky's decision to name the Independent Special Operations Center "North" after the Heros of the UPA provoked outrage in Poland." Perhaps the source used in that case was not the best example, but I do dispute the idea that this is tendentious synthesis. Generally, it just needed a better source, rather than its removal by Joko2468 entirely. Here is what the Polish TVP world is reporting, which was clearly the context in which I was adding the message - ie. "The reburial forms part of a broader effort". : "Zelenskyy signed the decree on May 26, describing it as a measure to restore “the historic traditions of the national army” and recognise the unit’s role in defending Ukraine’s independence.

    The decision, however, comes amid a broader effort by the presidential administration and political elites to elevate nationalist symbols and historical figures that have become more prominent in Ukraine’s wartime narrative.

    A day earlier, Zelenskyy attended the reburial of Andriy Melnyk, a wartime nationalist leader whose remains were repatriated from Luxembourg, telling mourners that Melnyk had “returned to a different Ukraine.”

    https://tvpworld.com/93536957/zelenskyy-upa-decree-sparks-poland-ukraine-dispute

    2. Yeah happy to concede on that one, although the claim that an ideology video published by an account directly shared by members of the group was "AI slop" itself seems tendentious.

    3. For the following 12 March 2026 Addition of several sources with no mention of the subject, tendentious editing, BLP violation (pro-Ukrainian reporter)

    Caolan Robertson, for the sources I added: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/its-ok-to-be-white-anti-immigration-activist-lauren-southern-in-australia/kniv7ic5j - Robertson is directly mentioned here "Ms Southern's tour producer Caolan Robertson on Friday said" https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350590444/powerstation-vandalised-after-cancelling-lauren-southern-and-stefan-molyneux-event - An video interview with Robertson is at the top of this article. https://www.1news.co.nz/2018/08/03/hope-nz-enjoys-shariah-alt-right-speakers-agent-responds-to-having-their-auckland-event-at-the-powerstation-cancelled-last-minute/ - Robertson is directly mentioned here: "In light of the cancelled appearance, Southern's agent Caolan Robertson sent a message to the NZ Herald over Twitter saying "Hope New Zealand enjoys shariah".

    I also added these two sources for a statement regarding the russian state response to Robertson entering the Kursk region. Previously, the only source on this was "The Bulwark", an organisation Robertson is directly affiliated with. https://tass.ru/proisshestviya/23123079 - Robertson is directly mentioned here https://www.gazeta.ru/army/news/2025/02/12/25073000.shtml - Also directly mentioned here

    Happy to concede on all earlier points. Since I received a warning in March I have attempted to make edits to a better level of verification and craft, but this time I made a mistake. I do apologise for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeboRadar (talk • contribs) 00:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

    • To me at least, it seemed clear from the tone and prose of the original Rzeczpospolita article, especially given its discussion of historical grievances between the two countries, and the radio interview in the articles same thread. I am willing to admit that perhaps the one source used was not enough, but this could have been resolved by just adding another, rather than removing the whole paragraph.
      Regarding the term “Banderite”, yes this is a loaded term, which I have not used at all. I included it because it was directly mentioned by Vereshchuk that there were plans to repatriate other nationalist figures such as Konovalets, while the source explicitly mentions that the reburial of Stephan Bandera was not clarified. Given her position in the Office of the Ukrainian President, and generally an official of high office, it seems reasonable to summarise this as “the government”. NeboRadar (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
      Still, I can see the issues that my edit may have caused. In the future, I’ll make sure that anything mentioned is clearly verifiable. NeboRadar (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)


    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.
    • I am struggling to parse this filing; the dates and alleged content of the diffs do not line up with anything I can see in them. Joko2468, can you please list any examples of source misuse that post-date the warning in March? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
    • I am inclined to close this with an informal warning. NeboRadar needs to cite the sources they are using, but the content does not appear to have been original research. I can read the deleted article, but given that they accept the SYNTH issues themselves, and it was before the warning, I don't see it as reasonable to sanction them for it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Joko2468, I made no mention of which source NeboRadar used, only that the content they added was available in a source. Are you arguing that it was not, ie, that at the point they added it, no reliable source reported a relationship between Melnyk's reburial and Polish government expressions of unhappiness? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
      I will close with an informal reminder unless someone objects in the next day or so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

    Guhvkkik

    Editor has been warned: consider reporting them again if the warning is ignored. Egregious BLP violations can go to AIV, rather than AE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Guhvkkik

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Guhvkkik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 01:14, 5 June 2026 Adds WP:BLP violation to List of youngest killers
    2. 22:01, 6 June 2026 Restores previous edit claiming The name of the shooter is [redacted] I checked on Wikipedia french version, despite the previous edit being reverted with a clear and unambiguous edit summary of rv WP:BLPNAME violation, doesn't get added back without consensus per WP:BLPRESTORE
    3. 22:09, 6 June 2026 Adds poorly referenced alleged perpetrator name at Killing of Kayla Rolland
    4. 22:23, 6 June 2026 More of the same at Killing of Kayla Rolland
    5. 22:33, 6 June 2026 And more of the same
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    n/a

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

    Notifed at 11:01, 5 June 2026

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Been discussed at Talk:Killing of Kayla Rolland#Name?. There are clear issues with the naming of a minor whose name rarely, if ever, appears in news reports about this.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified.

    Discussion concerning Guhvkkik

    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 Guhvkkik

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Guhvkkik

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • This is an editor with 53 edits who has never received a warning template about unsourced or BLP editing. I've given them a warning, if it continues this can just be reported to AIV. I don't see that there's any particular need for additional CTOPS tools. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Concur with Callanecc. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

    Textcurator

    Indefinitely blocked by Sennecaster as an ordinary admin action. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Textcurator

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Textcurator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    I don't understand what I'm supposed to write here exactly but this user is editing in a disruptive and tendentious way in the Israel--Palestine and BLP CTOPs, and is also just generally NOTHERE.
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    • Politically motivated deletion nominations (for which linking discussions rather than diffs because they are creations) and !votes:
    1. 31 May 11:40 SNOW keep, deletion rationale The article is primarily sourced in relation to political activism rather than scholarly or literary contributions
    2. 31 May 13:47, speedy keep per SK3, a member of the four-person United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict created by the United Nations Human Rights Council
    3. 2 June 19:22, a musician whose article notes he supports BDS, still open but clearly going to be kept
    4. 3 June 19:22, a "vocal advocate of Palestinian rights", still open but clearly going to be kept
    5. 3 June 20:33, a physician "known for his many trips to Gaza between 2010 and 2025", still open but clearly going to be kept
    6. 31 May 07:44 (Israeli corporation)
    7. 31 May 8:13 (Israeli corporation)
    8. 31 May 9:39 (controversies page for anti-Zionist organization)
      • erroneous/tendentious tagging in three biographiess of people who signed an open letter "demanding a ceasefire and an end to the killing of civilians amid the 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip":
    9. 6 June 17:48
    10. 6 June 17:35
    11. 6 June 17:24
      • Spurious arguments proposing removal of well-sourced content involving BLPs critical of Israel:
    12. 4 June 18:51
    13. 4 June 18:55
      • Bot-like talk-page edits, full of vague WP:PNG links but fundamentally lacking any meaningful content:
    14. 16 May 15:14
    15. 16 May 15:17
    16. 17 May 6:36
    17. 17 May 6:37
    18. 17 May 6:43
    19. 17 May 11:47
    20. 17 May 12:40
    collapsing excessive diffs Valereee (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    1. 17 May 15:05
    2. 18 May 18:49
    3. 18 May 21:21
    4. 20 May 18:29
      • rapid-fire low-quality editing:
    5. 28 May 18:55
    6. 28 May 19:02
    7. 28 May 19:07
    8. 28 May 19:11
    9. 28 May 19:14
    10. 28 May 19:18
    11. 28 May 19:22
      • Spurious rapid-fire cn tagging of sourced, uncontroversial content:
    12. 2 June 21:18
    13. 2 June 21:19
    14. 2 June 21:21
    15. 2 June 21:21
    16. 2 June 21:22
    17. 2 June 21:24
    18. 2 June 21:25
    19. 2 June 21:26
      • Pointy tagging:
    20. 15 January
      • Restoring bizarre vandalism:
    21. 10 January
    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

    In brief, I don't think anyone who edits like this should be permitted in contentious areas, or maybe anywhere on Wikipedia. They mix robotic editing, much of which is disruptive or bizarre, with POINTY tagging, deletion, and pseudo-discussion activities. All their votes at AfD invoke policies in a way that is untethered to reality and consistently confuses other editors; their votes and nominations on articles that have some connection to Israel or Palestine are 100% predictable based on ideological valence. (If the article contains or refers to some kind of criticism of Israel, they are for deletion, whereas if it is about an Israeli company or contains criticism of an anti-Zionist organization, they are for keeping.) I included above only diffs where this resulted in an absurd argument or a position roundly rejected by other participants, but the pattern holds for deletion nominations/votes that might turn out coincidentally to align with consensus: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Who_Profits_Research_Center, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faed_Mustafa, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_Loewenstein_(2nd_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rui_Costa_Pimenta, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Imad_Aqel_(Palestinian_militant); even Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baghdad_Soft_Drinks_Co (article says Pepsi Cola had been the only cola in Iraq since the mid-1960s Arab League boycott of israel, because of Coke's investments in Israel). (I believe this pattern includes 100% of their deletion nominations/votes since achieving EC status, as of the time I compiled this evidence yesterday, with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debbie_Lynch-White, which was also roundly rejected (and the subject shares a family name with this guy but maybe just a coincidence); apologies if I missed something.) --JBL (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Textcurator

    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 Textcurator

    Statement by Sean.hoyland

    Yes, Textcurator is an interesting account. Maybe a glimpse of the future of account behavior in the topic area. You can see their grant acquisition pattern here and get a filtered view of their revisions in the topic area here (using the checkboxes). I would be interested to hear how LLMs (possibly with machine translation) fit into their workflow. And it would be helpful if they could explicitly state their objectives. If, for example, their objective is to promote certain things (at Golan Heights for example) and suppress/erase other things (via AfDs for example), they should just say so openly. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Textcurator

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • @JayBeeEll:; a few things procedurally just in case you need to file an AE report again. We limit everyone to 20 diffs and 500 words, and Sanction or remedy to be enforced is what CTOP or arbitration case remedy you're asking us to enforce. Looking at the evidence, this is flat out disruptive editing (alongside no non-automated user talk page edits !!!) and I've indeffed as a normal action. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

    Valjean

    Valjean (talk · contribs) is topic banned from Donald Trump, broadly construed. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Valjean

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Valjean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Contentious topic designation
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 23 November 2021 Their response when I called them out for stealth canvassing via email about Russiagate, just to demonstrate how long this has been going on.
    2. 23 May 2026 Casting aspersions over pee tape disagreement.
    3. 28 May 2026 Casting aspersions, including a whole mass of fermented grievances and falsehoods from a PROFRINGE editor who thinks Trump can do no wrong, that all of our articles that document Russiagate matters (and how the Russians did interfere and Trump knew about it and cooperated) are all wrong, and that any criticism of Trump, no matter how well sourced, needs to be deleted. That's the kind of shit, thrown at the wall in case some part sticks, we're dealing with in the now-closed MfD, and because "some" of it "seems" to stick (and upon further examination often falls apart, but I'm not allowed to debunk it because that's "bludgeoning"), "that" part is then seen to validate the whole pile of crap and the votes are then "delete".
    4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Donald Trump Moscow tape rumor and kompromat allegations - Pee tape MFD after they moved it to mainspace, moved it back to user space. Significant bludgeoning, editors provided evidence of BLP violations/SYNTH, they cast aspersions including Their criticisms show gross ignorance of the topic, MAGA tendencies, and evidence they have not examined the sources. There's a whole lot going on at that MfD.
    5. 24 May 2026 BLP violating addition of pee tape stuff to Cover-up based on an opinion piece and two sources that don't mention a cover-up
    6. 26 May 2026 More pee tape userspace stuff
    7. 28 May 2026 - me laying out the BLP issues with just a sliver of their editing at Steele dossier which they've inflated by over 20,000 words.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2018#c-Coffee-2018-01-29T03:09:00.000Z-American_politics_2 - Blocked a week for civility violations 28 Jan 2018
    2. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2019#c-Awilley-2019-04-14T20:15:00.000Z-American_politics_2 - Subject to a one year no personal comments sanction on 14 April 2019
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    • Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 19 January 2024
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    They have been pushing a POV for years dealing with Trump, Russia, and urine for years. While doing so they violate NPOV, BLP, SYNTH, and a bunch of other acronyms while casting aspersions against any editors they disagree with. Their enormous output makes it near impossible to repair the damage caused, as one editor at the MfD put it, It's also taken 750+ words and more than an hour's work to explain how these sources have been synthesised to form a compound claim which is not directly supported by any of them. For one claim in one sentence. It is not reasonable to expect the community to have to expend the effort required to do this across the whole 25,000+ words of this draft. This is the same problem with the 28000+ word Steele dossier. This is disruptive, eats up huge amounts of community time, and needs to stop.

    Even now they continue to cast aspersions. Barkeep49, do you see that topic ban covering the 16, 20, and 24 elections? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    Ealdgyth, here's another example from Steele dossier.
    The source does not provide the timeline for Before the Crossfire Hurrican team received dossier material on September 19, 2016 and the prose attempts to downplay the effect of the Steele dossier on the FISA warrants issued. At some point [this primary source was used used to WP:SYNTHesize this claim (wikiblame can't find the diff), so instead of being unsourced it's synthesis, still dealing with a BLP. Valean also added it to Carter Page's article including the unsourced timing and with a completely synthesized summary, In summary, the dossier formed a "smart part"[63] of the evidence, "not the majority",[109] yet, like the proverbial "last drop", it was just what was needed to push them "over the line"[66] to make that decision. That's how it "played a central role"[66] in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page. That section is 500 words of the 3780 word article, or about 13% of the article on a BLP for Valjean to use synthesis to prove their point about the dossier. In the Steele dossier article it is under the heading Conspiracy theories and claims about dossier subheading Claim it was "a significant portion" of FISA application, both headings added by Valjean, despite what they wrote in their synthesized summary at Carter Page.
    This took over an hour to look at one line from one article, and then discover that it's actually multiple articles and worse than I originally expected. There's about 27500 words in Steele dossier I haven't looked at yet.
    Barkeep49, would a normally construed Trump topic ban cover the Steele dossier's role on the FISA warrants on Carter Page? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

    Discussion concerning Valjean

    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 Valjean

    Green tickY Extension granted to 1000 words. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    .
    Start with the "three questions", then "short" version". For even more evidence and RS content, read the "long" version. The whole page doesn't take more than five minutes to read. I have nearly 400 mainstream RS just on this topic. The entire pre-dossier history has not been documented in one place. The sources are scattered, but still reliable. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    • SFR, I have no interest in that topic. While the infamous "pee tape" or "Moscow tape" rumor/allegation says "pee", the allegation does not claim that Trump was sexually or physically involved with the prostitutes. I have explicitly made that clear in my writings. The allegation just says that he instructed and watched them pee on the bed.
    withrdrawn
    Did it even happen? We do not know. We do know that he lied about it repeatedly, and that he used an alibi and created a timeline to show he did not sleep in Moscow at any time during the Nov. 8-10, 2013, weekend he was there, and therefore could not have been involved in the alleged "golden showers" incident in Moscow.
    That alibi was resoundingly contradicted by numerous people, including his own bodyguard's sworn testimony. who said he took Trump back to his room and left him alone there to sleep. The Senate Intelligence Committee's investigators traveled to Moscow and found that there was social activity, involving tobacco (Trump does not smoke), in Trump's room at that time.
    So Trump's own bodyguard could not provide him with an alibi. That's what RS tell us. They also describe the alibi as "phony", "false", "fake", and "a total fabrication".
    Needless to say, I have good, mainstream, RS to back up every detail here, and will provide them on demand.
    So please don't use the word "urine".
    That is not a topic that interests me or that I dwell on. I only cite what RS say, and anytime I mention synonyms is when describing the common name of the alibi rumor. That's what RS do, so don't blame me for citing them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Tamzin, that looks pretty awful when you leave out the many RS that document those words. At least be fair and provide the sourcing, because you are attributing to me what I have cited from RS.
    The Fringe theories noticeboard is the right venue. The experts there will look at my sourcing. If I have consistently misused sources, then this may indeed be a behavioral issue, but that has not been established at the right venue first. I am always willing to alter my sourcing and wording when a discussion indicates I should. I do not edit war.
    It's easy to prove a case when the foundational evidence has not been examined first.
    Three simple and short questions can easily determine whether this is fringe or not, and you seem to have rejected even looking at them. (I'll bet you won't even allow that they be mentioned.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Tamzin: A quote used by Tamzin misrepresents me. It starts with: "The night of November 8-9, before the pageant..." That content contained sourcing to justify that wording, and it should be included. Only then can we see if I goofed or not. Tamzin wrote it was a "conspiracy-theorizing passage", but with the sourcing, it's a factual description backed by sources. I'll be happy to provide the sourcing if it doesn't count too much against my word count. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Stikkyy 1: Thanks for providing the backing for the content: "describe the alibi as "phony", "false", "fake", and "a total fabrication"." Such attributed content is normally allowed. I did not misuse the sources, and they are good ones. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Stikkyy 2: You ask about "make the assertion, in wikivoice, that: "Trump lied repeatedly about the ..." Fair question. I am not sure where you are getting that quote, but in my now deleted article, that is properly sourced. It is also properly sourced on the Alibi page above, but is possibly worded a bit differently, but the sources are there for every bit of it.
    I'd be happy to source it for you, because I do not invent shit or conspiracy theories. Everyone knows I have always been one of the staunchest opposers of them at Wikipedia.
    Also, whether something is due or not is a matter of editorial judgment, and I welcome other's opinions and revise content accordingly. I'm very easy to work with. This example would have to be judged in the larger context in which it is used. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Stikkyy 3: Thanks for adding the diff. That content has one specific source for the quote. It has two notes with many RS that document the rest. In other spots, I add the attribution for the quote. I may have gotten tired of adding it many times. Sorry about that. The Alibi page is much more carefully written, even though it isn't an article, but written for TTAC, who has chosen not to respond. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Stikkyy 4: TTAC's non-response started before their block, and history tells me they will likely never respond. If it wasn't about Trump, they would respond quickly. There's is a historical pattern here, and I am not going to keep trying to get them to try to understand the matter. When someone doesn't want to know, there is no point trying to teach them. Just three little questions on the Alibi page resolve this whole thing. It's that simple. It's very simple logic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    • ScottishFinnishRadish and AndreJustAndre: The Steele dossier content about the FISA warrants can be edited. Anyone can edit it, and it can also be discussed on the talk page. This stuff is what we always do. Only if I had edit warred over it and kept it against a consensus would there be a behavioral problem. The article is right there, so go for it! I am one of myriad editors here who doesn't always get it right and does not get sanctioned for such imperfections. That's why articles start out imperfect, and they are improved over time. I welcome information that improves our knowledge base and my understanding. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Ealdgyth: Thanks for bringing this edit to my attention. I don't recall how that happened, but it's based on the historical record in RS, so I goofed up there by not including the sourcing. I'll take a look at the situation and try to rectify it. Fair enough? - -Valjean (talk) (PING me)
    • PAUSE: I am not in a place where I can stand talking about this much more right now. The pressure is unhealthy. My aspie traits are not helping, and I'm running out of words, while my critics can, cumulatively, just pile on with many more words while I have one hand tied behind my back. It's overwhelming. I would like to take a break from this board for a few days, and I hope my critics won't take advantage of that. Some normal editing will help, such as fixing the above issues mentioned by Ealdgyth. The sourcing exists. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
    • PRECEDURAL QUESTION: (I can delete this after it is answered.) How should I reply to unevidenced accusations that place words in my mouth that actually come from RS? An accusation should be accompanied by evidence. Am I allowed to debunk it, or are false/misleading statements just allowed to stand there and poisong the well against me? The answer determines whether this is a fair proceeding or a kangaroo court. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Tamzin

    (Disclaimer: I suggested SFR file this because I didn't have the time. If that seems contradictory with the following post, see q:Blaise Pascal § Quotes #2.)

    After making my comment at the MfD I became convinced that a TBAN is needed, based on Valjean's subsequent comments. As I and others said at the MfD, the idea that there's more to write on Wikipedia about the pee tape rumor is not, itself, problematic; it might even be correct. But the way Valjean talks about the subject is pure conspiracy-theorizing. For all I know he's right about the core of the matter; that's beside the point and not our job to figure out. What is very clear, though, is that he wants to use Wikipedia to publish persuasive writing making the case that the rumor is true. That was pretty obvious in the draft, and it's very obvious in the MfD. I particularly noted It was already a public secret in Russia, and Trump and a small circle around him have known about it for about three years before Steele wrote his dossier, and during the writing of the dossier, that circle's efforts to suppress the rumor finally succeeded, unlike some other Trump coverups and payoffs that occurred right before the election. Several were exposed. Trump really got pissed off at Steele. Their suppression efforts had finally "stopped" the tapes (and Trump's people did not write "alleged" before that claim) at the last moment, and here Steele wrote about what had been a secret that Trump thought he had just buried. No wonder he cannot drop the subject.

    There are other behavioral issues at the MfD, but those may be remediable with a warning. What doesn't seem likely to change is Valjean's inability to determine what is and is not a BLP violation regarding Trump. The new "False alibi" page has similar conspiracy-theorizing passages like The night of November 8-9, before the pageant, when the offered prostitutes should appear at his room, was the only time Trump was provably in Moscow for the full night, in his room part of the night, and with some time not fully accounted for.

    We've all seen this kind of writing before, on subjects like 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination. A big dump of sources that don't actually say X (and may even say the opposite of X), cited piecemeal to synthesize X. If an editor can't recognize that that's what they're doing, a TBAN is the minimum outcome likely to prevent disruption. Definitely from Trump, more likely from all of AMPOL. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

    Could an admin please respond to Carrite's personal attack? Thank you. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by AndreJustAndre

    Forgive me if this is AEPR'd and I'll delete this. You could say I've been friendly with Valjean and an anti-Trump person by ideology and actions, but there are things we don't agree on. Increasingly these days, I myself find no home in many left wing groups. But I digress. The important thing is to edit and behave neutrally and civilly, which by and large I believe Valjean does. Mainly I want to observe 1) WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies here, so I'm not very sympathetic to this WP:CRYBLP about a topic and person that has been copiously written about and addressed in many formal ways. 2) Thoughtcrime is not a thing, only behavioral and editing crimes. Valjean has always been willing to collaborate and take feedback. He and many others may believe in the pee tape being real, with good reason, but he's not written that per se. I also don't see the wisdom of deleting userspace drafts. 3) There are real gray areas about how to handle cases like this editorially or what level of detail is appropriate or what sources may be cited for what, and it's not a red line. In my experience there are also editors who would feel comfortable removing a lot of sourced material in violation of WP:PRESERVE. Personally I think tbanning Valjean would be harmful because there are many articles where editors have argued fringe points, such as the Durham special counsel investigation or Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States. I see Valjean as a voice of reason and mounting a defense of reliable material. Is there also a fringe left? Absolutely. But in my experience if you have sources and a reasonable logical argument, Valjean will collaborate and cooperate. Andre🚐 19:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

    FWIW, here's a nonpartisan fact-check of the idea that the Steele Dossier triggered the FBI investigation (it didn't) and which would corroborate the idea that it formed an important but not majority of the FISA package (per McCabe): And this in my mind is a fairly subtle point. If the argument is, Valjean was reading between the lines too much in citing primary sources such as the office of inspector general report, I bet he himself would admit that. But is he an off the map conspiracy theorist here? No, broadly, he is aligned with the Schiff Memo and what McCabe says. Andre🚐 00:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
    It's arguable that the pound of flesh thing is a PA if directed at Tamzin. I hope it wasn't, though, and I assume in good faith that is just a general turn of phrase, but maybe worth clarifying or removing/striking. Andre🚐 22:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
    I started looking through the RSP archives to see if Lawfare is considered a reliable outlet, which there well may be a case that it is. I do not know but I wouldn't assume it isn't. It is not just any old random personal blog, as it has a board, internal editoral mechanisms, etc. Andre🚐 23:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Stikkyy

    That is not a topic that interests me or that I dwell on. Almost all of Valjean's edits in the past ten years have been devoted to Trump's relationship to Russia.

    That's what RS tell us. They also describe the alibi as "phony", "false", "fake", and "a total fabrication". Assuming that User:Valjean/Sandbox/False alibi is where Valjean is getting this information from:

    If I have consistently misused sources, then this may indeed be a behavioral issue, but that has not been established at the right venue first. In the MfD: Me, Rotary Engine, and TheTimesAreAChanging have all raised concerns about the use of sources and source-text integrity. Although the article has been deleted, here's the state of the pee tape article as I first encountered it, when it was being nominated(!) at DYK. ScottishFinnishRadish has raised very similiar concerns for the Steele dossier article on WP:BLPN#Steele dossier/"Golden Showers" Show in Las Vegas. I think that it's clear that there's a gulf between Valjean and the community with regards to what sources can be used, and how they can be used for allegations against a BLP.

    As I've said on Valjean's talk page, it is clear that he has a great deal of enthusiasm for the topic, but I do not believe that Wikipedia, a WP:TERTIARY source, is the best conduit for his writings. Stikkyy (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

    (Responding to Valjean): Indeed, if it is determined WP:DUE, then the opinions of columnists may be cited, if properly attributed. However, are the opinion columns up above sufficent to make the assertion, in wikivoice, that: Trump lied repeatedly about the rumor, and his alibi was debunked and described as "phony".[47][f] These lies have been described as an expression of his "consciousness of guilt".[m]? Stikkyy (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

    (Responding to Valjean 2): Come on man, is a Youtube video by the The Young Turks a BLP-compliant RS for the note Trump's repeated lies and debunked "phony alibi", a note that gets called upon 11 times to back a wide array of disparate claims? You already had Schreckinger cited, so my only idea for why you would add it is to WP:CITEBLOAT the claim. Stikkyy (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

    TTAC is currently blocked, which is probably why he can't respond. Stikkyy (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

    (Responding to Ealdgyth): , citation [317]. Stikkyy (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

    (Responding to Tryptofish): My understanding is that the improper use of sources, especially when it runs afoul of our WP:BLP policies, is a conduct issue, not a content issue. Valjean's edits since the MfD was closed, at User:Valjean/Sandbox/FullListPTapeRefs (which duplicates the references from the pee tape article) and User:Valjean/Sandbox/False alibi (which still uses the CAP, primary documents (Rtskhiladze v. Mueller, Memorandum Opinion), and an WP:UNDUE reliance on opinion pieces), does not convince me that he gets the locus of the problem. Stikkyy (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

    (Responding to Valjean 3): Yes, articles may be corrected by others, but it is unreasonable for your edits to have to be chaperoned. As I noted in the MfD, I would have never come across your mainspaced pee tape article if you hadn't nominated it for DYK, and since you're autopatrolled, NPP wouldn't have caught it either. Stikkyy (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Tryptofish

    An awful lot of this is over content issues that do not belong at AE, so I'm going to try to focus carefully on conduct.

    To understand this dispute, uninvolved admins should look first at the edit summary in this edit: . Another editor calls Valjean WP:NOTHERE. In response to that editor being blocked for that, SFR posted this: . SFR has a bit of a point, to the extent that Valjean has a somewhat single-minded editing interest in the topic area and has had a history of WP:SYNTH in writing content critical of Trump.

    But is Valjean engaging in disruptive conduct? Here are Valjean's responses to criticisms of his writing, over recent days: , indicating that he has no intention of recreating the page just deleted at MfD, intending instead to work with advice from other editors. And , his response to SFR at BLPN, "It was a stupid and careless error that it happened at all. As I promised in the MfD, I would never try to use that draft to create an article like it again... SFR, I really appreciate and take seriously your examination of the issues you mention. That kind of criticism and analysis from a mainstream experienced editor, whom I really respect, goes much further than a whole mass of fermented grievances and falsehoods from a PROFRINGE editor who thinks Trump can do no wrong...". Diffs of Valjean edit warring over such content: there aren't any. Of him refusing to listen to advice about content and exerting WP:OWNership: none, either.

    So what's the disruptive conduct this AE is intended to forestall? Just some bad content choices, followed by contrition and an express willingness to accept constructive criticism. Valjean is keeping a userspace list of sources, but there is zero evidence that he is going to use these sources disruptively, going forward.

    AE has a two-party rule. SFR is engaged in a debate with Valjean over this content at another website: , "Does anyone actually think this would blackmail Trump?" Not a good look. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

    , , . And please note: .

    Excluding noise, the evidence presented here boils down to two kinds of legitimate concerns: serious problems with WP:SYNTH, and excessive verbosity in content and talk replies – along with legitimate evidence of remorse and intent to refrain from disruption. Instead of trying to figure out how to restrict by topic area, admins should consider options based on namespace or conduct, such as no new page creation (or restriction to talk pages within topic area) or no badgering. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by SuperPianoMan9167

    @ScottishFinnishRadish, diff 2 has a typo; it says "23 May 2028" instead of "23 May 2026". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Carrite

    The offending userspace piece has been recently deleted. Unfortunately, some (Personal attack removed) people still want their pound of flesh.

    Leave Valjean alone. Carrite (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Robert McClenon

    I probably should say something, since I recommended that any issues about Valjean's conduct be brought here rather than trying to address them at content boards. User:TheTimesAreAChanging had filed a complaint at the biographies of living persons noticeboard that the article on the Steele dossier by User:Valjean was too long. TTAAC's report, at more than 1600 words, was itself too long to read. I said that the dispute should be filed here because the administrators here do a good job of extracting useful information and actionable knowledge from large volumes of data, and the case involves both American politics and biographies of living persons. I agree with SFR that the filibustering and bludgeoning by Valjean is disruptive, eats up huge amounts of community time, and needs to stop. I expect to be pulling together another 300 or so words in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

    I may have first become aware of concerns about Valjean's editing in July 2024 with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Archive 32, which ended with No Consensus, and is now named User:Valjean/Rumor. I became aware that Valjean has been engaging in article ownership. As the nominator noted: Editors should not use Wikipedia for content that they insist other editors are not allowed to read or discuss. Please also note the strange history at in which Valjean repeatedly blanks the page, deleting approximately 370,000 bytes, and then adds the content again.

    One of the more recent disputes about Valjean's editing was the MFD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Donald Trump Moscow tape rumor and kompromat allegations. I was initially uncertain whether the page should be kept or deleted, until Valjean continued bludgeoning, and I changed my vote to Delete. That user page had been an article until it was userfied by an AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump Moscow tape rumor and kompromat allegations. I initially did not vote, but expressed my displeasure and concern that Valjean was repeatedly deleting approximately 370,000 bytes (blanking the article) and then adding the same 370,000 bytes (the same behavior as described above). He expressed concerns about bad faith editors, but it was difficult to see a good faith reason for that (anti)pattern. (That behavior is no longer visible in that copy except to administrators, because that copy has been deleted, but it can still be seen in the history of the Rumor page.)

    Valjean is not only engaged in battlefield editing, but he is engaged in battlefield editing about something that is of marginal importance to the topic of Donald J. Trump, who has made American politics into a battlefield. I think that it is time to impose a broad topic-ban rather than a narrow one, and topic-ban this editor from Donald Trump, broadly construed, and the Steele dossier, broadly construed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Riposte97 (Valjean)

    Recent tendentious editing at Talk:Donald Trump:
    1. 14:28, 19 November 2025
    2. 14:48, 19 November 2025
    3. 00:14, 20 November 2025
    4. 17:54, 12 December 2025

    Selected Russia-related contributions to Donald Trump:
    5. 23:32, 26 October 2022
    6. 23:35, 26 October 2022
    7. 14:48, 22 May 2023
    8. 15:51, 22 May 2023
    9. 16:08, 22 May 2023
    10. 15:17, 23 May 2023
    11. 18:22, 23 May 2023
    12. 05:08, 15 July 2024
    Riposte97 (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Samuelshraga

    Valjean improperly reverted a BLPREMOVE on Vinay Prasad.

    There is a consensus that Science-Based Medicine should not on its own be used to support negative or controversial content in BLPs due to SPS concerns. I saw material I viewed as BLPSPS at that page and raised it on talk, then eventually went ahead with the BLPREMOVE (which I described it as both on talk and in an edit summary).

    Valjean reverted me with a very aggressive edit summary. They also responded on talk. It's clear from their response that they don't understand BLPREMOVE and where the burden is for restoring the removed content. They also (I think) assumed bad faith pretty hard: Don't whitewash the article. Carrying water for fringe POV is a really bad thing, and we don't allow that here. Though I had made abundantly clear that I had no issue with critical material of the person or his views from appropriate sources. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

    I am grateful to ScottishFinnishRadish for filing this request, which I think was long overdue. ScottishFinnishRadish, Stikkyy, and Tamzin have laid out the evidence of Valjean's long-term pattern of tendentious editing in this topic area better than I would have been able to myself, so I don't have anything to add on that front.

    However, with regard to the suggestion of putting the proceedings on hold in order to allow Valjean (who has already exceeded his extended word limit) a mental health break, while I share the community's concern for Valjean's well-being, I do not believe that a delay would serve either Valjean or the encyclopedia.

    As I've laid out in fuller detail here, Valjean has for years invoked various mental health crises when his edits have been challenged or faced scrutiny at forums such as AE or MfD (see Valjean's response to the aforementioned April 2019 AE sanction here and Valjean's response to a September 2023 MfD here, the latter of which included notable personal attacks on Beeblebrox (and here), who had to warn Valjean to stop the "harassment and emotional manipulation."

    AE is a stressful experience for anyone, and I don't doubt that Valjean is going through a difficult time, but if the evidence presented above shows (as I believe it does) that Valjean is engaged in long-term tendentious editing and creating a huge timesink for the community, then we have to consider the interests of the community and the encyclopedia, and not just the needs or wants of an individual editor.

    My point is not specific to Valjean: If a user is going through physical or mental health episodes that make editing and communication especially difficult or stressful, we should recognize that Wikipedia editing—particularly in the most contentious topic areas (e.g., AP2 and BLPs)—is not an absolute necessity for life.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by Beeblebrox

    I happened to be browsing today and I saw I was pinged here. SFR appears to have done a fairly thorough job presenting their case, I probably don't have much to add that you don't already know, but I would remind the committee that there are private concerns known to the committee to be considered here. I can elaborate by email if it's not already been discussed. my bad, I forgot the committee isn't really involved with AE. I definiently do not think a self-requested block is a sufficient solution to the years of poor behavior from this user. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

    @Barkeep49: Good point. I guess I'm a little rusty. As we can't openly discuss what I'm referring to and also can't share privately with non-functionaries that bit can be ignored. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 01:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Valjean

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I'm going to go ahead and say this now - Valjean - the aside to SFR about whether to use "urine" or "pee" is useless for this board. You can't control what other editors write and it's not at all helpful to the admins (and quite frankly, is helpful to SFR's case more than your own side). Just a suggestion, but you're already up against the word limit, and I'd be unlikely to grant extensions given how poorly the current word limit is being used. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
      Valjean, using phrases like "determines whether this is a fair proceeding or a kangaroo court" is yet again not helpful. You need to not focus on the other editors and focus on showing that your editing is not a problem. Accusing the admins at this noticeboard of being part of a kangaroo court is, yes, casting aspersions. So right there, we're looking at behavior problems. I strongly strongly STRONGLY suggest striking that. (The fact that I'm trying to HELP you should prove that it's not a kangaroo court.) And the totally unneeded bit about word choice is still there, hint - removing it will help your case also. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
      At this point I don't think the comment can be removed because it has been replied to. However, it could be struck or collapsed (while continuing to count towards Valjean's 1000 words). Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
      Okay, I should be out of here, but I'm going to try to head this off before it turns into a mammoth AE filing from Hades.
      This edit summary is not great - it's definitely a borderline aspersion, but in isolation probably not worth a warning.
      This comment is ... bad. And it's not at all helpful to call other editors these things.
      this edit is sourced to something from the WaPo with the url saying "blog", a NYT opinion piece that does not contain the words "cover" or "cover-up" in it, and a columnist in Vanity Fair that I cannot access fully, but does not mention "cover-up" in the first paragraphs that I can see.
      This post by SFR has a number of points, I dipped into one - the "Steele believes 70–90 percent of the dossier is accurate,[71] a view shared by Simpson" point. I find SFR's comment to be accurate - the NYT article clearly says "an estimate that Mr. Simpson is said to embrace himself". This does not support saying that "a view shared by Simpson" in wikivoice. The source is equivocating about "said to embrace", not "an estimate that Mr. Simpson embraces". This is made clearer because the source says earlier that Simpson was not interviewed, but merely answered a few emailed questions.
      What I would like to see from editors weighing in here are clear diffs-and explanations with the diffs-detailing cases where Valjean cast aspersions, violated BLP, misrepresented sources, used sources unsuitable for BLPs, and any other problematical editing relating to Trump and US politics. For those weighing in to support Valjean, please provide diffs and examples, not just "testimonials". It doesn't help admins here if you just say "I think Valjean's a great editor" in a lot of words. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
      @Stikkyy: - here you accuse Valjean of using a YouTube video as a source but you don't give details. Instead of engaging with Valjean in a back and forth, could you instead just give the diffs of the actual edits and an explanation and address it to the admins, please? Ealdgyth (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
      Looking at SFR's further data:
      This edit "Before the Crossfire Hurrican team received dossier material on September 19, 2016" is sourced to this blog (which is a problem in itself) but it does not contain any information stating anything about September 19. There are only two mentions of September in the blog post - one a general statement in a quote, and the second a mention of September 9 in another quote. Nor is "Crossfire" mentioned at all in the blog. The addition of this to Carter Page's article is also problematic.
      While looking at this particular edit, I also noted "The following sources and the historical timeline show the Republicans' claims are false." being added to the two articles - this is a concerning addition, especially as it is not sourced at all. This appears to be Valjean's own synthesis from the following paragraphs, and not something from any source. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
    • I see Ealdgyth and I are on the same page once again. Valjean I've gone ahead and proactively given you 500 extra words. I would suggest you use them exclusively for replying to uninvolved admins (and perhaps only to questions from uninvolved admins) as I'm also going to likely oppose any further extension. My initial read of the evidence suggests that a stop at the FRINGE noticeboard is unnecessary as we have consensus around this topic in a few places, including recently at MFD. I am going throw out a suggestion of a topic ban on Trump normally (that is not broadly) construed. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
      @Valjean something along the lines of The words in [[Special:Diff/XXXX|this diff]] were actually from <source &='' name=''> should be sufficient. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
      @ScottishFinnishRadish I would see him as able to edit nearly all of Joe Biden but likely not 2020 United States presidential election or 2024 United States presidential election. I was trying to propose a topic ban narrower than all of post-1992 American Politics and since the violations are all centered around Trump, that was my best effort. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
      Trypto: WP:AEPR is default for some topic areas but is not - to my knowledge - the default in American Politics. I will look into your diffs more, and as you know I am willing to change my mind, but I suggested my topic ban because of concerns about Valjean meeting the expectations of editing with-in a contentious topic based on the evidence provided and some of the conduct here. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
    • I don't have any opinion about the suggestions made so far. This note is merely to say I have just now placed a week-long self-requested block on Valjean, with talkpage access removed. Compare this comment above from Valjean. I hope admins are prepared to put this discussion on pause during Valjean's absence, as am I, but that, of course, is up to them. Bishonen | tålk 09:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC).
      Normally I would agree. But he is out of words after being warned about it by 2 admins and the heat of this is already high from other participants such that I'm not sure a pause actually would be either kind or productive. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
      Perhaps a narrow tban, appealable at any time, would thread the needle of allowing vj time away, allow closing here to prevent this from continuing to increase in size/heat, and prevent vj from simply quietly returning without addressing the issue? Valereee (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
      I'm not comfortable with a narrow topic ban (such as from Steele dossier) with no limit on an appeal. I'm concerned that Valjean has a blind spot regarding some aspects of modern US politics, as well as some issues with recognizing good source use for Wikipedia in that topic area - the editing at Carter Page or Cover-up is concerning. In all honesty, I'm not sure it is in Valjean's best interest to allow them to edit in topic areas that they obviously feel so passionately about that it is causing them such distress. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
      What is the outcome you think appropriate @Ealdgyth? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
      I think the minimum I would support is a topic ban from Donald Trump related topics, broadly construed. This would include things like the Steele dossier, Spygate (conspiracy theory), etc. I could also support a topic ban from the whole Ampol CT. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
      I think the disruption is not the entirity of AMPOL and would prefer to start smaller than that. While I prefer something smaller than Trump broadly construed if there's agreement for it I can support that. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
    • I think Beeblebrox didn't notice that we are at WP:AE and not a place like WP:ARCA. As such most responding administrators do not have access to the information referenced by him. While I do have access to what he references, I do not think it necessary when considering this request and don't think it is such that it requires referral to ArbCom to handle. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
      I held off making any decision on this until after Valjean returned from their self-requested block, but at this point I think we need to finish this up. @Barkeep49:, I think the least I can support is a topic ban from the subject of Donald Trump, broadly construed. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
      I think we're in agreement about the scope of disruption, my concern is that Trump broadly construed extends beyond what we have evidence for given how prominent Trump has been for the last decade+. It feels like the scope of disruption is more Trump & Trump associated conspiracy theories (which includes both theories promoted by Trump and theories about Trump, e.g. Steele Dossier and Spygate). But broadly construed is standard and ultimately I don't want this reservation to hold things up. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
      Valjean emailed why I included Spygate in my comment (as they're out of words and know a further extension is unlikely to be granteed). I included it because Ealdgyth had mentioned it. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
      Spygate (conspiracy theory) says right in the first paragraph that it concerns a conspiracy theory about Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. I'm a bit concerned that Valjean was confused that the article would be covered under a topic ban from Donald Trump. But, unless another uninvolved admin wants to speak up in the next few hours, I think I can live with just a Trump topic ban, if you want to go ahead and implement it. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)