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

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

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

Shortcut WP:ARCWP:ARC About this page Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs four net votes to accept (or a majority). The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse. Arbitration is a last resort. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. Please review the guide to case requests before filing a case. File an arbitration request Guidance on participation and word limits Submissions are limited to 500 words of rendered wikitext, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly include (a) why you need additional words and (b) what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. You may only edit your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (See Wikipedia:Guide to arbitration § Responding to requests.) Guide to case requests Word count report Indexes Declined cases Open cases Closed cases

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 22:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Special:Diff/1064925920.

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Special:Diff/817961869 (original ban appeal in 2017)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Special:Diff/817961869 (original ban appeal in 2017)
  • Remove restrictions

Please remove all my restrictions as has been asked of me in the previous discussions (2023). I don't think I need to be under any formal restrictions however to avoid a large sudden change I will voluntarily agree to only create 20 (current) parish articles a week (plus my 1 article a month and DAB pages and redirects) for 3 months after a motion is enacted, this won't require any supervision from anyone (other than maybe giving updates and discussing things). I would also suggest like the July 2018 changes there could be a 6 month suspended which means the restrictions can be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action. All the articles that I have created have been kept and few of my RMTs have been contested so I should be fine as far as article creation and page moves go. I'm not in any rush so I'm happy for this to take a few weeks (or longer) as I do have other things to do.

• @Thryduulf: Please look at the edit history of the unitary authority area articles I created on 25 and 26 March 2026, I created them in draftspace and another editor moved them into mainsapce (in the case of Greater Norwich there was a history merge). I have no restriction on creating pages in other namespaces (including draft) although I will disclose that over the few months after I was unblocked in September 2025 I did create the 8 articles from January to August that I hadn't created (since I wasn't site banned as requested and only blocked). I don't think there is or was consensus against the articles being created just not with a bot or low quality. I have been using my 1 article a month to create articles on settlements/former parishes, the most recent examples are Newton Underwood (June), Crownthorpe, Norfolk (May) and Murton Grange (April) all of which are well sourced articles on clearly notable topics with plenty of content. I agree I probably should have used some of my creations to create new (current) parishes, I will create a few drafts for you this evening as a sample for this appeal.

  @Thryduulf: See Draft:Hollinghill for an example of a draft about a current parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Bushranger: 20 new articles a week isn't much, it isn't difficult to create 20 high quality articles a week. There are around 350 missing (current) parishes in England though there are many more former parishes but some former parishes (urban parishes) might not need articles.
• @HouseBlaster: I'm aware of MASSCREATE and I don't think any of my contributions would violate it. If there were problems with my creations and I was asked to stop I would. If someone was creating 100 low quality stubs a day that might be seen to be WP:MEATBOT but otherwise "merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive" and while I have suggested creating articles with bots this has been rejected by the community (and I wouldn't know how to create a bot anyway) and I don't use AI either so I don't think this is an issue. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• @CaptainEek: The hamlets and areas were also parishes, I used to write "X is a hamlet and former civil parish" and "X is an area an former civil parish" but I was told that that wasn't appropriate and to just put what the place is today and include information about the former parish further down. As you can see for example Newton Underwood is a hamlet that was also a parish until 1955 and Lee Chapel, Essex is an area that was also a parish until 1937. If a current or former parish has the same name as a settlement it is included in the settlement article unless the parish excludes the settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @CaptainEek: It doesn't generally matter if a parish still exists or not see WP:DEFUNCT, all parishes (apart from pre 1974 urban parishes and parishes with the same boundaries as a district) had a parish council or at least a parish meeting so would pass WP:GEOLAND. Most parishes do have the same name as a settlement such as Denby Dale, see the other settlements etc at Category:Denby Dale or Weston-super-Mare and the parish would be covered there rather than at a list and pre 1974 urban parishes would probably be better covered in the pre 1974 district article rather than a list. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The restrictions linked in the appeal limit you to creat[img] at most one new mainspace article per month through any process. Why then did you create 7 articles in March this year?

I would expect discussion about creating articles about parishes to be discussed at at least one of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England. There has been nothing in at least the last four years at the first, nothing ever afaict at the second and nothing at the third since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC in 2020 which resulted in a clear consensus against the mass creation of articles about parishes. Why do you think the consensus has changed?

If the creation of Parish articles is the main reason for your appeal, I would have expected to to have been using your one article per month to create high-quality articles to showcase what the community can be expected if you are allowed to create such articles in bulk, yet all the recent creations seem to be about settlements or unitary authorities? Why is this? What are some examples of your recent new articles about parishes? Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside any comment on the merits or otherwise of the appeal itself: why, exactly, do we need 20 new articles about parishes in a week at minimum (given that's suggested as a temporary voluntary restriction, which would presumably skyrocket once the three months were up)? There is no deadline, so why do you want to create so many articles so quickly? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: regarding So if they were Parishes, but aren't currently, why are they worthy of inclusion? - Notability is not temporary. Whether they were notable enough for articles in the first place may be questioned, but if they ever were notable, their no longer being parishes doesn't make them no longer notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• I've been thinking about how some editors consistently engage in misbehavior but are great at showing understanding of what went wrong. These editors often cycle through being blocked or banned, writing a great appeal, the community happily lifting the restrictions, and the bad behavior resuming. On the flip side, I wonder if there are restricted editors who will make good decisions if unrestricted, but struggle to write a compelling appeal—and if so, whether Crouch, Swale is one of them.

  That being said, WP:MASSCREATE is a policy. Crouch, Swale, I have three questions for you: How does your proposed plan comport with that policy? Will you seek approval before creating parish articles? What will you do if the community says "no, these should not be mass created"? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Crouch, Swale: WP:MASSCREATE is no longer part of the bot policy. It is now at Wikipedia:Editing policy § Mass page creation to make it clear it applies to humans, too. At first blush, I believe it applies to your proposed creations. I would like to hear the answers to the three questions I asked. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I at least appreciate asking for the whole restriction to be lifted, as I requested the last few times we did this. But asking for it to be lifted...so that you can create 20 parish pages a week is not the solution. The 2020 RfC seemed to be against you creating parish pages at all, and frankly skeptical in their value as pages in the first instance. There are more than 10,000 civil parishes in England alone! (according to Civil parish). In comparison, the smallest similar division in the US is the Census Designated Place, of which there are only about 12,000 in a country that is 40 times larger and with 5 times the population. ([1] plus 19k incorporated towns, but the point is...if a place is a town...it doesn't need a civil parish/CDP article). Why do we need 300+ more articles about an arbitrary unit of sometimes neighborhood-level governance that is often subsumed by other place based categorizations? ArbCom doesn't make content decisions, so I'm not making a pronouncement about whether those pages should/shouldn't exist. But you have failed to engage with the core complaint that got you banned, i.e., you kept making poor stubs of places that really shouldn't have pages in the first place. It doesn't matter whether you make the parishes one at a time or 20 at a time. Can you make them good? Can you determine whether they should actually exist? Can you accept that the answer might sometimes be no, they shouldn't have an article? That they might be better covered at a "List of Parishes in [county]" or other such solution? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and for the curious, his creations list. I can't say I'm that impressed by recent work. A civil parish...that no longer exists. An "area" with no obvious reason for existing. Several hamlets...within civil parishes that probably should just be covered at the civil parish page or elsewhere. And some unitary authorities...that don't yet exist. The unitary authorities are maybe the most useful, but for the rest, it is dubious that they should even have pages in the first place. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  So if they were Parishes, but aren't currently, why are they worthy of inclusion? Also, you didn't address my core concern: can you accept that some parishes might not qualify for standalone articles? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)(moved your comment to your section)[reply]

  For one, I disagree that GEOLAND means that every parish ever is notable. If there was a defunct parish in the middle of London...you wouldn't write an article on it. You'd just redirect it to the currently habited city of London. For example, why shouldn't Bungay St Mary just redirect to Bungay or St Mary's Church, Bungay? Also, just because a place is notable doesn't necessarily mean it needs a standalone page (see WP:NOPAGE). But putting that aside, if you say it is so easy to create quality parish articles...why haven't you been doing so? Your recent Parish creations are mostly stubs, and you haven't actually made very many at all. I don't see how we're going to go from your spotty current record to all of a sudden you're going to make the last 300. If its so easy, why haven't you published a quality civil parish article a month for the last 60+ months? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts WP:ARMWP:ARM WP:ARBMWP:ARBM This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (arbitrators only) All editors are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension on this page below (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended comments or submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

AniketTalan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Non-EC editing about a Jat group here and here after being given a notice and further warned by Ponyo on their talk page. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 01:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Vidhyut Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) All edits pertain to the Gurjar caste. Blocked in April for these ECR vios [2], with a very clear explanation "You cannot make any edits on anything to do with castes until you are WP:Extended confirmed ... I've blocked you for 31 hours but you could face further sanctions (blocks, topic bans) if you continue to do so when you return" by RegentsPark [3]. Had already been notified in March about the CT sanctions by Regents [4]. Clearly hasn't gotten the message [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] (note the false edit summaries of correction/correcting spelling while making caste based edits). Need a perma block here, also wouldn't be surprised if this is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anujror which disrupted the same articles. Gotitbro (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, 1-week block, we'll go for three strikes. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A new account User:Mwenot has twice reverted material at this article and ignored talk page messages. Tiamut (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, which part of what I edited is the problem? I cited my sources and added information. Mwenot (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the content that Mwenot edited is part of the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is what the scope of WP:PIA covers. The page as a whole isn't strictly within the topic area so wouldn't qualify for pre-emptive protection either. (to be clear, a CTOP alert still seems reasonable when someone edits in adjacent areas) Left guide (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mwenot twice removed this same sentence (18:15 20 June, 19:40 20 June) with no explanation or engagement on talk: "Palestinian food culture preserved this ancient practice of foraging and cooking wild plants, reintroducing this knowledge to Israeli cuisine, so for example, gundelia ("tumble thistle"), is best known in Israel by its Arabic name, akub.^[1]" If you look at their other most recent edits both remove "Palestinians" or "Palestine" as well at articles about plants. Tiamut (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Tiamut (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for explaining. I'll let another reviewing admin decide how to handle this. Left guide (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles about plants are you referring to? I added information about native edible plants in the Israel-Palestine region. The original text had little information about specific plants and didn't mention the Israeli region at all. Mwenot (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to reply to tiamut. Mwenot (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwenot, you need to communicate with other editors on the article talk page when your edits are questioned. Please don't have that conversation here. Have it at Talk:Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi'd by Yue on 4 June as a regular admin action. No EC disruption during the semi, and no further disruption in the 6 days since semi ended, so closing without action, without prejudice against a refile if disruption resumes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Non-ECP users and temporary users are taking umbrage to references to Gaza Genocide in the article and are trying to wikilawyer about how this dispute should not be considered part of the CTOP. As we're dealing with a lot of TAs, making them aware and addressing any individual issues at AE would probably be a big waste of time. ECP protection might be wise at both the page and its associated talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Noting that the article was subsequently semi-protected for four days by @Yue: in what looks like a regular admin action. Left guide (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No action, aside from some informal user talk page discussion which seems to have gotten the message across. Left guide (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
~2026-31846-01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See here for the ECR violation, a bit more than a week after being blocked for ECR violations. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hopefully resolved with discussion with the editor. I'll leave this open in case it continues in the next day or so. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

6 month ECP by Left Guide Sennecaster (Chat) 04:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rosalie Abella (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I noticed this at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#We appear to be in a slow-moving edit war with minions of a former Supreme Court judge; there appears to be a slow-mo edit war going on at this page, with TA and newly-registered accounts attempting to blank a paragraph directly relevant to the Israel-Palestine topic area. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 04:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] It seems that this is a relatively recent issue and the article topic isn't strictly related to the conflict, so I've gone with six-month ECP. Left guide (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Asilvering. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Elgreco2432 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See edits at Talk:2026 Iran war for ECR violations. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Blocked. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Asilvering. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tooli Mars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See edits at Talk:2026 Iran war for ECR violations. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Also blocked. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:PIA

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

This is a procedural filing, stemming from the recent filing about Tiamut. In this filing, multiple administrators, including myself, stated that based on their interaction history, including the timing and nature of GordonGlottal's interventions on pages they had not previously edited, that they appeared to be following Tiamut with intent to disrupt their contributions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Alerted [10] in November 2023.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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.

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

@Tamzin I explained on Talk:Aramaic square script why I was there: I came here from Andrevan's talk, which I was looking at re Iskandar's ARB case.

On Talk:List of Palestinians, I had a lengthy 1-on-1 conversation with Tiamut which I actively attempted to resolve both by good-faith discussion and then by bringing in additional editors.

The content dispute was over whether to include Marie-Alphonsine Ghattas. A consensus had agreed that the list should be limited to people who lived in Mandatory and post-Mandate Palestine, and a separate page was split off to list pre-Mandate residents. Tiamut had added a requirement that all entries have Palestinian national identity, to avoid listing Zionist residents. My concern was consistent criteria. Ghattas survived a few years into the Mandate period, but there is no evidence that she had any specific political identity, and no source claims that she did. Tiamut added her anyway, saying She fully belongs here. I do not accept her removal. I have already accepted the removal of Palestine's entire history. She and any other person fitting the definition in the charter and alive post-Mandate stay.

This was not a dispute about wording. I don't think there's any possible language for the criteria which would limit the page to specific attested national/political identities without excluding Ghattas. Still, Tiamut reacted to my challenging Ghattas by changing the lede from "nationalist" to "national". I immediately explained to her that It is not possible to simultaneously argue "X person doesn't fit the criteria" and "the criteria should change to fit Y person" in a rational fashion. We need a dependent variable to be productive.

I'm a process-minded person and I try to protect my own and other editors' time by intentionally organizing discussions. Here I had argued that the correct path was 1) Splitting the page so that one set of criteria determined each list, 2) creating however many internally coherent lists we needed to satisfy all editors. We first reached consensus to split the page. I had previously said several times that arguments over the criteria are a distraction because they don't necessarily relate to accuracy - we can have several separate lists which each follow their own criteria, so long as each is internally consistent.

My edits are almost all earlier history. I edit modern PIA mostly to add something from an Arabic or Hebrew source, and I've never really been involved in this kind of discussion before. Truly I would appreciate a detailed description of how we are expected to handle similar disputes. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Note the report GG filed on Tiamut; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1223#h-Off-wiki_WP:canvassing_by_@Tiamut-20260518003700 accusing her of canvassing me (my nick misspelled Hulda) and Katzrockso, stating that "Neither had ever edited the page or participated in previous discussions". The page is List of Palestinians, which I first edited in 2006, and is no 3 in terms of edits (!)[11] (Needless to say(?) Tiamut never contacted me off-wiki about the list.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Noting once again that I am filing this administratively as part of closing the previous thread. For simplicity I will say that although participants are likely to have read GG's previous comments here, those do not count toward the word limit. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• If there's any confusion about my comment, to summarize: I think the evidence of hounding (as in following Tiamut around) is a mixed bag, with at least some cases where the overlap is clearly innocent and one article, Aramaic square script^talk, that GG showed up to after Tiamut created it, although not without background in the topic area. So on its own I think the hounding claim isn't conclusive either way. On the other hand, I think my linked comment lays out a clear case for why GG's participation at the List of Palestinians talkpage has devolved into stonewalling—dragging Tiamut and others into a long back-and-forth based on an inclusion rule that the list does not actually have, and reverting to retain an additional inclusion rule that there was never consensus for and only added by Tiamut by mistake. I can only view that as trying to disrupt efforts to improve the article. That fact pattern may make one less inclined to AGF on the hounding claims; either way I think this is sanctionable with or without the hounding. Thus I support a topic ban from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed as to include matters of Israeli and Palestinian national identity. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Simonm223 (talk �� contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dd3r1n0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2

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

1. [12] Argues that white nationalism should not be mentioned in relation to the Republican party because it would be insulting to all Republican voters.
2. [13] and again
3. [14] A bunch of hypothetical questions unrelated to content
4. [15] Argues white nationalism cannot be clearly defined.
5. [16] Reiterates that discussion of white nationalism in the Republican party is guilt-by-association.
6. [17] Explicitly refuses to discuss sources unless we engage in a debate about the definition of White Nationalism first.
7. [18] Argues that CTOP designation means we should not post content to the page that might offend Republicans.
8. [19] Challenges the general reliability of any source from the social sciences.
9. [20] Asserts contradictory sources exist but doesn't provide any.
10. [21] Suggests that the concept of white nationalism was developed within the CRT (and possibly CLT) intellectual family tree and that, as such, any reference to white nationalism arises from within a specific disqualifying ideological context.
11. [22] I'm not even sure how to summarize this baffling argument against using reliable sources.
12. [23] Attempts to clarify that argument. It's important to contextualize that they had not provided any sources, reliable or otherwise, at this point in the discussion.
13. [24] First presentation of a source. This source is reviewed by another editor who finds it discusses & advocates for how the constitution should be interpreted, which has nothing to do with the topic of white nationalism, nor its relation to the Republican Party.
14. [25] Argues that white nationalism should not be mentioned because it's not scientifically provable.
15. [26] Explicitly argues against the use of reliable sources. Openly admits to having a weak grasp of the social sciences.
16. [27] Argues against using reliable sources again after it's explained both that they should start from reliable sources and how to go about doing so.
17. [28] Suggests WP:V advocates against reviewing reliable sources.
18. [29] Yet another reference to a whole bunch of policies without any clarity on how they are relevant to participating in a review of sources.

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)

[30]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't know whether this is a WP:CIR issue or if we're just being trolled. This editor has been redirected repeatedly to review or to introduce sources. Editors have explained policies to them at length and have attempted to intervene at their user page. At minimum this editor is WP:SEALIONing this discussion with their repeated disputes that other editors must satisfy their personal lack of clarity over basic definitions before they will deign to discuss sources. Their one contribution to source review was an entirely off-topic article. There is a reasonable discussion to be had about how to properly document Republican ties to the global far-right in the last decade but the sheer volume of objections from Dd3r1n0 have become quite disruptive to this discussion. It's very hard to discuss how to neutrally represent sources when an editor keeps stridently arguing that sources should not be discussed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one correction, diff 9 should be this [31] rather than a repeat of diff 8. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As the disruption has stopped I would be quite satisfied with the informal warning below as a resolution to this request. Simonm223 (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[32]

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

• I appreciate your feedback and I will follow your direction. I got caught up in something I thought was important, but I see that I should stay out of contentious discussions until I have more experience. Thank you, Dd3r1n0 (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate your feedback and I will follow your directions. I see that I need to wait and get more experience before editing on contentious topics. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This mostly looks to me like a new editor who didn't realize they were stepping into a minefield. Dd3r1n0, it is my strong suggestion that you go back to doing what you were doing before you ended up in this quagmire, namely, helpfully updating articles and doing various gnoming category tasks. Avoid big discussions on contentious articles until you're at a point where you're no longer saying things like I am just trying to learn. As you've found, editors working in contentious topics have less patience for newbies who are "just asking questions" than you might like. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• @Dd3r1n0: - you should only comment in your section above. I've moved your comments there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Orientls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Longewal (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. 14 May 2026 - Asks for topic ban against a established editor without offering any evidence. See WP:BATTLE.
2. 14 May - Personalizing a content dispute with same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on an article that he never edited before. He made that edit in violation of WP:CT/SA as he was not allowed to edit Indian caste topics at the time.
3. 22 May - Engages in POV pushing by selectively removes an image that concerned Mughal Empire
4. 28 May - More POV pushing, this time claiming the word "India" to be historically synonymous to Indian subcontinent.
5. 29 May - Removes sourced content by WP:WIKIHOUNDing me. This is when I already warned him before not to engage in Wikihounding.
6. 29 May - He himself never edited the article ever before he decided to wikihound me here, however he accuses another long term editor of this page to be "tag-teaming with Orientls".
7. [33] - Continued battleground mentality. Falsely accusing me that I "edit others comments" by citing this diff. He misrepresented my actions elsewhere too.[34]
8. 11 June - Continued pro-Hindu POV pushing, claiming that a person born into a "Hindu family" cannot be called an adherent of the religion he himself founded.
9. 15 June: This is another outrageous diff. He is here trying to mitigate the extent of 2002 Gujarat violence by failing "to see a good reason for the inclusion of "with many others raped or mutilated" in the lead.
10. 18 June:[35][36] Edit warring to suppress the longstanding word "Genocide" from infobox.

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)

[37]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[38]

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.

@Sennecaster, Toadspike, Asilvering, and Black Kite: I am refactoring my original statement to address admin feedback and respond to Maltazarian's evidence while strictly adhering to the 500-word limit.

Addressing admin feedback:

• @Sennecaster: Understood regarding dispute handling and WP:BRIE. Going forward, I will prioritize WP:DR over entrenched Talk page debates.
• @Toadspike: You are correct regarding the 15 June diff. My initial phrasing was clumsy and split my focus. I own the poor execution there.

• User:Maltazarian’s diffs:
  • 1. 23 September 2025 - My edit restored the stable, consensus-backed version. The text I restored was authored by User:Fowler&fowler, the primary contributor to the article (see compare). Note: The "chiefly historical" descriptor, was restored after a lengthy RfC.
  • 2. 31 October 2025 Removed a citation failing WP:V. Removed "murder" from the hatnote after initiating a Talk discussion. Dropped it per WP:BRD when consensus failed.
  • 3. 11 November 2025 Changed "India and Pakistan" to "Indian subcontinent" for geographic precision regarding the IVC, matching our primary Indus Valley Civilization article. Initiated a Talk discussion with filer after they reverted it.
  • 4.& 5. 24 February 2026 and 25 February 2026 - My edits did not suppress the scientific consensus. I attributed the "pseudoscientific" classification to the scientific community to solidify the statement. Maltazarian omitted crucial context. While the filer reverted my edit, an established third-party editor (User:Sgroey) subsequently reverted the filer. The dispute was then moved to Talk for consensus building. After the discussion went nowhere, I dropped the matter.
  • 6. 3 March 2026 - Routine copyedit per WP:LEAD to remove a duplicate toxic heavy metals paragraph. The revert-er admitted their mistake and restored it. FYI, the edit ‘’’remains’’’ in the stable version of the article today.
  • 7. 20 March 2026 - The source was already cited 10+ times. Opened a Talk discussion per WP:BRD. I agreed with User:Kautilya3 that Wikivoice was inappropriate and dropped the matter.

• User:Orientls’ (filer) diffs: ^{(Condensed summary for brevity. For detailed policy explanations of each diff, which Toadspike reviewed, see previous revision here)}
  • 1. 14 May: Topic ban proposal was based on User:Kautilya3's documented evidence of a mass category tagging spree against consensus, not a personalized attack.
  • 2. 14 May - Not a violation of WP:CT/SA as confirmed by an admin.
  • 5. 29 May and 29 May: Adhered to standard geographic naming and WP:NOTNEWS. Backed by Talk page discussions where others agreed.
  • 7. 15 June: This comment was made in a thread initiated to shorten the lead and hence I questioned the necessity of specific details to achieve brevity, not to dispute the historical events themselves. I edited my comment within minutes to clarify that I support the edits but the phrasing creates ambiguity regarding victim demographics. I acknowledge poor execution and wording, as rightly pointed out by Toadspike.
  • 8. 11 June: "Sikh" translates to disciple. Guru Nanak founded the philosophy. For example, our article on Jesus Christ correctly identifies him as a Jewish preacher who laid the foundation for Christianity, rather than classifying him as a Christian.
  • 9. 15 June: Removed "genocide" per the WP:GENOCIDE threshold; the cited source did not support the intent of genocide.

My record demonstrates a consistent reliance on WP:BRD and Talk page consensus. — Longewal (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uninvolved and I cannot recall interacting with either editor,. I got curious, did some digging and thought it might be helpful to share so I'm doing so.

Longwal's body of work has a pattern that does indicate a bias towards a POV (I'd rather not attempt to label lest I stir up trouble for no reason, but leans towards Hindu/Indian direction). Very few of Longwal's edits are uncontroversial (they have 42 deleted edits with only 228 mainspace edits made[39]), although many of them that do "favour" the POV are still reasonably following PaGs/CTOP sanctions. That said, a lot are also questionable. In addition to those provided by the filing:

1. 23 September 2025 – removes mention of opposition to the banning of Sati (practice) and changed text on modern cases of the practice from saying "intentionally set fires" to "accidental fires".
2. 31 October 2025 – removed "This article is about ritual suicide/murder." from a hatnote on Sati (practice) and rephrased the lead to state the practice is voluntary, which obscures the fact many cases of it were not.
3. 11 November 2025 – swapped the image on Economic history of India to a map, changed the caption say "India" instead of "the region" and changed the lead to say "the Indian subcontinent" instead of "India and Pakistan".
4. 24 February 2026 – Un-wikivoicing Ayurveda being pseudoscientific and removed information in the lead on the usage of toxic heavy metals in Ayurveda. This was reverted.
5. 25 February 2026 – Changing Ayurveda to once again not wikivoice it as being as pseudoscientific (no consensus had been established for this). Filer of this AE reverted these edits.
6. 3 March 2026 – another edit to Ayurveda similar to those above.
7. 20 March 2026 – added a wikivoice claim to the lead of 2022 Leicester unrest that concerns about Hindutva fascism were about a "false narrative", cited to a the opinion of one person writing for a potentially biased think-tank.

I can't fully decide if its intentional POV-pushing or just a whole lot of subconscious bias that is causing this. There's likely more in the edit history to find if one wishes to. It is may also worth noting that Longwal has nearly exclusively edited articles relating to a wide variety of CTOPs. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 21:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite I was under the impression that Ayurveda can reasonably be considered to fall inside WP:CT/SA, WP:CT/CAM and WP:CT/PS. Apologies if I am mistaken to think so. Also Toadspike is, as Asilvering said, not referring to me here (I have very few edits in this CTOP). ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 19:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my late input. "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas" (WP:POVPUSH). Merely making some POV edits here and there does not constitute "POV pushing". All the diffs presented by the filer here seem to be normal edits, even if some were to represent a POV. Some of them are even perfectly sensible edits. For example, the diff 3 reasonably removes a poor quality image from a featured article. Diff 8 removes the religion field from the founder of the religion. Why on earth would anybody want to put a religion field there? The filer calls it "Continued pro-Hindu POV pushing". Had the editor entered "Hinduism" as the religion, one could perhaps make such an argument. But he didn't. The two diffs numbered 10 hardly constitute "edit warring" when the reverter didn't address the concern and the editor then opened talk discussion. As I poiont out there, the same cited scholar disagreed with the "genocide" claim in his later work.

There is indeed a lot of POV-pushing in the standard sense going on in the WP:CT/SA space at the moment, and the filer is very much part of that enterprise. Here for instance is an RfC opened within 8 months of a previous unsuccessful RfC. And here is the issue of branding a best-selling film as a "propaganda film", which raised the eyebrows of a dozen newspapers in India including this academic commentary. In the latest round of this kind of POV-pushing, we have this, where even an admin was getting told off by the filer!

This group of editors support each other in RfCs, talk page discussions and edit-warring cycles ("tag teaming"). They also bring all opposing editors here. I was myself brought in last month on flimsy grounds, and Gotitbro the month before. The issue is too large to be adequately described in this comment but suffice to say that an extremely toxic atmosphere pervades the topic space at this time, in which newish editors like Longewal get caught out.

I find Longewal engaging in good faith editing and discussions, and getting the point when explained to him in a policy-based manner (Maltazarian's diff 7). I recommend cutting him some slack. We can't drive away all editors daring to enter this contentious space, just because they exhibit some POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The evidence of POV-pushing, especially Maltazarian's, is fairly concerning. I would support a CT/SA topic ban. Toadspike [Talk] 08:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  In the interests of not levying the strongest ban possible from the jump, I think we could set this as a tban from Hinduism and Islam. That's "Hinduism" and "Islam", not "Hinduism and Islam". In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd just note that 3 of the diffs provided are on Ayurveda, a completely different CTOP (pseudoscience). Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. There are also the Economic history of India edits, which not directly related to religion. Indirectly, sure, but that gives us a very broad definition of religion. Toadspike [Talk] 20:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Ayurveda absolutely falls under CT/SA. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Toadspike Help out a stupid person here and show me where the evidence of Maltazarian (not Longewal) POV-pushing is listed here? Black Kite (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite, I read that as "Maltazarian's evidence of Longewal's POV-pushing", not "evidence of Maltazarian's POV-pushing". In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, that's what I meant. Sorry about the ambiguous wording. Toadspike [Talk] 20:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem, I probably should have realised myself. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at all of the diffs that concern articles, we have: IMH with Mughal Empire, India on Indian subcontinent, Garba (dance) (ties to Hinduism), Guru Nanak (Sikh biography, Hinduism POV pushing), Indian politics with the 2002 Gujarat violence article (Hinduism, Islam), IMH, Islam, and Hinduism at 1947 Jammu massacres, Hinduism again at Sati (practice), Economic history of India, Ayurveda (pseudoscience, general CT/SA? there's some Hinduism ties but not enough to justify topic banning someone from the entire article, only sections), and 2022 Leicester unrest which is Indian politics and the Hinduism/Islam combo we've been looking at the whole time. The common denominator and clear problem warrants two topic bans from Islam and Hinduism respectively. However, I'd also argue for at least something to prevent their POV pushing about India as being a superior country (closest characterization I can think of), and now we're looking at a topic ban from either IMH or Indian politics as well, and that's three separate areas that we're finding issues with. This is an insanely large scope of disruption. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I am on record (most recently with Riposte97) as saying multiple times that if we have to topic ban editors from more than one CTOP, an indef should be on the table. However, that was usually in the context of an editor having an existing topic ban and then moving their disruption to another area (i.e. having seen the consequences and not reacted to them), as opposed to considering multiple CTOPs at once for an editor without a topic-ban. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't disagree with you, to be clear. A block does feel overkill. But I'm still noting that effectively we're looking at clear disruption in India, Hinduism, and Islam, as three separate topics under CT/SA (Islam is obviously not strictly CT/SA, but all of the disruption involving it has been about Islam within south Asia). We're almost forced into a harsh set of topic bans when that's what we're trying to avoid in the first place. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 20:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Longewal, please try again, but under 500 words this time. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Toadspike, @Black Kite, @Sennecaster, any thoughts on the above response by Longewal? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not convinced. WP:BRIE is really important in CTOPs, and even if they are right, the diffs from both Maltazarian and Orientis show a problematic way of handling disputes here. Also unconvinced that explaining Maltazarian's diffs will change my perspective much. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I found Maltazarian's evidence more concerning, precisely because (as Longewal has explained) several of Orientis's diffs are benign. Some, though, are still concerning despite the explanation, e.g. #6. They later rewrote that comment [40]; it looks clear to me that they had two separate concerns: one about the including that clause at all, and a second about the ambiguity in whom "others" refers to. Toadspike [Talk] 16:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Gotitbro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sylvester Millner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/SA (notif1, notif2), WP:GS/UYGHUR (notif)

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

• [41], [42], [43] Came across genocide denial added by the editor using fringe sources, reverted and warned them but it was restored again. I started a discussion at the fringe noticeboard. Led to bizzare accusations of "personal gain" [44], was warned again with sanctions by another editor [45] but the editor continued with the same behaviour elsewhere [46].
• [47], [48], [49] Encountered the user again at this article where they've repeatedly reinserted unreliable WP:RAJ era sources to insert [unrelated] fringe into the article. Continues despite being told to desist [50].

These are the articles where I came across their fringe edits. Looking into it, problematic behaviour appears quite serious (also at simplewiki where for instance pushed fringe cruft regarding origins of Urdu [51]).

• Denial of Uyghur persecution using fringe sources [52], [53]
• [54], [55] twice added a conspiracy theory book about Gandhi despite being reverted
• [56] litany of problematic removals and additions at Muhajir (Pakistan) for which eventually blocked (below)
• [57] repeated OR removals and insertions.

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

Diffs of previous relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

1. [58] Blocked for edit warring at Muahjir

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[59]

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

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

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Paprikaiser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Slava570 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA, including the page-specific enforced-BRD restriction at Zionism

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

1. 10 February 2026: Warned for edit-warring at Genocide
2. 28 April 2026: Warned to self-revert a potential ARBPIA 1RR violation
3. 28 April 2026: Slava570 acknowledged making two reverts and not understanding the applicable rule
4. 15 May 2026: Warned again for edit-warring
5. 24 May 2026: Warned that repeated reinsertion at International Association of Genocide Scholars constituted long-term edit-warring and was entering WP:DE territory

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them

• Alerted about the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic on 16 April 2026. Slava570 acknowledged the alert the same day. The alert specifically explained the 1RR restriction, the obligation to comply with page restrictions, and the prohibition on gaming the system.
• Slava570 also demonstrated detailed awareness of the page-specific enforced-BRD procedure in the 25 June comments above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

AE notification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diff 6: A misunderstanding of the RFC consensus.

Diff 7: I don’t understand why I’m not allowed to add an inline tag in good faith. I tried to discuss this with the editor who added it [60] and another editor (the closer above) agreed with my interpretation Talk:Zionism#c-Beland-20260629063200-Samuelshraga-20260628101100

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

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

@Aquillion My response to your headcount [61] was that you missed one editor who explicitly stated their position, making it 6:3. However, no direct question was asked. Several other editors that you didn't count expressed NPOV issues. My good faith assessment is that the sentiment is 50/50. If anything, we should ask those editors directly before excluding them. Slava570 (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They refer to tags in plural here: [62]. They discuss both tags explicitly here: [63] so they should be included. Slava570 (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m seeing some very over-the-top language when it comes to characterizing me. My intention is always to argue in good faith. It doesn’t mean I’m perfect, but this extreme language is unwarranted. I apologize if I’ve crossed any lines. I could’ve been more careful with my language in places. I’m not trying to accuse anyone of bigotry, including Raskolnikov, but I strongly feel that we need to be able to discuss bigotry in general. In the future I will try to make my statements as general as I possibly can, but I don’t feel I should be silenced about the topic entirely, especially when it is so everpresent in this field. In diff 2 below, I show that Raskolnikov’s edit conflated Zionists and Jews, and this was not what the source said. AFAIK I have never used the argument that my argument is “objectively true.” I’m saying my argument doesn’t concern Raskolnikov’s intentions at all, and I welcome them to argue that my statement is false regarding the edit. In the diffs linking previous AE cases, if there was something questionable about my behavior, I think the admins would have told me then. It’s not fair to use those against me now. Slava570 (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am probably over my word limit at this point. May I have an allowance to respond to Simon's allegations tomorrow? I also think Simon's behavior should be scrutinized by admins here. Slava570 (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm involved inasmuch as I added the "disputed" tag[64] following the RfC close: Given the mismatch between sources and article text and simultaneous lack of remedy, It might be fair to tag this article with {{disputed}} or the specific claim with {{disputed inline}} until a stronger consensus is obtained that the lede and body are accurate and non-contradictory. I'm not going to add any tags, but if someone does tag the claims mentioned in this RFC, to avoid edit warring, please don't remove tags without consensus on the talk page.

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

The factual accuracy tag:

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

NPOV Tag:

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

Other:

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

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

But that leaves open the question: Why did Paprikaiser, who best I can tell is totally uninvolved in this dispute, choose Slava to report? Take diff 4: Slava is the 4th participant in the edit war; after they restored the tag one of the prior participants (WP:POINTily?) inline tagged the tag[65], that inline tag got reverted[66] and the tag was removed again[67]. Why are we focussing only on one of the least active participants in the edit war?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been following this AE filing with some concern because I think this is demonstrating a bit of a pattern in Slava570's editing. I was engaged in a protracted content dispute with Slava570 regarding our treatment of the International Association of Genocide Scholars This was a relatively complicated dispute that was derived from a dispute about how to appropriately represent this academic association in the context of its statements concerning the Gaza Genocide. This discussion was happening at the same time that User:Wh1pla5h99 was facing escalating blocks and, after being blocked, they contacted Slava570 on their own talk page and tried to solicit Slava570 to make edits on their behalf. I cautioned Slava570 about WP:MEAT and suggested they tell Wh1 not to make such requests. Slava made this statement: [68] which they subsequently revised to [69]. I didn't pursue this farther at the time although I remained concerned that Slava570 was actively inviting off-wiki collaboration with a blocked editor. I have concerns about Slava's neutrality throughout this discussion however there's one specific set of interactions I feel is quite telling about why I see this as a pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND comportment notwithstanding the implication of off-wiki collaboration:

1. [70] Slava570 introduced a paragraph calling the Academic Engagement Network a group of over 500 scholars and experts.
2. [71] I replaced this with transcluded material from Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide that I felt was more neutral.
3. [72] Slava570 significantly expanded this into a "controversies" section.
4. [73] Another editor reverted Slava570s edit
5. [74] Slava570 then reverted my edit back to their original version. While it is not wikilinked their argument appears to be WP:GOOSE which is odd since I'm not the one who did the revert on their subsequent edit.

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

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

• It looks to me like Slava is actually copping to edit warring, esp. in their response to #10. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not the strongest report brought to AE. The dispute over whether the tags should remain on the article is extremely silly, as tagging disputes tend to be, and everyone there would do better to dispute the actual content. That said, taken in toto, Slava's edits amount to placing a badge of shame on the article to an extent nobody else seems to be doing. The disputed content is already tagged inline, after all. I would support a logged warning here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]