Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
For quick requests: use the Quick enforcement requests section.
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against a previously alerted editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only registered users who are autoconfirmed may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by temporary accounts or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests, appeals, and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Administrators may remove or shorten comments that are overlong or unconstructive, and may instruct users to stop participating or impose AE sanctions in response to disruptive contributions such as personal attacks or groundless complaints.

The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each, unless AE admins waive this rule. Any uninvolved admin may further restrict participation by non-parties at their discretion.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.
Word counts may be added using the following template: {{ACWordStatus|page=AE|section=REQUEST NAME|user=USERNAME}}. Extensions may be granted using the following template: {{ApprovedWordLimit|words=NEW TOTAL|sig=~~~~}}.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. Hatted requests will later be archived by an admin (often after a few days to a week).
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives (index)

Quick enforcement requests

This section may be used for short requests for enforcement intended to be answered by a single administrator. This can include requests for page restrictions or requests to revert violations of a restriction, but it should not be used to request that an editor be blocked, banned, or given other editor restrictions – for those, file a long-form enforcement thread.

To add a quick request, copy the following text box, click to edit this section, paste in the copied text at the bottom, and replace "Heading", "Page title", "Requested action", and "Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated)" to describe the request:

=== Heading ===
* {{pagelinks|Page title}}
'''Requested action''': Short explanation (including the contentious topic or the remedy that was violated). ~~~~

Example request

Wikipedia:Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One-revert restriction: Changes on this page are frequently reverted back and forth. User:Example (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: This doesn't involve any contentious topic, so an admin doesn't have discretion to impose a one-revert restriction here. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Textbooks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Talk:Textbooks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested action: Just a quick request that an administrator remove the duplicate ARBPIA talk notice. I imagine this could probably be done myself, but the template technically says any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator., so if someone could do so, would be appreciated. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done asilvering (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rap no Davinci

No action. Arcticocean ■ 19:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Rap no Davinci

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kowal2701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rap no Davinci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system 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

See page history of Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine, an article they created 11 Jan. Also see NicheSports' analysis of the content added [1] which indicates either a violation of WP:NEWLLM, or big WP:CIR issues re WP:V and WP:RS. They were informally warned about LLM-use on 11 Oct 2025 and then received a formal warning at AE on 22 Nov 2025.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

22 November 2025 Warning for problematic LLM-use in PIA

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

[2]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This comment in the merge discussion also seems LLM-generated and cites WP:SNG for some reason (?) Kowal2701 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Raskolnikov.Rev comment below misrepresents mine in the discussion, and while blunt and potentially uncivil it has nothing to do with AGF Kowal2701 (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Newslinger, usually I'd agree, but they've shown a serious lack of understanding of core policies on an incredibly controversial and sensitive/nuanced topic. I'd rather they honed their editing skills outside of PIA first Kowal2701 (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

Discussion concerning Rap no Davinci

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

Statement by Rap no Davinci

Rap no Davinci's statement contains 1026 words and is within 10% of the 1024-word limit.

Extension granted to 1024 words. — Newslinger talk 09:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been transparent about my use of LLM, when I stated that I can continue editing without it, I meant it. The article in question was not generated/created using LLM, it’s entirely my work and took me several days to draft the initial version. For "See page history [of the article]", it would actually help you see the amount of effort it took as a person to add few more sentences. From the initial version to the final expansion, which included additional sentences and sources, I spent HOURS in reading, analyzing, and summarizing information in the sources. LLM would've taken few minutes, that's a human being behind their screen putting in real work.

Does that mean I didn't make any mistakes? Absolutely not! Especially given the sensitive nature of the subject, but working on it is me being brave (and prepared for the pushback). There are likely phrases that could seem biased or could misrepresent the original sources, of course UNINTENTIONALLY. That's why we don't own articles we create, and the community-driven work we do is what make this platform so special. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the article and make it better. (I am working on a section related to reception and criticism to address the tag of Unbalanced).

For the comment on merge, I, once again, didn't use LLM, and for the WP:SNG, (as I understand it), is for the article Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine as a very specific topic, very different and should not to be merged with Jewish pro-Palestinian activism just because they "overlap" in one singular general fact: both cover pro-Palestine activism by people of the Jewish faith.

Some of the criticism is legit (about 10% of the article needs improvement, mostly related to wording, I will address some of them) and I probably made some mistakes, please help make the article better. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rap no Davinci (talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks for extending my word limit, I'll do my best to address all points raised against me/the article.

For NicheSports' comment is what I referred to as "10% legit criticism", mostly related to wording. In relation to sources and OR: "A foundational principle for many Holocaust survivors ... " As the leading sentence, this is supported by the whole subsection of '"Never Again" applies to all people', as the next line is "They argue that the slogan "Never Again" must not be exclusive to Jews." and later "as descendants, we recognize that genocide makes no one safer." and so on.

The same with "The use of Holocaust memory in discussions of Israeli military...", followed by "Holocaust survivor Agnes Kory stated that she was "outraged and deeply insulted by the Holocaust being used as an excuse for Israel's relentless war against the Palestinian people," … and much later “victims of the Nazis who were outraged that Israel used their histories to justify assaults on Palestinians.”

for "(such as siege, mass displacement, and high civilian casualties)...", I added this as explanation for readers as these are already established "facts" supported by standalone articles on Wiki Siege of Gaza City, Blockade of the Gaza Strip; for mass causalities Gaza genocide, Casualties of the Gaza war. Is this a case of OR? From my pov, this is explanation WP:SYNNOT. Still easy to fix (as has already been).

for "Many of these individuals distinguish between Judaism and political Zionism…" Again, this is supported by the whole subsection of "Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism", take "Organizations they associate with ... argue that the foundational ideology of Israel leads to the oppression of the people of Palestine" and "Signatories to the 2014 letter ... object to the characterization of pro-Palestine activism as inherently antisemitic, pointing to their own Jewish identity ..." as examples, all supporting that sentence.

for "Organizations they associate with … argue that the foundational ideology of Israel leads to the oppression of the people of Palestine." I should've clarified the ideology of "self-defense" and criticizing the state = criticizing the Jewish people = calling for another Holocaust .. excepts the source cited "victims of the Nazis who were outraged that Israel used their histories to justify assaults on Palestinians" and "Israel's self-defense is very lopsided. Gazans are a population living in a constant state of siege. They've been driven from their homes, into decades-long refugee camps." = being oppressed. (the sentence is vague more than OR, cuz “what ideology?”)

for "A German-born Jewish-American … known for her work with the International Solidarity Movement in support of the Palestinian cause." I rewrote that from her Wiki page, the lede Hedy Epstein, not OR

For "Their stance is rooted in the belief that lessons from the Holocaust demand opposition to all forms of oppression …” Not sure how is this OR, it's the article itself, multiple cited survivors used their experiences as a base to vocalize support for Palestine and opposition to Israel!!

Currently, 2 editors (R.Rev & Arcticocean) have examined the sources and found no issues. Which was the main problem with my prior LLM mis/use. For the “typical LLM” phrases like ‘rooted in’ and ‘foundational principle’, etc. As a non-native English speaker, these look very standard formal phrases, appropriate for this encyclopedia. Some of these were translations from my native language to English using Google Translate (when I was unsure how to express some info or summaries). It took me serious days to write this article. It’d be seriously unwise of me to write an article related the most debated subject in the past 2 years (on-and-off Wiki), with a warning against me, using LLM, when I expected pushback against the article as there’re editors with strong views for/against the premise.

Having a “history” of mis/using LLM makes the accusation easy to stick, but I maintain my position that I stopped using it for creating/editing on Wikipedia since the last AE, even prior to the warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rap no Davinci (talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Reply: I didn’t know about that Google Translate update. I will disclose when I use it. For the recommendation about creating WP:CT/A-I articles, I have no objection. Thanks for handling this. (brief due to word limit) Rap no Davinci (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Raskolnikov.Rev

I reviewed the source analysis cited for filing this case and wholeheartedly disagree with it. All the content is backed by the cited sources and there's no WP:OR involved or use of GUNREL that I can see. There's some improvements that can be made with attribution, particularly in one case citing a weak source that links to other sources containing the content, but that content was already backed up by other sources added to the body and not at all controversial. In my view it's all rather minor and easily resolvable via regular BRD and editing. Not sure why this was so quickly escalated to AE. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The filer responded to my providing a second opinion on the source analysis, as the original editor requested, by saying I shouldn't edit in the topic area either without substantively addressing anything I said. I don't find this helpful and it's not WP:AFG. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To briefly respond to NicheSports: As I noted on the talk, the example brought up as the supposedly most egregious instance of failing WP:V is actually the worst one to bring up: The cited NYT piece says the march Hedy Epstein participated in was organized by Gaza Freedom March, which overlaps with the Free Gaza Movement, which in turn overlaps with the International Solidarity Movement. Moreover, Hedy Epstein's BLP was linked, which states she was an activist in the ISM in the lede citing the same NYT source. And it should not be removed there either as it is entirely uncontroversial and accurate material given Gaza Freedom March being a part of the broader ISM. Here is a newsletter from the Free Gaza Movement with a statement from Epstein saying why she joined the Gaza Freedom March and a call to join the ISM at the end, and here is the obituary I added stating Epstein was active in the ISM and Free Gaza Movement. Even if NicheSport's concern that the ISM was not explicitly named in the NYT piece is valid, it could easily be resolved with this addition. This doesn't even warrant a revert, let alone an AE case. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NicheSports

Can an admin independently and thoroughly review my analysis [4] before this case is closed? I believe that both Raskolnikov.Rev and RnD's analyses are unreliable. For evidence of this claim, see the 6th point of my analysis (the simplest, as it documents a black and white WP:V failure). In RR's talk page response [5] to my analysis, they state that it is "uncontroversial" that the text I highlighted was supported by the sourcing. This is objectively false; the organization "International Solidarity Movement" is never mentioned in the only source [6]. Meanwhile, RnD stated at the AE thread that I rewrote that from her Wiki page, the lede Hedy Epstein, not OR. This reflects an apparent serious misunderstanding of WP:V; content in articles must be supported by in-line sources, not assertions made in related wikipedia articles. This is the simplest example; I am confident that a reviewing admin will identify other issues, especially related to WP:PRIMARY. LLM detection is almost always probabilistic in nature (unless someone leaves a chatbot prompt/response). There is a high probability that RnD has repeatedly been dishonest about LLM use: at their talk page [7][8] re Draft:Nayda and at the prior AE thread [9]. See this analysis [10], which mostly explains my thinking re: the prior AE thread. Meanwhile, Draft talk:Nayda § High likelihood unreviewed LLM-generated text speaks for itself. These probable prior issues make me skeptical of RnD's claims at this AE case to have only used machine assistance for translation purposes while creating the article in question. One more point: it is so much harder to address machine-assisted content in the PIA space because it gets edit warred back in [11][12] and people start arguing [13][14] about whether it is anti-semitic (this article isn't, of course - RR, RnD, and I all agree there). NicheSports (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger I didn't think that compliance with core content policies was a content issue, but understood on the rest and I am happy to drop this. I will also stop reviewing RnD's edits and will focus on LLM work outside of the PIA space. NicheSports (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Rap no Davinci

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

@Rap no Davinci: There are seven bullet points in the initial comment of Talk:Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine § WP:V and WP:OR issues, likely LLM-generated content that highlight seven excerpts from the text you added to the article in your first six edits ending 12:37, 11 January 2026. For each bullet point, could you please assess the text in question and explain in detail whether the content and the sources cited to support it are consistent with the core content policies and the reliable sources guideline? I have extended your word limit to allow 700 words for your response. — Newslinger talk 09:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I am still expecting a response from Rap no Davinci based on their own reasoning, written in their own words. — Newslinger talk 10:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rap no Davinci: Thank you for responding. You might not be aware of this, but as of December 2025, Google Translate uses Google's Gemini LLM to handle part of its translation process. Other machine translation tools have started using LLMs in their implementations as well. Because of this, whenever you use Google Translate or another machine translation tool for editing, please disclose your use of that tool in your edit summary. (When you use machine translation in a discussion comment, please also make the disclosure in the comment itself.)
  I see that your response here heavily focuses on whether the content you added corresponds to the sources you cited, but does not examine whether those sources are reliable or neutral. As the fourth bullet point from the article talk page comment pointed out, you cited a self-published article from Medium that was authored by an individual who does not appear to be a subject-matter expert. Please be more careful with your sourcing to ensure that your content is compliant with the verifiability policy.
  Based on the above, I believe Rap no Davinci should use the Articles for Creation process to create any new article related to the WP:CT/A-I contentious topic, which would necessitate a review of the draft by another editor before it is published in article space. I state this as a recommendation, but would also support implementing this as a requirement if there is consensus that doing so would be necessary. — Newslinger talk 18:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @NicheSports: This noticeboard is only able to address misconduct, and content issues have to be resolved through the proper channels. I agree that Rap no Davinci's phrasing and source selection in the article are both opinionated and in need of improvement, but this is something that can be corrected with further editing (or, for Rap no Davinci's future article creations, flagged by an AfC review prior to publication). The standard for evidence on this noticeboard is higher than that of WP:ANI (because we focus more on specific diffs here instead of general impressions about an editor), and for reports regarding LLM misuse, I would prefer to see a higher-confidence sign of AI writing before advancing to a more serious behavioral restriction. — Newslinger talk 04:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  - @NicheSports: Noncompliance with core content policies is a behavioral issue if there is a disruptive pattern, or if the edits are egregious enough to clearly show that they were made in bad faith. I do expect Rap no Davinci to continue working on the article to address the critiques that you and others have posted on the article talk page. — Newslinger talk 04:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kowal2701: Rap no Davinci can see your advice here, but it is not enforceable without a stronger set of evidence. — Newslinger talk 13:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Newslinger's request that Rap no Davinci respond to the seven points referenced, a detailed analysis of the sources was posted by another user. I think it is fairly clear now that there is no source hallucination within the article, and therefore that RND had checked all LLM-generated assertions. What I think has to be addressed now is the undisclosed use of generative AI to write the prose of the article. The phrasing of the article makes clear, in my view, that it was substantially generated by AI. RND has denied this and says the article in question was not generated/created using LLM. On a close reading of the article drafted, I have to disbelieve their denial. Many of the usual signs are present, e.g. use of imprecise weasel words (A foundational principle for many is the…) and human-impersonating editorialisation (Their stance is rooted in the belief…). RND was warned after the last AE report that they may receive a sitewide block in the event of further generative AI misuse. Failing to disclose LLM use is discouraged and writing new articles with them is not permitted. I would ask RND to comment on this. Arcticocean ■ 17:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith, I am prepared to accept the explanation that this article was not AI-generated, despite appearing to have been. I also agree with Newslinger's recommendation to use AfC in future. As RND has now accepted that recommendation, I think we can treat that as a voluntary measure rather than a sanction, and I would close this enforcement request without formal action, provided no other admins have further concerns. RND, please continue to remember your recent AE warning regarding generative AI use in addition to the advice given in this AE request. Arcticocean ■ 13:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The statements (and supplementary comments) being offered in this request are not introducing new or actionable information. As all relevant issues have been addressed and considered, I think this request should now be closed, with 'no action' as the outcome for the reasons I have already given. Unless any uninvolved admins object in the next 48 hours, I will close the request with that as the outcome. Arcticocean ■ 20:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Glebushko0703

Filer was a sock. Izno (talk) 04:15, 29 January 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.

Request concerning Glebushko0703

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SophiaJustice59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Glebushko0703 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

This is the first time I made an AE request. Pardon me for any mistakes. Recently, I came across Glebushko0703 in some articles. I initially did not wish to get involved. However, after a brief encounter with him in relation to List of pro-Russian political parties, I looked at his activity in adjacent articles, noticing issues that caused legitimate concerns.

Suspected violations after his recent block

WP:TE and WP:AOBF in List of pro-Russian political parties

Glebushko0703 removed multiple articles from See also (diff1), claiming fixed non neutral "see also" without explaining how it was "non-neutral". MaxPlays reverted him (diff2). Glebushko0703 reverted back, alleging none of these "see also" have anything to do with most of these parties. clearly pov:push (diff3) without explaining how it was "clearly pov:push" [sic], followed by another unexplained revert (diff4).

On the Talk page, Glebushko0703 insinuated that Russian hybrid warfare, Russosphere, Russophilia, Putinism and Eurasianism were "vaguely nationalistic concepts" (diff5), which is objectively false. TylerBurden explained how the articles in See also were relevant and WP:DUE-compliant (diff6). Glebushko0703 refused to listen, arguing You can't add "LBGTQ" to "see also" of 4 Non Blondes for examples, which is totally irrelevant, and in fact a lot of them just want good relationship with current Russian government to benefit their own country, like german AfD for example. without evidence (diff7).

Glebushko0703 apparently fails to assume good faith in their inclusion, treating neutral article names as "POV-pushing", nor has he been able to provide any policy basis. The only reasonable explanation for this is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, a problem he exhibits in editing several articles.

Glebushko0703 refuses to listen to others, alleging that the only reason he is disagreed with is that You don't understand my point so you claim it as "bizzare". (diff8), alongside his bludgeoning (diff9, diff10, diff11).

WP:CIR issues in Holocaust denial

Glebushko0703 removed a sourced statement (diff12) by claiming This entire section is in fact bullsh*t, the book was published by a British publisher without explaining how the "British publisher" affects the statement's validity. The statement is sourced to a book of ABC-CLIO which is an American publisher. Sumanuil reverted him, explaining Graf's book wasn't. (diff13)

Glebushko0703 reverted within an hour, claiming Manual Revert. Please read open the source. Bloomsbury Academic is an English publisher. There's no source to support the claim that the book was published in Russia, let alone that holocauts denial is "freely available". (diff14) as if English publishers are unreliable.

Sumanuil reverted him, reiterating No one is saying that "Holocaust Denial As An International Movement" was published in Russia, because it is about the topic, not an example of it. (diff15) It is clear to the audience that Sumanuil referred to Jürgen Graf's book rather than Holocaust Denial as an International Movement, but Glebushko0703 did not listen, nor had he provided any policy basis for his repeated removal.

Violations before his recent block

Edit warring in Estonia, Kaja Kallas and Anti-Russian sentiment

diff16, diff17, diff18, diff19

Particularly, Glebushko0703 edit-warred to insert undue BLP-violating content into Kaja Kallas (diff20, diff21, diff22, diff23, diff24, diff25). Today, Glebushko0703 restored an unexplained AI tag to Estonia (diff26) to discredit a proper article.

Harassment

diff27, diff28, to mention but a few. Analysis by an admin: diff28, diff29. The user made several comments generalizing those he perceived as Estonians: diff27, diff30, diff31, diff32, to mention but a few.

Conclusion

His conduct is combatively tendentious. Whenever his edits get reverted, he prefers edit warring to force his way through and bludgeoning Talk page discussions to become the last comment in a bid to get his desired "consensus." Such conduct is a net negative to the EE topic area. The repeated blocks also show a major CIR issue. It is not a constructive use of community time to entertain this. There is a limit to assumption of good faith when an unabated pattern of non-neutral editing is seen.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

10 January 2026: 72-hour page block from User talk:LordCollaboration for repeated inferences (with no credible evidence) the target page user is puppeting; stay away from LordCollaboration or this block might be broadened
31 December 2025: 31-hour site block for personal attack or harassment
28 December 2025: 3-month page block from Anti-Russian sentiment for edit warring about the same content (compare Special:Diff/1324924298) directly after the block expired
10 December 2025: 2-week site block (Disruptive editing)
9 December 2025: 2-week page block from Kaja Kallas for edit warring in additional violation of WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS
26 October 2025: 31-hour site block for personal attack or harassment Special:Diff/1318672405 being the final straw after a pattern of testy comments)

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

diff33, diff34

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: diff35

Discussion concerning Glebushko0703

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

Statement by Glebushko0703

Most of the diffs are taken out of context and the main argument here seems to be focused on me debating other editors to reach a consensus and "not being right". This thread reminds me of another Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1211#Selective RFC application and repeated inaccuracies by Glebushko0703 and I do not want to waste time on this.

Statement by ExRat

Glebushko0703 has had a consistent pattern of disruptive editing and has shown, in my opinion, to have a very strong, overt bias against Estonia, Estonians, and Estonian editors, and their edits seem to bear this out. Notable examples of this ongoing behavior, apart from those listed above, include:

Following the closing of the RFC:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles that they created, Glebushko0703 has threatened to create a Wiki article about a reporter named Ronald Liive of Eesti Rahvusringhääling (ERR, Estonian Public Broadcasting, referring to it was "Yellow Press") for reporting on the RFC for the sole purpose of harassing/irritating Mr. Liive: That Mr. Ronald Liive seems like a very active journalist, should we create a Wiki page about him? and That's why I think he won't oppose the creation of his own article on Wikipedia, but over there he will be listed as born in Estonian SSR unfortunately.
Has proposed to User:GoodDay that they form a club called the "Wikipedia Anti-Nationalist Estonian Movement (WANEM)" to allegedly counteract socks and POV pushing and threating to edit war (dif1) ExRat (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Glebushko0703

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

Malayalee from India

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

Request concerning Malayalee from India

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Malayalee from India (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system 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

this and the resulting entry at WP:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#G6 is what brought it to my attention, but basically every single edit I spot-checked is either about Indian political parties or Indian military history both of which are under extended-confirmed restrictions.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted 11 Sept 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malayalee_from_India&diff=prev&oldid=1335335125

Discussion concerning Malayalee from India

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

Statement by Malayalee from India

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Malayalee from India

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

ILoveRichardSimmons

Already handled at WP:ANI § User:ILoveRichardSimmons persistent vandalism of recently deceased comedy actors' pages. — Newslinger talk 13:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning ILoveRichardSimmons

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kire1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ILoveRichardSimmons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/BLP

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

25 January 2026 Unexplained blanking of a whole day's work that I and other redditors had been doing on a recently deceased, beloved comedian Floyd Vivino.
31 January 2026 Unexplained blanking of nearly 7000 characters worth of information on a recently deceased, beloved comedian Catherine O'Hara.
23 January 2026 Vulgar edit summary unrelated to content of edit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

21 January 2026 Blocked from editing by User:Ad Orientem for 48 hours. Reason: disruptive editing.
Date Partially blocked from editing List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters by User:EvergreenFir

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 29 January 2026 by AnomieBOT (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 31 January 2026 by Kire1975 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 29 January 2026 by GregariousMadness (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by AnomieBOT (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 27 January 2026 by GregariousMadness (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 26 January 2026 by Kire1975 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 20 January 2026 by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 18 January 2026 by Loriendrew (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 17 January 2026 by Waxworker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 11 January 2026 by Waxworker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 11 January 2026 by Augmented Seventh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 11 January 2026 by Sugar Tax (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 31 January 2026 (see the system log linked to above).
Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor's behavior has been discussed at length at WP:ANI here and WP:AIV here. After leaving a CTOP notice on ILRS's page, User:TarnishedPath advised me as follows: The next time their behaviour is outside of community norms, please take it to WP:AE. Since then User:ILoveRichardSimmons has made at least 10 edits that have been reverted on pages that he has been warned about and others, including Richard Simmons, Ian McShane, My Name Is Earl and Blake Clark. The last of which was to change Blake Clark's birthday to "February 32nd".

I haven't submitted an AE case like this before. I anticipate editing typos etc. Apologies in advance.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ILoveRichardSimmons&diff=prev&oldid=1336170090

Discussion concerning ILoveRichardSimmons

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

Statement by ILoveRichardSimmons

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ILoveRichardSimmons

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

ILoveRichardSimmons was indefinitely blocked from article space by rsjaffe at 11:40, 2 February 2026, in response to WP:ANI § User:ILoveRichardSimmons persistent vandalism of recently deceased comedy actors' pages. Because the ANI discussion (which was also started by Kire1975) already includes all of the pertinent information in this enforcement filing, there is further action that would be taken here, and I am closing the case. — Newslinger talk 13:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chandel itihasam zy

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

Request concerning Chandel itihasam zy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Chandel itihasam zy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system 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

17:50, 2 February 2026 Violation of 500 edit rule relating to Indian military history, edit summary of Added sources of his victory over paramaras and kalachuris making it clear what the edit is about.
18:12, 2 February 2026 Edit to Military career of Bhoja is self-explanatory

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)

Notified at 17:18, 15 November 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are numerous sections on their talk page about the Indian military history restrction, such as:

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Chandel itihasam zy

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

Statement by Chandel itihasam zy

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Chandel itihasam zy

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	AI Cleanup Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards