Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Statement by GordonGlottal

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)

@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)

Statement by Tiamut

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)

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)

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))

Whatever you think is necessary is fine by me, though I wish @User:GordonGlottal just acknowledged his missteps as I requested above. If there are restrictions I have to abide by under a 1-way TBAN, please clarify them for me @User:Tamzin. Tiamut (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Slava570

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)

Statement by Huldra

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 (!) (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)

Statement by Boutboul

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)

A few additional points for consideration:

• On volume/dominance of this talk page: XTools data for Talk:List of Palestinians shows GordonGlottal ranks 6th among editors of that page, with 41 edits (7.5%) and 17,297 bytes added (5.6%), well behind Tiamut, who accounts for 196 edits (35.9%) and 107,555 bytes (35.1%).
• On his block log: GG's block log shows only one block, in February 2021, for a 24-hour BRD violation at Donald Trump ; unrelated to the PIA topic area and over five years old.
• On tone: Reviewing the talk page discussion, I'd also note an asymmetry worth considering. GG's comments there are consistently focused on sourcing and definitional questions (e.g. asking repeatedly for a source establishing a national, as opposed to geographic, identity). By contrast, several of the personalized remarks in the thread come from the other direction, e.g. You are quite frankly being anti-Palestinian and denying Palestinians a right to define their own identity and you are not a reliable source on who is a Palestinian. I don't think the record supports a one-sided account of who was personalizing the dispute.

Taken together, I don't think this amounts to an established pattern of disruptive conduct, either on this page specifically or across the topic area. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Statement by Sylvester Millner

Some of these edits the person who filed this strange request is referring to go back years and have been brought up here even though I hardly touch Uyghur-related topics. My edits there were to create a WP:BALANCE and to ensure WP:NPOV of information, rather than a one-sided claim being passed off truth. Just because some of the sources are questionable or not 100% commonly used, does not show evidence of "genocide denial" on my part. This users accusations are far out of proportion and borderline defaming my conduct. Then in the Anti-Bangladeshi sentiment article, I added a claim that the Pakistanis have in fact attempted to deny the genocide or dispute the claims in books and documentaries. I even cited a documentary in my edits to verify the claim that they in fact have attempted to deny it. Instantly, this person accused me of "genocide denial" and promoting "fringe." He then used my previous edit wars on the Muhajir article with another banned user who was promoting the subject and engaged in repeated copyright violations. Even other people on the article talk page of Muhajir complained about the article subject being promoted. The same banned user seems to have a direct connection with the article subject (see userpage). But the filer (user:Gotitbro) mentions none of that and took that whole situation out to context to put the blame on me and mischaracterize me and my edits. Not coincidentally, after erasing my edits on the anti-Bangladesh sentiment article, this user showed up on Indus Valley and revert my sourced edit. Shortly after I restored the edit I saw nothing wrong with, he filed this report, calling my edits "fringe." Looking through this users editing history, he seems to have a long history of edit wars spanning over a wide scale and puts the "fringe" label on any edit he sees as unacceptable to himself. I request that when such requests are filed with such heavy allegations, the filer themselves be investigated in terms of conduct history and motives behind these filings.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223 (2)

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)

Statement by Agnieszka653

I would be more convinced it was a competence issue and an unfamiliarity with how the RS Noticeboard works if the editor didn't insist on putting the same content back using the exact same sources. Additionally the editor does seem to have a clear ideological bias reflected in their use of sources when it comes to the 1971 Bangladesh War of Independence. Furtheremore echoing Simonm223 the use of the news website the Gray Zone is not a good look if the editor in question is trying to assert they are injecting articles with more nuance as the Gray Zone is not allowed to be used on Wikipedia and has questioanble ties to authoritarian regimes and governments which colors its reporting. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Slava570

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 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)

@Aquillion My response to your headcount 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)

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

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)

Re:Simon223

Firstly I would like to say that the way I dealt with Whiplash was genuinely a mistake. It was my first time hearing about WP:MEAT and I was not aware of this rule at the time. I will not do something like this again. However, I never, ever engaged in off-wiki collaboration with them. Neither one of us ever emailed each other. I am not in contact with them, now or ever. If anyone wants to check my email records, I welcome it.

Simon's Diff 1: This was a perfectly reasonable addition to the text, with three sources added. I took the language directly from a source.

The first source was challenged as being primary, despite the fact that the page is full of primary sources. The third source, a valid secondary source, was also challenged. A lengthy noticeboard discussion largely agreed that the source was reliable, and it ended up being used in the end.

Simon agreed that the information in my edit was WP:DUE in a talk page section he titled “Dershowitz open letter” Dershowitz was only one signatory of over 500, so why did Simon title the section this way? Was this guilt by association? Here Simon admits he was being overly glib calling it the Dershowitz letter

Presumably, he also knew he was being “glib” when he added Dershowitz’s name in diff 2, though here at AE he claims this addition was more neutral.

Here another editor gives two additional reasons for why Simon's addition in diff 2 was not neutral

Simon claims diff 3 is a significant expansion. He was the one who expanded my original two short sentences into a large paragraph. I did not delete any information that he added. I only reinserted the number of signatories that Simon had inexplicably downplayed (changing over 500 to several hundred) and put in a new heading, since such a long paragraph was no longer appropriate in a list.

Despite the fact that my edit did not delete anything of Simon’s and added nothing substantial, the following editor reverted it in diff 4 based on WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. That made no sense because nearly all the (allegedly) recent/undue material was introduced in the previous edit by Simon, not by me. So why did he only revert my edit? I then reverted to the previous edit before that because Simon’s edit was the one that would’ve introduced the recentism, not mine.

Simon has mischaracterized my edits before. Here Simon apparently surveilled my edits at the Genocide definitions page, and wrongly said that I seem to edit to minimize Wikipedia discussing genocide as a unique category of crime. The exact opposite was true. Some diffs to prove it: Slava570 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Re:Buidhe

How could I have understood such a policy when it is not written anywhere, and Buidhe did not provide a link to explain it? It sounded implausible, so I went to the Teahouse to understand the rules.

An editor said that deleting content added nine months previously is ultimately a revert, but no, that revert isn't a problem.

Two of the above warnings came from Buidhe, including one when I had just started editing. After the first one, I received a barnstar for civility . The editor added why Buidhe’s warning was unwarranted:

I suggest Buidhe refamiliarize himself with WP:BITE

Re:Bluethricecreamman

First diff: I’ll repeat what I said earlier: I’ll be as careful as possible when discussing bias in the future. However, the argument in this diff is based on a valid Wikipedia policy: WP:BIASED.

Second diff: Against policy, an editor said they wanted to exclude a source based on the author’s political leanings. It’s not possible for two policies WP:BIASED and WP:AGF to contradict each other such that pointing out someone is not following one policy means violating another.

Third diff: This definition of threaten is: to announce as intended or possible . I did not want to exclude WP:OR. Bluericecreamman has misunderstood or mischaracterized my comment.

Fourth diff: I brought two questions to the Noticeboard. First about the primary source. The second one was about the secondary source, so totally different question. After telling me I’m not allowed to ask a second question, this editor didn’t comment again for the duration of the discussion, which ultimately concluded I could use the source.

Fifth diff: Irrelevant. Comment is about a source. Slava570 (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 I will reread WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and try to focus less on minutiae in the future.

Statement by Aquillion

As the person who removed the tags the last time, I'll point out that there was a clear and unambiguous 3:1 consensus to remove the NPOV tag (and a less clear-cut but still reasonable consensus to remove the other, with a majority of people who weighed in supporting it); see the discussion 43#Removal_of_factual_inaccuracy_tag_and_RFC_consensus here and 43#Removal_of_factual_inaccuracy_tag_and_RFC_consensus here. I was genuinely shocked that Slava570 restored the NPOV tag; as I pointed out there, the discussion was three-to-one in favor of removing it. The discussion for the other tag, for the record, is five-to-three in favor of removing the tag, by my count (Tashmetu, Raskolnikov.Rev, VR, Katzrockso, Aquillion for removal; Chicdat, Slava570, Samuelshraga for inclusion.) Obviously quick nose-counts are just a starting point, and there are various valid arguments that could be made against it; but it's necessary to rely on something like that to avoid an endless cycle of RFCs, and everyone pushing for removal of the article tags was willing to accept a compromise of text or section-level tags. Slava570's bald insistence that the discussion was 50-50 (and especially their instance that the NPOV tag was 50:50) seems indefensible to the point of being actively misleading. More generally, this sort of blunt intransigence in the face of an overwhelming consensus, and flat misrepresentation of the state of talk, is disruptive because it slows editing to a crawl; we need people to accept obvious consensuses on talk if discussions are ever going to proceed. --Aquillion (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, the editor Slava570 says I "missed" did not weigh in on 43#The_neutrality_of_this_article_is_clearly_disputed that discussion at all; they have no comments in the relevant section. Slava570 seems to be assuming that because they supported their perspective for the other tag, they can be relied on in another discussion, which is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Furthermore, they did so one-sidedly, ignoring editors who weighed in only on the second article but clearly opposed article-level tags in general. Either way, even if we counted them, "it's only 2:1 against this tag!" is not a particularly compelling argument, and still makes their "50:50" statements a drastic misrepresentation. I do not think an editor should be so aggressively edit-warring something into an article when their own calculations say that a rough nosecount is 2-1 against it. --Aquillion (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Samuelshraga

I'm involved inasmuch as I added the "disputed" tag 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, that inline tag got reverted and the tag was removed again. 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)

Statement by Raskolnikov.Rev

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)

It's my understanding lesser sanctions require acknowledgement of fault and pledging to stop the disruptive behavior. Slava hasn't done that.

Instead in his response to me there's a hedging/conditional non-apology ("if", "could've") and doubling down on baselessly accusing me of objective bigotry: "In diff 2 below, Raskolnikov’s edit conflated Zionists and Jews, and this was not what the source said."

This is inaccurate. My edit restored stable content accurately reflecting the source.

There Slava accused me of improperly distinguishing "the Jews of Israel" from "the Jews of the Zionist movement", calling that a "bigoted attitude" (diff2). So I'm objectively bigoted because I improperly distinguished and improperly conflated, both of which are inaccurate.

In his reply he also suggests he'll continue accusing editors of objective bigotry: "I will try to make my statements as general as I possibly can, but I don’t feel I should be silenced about the topic entirely, especially when it is so everpresent in this field". Slava can point out bigotry, but it has to be evidence-based or it's ASPERSIONS/NPA/BATTLEGROUND. Per previous reply it's also not the first instance of Slava being asked to stop that disruptive behavior to no apparent effect. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223(3)

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

Statement by Mark Bernstein

1. In a domain where most editors have strongly-held beliefs, congruence of opinion can be indistinguishable from tag teaming.

2. If some editors in this domain are not employed by states, NGOs, or equivalent entities, that would be remarkable.

3. I draw your attention to Lir, Shlomit. Between conflict and contribution: Jewish editors and the politics of knowledge on Wikipedia, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565261459183, a recently published academic study (Sage).

4. We are witnessing a series of retaliatory AE complaints. I do not see much improvement in the nature of discussion at Zionism and elsewhere. Do we see sweetness and light and the coming of the Peaceable Kingdom?

5. In niche topics that engage only a handful, it may be practical to find peace and quiet with the banhammer. That did not work, for example, in ethics in videogame journalism. There is no hope that it will work here. To attempt ban all editors with strongly-held convictions is to boil the ocean.

6. We can, I think, learn something from some of Wikipedia’s LTAs. It appears that a remarkable number of individuals and small groups are willing to devote remarkable resources to advance agendas that most people find unfathomable. Arbpia is not unfathomable.

7. I think it is clear that resolving this will require Arbpia6 or some other Community Process. AE cannot do that. The concern at AE should not be to discourage editors who appear disruptive; on this topic, the world has provided us with an inexhaustible supply of disruptive editors. The concern at AE ought to be to lower the temperature and to retain experienced and potentially-valuable editors who will advance the new Process, when Arbcom or the Community figure out what is to be done. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

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

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

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

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

fwiw these examples are relatively old and i had thought slava had been slowly improving wrt learning wikipolicy as a relative newcomer. I have not read nor do i have opinion on latest diffs (as im massively behind on anything recent on zionism page), these are here mostly to contextualize slavas full history. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Vandamonde, if i may be devils advocate, i slightly prefer a final logged warning to a tban for a first time at AE without strong misconduct User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 06:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Buidhe

I was disappointed to discover in May that this editor didn't understand revert policy and doubled down when I pointed it out. To be fair, not all of these reverts were explicitly in the Arab—Israeli topic area. (t · c) buIdhe 02:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Statement by WareWolf665

First of all, this user failed to demonstrate how I violated WP:CT/SA in these diffs. Preventing a non-ECP user from editing a contentious article's talk page (that too for discussing the origin of a dynasty) is actually in-line with WP:CT/SASG rather than in violation of it. If anything, this just proves how THEY continued to edit on restricted topics and violate decisions of the Arbitration Committee despite constant warnings from 2 ECP users (see here).

Apart from CT/SA, this user is in violation of other policies too. In the first diff (), the user POV-pushes an alleged Afghan origin for the Sayyid dynasty using 4 references; 3 of which are translations of primary sources (in which a further 2 vio WP:RAJ and all 3 vio WP:PRIMARY), and 1 of which "debunks" an origin that is not even relevant to the founder of the dynasty (Khizr Khan)! Infact, the user seems to use this single source to "debunk" a totally different, well-sourced origin theory for the dynasty (possibly WP:SYNTH). Even if this source was relevant to his discussion, it would be discarded due to WP:FRINGE and WP:AGEMATTERS (published in 1957 when newer sources are available).

Not to mention the fact that there is already an existing RfC on the page that dealt with this exact topic but they refused to acknowledge that (WP:IDHT).

I believe this is enough proof that his edits were non-encyclopedic and not adding any value or improvement to the page which is why I reverted them as per WP:TALKNOTFORUM and WP:FORUM (and was thanked for that too).

Not to cast any aspersions but it's quite obvious that not only did the user use an LLM to generate this complaint (see comment of User:Sutyarashi), but also possibly copied the reverted content from an ethnonationalist blogsite or Twitter threads.

I request the administrators to take the appropriate corrective measures against this individual, and let me know if I made any mistakes. Thank you for your time and regards.

Thank you for taking the time to comment. I believe the first part of @Gotitbro's statement is not relevant here since I already apologized for my earlier vios of CT/SA and suffered the consequences of that.

As for this allegation of "gaming the system", the first clause of WP:PGAME states that "making unconstructive or trivial edits to raise your user access level" is not allowed. They are yet to prove how my edits from 22nd May (first edit after block) till 4th July (last "normal" edit) are either "trivial" or "unconstructive". Redlinks that do not comply with WP:REDLINK need to be removed and such edits would not constitute as being "trivial" considering that there is an entire policy dictating that.

Similarly, adding the names of figures in their native language to article lede is a common theme on Shahmukhi/Urdu-related articles and well-supported by MOS:AR, hence proving those edits were not "unconstructive" either. Infact, I have been doing that way before I was even close to being ECP confirmed (see here and here and here and several others). This is also quite literally the reason I added Babel userboxes on my userpage.

The "slight imp." edits were suggested to me by Wikipedia itself on my homepage. Since they were mostly random topics, I only made minor edits to those.

Coming to the second clause of PGAME, it states that "the purpose of having these access levels is to help people get (and demonstrate that they have) the practical experience needed for certain kinds of editing. Edits that rapidly reach the technical level but don't get the person any real experience are often considered gaming the system". I believe I have had enough experience after editing a fairly wide range of topics and read through most of Wikipedia's policies to gain ECP status. I started editing in October 2025 so not only did I pass the 30 days limit, I have been intermittently active for almost 9 months now and in no way did I "rapidly" reach ECP status.

Furthermore, Gotitbro states that "as soon as EC status was received started dabbling in edit wars and contentious topics only related to caste (from 5th July)" without citing any policy which mentions that "one cannot start editing on contentious topics on the same day as gaining ECP status". If such a policy exists, I will be happy to revert all my recent edits myself. I have also provided decent justifications for each of my "contentious" edits in edit summary and am fairly confident that any administrators would agree with them.

Gotitbro also accuses me of "POVPUSH relating to Punjab and castes" but fails to cite any examples of such. I believe they are referencing my early edits and subsequent dispute with them on Lawik dynasty (for which I suspect they may still be holding a grudge). Just to clarify, that was back in March when I was a fairly inexperienced editor. I have learnt a lot since then and agree I was in the wrong there after reading through the relevant policies. I do not even remember making any significant, content-changing edits on caste pages until after gaining ECP recently, but if I did and POV-pushed anywhere prior to that, I apologize for that too.

I believe that not only is Gotitbro casting aspersions here, but also fails to demonstrate any sign of assuming goodwill yet again which is very disheartening to see from a fellow experienced Wikipedian.

I urge the administrators to take the most appropriate action as they deem fit. I am willing to fully comply and will currently withdraw from any further editing on contentious pages out of good faith until they give the final decision. Thank you for the time and regards. WareWolf665 (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

UPDATE AS OF 8TH JULY: Since opening this discussion on 6th July, the filer has made further edits on article Battle of Maiwand (see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) . The battle clearly falls within the scope of WP:CT/SA/IMH (see Clarifications and amendments Clause A) as it involves the entity of British Raj. The filer was even warned here by experienced editor Sutyarashi but paid no heed. I believe this is enough proof that the filer has no respect for community sanctions and reported me out of spite for the same reason that they are ACTIVELY violating (a classic case of WP:SHOT). I request the administrators to take the strongest possible corrective measures against this bad-faith individual. Thanks and regards. WareWolf665 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Sutyarashi

I am an uninvolved editor who happened to have some of the articles linked above in his watchlist. I cannot help but notice that HistoricalWriting has been continuously violating CT/SA:

• 16:52, 3 July 2026, WP:CT/CASTE violation at Dilazak
• 16:45, 3 July 2026, WP:CT/CASTE violation at Dilazak
• 06:38, 3 July 2026, WP:CT/IMH violation at Lodi dynasty
• 10:54, 1 July 2026, WP:CT/CASTE violation at Mohmand
• 10:36, 1 July 2026, WP:CT/IMH violation at Battle of Maiwand
• 13:21, 20 June 2026, WP:CT/IMH violation at Battle of Nowshera
• 13:12, 20 June 2026, WP:CT/IMH violation at Battle of Nowshera

...and dozens of such examples

Infact, the filer appears to have been editing WP:CT/SA topics exclusively. They are obviously familiar with the WP:CT/SA restrictions (CT/SA notice at their talk page here, posted and explained in clear words to them on 24 February 2026) and how WP:ARE works despite their short edit count (133-ish at the time of this statement) so the whole request appears inexplicable unless, which I suspect, they used LLM to generate it, which is unfortunately becoming increasingly a common occurrence at Wikipedia. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Gotitbro

Tban for both, particularly an indef for CT/CASTE and CT/IMH and EC rescission for WareWolf665. WareWolf665 has been consistently violating ECR restrictions for these ever since the user started editing, even after receving no less than 6 CTOPS/ECR warnings and acknowledging them each time simply didn't stop. I finally brought this to Quick AE 2 months ago and the user was blocked for a week by asilvering on 1 May: . The response was this As far as my edits are concerned, they are not disruptive, neither do they break any Wikipedia policy. Please clarify if the sole reason for this block was editing as a non-ECP user (which I admit was my fault). If so, further clarify if this block will affect my profile once I get ECP status. If it's not the sole reason, kindly cite those disruptive edits so I can do some self-improvement . Clearly no lessons learnt, the user started WP:GAMING (apparently "well-aware" not to do exactly this but oh well) to reach EC status (from 4th July with all edits being "rmv redlinks" or "slight imp." or "added native name") and as soon as EC status was received started dabbling in edit wars and contentious topics only related to caste (from 5th July) . Even beyond this clearly sanctionable conduct, the issues with POVPUSH relating to Punjab and castes therein are apparent from their Talk and edit hist but the afore should suffice restricting any edits related to caste and milhist in South Asia. Gotitbro (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by JasonGen

Statement by Chicdat

I don't think JasonGen is gaming. They seem to have three main areas of editing, those being greyhound racing, Australia, and Jews/I-P. Excluding the I-P part, this has remained consistent throughout their Wikipedia editing career, as has their style of editing. Gaming is unlikely. However, I see multiple things in their editing history that indicate possible disruptive editing.

• This edit to Leo Frank, changing Modern researchers agree that Frank was innocent to The prevailing view among modern historians is that Frank was innocent. They claimed their change was standard consensus language. Edit was reverted by JayBeeEll with the edit summary "standard consensus wording" = a thing you decided is "standard" how?
• At Talk:National Committee for the Administration of Gaza. Pretty standard content dispute until JasonGen decided to make it about conduct. Contrast As always, I look forward to your response... thanks for catching my error regarding the Reuters source you had added with First, do not ping me multiple times to elicit a response. I am in a different timezone, had not been editing, and am a WP:VOLUNTEER. This is not the first occasion that you have repeatedly contacted me about the same topic unnecessarily within a short period. If this pattern of repeated unwanted contact [linked to WP:HARASS!] continues, I will raise it at the appropriate noticeboard. This is in response to Alansohn pinging them twice in three days about an ongoing content dispute.
• Twice accusing Alansohn of AI use, without citing any AI signs as evidence. Instead, their justification was that Alansohn did not address a number of concerns in my previous comment. Not a reason to throw a serious allegation around, especially considering that JasonGen likewise failed to address some of Alansohn's concerns.

So JasonGen has casted aspersions without evidence on multiple occasions and been uncivil, in addition to making an edit that elevated an antisemitic fringe theory (implying that a minority of modern historians view Frank as guilty). The Frank edit is pretty innocuous on its own, but combined with the rest of the editing history, it may be suspicious. (Of course, it could also be entirely in good faith.) Not to say that Alansohn has been constantly civil either. Calling an edit a blind revert isn't really AGF. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 18:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Statement by NeboRadar

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

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

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

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

> Using TASS as source of otherwise unsubstantiated claim

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

I have definitely screwed up again. The use of Wikimedia and other Wikis as a source was wrong now that I look at it. Regarding TASS, I still would maintain the view that it was valid in the context I used it in, but I think I'll just have to concede on that point. I'll voluntarily take a break from this topic for some time, maybe with the oversight of someone like User:Joko2468 NeboRadar (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

[to Joko2468] Yeah fair enough NeboRadar (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

We have TylerBurden chiming in, a blatantly partisan editor who has a link to a drone snuff film on their talk page, who themselves is subject to multiple disciplinary actions, and is constantly engaging in edit-warring, mass reverting and raising of ANIs. NeboRadar (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Joko2468 As you mentioned it earlier, would you mind if I asked how you would think I could demonstrate improved standards, just to be clear NeboRadar (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger Oh right, yeah sorry about that. NeboRadar (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Joko2468

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

On the subject of reliable sourcing, their earliest warning was apparently on 8 November 2025, with further warnings on 14 November, 14 February 2026, 13 March (above), and by me on 26 March. Joko2468 (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@NeboRadar I appreciate that but I think a topic ban would be the appropriate way to handle this. Once you're able demonstrate that your standards have improved, you could get the ban lifted-- it's effectively the same as what you're proposing but less taxing on other editors' time. Joko2468 (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@NeboRadar, you'd be better off asking an admin but to my understanding you would have to be able to demonstrate a history of good quality editing away from this topic. It depends on how frequently you edit, to my sensibilities that could be a month or several? I'm not sure. Joko2468 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by TylerBurden

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

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

Statement by (username)

Statement by Yevrowl

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Statement by Lacanic

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

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

Statement by (username)

Statement by TurboSuperA+

Statement by TylerBurden

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

Statement by Helpful Cat

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

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

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

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

Statement by voorts

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

Statement by (username)