Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive364
IOHANNVSVERVS
[edit]| Warned and closed. Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:35, 2 January 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. Request concerning IOHANNVSVERVS[edit]
Edit warring at Weaponization of antisemitism: On December 15, IOHANNVSVERVS BOLDly moved a subsection to a different section: . I reverted him that day: . No Talk page discussion took place after that. Then, on December 30, he restored his earlier edit, with this edit description:
IOHANNVSVERVS knows what edit-warring is and knows that one who wants to make an already-contested change to an article has a responsibility to achieve consensus for that change before restoring it, as he told Boutboul the day before he edit-warred this material: Special:PermanentLink/1330095603#Terminology section
Discussion concerning IOHANNVSVERVS[edit]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 IOHANNVSVERVS[edit]This is not a reasonable report. There is no actual issue here and the content dispute is not significant or contentious. If Zanahary engaged in discussion with me we would have already resolved this. But when I asked Zanahary if they had seen my edit summary which explained its rationale, they said: "Yeah, I did, and you don’t have consensus, so you need to self-revert and seek consensus. Why haven’t you yet?" When I asked Zanahary "What section would you like to put the content in?" (which is what the content dispute is regarding) they replied: "Stop hijacking the consensus process. You don’t edit-war first and seek input later. Revert yourself and then a discussion can happen." I generally try to follow BRD but lately with regards to Zanahary's frequent and unreasonable reversions I often just revert them back. In most (all?) cases where they've been reverting me or demanding that I self-revert, consensus has ended up being in support of my position. Unfortunately, in my opinion this user is very unreasonable in general and difficult to negotiate with, and I believe the majority of the editors who have engaged with Zanahary at the talkpage at the article 'weaponization of antisemitism' would agree that they are a disruptive presence there. I personally believe a 0RR for Zanahary at that article would be the best thing that could happen here for everyone involved. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC) Minorly edited 14:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC) and 14:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Nehushtani[edit]No comment on the merits of the complaint itself, but IOHANNVSVERVS appears to have violated 1RR at the page in question.
Statement by Aquillion[edit]There's obviously a dispute there but it seems to consist of about two or three reverts each, total, and people are now discussing the content in a way that seems likely to reach a consensus of some sort; this is wildly premature. And it is a fact that Zanahary has reverted IOHANNVSVERVS with extremely minimal communication, largely starting with a focus on procedure rather than content - I'm particularly bothered by Zanahary's statement in that And Zanahary isn't even correct about the procedure! BRD is good practice but is in fact optional. Enforced BRD was specifically rejected by ArbCom for this topic area - and with good reason, I think, since it can encourage status-quo stonewalling and can derail consensus-building into arguments over process. That certainly doesn't make IOHANNVSVERVS' rush to revert ideal but absent a larger pattern the relatively brief exchange here isn't a matter for AE, especially given that, first, I think Zanahary's own initial responses can reasonably be described as less-than-ideal heel-dragging when it comes to actually substantive discussion; and second, that discussion is now happening and seems likely to be productive. --Aquillion (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC) Result concerning IOHANNVSVERVS[edit]While the content dispute itself is a good faith disagreement concerning the article the manner in how it played out violated the One-Revert Rule. The restoration of the material without reaching consensus on the talk page violates the restrictions on this article. Given that IOHANNVSVERVS realized the error and self-reverted a warning I am going to use discretion and will not issue a block at this time. IOHANNVSVERVS is formally warned that future violations of 1RR or restoring contested material without consensus could result in sanctions. This is more firm than I would have liked but with these topics we have to keep things tight. I would like to note that Aquillion had a good point that the behavior of Zanahary and refusing to discuss any of the content until IOHANNVSVERVS reverted their edit. This is not how BRD works and can have a negative effect on reaching consensus. This report is about IOHANNVSVERVS and not Zanahary but circumstances and context matter and I felt it should be noted in the close. I would have preferred to see y’all work this out in meditation than come here to have me handle it. Before today I’ve seen the work both of you have done and it’s both important and impressive. My hope is that you two will be able to work together going forward, maybe if y’all are up to it on a topic that is less contentious that you two have in common. I’m not trying to force you two to be friends but I do believe that a professional and less hostile relationship is possible. I honestly believe that a lot of social cues and context is lost in online spaces which makes topics like this much more volatile. What I’m trying to say is that you both bring a lot of value here and it sucks if y’all are fighting, it won’t make this place better and it won’t build a better encyclopedia. I would encourage both of you to review WP:PILLARS and assume good faith in other editors. Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC) |
Lucasattitude
[edit]| Lucasattitude topic banned from Dhurandhar. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 5 January 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. Request concerning Lucasattitude[edit]
The editor constantly canvasses for the film Dhurandhar, casts WP:ASPERSIONs on me in particular, and enages in personal attacks. They are probably principally responsible for the toxicity on the talk page. Their first action was to revert my straightforward edit highlighting Pakistan issues in an Indian film called Dhurandhar. When queried on the talk page, the editor had nothing to offer other than personal opinions, which too came after 24 hours had elapsed. They claimed that opinions from The Wire and The Hindu (well-recognised WP:RS) are "irrelevant". They also seem to have an axe to grind on Dhruv Rathee, a political commentator with over 30 million subscribers on YouTube. Next came an aspersion: " The page has an ECP now, and the editor can only comment on the talk page, which continues in the same vein everyday. Their latest contribution was to demand: "
Discussion concerning Lucasattitude[edit]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 Lucasattitude[edit]Statement by Orientls[edit]Dhurandhar is yet another propaganda movie, that aims to provide a fictional story concerning the conflict between India and Pakistan in order to improve the image of Modi government. This subject concerns Indian military history, where users are required to get WP:ECP before they will even edit the related articles. Lucasattitude has only 205 edits. He should cease editing about this movie. Orientls (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by RangersRus[edit]Lucasattitude has been given multiple warnings from removing content to attacking other editors to edit warring. After second edit warring, Lucasattitude was reported that resulted with page protection of Dhurandhar. Lucasattitude does not take warnings seriously by either ignoring it or replying with sarcasm. Talk page discussion on page Dhurandhar, clearly shows that Lucasattitude ignores the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, that has also been notified on user's talk page. RangersRus (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Lucasattitude[edit]
|
Cdjp1
[edit] | This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:
Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
| Closing with an (informal) reminder of 1RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:14, 8 January 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. Request concerning Cdjp1[edit]I'd like to withdraw this request, it can now be closed. Thanks. Nehushtani (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
The article has a 1RR template. I requested that they revert, they insisted that they stand by the edit and that it had been discussed on the talk page, I told them that 1RR applies even if there's a talk page discussion, they doubled down again, I asked them once more to revert and they refused saying "There is no argument that can change my mind on the matter".
Ok, I see that Cdjp1 did indeed revert, but I missed it since they did not say in the edit summary that they were self reverting, and they insisted on their talk page that they would not. If so, this case is moot and can be closed, but I think that Cdjp1 needs to be more careful with 1RR and to communicate more effectively. Nehushtani (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Cdjp1[edit]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 Cdjp1[edit]The self-revert can be found here that was done over 30 minutes before this filing (and ten minutes before my supposed refusal), after Nehushtani had provided the correct differences to show a violation, and before Nehushtani continued to discuss the matter on my talk page. At no point did I refuse to revert, I stated my view that such a tabloid should not be re-added to the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
@Arcticocean: I am not versed enough to the requirements/rational for a 1RR exception to make such an argument. I do think the tabloid is unnecessary due to the availability of sources that have been determined to be GREL that provide the same information. But as the action without making an exception case did break the word of 1RR, on it being pointed out and evidenced to me that I had broke the 1RR, I self-reverted as is the standard action taken by editors in such cases, to avoid the cost of energy and time that is an arbitration enforcement request. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
@Black Kite: from the talk page discussions, the article in question (wrongly in my opinion) is not covered by ARBPIA bar a couple of specific sentences. It is under the CTOP that covers IS to my knowledge. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by Jéské Couriano[edit]@Black Kite: I believe the CTOP in question is WP:GS/SCW. Per this motion general sanctions regimes may now be enforced via this board. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Cdjp1[edit]
|
Truthteller613
[edit]| User partial blocked by ToBeFree as a normal admin action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 8 January 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. Request concerning Truthteller613[edit]
obviously breaking WP:1RR and WP:ARBECR
None
Discussion concerning Truthteller613[edit]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 Truthteller613[edit]Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]These 2 edits/ARBECR violations () are not great. The act is called "Not on our dime!: Ending New York funding of Israeli settler violence". Seems pretty clear. So, changing it from 'funding Israeli settler violence' to 'funding Israeli housing in the disputed West Bank' is quite a good example of non-neutral editing in the topic area. Maybe just automatically blocking account names containing the word 'truth' would help. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Truthteller613[edit]
|
Afus199620
[edit]| Indef TBAN from Jeffery Epstein. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:09, 9 January 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. Request concerning Afus199620[edit]
None that I am aware of.
A discussion at BLPN in December 2025 found that the content related to Epstein in Junkermann's bio was undue, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nicole_Junkermann.
Discussion concerning Afus199620[edit]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 Afus199620[edit]I clearly made the revert before the BLP discussion. If a source is classified as unreliable, I accept that. At that point, there were differing opinions on this, and we had a minor edit war on the Junkerman page over this topic. I didn't say that I created the page to highlight the connection between Junkerman and Epstein. I only said that it is relevant and should be included in the article. This also applies to other people; for example, there is a separate article on the relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. The Bill Gates article also has a section about Epstein.--Afus199620 (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2025 (UTC) Statement by Zanahary[edit]Uninvolved editor: I’d like to point out that the source in question is a book by a former WP:MINTPRESS writer published by Trine Day, which has catalogue sections on its website for JFK conspiracies and 9/11 conspiracies, among others. I feel that an editor who doesn’t recognize a publication like that to be inappropriate for use on Wikipedia at all, let alone as the sole source for unflattering material in a BLP, should at minimum not be allowed to edit BLPs.꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Afus199620[edit]
|
Cinaroot
[edit] | This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:
Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
| No action. — Newslinger talk 10:20, 9 January 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. Request concerning Cinaroot[edit]
Less than week after returning from a block for a 1RR violation, they did it again.
On 09:45, 7 January 2026, I asked them to self revert. They responded refusing to revert and writing a bunch of accusations against me. (As an aside, they asked me why I hadn't written to another user who had also violated 1RR. I simply hadn't noticed that violation, and I have since written to them.) WP:CASTING - On 20:48, 29 November 2025, they accused me of "attempting to weaponize AE and target editor(s) they disapprove". But since the case ended in sanctions for them, it was a legitimate case. They have also accused me several times of WP:HOUND several times here, here and here, but they have failed to show that I have done anything "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor" (from the definition of WP:HOUND), and the policy furthermore states that "Correct use of an editor's history includes ... fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". They have also been engaged in edit warring with another user (there is an open case in ANI). While I think that both sides have been edit warring, one user is new (WP:DONTBITE) and Cinaroot is more experienced and should know better, especially following previous blocks for 1RR violations (and edit warring).
@Black Kite - WP:3RR states that "The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually." So reverting part of a previous edit is explicitly still a revert. A is a revert of B, and C is a revert of D. Nehushtani (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Cinaroot[edit]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 Cinaroot[edit]Statement by Zero0000[edit]The second "revert" just unlinks one case of a wikilink that was present in the article six times. Nobody would think twice about it and claiming that it is deserving of sanction is absurd. OP should be warned about making frivolous complaints. Zerotalk 11:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]Out of interest, which account does the following statement refer to - Statement by Triggerhippie4[edit]@Zero0000, Black Kite, Newslinger, and Newyorkbrad: Cinaroot did not remove a duplicate link, as you thought. On January 6, he added the link that was already present in the lead twice, resulting in three identical links in one section. After I removed the addition, M.Bitton reverted to a supposedly stable version, leaving three links again. After I pointed out the policy against duplicates on the talk page, Cinaroot made an edit, removing the second instance but, for some reason, leaving the third. Later on the talk page, he insisted on the duplicate link and demonstrated that he doesn't understand the difference between a section and a paragraph. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Cinaroot[edit]
|
Tiamut
[edit]| No action. — Newslinger talk 15:18, 11 January 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. Request concerning Tiamut[edit]
Confrontational, battleground behavior
Possible POV pushing
Have been invovled in contentious topics since 2006.
[1] Discussion concerning Tiamut[edit]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 Tiamut[edit]Where is the disruption? Writing a lot of reliably sourced content that expresses opinions? Having opinions? Please see Slipper lamp for an example, written from scratch last month. Aramaic square script was also written from scratch, and every sentence is sourced to scholarly reliable sources. Not sure why it is claimed to have been split out from Hebrew alphabet. Tiamut (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: I can commit to be being nicer. I would appreciate though for admins here to take a closer look at what is being done at articles like Tuqu'. For example this edit removed information on an artifact found in the town, claiming it doesn't belong to it. Please note that Khirbet Tuqu', which ADeeperUnderstanding created a separate article for Tekoa (ancient town), is part of the municipality of Tuqu' and there are still Palestinians living in that old part of town. This idea that the ancient history of the site doesn't belong to them reflects an Israeli political program to dispossess them of it. There isn't a nicer way to say that, sorry. Tiamut (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by Dan Murphy[edit]I think the complaining account here, and the other newish account further up on this page (nehushtani) should be commended for the close, close attention they are paying to the editing practices of other accounts working on pages they are not interacting with at all. Their zeal to ferret out even the smallest infraction - clearly ignited by a passion for neutral and accurate encyclopedia content - may drive them to make plenty of unsubstantiated accusations. But inspiring nonetheless.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]Is the ADeeperUnderstanding account in good standing? The account has resembled a possible Tombah sock to me for a while, but since the account wasn't targeting other editors, I didn't pay much attention to it. Now that the account has reported the only? Palestinian editor active in the topic area, it would be helpful to know whether they actually have the right to file an AE report. Unfortunately, I assume no CU data has been retained, so filing an SPI would likely go nowhere, but for what it is worth, here are page intersections with Tombah. A more detailed look at page intersections is available at User:Sean.hoyland/ADeeperUnderstanding_vs_Tombah where you can see many improbable (but entirely possible by chance) intersections at pages with the following properties:
There are similar improbable intersections with other Tombah socks e.g. Rajoub570. If history in the topic area is a guide, Tiamut will likely be targeted repeatedly now that she has returned, with much of it utilizing disposable ban evading actor accounts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by Al Ameer[edit]Can’t remember last time I posted here (if ever), but none of what a ADeeperUnderstanding has reported warrants intervention by Arbitration Enforcement. I am much more concerned that the filing user is strikingly similar to a banned sock, but it seems Sean.hoyland beat me to the punch on that. —Al Ameer (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC) Result concerning Tiamut[edit]
|
TylerBurden
[edit]| Closing without action. Tyler will be held to his promise to do better in the topic area. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 17 January 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. Request concerning TylerBurden[edit]
They posted a CTOP notice to the talk page of an Administrator and 20 year editor, after the Administrator deleted their article at AfD: diff
 They were already brought to ANI once for personal attacks and accusing editors of lying (thread). Examples of POV pushing: Removed a reputable source (harvard.edu) because he didn't like what it says. Removes content and references and says a source that is widely used in the topic area is not reliable because he doesn't like what it says. Adds content about Russia, then removes similar content cited to a reputable source (The Economist) about Ukraine. Reinstates NOTFORUM comments by an IP with a single edit when those comments are critical of Russia, then tells other editors to Examples of tendentious editing: Here they removed sourced content from an article because it was seemingly critical of Ukraine, but after an editor spent time explaining how it is actually debunking Russia's claims TB was satisfied with inclusion. Adds content from a non-RS because he likes what it says. Editors had to spend time explaining why the source is not reliable. Content and source was eventually removed. Disclosure: I have had content disputes with this editor, most recently here. Further comments after filing: First of all, if I could choose a sanction for TylerBurden it'd be a logged warning and reminder that civility is expected in a CTOP, per Principles #2 and #4, not a TBAN. Repeated "snarkiness", as Black Kite puts it, is not acceptable for a collaborative project, let alone a highly contentious topic area. Second(a), I am glad Mellk brought up the discussion in his second post. I will admit my comment was not constructive. It was before I learned about the {{jk}} template, and even then, a CTOP is no place for sarcasm or jokes. Second(b), that comment was made on 4 May 2025. After that I was brought to ANI, and even though the thread was closed without any action, I voluntarily took a break from the topic area. My next edits in it were a few edits between 1-5 July, pause, then editing 20-25 July, pause, two edits 1-2 August, pause... you get the idea. I took the warnings, advice of other editors seriously and learned from them. I reevaluated my behaviour in the topic area and, when I was ready to, approached it with a different attitude. This is what we should all expect from editors, not only in contentious topic areas, but in all areas. I am afraid that if this report goes without even a logged warning, then TylerBurden will feel emboldened and just continue his behaviour. Like Mellk said Is that the kind of place we want the CTOP to be? You decide. Regarding Helpful Cat's first point: In the edit summary TylerBurden says:
Discussion concerning TylerBurden[edit]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 TylerBurden[edit]Since TurboSuperA+ has evidently spent a lot of time on this, I should probably address at least some of their report, let me know if there is anything else that needs clarification. I'm going to start with their inclusion of my block history, not once have I been blocked for any actual editing, yet this is being used as evidence as a ″pattern of problematic behaviour″. You can't even access the last one, because it's an unblock request of the Wikipedia Discord server, which also happens to be related with the first two. It has nothing to do with any actual editing and not only do I find it strange that you are keeping up with me to this extent, but trying to use it to get me topic banned. There is not enough room to address all the diffs, but let's take one for example, TurboSuperA+ says I am POV pushing because I added a foreign personnel subsection to Russian Armed Forces (an article specifically about the Russian military) while I removed content focusing on South American mercenaries joining the Ukrainian military to gain experience with drones, not on the article about the Ukrainian military, but the main article about the current war Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). To me, this seems like following basic WP:DUE policy. I would suggest people take a look at the linked content dispute, because it's a pretty perfect example of the type of content disputes I find myself in with TurboSuperA+, which is probably the motivation behind this report. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Statement by Mellk[edit]TylerBurden already has a logged warning for edit warring but there was already a long edit war at Olenivka prison massacre not too long ago where they kept restoring recently-added text cited to a dubious website. This was despite an ongoing discussion that was started by another editor. Note this edit summary where in response to the other editor simply stating that the source is unreliable, they wrote: I also try to avoid discussions they are involved in because they quickly become toxic (too much WP:BATTLEGROUND). This recent discussion also turned into squabbling with another editor, which was unsurprising since in this edit summary they suggested that the editor included a fraction in combination with a percentage because
Statement by LordCollaboration[edit]I have now gone through most of these, looking at the actual context, and this seems incredibly misleading. Take number 12, described as Statement by Kelob2678[edit]consider this the final warning to both of youby Lourdes (now blocked as a sock, but was an administrator back then). Kelob2678 (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by caeciliusinhorto[edit]The diffs cited in the section §Examples of POV pushing seem to me to be remarkably uncompelling. TurboSuperA cites this edit with the comment "Removed a reputable source because he didn't like what it says". TylerBurden's edit summary is pretty clear that their objection to this is in fact that the source didn't say the thing it was being used to support, and indeed that seems to me to be true. The text TB removed said
TSA contrasts TB's addition of content here with removal here. It's not clear to me that the two cases are really analogous: the paragraph TB removed is cited to an article not about Russia and Ukraine but primarily about Colombian drug gangs; TB's invocation of WP:DUE seems reasonable on its face. On the other hand the text they added is cited to articles about Russia's use of foreign soldiers in Ukraine. (As an aside the text they removed also misrepresents the cited source, though TB did not comment on that in removing it) If TylerBurden is engaging in Russia/Ukraine-related POV pushing, there's surely more compelling evidence than these diffs. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by Jeppiz[edit]I have read through this report and I do not find it convincing. In particular, I find that quite a few of the examples given are either trivial or taken out of context. Quite a of the edits presented as problematic seem to be correct edits, as others have pointed out above. Alos, having come across TylerBurden on many different topics over several years, I have normally found him to be both polite and constructive. Jeppiz (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by AlexeyKhrulev[edit]I would also like to comment on several points regarding TylerBurden’s conduct. I first encountered issues with his editing in the articles Tikhon Dzyadko and Ekaterina Kotrikadze, where I attempted to add well-sourced information that they had been designated as foreign agents in Russia. TylerBurden reverted these edits. This was followed by a prolonged discussion in which reliable sources were repeatedly provided, but TylerBurden chose to disregard them. Only after the matter was taken to WP:NPOVN was the issue resolved, and my edit was ultimately accepted. The entire process took more than than half a month. Given that TylerBurden is an experienced editor, it was surprising that such a relatively straightforward and policy-supported issue took so long to resolve, and that he actively obstructed its inclusion. More recently, I have repeatedly encountered him in articles related to Russian–Ukrainian relations, where his actions often lead to extended disputes and frequent allegations of policy violations, for example at Talk:Ukrainian attacks on the Russian shadow fleet. I am nevertheless glad to hear from TylerBurden here that he is willing to acknowledge concerns about his conduct and make adjustments. I hope this will help prevent similar issues going forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexeyKhrulev (talk • contribs) 08:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by Helpful Cat[edit]I echo the concerns raised by editors above me that many of these diffs have been misrepresented. The example raised by caeciliusinhorto, where TurboSuperA+ apparently disapproves of TylerBurden rightly correcting a blatant error (confusing the Ukrainian International Legion with the French Foreign Legion), is probably the most glaring case. Here are some others:
Helpful Cat {talk} 11:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning TylerBurden[edit]
|
Happypenguins82
[edit]| Happypenguins82 loses extended confirmed due to permission gaming, and may reapply for the permission at WP:PERM after making at least 500 constructive edits in topic areas unrelated to WP:CT/A-I (in addition to the 579 edits they have already made) after a minimum of 30 days from today. — Newslinger talk 11:37, 19 January 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. Request concerning Happypenguins82[edit]
Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli_conflict#ECP_by_default
The pattern had continued on several other pages. They are clearly WP:GAMING and recently participated in a RM on Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation
User was warned 2 months ago | diff
Discussion concerning Happypenguins82[edit]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 Happypenguins82[edit]I would like to clarify my perspective and intentions.I enjoy exploring and experimenting, and I like numbers and technical systems. Wikipedia is fascinating to me. I understand it may look as if I was “gaming” to reach 500 edits so I could edit protected pages, but for me this was mainly experimentation to see how the system behaves and what is possible. If what my respected colleague Cinaroot says were really the case, I’d be spending my days and free time nonstop and very intensely in discussions and votes, like this one. That’s not what I’m doing. I just decided to try taking part in a “hot” discussion as well. I’ve been editing here for about a year, and I’m still learning, every day I run into new things and new rules, including this committee, which I find very interesting. I respect every editor on Wikipedia and their views. I genuinely didn’t know there is something here formally called “gaming”. I don’t mind if the edits I’m being criticised for as having “boosted my count” are reduced or discounted. or just a warning if possible. What matters to me is to learn the system well, all the rules and guidelines (even though there are so many of them) and really understand how everything works. since I’m not very familiar yet with how things usually work here in terms of timing and what counts as a timely response. I don’t want to come across as disrespectful or unresponsive, so it felt important to me to post this initial comment. I apologise in advance if it seems to take me some time to reply further, I need to step away for work, and I’ll be able to answer any follow up questions or comments only once I’m back. Thank you in advance for your understanding.Happypenguins82 (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]See gamingcheck. One of the least ambiguous examples of gaming the extendedconfirmed grant to enter the topic area that I've seen, so, congrats. See the slope changes in the editing rate plot for example. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Result concerning Happypenguins82[edit]
|
Rap no Davinci
[edit]| No action. Arcticocean ■ 19:49, 28 January 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. Request concerning Rap no Davinci[edit]
See page history of Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine, an article they created 11 Jan. Also see NicheSports' analysis of the content added which indicates either a violation of WP:NEWLLM, or big WP:CIR issues re WP:V and WP:RS. They were informally warned about LLM-use on 11 Oct 2025 and then received a formal warning at AE on 22 Nov 2025.
This comment in the merge discussion also seems LLM-generated and cites WP:SNG for some reason (?) Kowal2701 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Rap no Davinci[edit]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 Rap no Davinci[edit] I have always been transparent about my use of LLM, when I stated that I can continue editing without it, I meant it. The article in question was not generated/created using LLM, it’s entirely my work and took me several days to draft the initial version. For "See page history [of the article]", it would actually help you see the amount of effort it took as a person to add few more sentences. From the initial version to the final expansion, which included additional sentences and sources, I spent HOURS in reading, analyzing, and summarizing information in the sources. LLM would've taken few minutes, that's a human being behind their screen putting in real work. Does that mean I didn't make any mistakes? Absolutely not! Especially given the sensitive nature of the subject, but working on it is me being brave (and prepared for the pushback). There are likely phrases that could seem biased or could misrepresent the original sources, of course UNINTENTIONALLY. That's why we don't own articles we create, and the community-driven work we do is what make this platform so special. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the article and make it better. (I am working on a section related to reception and criticism to address the tag of Unbalanced). For the comment on merge, I, once again, didn't use LLM, and for the WP:SNG, (as I understand it), is for the article Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine as a very specific topic, very different and should not to be merged with Jewish pro-Palestinian activism just because they "overlap" in one singular general fact: both cover pro-Palestine activism by people of the Jewish faith. Some of the criticism is legit (about 10% of the article needs improvement, mostly related to wording, I will address some of them) and I probably made some mistakes, please help make the article better. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rap no Davinci (talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
For NicheSports' comment is what I referred to as "10% legit criticism", mostly related to wording. In relation to sources and OR: "A foundational principle for many Holocaust survivors ... " As the leading sentence, this is supported by the whole subsection of '"Never Again" applies to all people', as the next line is "They argue that the slogan "Never Again" must not be exclusive to Jews." and later "as descendants, we recognize that genocide makes no one safer." and so on. The same with "The use of Holocaust memory in discussions of Israeli military...", followed by "Holocaust survivor Agnes Kory stated that she was "outraged and deeply insulted by the Holocaust being used as an excuse for Israel's relentless war against the Palestinian people," … and much later “victims of the Nazis who were outraged that Israel used their histories to justify assaults on Palestinians.” for "(such as siege, mass displacement, and high civilian casualties)...", I added this as explanation for readers as these are already established "facts" supported by standalone articles on Wiki Siege of Gaza City, Blockade of the Gaza Strip; for mass causalities Gaza genocide, Casualties of the Gaza war. Is this a case of OR? From my pov, this is explanation WP:SYNNOT. Still easy to fix (as has already been). for "Many of these individuals distinguish between Judaism and political Zionism…" Again, this is supported by the whole subsection of "Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism", take "Organizations they associate with ... argue that the foundational ideology of Israel leads to the oppression of the people of Palestine" and "Signatories to the 2014 letter ... object to the characterization of pro-Palestine activism as inherently antisemitic, pointing to their own Jewish identity ..." as examples, all supporting that sentence. for "Organizations they associate with … argue that the foundational ideology of Israel leads to the oppression of the people of Palestine." I should've clarified the ideology of "self-defense" and criticizing the state = criticizing the Jewish people = calling for another Holocaust .. excepts the source cited "victims of the Nazis who were outraged that Israel used their histories to justify assaults on Palestinians" and "Israel's self-defense is very lopsided. Gazans are a population living in a constant state of siege. They've been driven from their homes, into decades-long refugee camps." = being oppressed. (the sentence is vague more than OR, cuz “what ideology?”) for "A German-born Jewish-American … known for her work with the International Solidarity Movement in support of the Palestinian cause." I rewrote that from her Wiki page, the lede Hedy Epstein, not OR For "Their stance is rooted in the belief that lessons from the Holocaust demand opposition to all forms of oppression …” Not sure how is this OR, it's the article itself, multiple cited survivors used their experiences as a base to vocalize support for Palestine and opposition to Israel!! Currently, 2 editors (R.Rev & Arcticocean) have examined the sources and found no issues. Which was the main problem with my prior LLM mis/use. For the “typical LLM” phrases like ‘rooted in’ and ‘foundational principle’, etc. As a non-native English speaker, these look very standard formal phrases, appropriate for this encyclopedia. Some of these were translations from my native language to English using Google Translate (when I was unsure how to express some info or summaries). It took me serious days to write this article. It’d be seriously unwise of me to write an article related the most debated subject in the past 2 years (on-and-off Wiki), with a warning against me, using LLM, when I expected pushback against the article as there’re editors with strong views for/against the premise. Having a “history” of mis/using LLM makes the accusation easy to stick, but I maintain my position that I stopped using it for creating/editing on Wikipedia since the last AE, even prior to the warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rap no Davinci (talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Statement by Raskolnikov.Rev[edit]I reviewed the source analysis cited for filing this case and wholeheartedly disagree with it. All the content is backed by the cited sources and there's no WP:OR involved or use of GUNREL that I can see. There's some improvements that can be made with attribution, particularly in one case citing a weak source that links to other sources containing the content, but that content was already backed up by other sources added to the body and not at all controversial. In my view it's all rather minor and easily resolvable via regular BRD and editing. Not sure why this was so quickly escalated to AE. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC) The filer responded to my providing a second opinion on the source analysis, as the original editor requested, by saying I shouldn't edit in the topic area either without substantively addressing anything I said. I don't find this helpful and it's not WP:AFG. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC) To briefly respond to NicheSports: As I noted on the talk, the example brought up as the supposedly most egregious instance of failing WP:V is actually the worst one to bring up: The cited NYT piece says the march Hedy Epstein participated in was organized by Gaza Freedom March, which overlaps with the Free Gaza Movement, which in turn overlaps with the International Solidarity Movement. Moreover, Hedy Epstein's BLP was linked, which states she was an activist in the ISM in the lede citing the same NYT source. And it should not be removed there either as it is entirely uncontroversial and accurate material given Gaza Freedom March being a part of the broader ISM. Here is a newsletter from the Free Gaza Movement with a statement from Epstein saying why she joined the Gaza Freedom March and a call to join the ISM at the end, and here is the obituary I added stating Epstein was active in the ISM and Free Gaza Movement. Even if NicheSport's concern that the ISM was not explicitly named in the NYT piece is valid, it could easily be resolved with this addition. This doesn't even warrant a revert, let alone an AE case. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC) Statement by NicheSports[edit]Can an admin independently and thoroughly review my analysis before this case is closed? I believe that both Raskolnikov.Rev and RnD's analyses are unreliable. For evidence of this claim, see the 6th point of my analysis (the simplest, as it documents a black and white WP:V failure). In RR's talk page response to my analysis, they state that it is "uncontroversial" that the text I highlighted was supported by the sourcing. This is objectively false; the organization "International Solidarity Movement" is never mentioned in the only source . Meanwhile, RnD stated at the AE thread that
Result concerning Rap no Davinci[edit]
|
Glebushko0703
[edit]| Filer was a sock. Izno (talk) 04:15, 29 January 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. Request concerning Glebushko0703[edit]
This is the first time I made an AE request. Pardon me for any mistakes. Recently, I came across Glebushko0703 in some articles. I initially did not wish to get involved. However, after a brief encounter with him in relation to List of pro-Russian political parties, I looked at his activity in adjacent articles, noticing issues that caused legitimate concerns. Suspected violations after his recent block[edit]Glebushko0703 removed multiple articles from See also (diff1), claiming On the Talk page, Glebushko0703 insinuated that Russian hybrid warfare, Russosphere, Russophilia, Putinism and Eurasianism were "vaguely nationalistic concepts" (diff5), which is objectively false. TylerBurden explained how the articles in See also were relevant and WP:DUE-compliant (diff6). Glebushko0703 refused to listen, arguing Glebushko0703 apparently fails to assume good faith in their inclusion, treating neutral article names as "POV-pushing", nor has he been able to provide any policy basis. The only reasonable explanation for this is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, a problem he exhibits in editing several articles. Glebushko0703 refuses to listen to others, alleging that the only reason he is disagreed with is that WP:CIR issues in Holocaust denial[edit]Glebushko0703 removed a sourced statement (diff12) by claiming Glebushko0703 reverted within an hour, claiming Sumanuil reverted him, reiterating Violations before his recent block[edit]Edit warring in Estonia, Kaja Kallas and Anti-Russian sentiment[edit]diff16, diff17, diff18, diff19 Particularly, Glebushko0703 edit-warred to insert undue BLP-violating content into Kaja Kallas (diff20, diff21, diff22, diff23, diff24, diff25). Today, Glebushko0703 restored an unexplained AI tag to Estonia (diff26) to discredit a proper article. Harassment[edit]diff27, diff28, to mention but a few. Analysis by an admin: diff28, diff29. The user made several comments generalizing those he perceived as Estonians: diff27, diff30, diff31, diff32, to mention but a few. Conclusion[edit]His conduct is combatively tendentious. Whenever his edits get reverted, he prefers edit warring to force his way through and bludgeoning Talk page discussions to become the last comment in a bid to get his desired "consensus." Such conduct is a net negative to the EE topic area. The repeated blocks also show a major CIR issue. It is not a constructive use of community time to entertain this. There is a limit to assumption of good faith when an unabated pattern of non-neutral editing is seen.
Discussion concerning Glebushko0703[edit]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 Glebushko0703[edit]Most of the diffs are taken out of context and the main argument here seems to be focused on me debating other editors to reach a consensus and "not being right". This thread reminds me of another Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1211#Selective RFC application and repeated inaccuracies by Glebushko0703 and I do not want to waste time on this. Statement by ExRat[edit]Glebushko0703 has had a consistent pattern of disruptive editing and has shown, in my opinion, to have a very strong, overt bias against Estonia, Estonians, and Estonian editors, and their edits seem to bear this out. Notable examples of this ongoing behavior, apart from those listed above, include:
Result concerning Glebushko0703[edit]
|
ILoveRichardSimmons
[edit]| Already handled at WP:ANI § User:ILoveRichardSimmons persistent vandalism of recently deceased comedy actors' pages. — Newslinger talk 13:52, 2 February 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. Request concerning ILoveRichardSimmons[edit]
This editor's behavior has been discussed at length at WP:ANI here and WP:AIV here. After leaving a CTOP notice on ILRS's page, User:TarnishedPath advised me as follows: I haven't submitted an AE case like this before. I anticipate editing typos etc. Apologies in advance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ILoveRichardSimmons&diff=prev&oldid=1336170090 Discussion concerning ILoveRichardSimmons[edit]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 ILoveRichardSimmons[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning ILoveRichardSimmons[edit]
|
Malayalee from India
[edit]| editor warned. asilvering (talk) 06:34, 6 February 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. Request concerning Malayalee from India[edit]
this and the resulting entry at WP:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#G6 is what brought it to my attention, but basically every single edit I spot-checked is either about Indian political parties or Indian military history both of which are under extended-confirmed restrictions.
Discussion concerning Malayalee from India[edit]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 Malayalee from India[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Malayalee from India[edit]
|
Chandel itihasam zy
[edit]| Chandel itihasam zy is indefinitely blocked from article space. — Newslinger talk 19:14, 6 February 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. Request concerning Chandel itihasam zy[edit]
There are numerous sections on their talk page about the Indian military history restrction, such as:
Discussion concerning Chandel itihasam zy[edit]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 Chandel itihasam zy[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Chandel itihasam zy[edit]
|
LordCollaboration
[edit]| Complaint withdrawn by filing editor following the response from LordCollaboration. If only all AE threads were this easy to resolve. signed, Rosguill talk 19:20, 4 February 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. Request concerning LordCollaboration[edit]
On December 28, Glebushko0703 attempted to raise a WP:HOUNDING concern on the talk page of ToBeFree, an administrator who justified their block of Glebushko0703 with LordCollaboration's revert. ToBeFree didn't find the evidence convincing enough. LordCollaboration provided a response. The issue was raised again with BusterD on 10 January, who also didn't find it persuasive. IvanVector, the third admin to whom the issue was raised, instead proposed to indef Glebushko0703 and urged for a boomerang at the ANI thread. Contrary to them, I think the evidence is strong enough to warrant a closer examination. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Discussion concerning LordCollaboration[edit]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 LordCollaboration[edit]1. I don't recall when precisely I had Stereotypes of Russians on my watchlist, but given that my edit had nothing to do with Glebushko (and was just grammar), I am not going to go investigate. 2. Kaja Kallas was on my watch list starting in October because of the Baltics RFC. There was a side-posting there (see: Talk:Kaja Kallas#RfC: How should the biographies (infobox, introduction) reflect that Estonia (Latvia, Lithuania) were under Soviet and Nazi German control in 1940–1991?) and the page was also mentioned multiple times in the main RFC. 3. The dispute on the Kaja Kallas page was over whether to add the accusations of anti-Russian sentiment, linking to that page. I found the page interesting and added it to my watchlist. 4. I had an unrelated Noticeboard discussion going on, and Glebushko posted there after me and while mine was still active (5 January, mine: 7 January, Glebushko's: ). Since it was about the Baltics, I was interested. It was then closed with them being told to follow one of the recommendations posted in the thread, one of which was the Village Pump. I followed the continued discussion. Also, I *was* paying attention to their edits by this point, because they had insinuated I might be a sock puppet on at least four different pages and I want to know if I am being discussed. As I mentioned to Glebushko before, I am interested in Russia/Ukraine and the Baltics infobox issue and it has nothing to do with him. I don't think it will take much scrolling of my recent edits to see I am interested in the Baltics RFC. And 13 of my 17 edits in the first half of 2025 (just before I became active) were in the Ukraine/Russia space, as I mentioned to him. I have 1,829 pages in my watchlist; probably over half of them are in these areas. If an admin can see my watchlist/when I added, that would be helpful. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Statement by GoodDay[edit]I see no wrong doing here, by Lord Collaboration. Indeed, I'd like to point out the he's been faithfully implementing the 2025 RFC on Baltic bios infoboxes decision. Therefore, I recommend declining this AE report. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC) Statement by TylerBurden[edit]I also say dismiss because the only concerning thing here is Kelob2628's failure to assume good faith, there is also nothing here indicating that there is a wider issue with LC in WP:CT/EE, where they are frankly one of few reasonable and objective editors. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC) Statement by Ivanvector[edit]I am mentioned above but was not notified of this discussion. This page is on my watchlist and I saw LordCollaboration's name here. Kelob2678 has helpfully itemized all the times that Glebushko0703 raised essentially this same complaint about LordCollaboration. Glebushko was told all three times that their evidence was insufficient (or nonexistent) and to stop casting allegations. Each time they did not, and are now facing a site ban owing to their fourth attempt to raise the same issue at ANI. This enforcement request reads like a fifth attempt by proxy, and is particularly suspicious coming from an eight-month-old account who seems to mostly edit AFDs and does not appear to have contributed significantly in the topic of dispute. I suggest that Kelob2678 should read our meatpuppetry policy and find something else to do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC) Statement by Glebushko0703[edit]I know that this discussion is already closed, but I want to add that I did not know that all my accusations regarding LordCollaboration were dismissed as baseless. I can only recall the advice of stopping the accusations of sockpupetry based on suspicions only, but I thought the houndering was genuine despite their explanation. That's why I tried to get more opinions about it at ANI, but since I was on thin ice I withdrew my complaint and haven't bothered LordCollaboration with that issue since then. As for meatpuppetry, the user is not related to me and I did not ask them for help, but I appreciate that they tried. Result concerning LordCollaboration[edit]
|
