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]

TylerBurden

Closing without action. Tyler will be held to his promise to do better in the topic area. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[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 TylerBurden

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TurboSuperA+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TylerBurden (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:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision

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

4 January 2025 Incivility/PA, "Do you speak English?"
4 January 2025 Misuse of edit summary to get around NOTFORUM
1 January 2025 Misuse of edit summary
26 November 2025 Misuse of edit summary
12 November 2025 Assuming Bad Faith
9 November 2025 ABF
5 November 2025 ABF
12 June 2025 ABF
12 June 2025 ABF
29 September 2025 ABF/misuse of edit summaries
17 September 2025 Misuse of edit summaries
12 August 2025 Misuse of edit summary and ABF
20 June 2025 Treats legitimate concerns about an article as bad faith; the article was later deleted at AfD
10 June 2025 Misuse of edit summary
12 April 2025 PA because I changed the colour of my signature: Perhaps you think changing your signature would make people not see how hypocritical you are.

~~15 September 2025 Reverts an edit that added content from already cited source and calls it "disruptive editing"~~

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

30 July 2022 ArbCom block (can't find case/reason)
31 July 2022 ArbCom TPA block
13 November 2025 Permanently banned from discord. Again, no idea why, but shows a pattern of problematic behaviour.

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

They posted a CTOP notice to the talk page of an Administrator and 20 year editor, after the Administrator deleted their article at AfD: diff

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

TurboSuperA+'s statement contains 938 words and complies with the 950-word limit.

Extension granted to 950 words. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They were already brought to ANI once for personal attacks and accusing editors of lying (thread).

Examples of POV pushing:

Removed a reputable source (harvard.edu) because he didn't like what it says.

Removes content and references and says a source that is widely used in the topic area is not reliable because he doesn't like what it says.

Adds content about Russia, then removes similar content cited to a reputable source (The Economist) about Ukraine.

Reinstates NOTFORUM comments by an IP with a single edit when those comments are critical of Russia, then tells other editors to "dismantle it". No one has actually engaged with it, it just clutters up the Talk page.

Examples of tendentious editing:

Here they removed sourced content from an article because it was seemingly critical of Ukraine, but after an editor spent time explaining how it is actually debunking Russia's claims TB was satisfied with inclusion.

Adds content from a non-RS because he likes what it says. Editors had to spend time explaining why the source is not reliable. Content and source was eventually removed.

Disclosure:

I have had content disputes with this editor, most recently here.

Further comments after filing: First of all, if I could choose a sanction for TylerBurden it'd be a logged warning and reminder that civility is expected in a CTOP, per Principles #2 and #4, not a TBAN. Repeated "snarkiness", as Black Kite puts it, is not acceptable for a collaborative project, let alone a highly contentious topic area.

Second(a), I am glad Mellk brought up the discussion in his second post. I will admit my comment was not constructive. It was before I learned about the {{jk}} template, and even then, a CTOP is no place for sarcasm or jokes.

Second(b), that comment was made on 4 May 2025. After that I was brought to ANI, and even though the thread was closed without any action, I voluntarily took a break from the topic area. My next edits in it were a few edits between 1-5 July, pause, then editing 20-25 July, pause, two edits 1-2 August, pause... you get the idea. I took the warnings, advice of other editors seriously and learned from them. I reevaluated my behaviour in the topic area and, when I was ready to, approached it with a different attitude.

This is what we should all expect from editors, not only in contentious topic areas, but in all areas. I am afraid that if this report goes without even a logged warning, then TylerBurden will feel emboldened and just continue his behaviour. Like Mellk said I also try to avoid discussions [Tyler Burden] is involved in because they quickly become toxic. This has been my experience as well. Most recently here, where I simply said that The word "busification" needs to be featured more prominently in the article and provided sources. Then TylerBurden responded Well go on then, be bold and create an article for it if it's so featured [1]. I thought to myself "it's not worth it", and I dropped the issue just so I don't have to have a long, drawn out discussion with TB. An editor commented just today: There is not much point of trying to talk with TylerBurden here, trust me.

Is that the kind of place we want the CTOP to be? You decide.

Regarding Helpful Cat's first point: In the edit summary TylerBurden says: Still Russian state propaganda, but actually EUvsDisinfo is a flagship project of the European Union. It is also cited over 60 times. Content TB removed even said The CIT analysis questioned the veracity. Hence my use of "seemingly". Had TB read the inserted content carefully he would have seen that it is questioning Russian claims and sourced to an RS. On its own is not a big deal, but it happens often. Like here: Jesus christ, I know you're doing your utmost to move Wikipedia away from this phrase, but this is ridiculous. The phrase was eventually removed from the article, after another lengthy discussion TB begdrudgingly allowed it: Then I wonder why it took you so long, I guess it's more fun to violate WP:ONUS and edit war sensationalized and unencyclopedic wording into the article than it is to provide sources. And as this thread shows, it's not about sources.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[2]

Discussion concerning TylerBurden

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 TylerBurden

Since TurboSuperA+ has evidently spent a lot of time on this, I should probably address at least some of their report, let me know if there is anything else that needs clarification.

I'm going to start with their inclusion of my block history, not once have I been blocked for any actual editing, yet this is being used as evidence as a ″pattern of problematic behaviour″. You can't even access the last one, because it's an unblock request of the Wikipedia Discord server, which also happens to be related with the first two. It has nothing to do with any actual editing and not only do I find it strange that you are keeping up with me to this extent, but trying to use it to get me topic banned.

There is not enough room to address all the diffs, but let's take one for example, TurboSuperA+ says I am POV pushing because I added a foreign personnel subsection to Russian Armed Forces (an article specifically about the Russian military) while I removed content focusing on South American mercenaries joining the Ukrainian military to gain experience with drones, not on the article about the Ukrainian military, but the main article about the current war Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). To me, this seems like following basic WP:DUE policy.

I would suggest people take a look at the linked content dispute, because it's a pretty perfect example of the type of content disputes I find myself in with TurboSuperA+, which is probably the motivation behind this report. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I will try to address comments made by Mellk and Kelob2678. It seems the main issue here is addressing other editors, I think it's clear that some of the types of comments I made is not helpful or productive, so I'm going to to try to steer clear of them in the future. I can also admit that I was not aware of the WP:RSHEADLINE guideline (though if the individual hand picked by Vladimir Putin to conduct negotiations with Donald Trump is not a Kremlin agent, I'm not quite sure what he is, he is also explicitly called a Kremlin operative in the source, which the intention of changing the wording was not to misrepresent, but avoid exact copying of the source, if there is some meaningful difference between ″agent″ and ″operative″ , I am not aware of it.) so even though I would argue it seems slightly nitpicky in this instance, I will keep it in mind going forward. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mellk

TylerBurden already has a logged warning for edit warring but there was already a long edit war at Olenivka prison massacre not too long ago where they kept restoring recently-added text cited to a dubious website.[3][4][5][6][7] This was despite an ongoing discussion that was started by another editor. Note this edit summary where in response to the other editor simply stating that the source is unreliable, they wrote: Rich coming from a guy whose majority of Wikipedia contributions seems to consist of ″Russia announced something″.

I also try to avoid discussions they are involved in because they quickly become toxic (too much WP:BATTLEGROUND). This recent discussion also turned into squabbling with another editor, which was unsurprising since in this edit summary they suggested that the editor included a fraction in combination with a percentage because I suppose 20% doesn't sound as impressive and in the discussion they later wrote it is obvious how you spend your time editing Wikipedia and what narratives you approve of. Some time ago an admin reminded them about the policy on civility but I do not think this has improved. Mellk (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion from some months ago also summarizes quite well how TylerBurden approaches the subject. An IP starts a discussion at the Russo-Ukrainian war article suggesting to include Russian civilian casualties in the table. TylerBurden's first response is to comment on the motivations of other editors supporting the inclusion of Russian civilian casualties in the table: The only reason this is being pushed is because the alleged victims were Russians. Another editor tells them they are not AGF after TylerBurden asks them: What happened with WP:AGF?. This is because the other editor said: You aren't raising a legitimate concern, you're asking for Wikipedia to discriminate by nationality under the guise of policy. Despite this, TylerBurden doubles down on this later on: it's almost as if the reason this is being pushed is because the victims are Russian. TurboSuperA+ also left some unhelpful comments in this discussion but I don't think I've interacted with them before so not sure how much of a problem this is. Mellk (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LordCollaboration

I have now gone through most of these, looking at the actual context, and this seems incredibly misleading. Take number 12, described as Reverts an edit that added content from already cited source and calls it "disruptive editing"[8] It was actually the complete opposite. Tyler restored content that was deleted without explanation (and marked "minor").[9] The same user had previously removed it (also with no edit summary)[10] and Tyler reverted it then too, as an unexplained content removal,[11] as well as giving them an unexplained content removal notice[12] and a Contentious Topics notice[13] on their talk page. Clue Bot had also previously given them a warning for unexplained content removal,[14] and again after Tyler's first warning (calling it "vandalism")[15], so this was the fourth time. It is not a personal attack to label this behavior as disruptive, it is disruptive. If you add or remove content, you should give a valid edit summary, such as "Russian deaths hitting new highs" if you are adding content saying Russian casualties are hitting new highs (number 2 on the list). (Edit: This one was now struck, but with no explanation for how items like this are making the list in the first place. Even if it was the opposite (a content addition), a simple check of that user would show literally every edit reverted, a plethora of warnings, and the "addition" being previously reverted. Was there no context check at all here?) LordCollaboration (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kelob2678

On 4-5 November, TylerBurden edit-warred at Mariupol theatre, making four reverts in a 24-hour span[16][17][18][19]. On 21,27 December, he edit-warred at 155th Guards Naval Infantry Brigade, removing a statement from the infobox that was cited in the body[20][21].

On 26 December, he added content calling Kirill Dmitriev a Kremlin agent[22]. When the label was challenged[23], he reverted and labeled Dmitriev a Kremlin operative[24], he justified it with the title of the piece, despite the title not being a reliable source (WP:RSHEADLINE). On 7 January, he added scare quotes to the term local state fund, despite them being absent in the source[25], when another editor complained about it on the talk page, TylerBurden dismissed him[26].

On 20 November, he argued that content not present in the body cannot be included in the lead[27], but on 17 November, he didn't object to content being inserted directly into the lead[28]. On 24 November, he argued that content from a Russian analyst interviewed by the Russian Forbes cannot be included even if attributed[29], but on 12 October, he told me that recently added content from a Polish think tank cannot be removed[30].

WP:CIVIL is a policy. In the above linked ANI thread, he was told consider this the final warning to both of you by Lourdes (now blocked as a sock, but was an administrator back then[31]). Kelob2678 (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by caeciliusinhorto

The diffs cited in the section §Examples of POV pushing seem to me to be remarkably uncompelling.

TurboSuperA cites this edit with the comment "Removed a reputable source because he didn't like what it says". TylerBurden's edit summary is pretty clear that their objection to this is in fact that the source didn't say the thing it was being used to support, and indeed that seems to me to be true. The text TB removed said Since it's formation, the International Legion has allowed criminals to join its ranks; the closest text in the source is In the past, the Legion served as a haven for many with a criminal past seeking to start a new life. This is a misrepresentation on several levels: most fundamentally it is talking about the French Foreign Legion rather than the Ukrainian International Legion; secondly the fact that in the past criminals joined the FFL is not exactly the same thing as the FFL "allowing" criminals to join; thirdly the removed text implies that allowing criminals to join is an ongoing practice whereas the cited source says that this happened "in the past" and the FFL has since improved its vetting for recruits.

says a source that is widely used in the topic area is not reliable because he doesn't like what it says That's not what TB's edit summary says, and the fact that a source is widely used does not make it reliable. Whether or not ualosses.org is reliable, the fact that TSA has twice characterised TB's objection as "because he doesn't like what it says" when TB has provided a facially policy-based objection, with no actual evidence for that is not exactly compelling.

TSA contrasts TB's addition of content here with removal here. It's not clear to me that the two cases are really analogous: the paragraph TB removed is cited to an article not about Russia and Ukraine but primarily about Colombian drug gangs; TB's invocation of WP:DUE seems reasonable on its face. On the other hand the text they added is cited to articles about Russia's use of foreign soldiers in Ukraine. (As an aside the text they removed also misrepresents the cited source, though TB did not comment on that in removing it)

If TylerBurden is engaging in Russia/Ukraine-related POV pushing, there's surely more compelling evidence than these diffs. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeppiz

I have read through this report and I do not find it convincing. In particular, I find that quite a few of the examples given are either trivial or taken out of context. Quite a of the edits presented as problematic seem to be correct edits, as others have pointed out above. Alos, having come across TylerBurden on many different topics over several years, I have normally found him to be both polite and constructive. Jeppiz (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlexeyKhrulev

I would also like to comment on several points regarding TylerBurden’s conduct.

I first encountered issues with his editing in the articles Tikhon Dzyadko and Ekaterina Kotrikadze, where I attempted to add well-sourced information that they had been designated as foreign agents in Russia. TylerBurden reverted these edits. This was followed by a prolonged discussion in which reliable sources were repeatedly provided, but TylerBurden chose to disregard them. Only after the matter was taken to WP:NPOVN was the issue resolved, and my edit was ultimately accepted. The entire process took more than than half a month.

Given that TylerBurden is an experienced editor, it was surprising that such a relatively straightforward and policy-supported issue took so long to resolve, and that he actively obstructed its inclusion. More recently, I have repeatedly encountered him in articles related to Russian–Ukrainian relations, where his actions often lead to extended disputes and frequent allegations of policy violations, for example at Talk:Ukrainian attacks on the Russian shadow fleet.

I am nevertheless glad to hear from TylerBurden here that he is willing to acknowledge concerns about his conduct and make adjustments. I hope this will help prevent similar issues going forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexeyKhrulev (talk • contribs) 08:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Helpful Cat

I echo the concerns raised by editors above me that many of these diffs have been misrepresented. The example raised by caeciliusinhorto, where TurboSuperA+ apparently disapproves of TylerBurden rightly correcting a blatant error (confusing the Ukrainian International Legion with the French Foreign Legion), is probably the most glaring case. Here are some others:

This diff, which TSA+ calls "remov[ing] sourced content...because it was seemingly critical of Ukraine". This misrepresents TB's initial rationale both in the edit summary and the talk page discussion TSA+ links, where TB is clearly arguing that disinformation only notable for being debunked is not WP:DUE. TB changed his mind not because another user "explain[ed] how it is actually debunking Russia's claims" as TSA+ wrongly says, but because that other user pointed out that the disinformation had been covered by a WP:RS and was therefore not only notable for being debunked. Including the other examples highlighted so far, that is at least the sixth diff in the complaint that TSA+ presented in a biased or actively misleading way, only one of which has been struck, which I find deeply concerning at WP:AE.
This diff, which TSA+ calls "treat[ing] legitimate concerns about an article as bad faith". Here, TB was directly responding to TSA+'s assertion that a subject matter expert's statement - that the 2024 Russian presidential election was fraudulent and significantly exaggerated Russians' true support for Putin (with that expert's estimate of their true level of support), and that the Russian government is a repressive authoritarian regime - was somehow an extraordinary claim. TSA+ made this assertion repeatedly but never elaborated or explained why this claim was extraordinary, and TB's response in the cited diff that "the idea that an expert said something (that numerous other reliable sources also happen to agree with) is an 'extraordinary claim' is bizarre" and "it seems more likely that your idea of reliable sources do not line up with Wikipedia's" is direct but (in my opinion) does not seem unfair.

Helpful Cat {talk} 11:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TSA+'s reply regarding this diff is still incorrect. TB's edit summary acknowledged the source was "a site dedicated to dismantling misinformation". TB wrote "if the best sources we actually have are the claims being debunked, then it doesn't seem notable, it's just giving a platform for propaganda debunking included or not. Do we have any mainstream WP:RS reporting on this? Or is it just within this bubble of propaganda and counter-propaganda?"

After someone noted that AFP had covered the original disinformation, TB accepted it was WP:DUE, because "it has been covered more than just Russia shouting into the void and getting debunked[...]My primary concern was that the coverage was limited to the aforementioned".

TB did not object because he didn't realise the source was an RS debunking Russian claims, as TSA+ has wrongly said twice now. TB argued that disinformation only notable for being debunked is not WP:DUE; he accepted the inclusion because the claims had coverage beyond being debunked. Sadly, TSA+ continues to misread their own evidence. Helpful Cat {talk} 13:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TylerBurden

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

I have to say that at the moment on the vast majority of those diffs I'm only really seeing snarkiness rather than anything sanctionable, and some of the diffs don't even rise to that level. I'd also note that the ArbCom block was lifted on appeal (after only 12 days, so you can work that one out) and we really don't care about blocks from Discord servers. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the evidence presented by TurboSuperA+ is not convincing and most is largely irrelevant; and for that reason, TurboSuperA+, I am declining your request for additional words and diffs. Having said that, the statements from Mellk and Kelob2678 do suggest that there might be a current issue, and I'd ask TylerBurden to respond to those. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting TB's commitment to improve his editing in this area, I am comfortable with closing this with no action on the understanding that this won't happen again. If it does, it's likely that TB will be topic banned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut

No action. — Newslinger talk 15:18, 11 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 Tiamut

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ADeeperUnderstanding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tiamut (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:ARBPIA5, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POVPUSHING

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

Confrontational, battleground behavior

3 January 2026 Telling an editor who raised concerns about a source being non-mainstream: "You not liking his interpretation of history does not disqualify him as a reliable source" (emphasis mine).
3 January 2026 Threatening the same editor: "Be warned I will not allow superficial, lazy biblical propaganda to permeate these articles just because you want to dismiss Palestinian scholars or those who dug deeper" (emphasis mine).
25 December 2025 Assuming bad faith: describing my edit as "a shifty page move scheme" (emphasis mine).
25 December 2025 Confrontational tone in edit summary: "the ancient history of the site still belongs to this town despite your moves" (emphasis mine).
7 January 2026 On a discussion regarding historical details, telling an editor that "Did not ask you for a history review", and continuing to insist that thier position "[s]eems self-evident actually" and is "very obviously" correct.

Possible POV pushing

3 January 2026 At Roman Palestine: Using fringe, admittedly advocacy-driven source for ancient history issues (abstract explicitly says: This paper examines the possibility of constructing an alternative national narrative of Palestine's past ... that would affirm the Palestinian people's continuous existence in their land and offer a more constructive approach to their identity.). It's okay of course to present fringe sources as part of a discussion, but the editor does far more than that. As shown above they warned editors who disputed this source as non-mainstream, telling them they do so because they want to dismiss Palestinian scholars and warning them they will not allow them to ignore the source.
- The source quoted says: "the Jerusalem temple used by different religionists among them Yahwists" (recasting Roman-era Jews as 'Yahwists' is extremely fringe as opposed to the biblical period, Romans, Greeks, Jews, all speak of Jews in this period (and as an ethnic group, not just members of a religion). And, saying that different religionists rather than Jews the Jerusalem temple used by "different religionists", not Jews, worshipped in the Second Jewish Temple, is a denial of Jewish history.)
2 January 2026 calling the ancient Israelites, whose existence is an undisputed historical fact, "any supposed "ancient Israelites". (emphasis mine).
Split out our article on Hebrew Alphabet, creating a new one, Aramaic square script about the same topic, when the only language we have sources for it using this script is Hebrew (not just modern Hebrew, as the new article says, but also classical period Hebrew (post-biblical) and languages derived from it / other languages used by Jews).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

26 February 2007 24 hour block for 3RR violation on Arab citizens of Israel
8 July 2007 24 hour block for 3RR violation on Flying checkpoint
19 August 2007 one week block for 3RR violation
6 September 2007 five day block for edit warring at Arab diaspora
15 February 2010 one week block for edit warring
5 March 2012 asked by an uninvolved admin to remove polemic material including the words "the Europeans have already destroyed the Jews".

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

Have been invovled in contentious topics since 2006.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Tiamut

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 Tiamut

Where is the disruption? Writing a lot of reliably sourced content that expresses opinions? Having opinions? Please see Slipper lamp for an example, written from scratch last month. Aramaic square script was also written from scratch, and every sentence is sourced to scholarly reliable sources. Not sure why it is claimed to have been split out from Hebrew alphabet. Tiamut (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3) was an incorrect description on my part. Because I misunderstood the history of that article. Thought it had been split out of Tuqu', as Khirbet Tuqu' (Tekoa (ancient town) is a part of that wider municipality. Sorry if it offended ADeeperUnderstanding, but its not disruptive. Tiamut (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I can commit to be being nicer. I would appreciate though for admins here to take a closer look at what is being done at articles like Tuqu'. For example this edit removed information on an artifact found in the town, claiming it doesn't belong to it. Please note that Khirbet Tuqu', which ADeeperUnderstanding created a separate article for Tekoa (ancient town), is part of the municipality of Tuqu' and there are still Palestinians living in that old part of town. This idea that the ancient history of the site doesn't belong to them reflects an Israeli political program to dispossess them of it. There isn't a nicer way to say that, sorry. Tiamut (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dan Murphy

I think the complaining account here, and the other newish account further up on this page (nehushtani) should be commended for the close, close attention they are paying to the editing practices of other accounts working on pages they are not interacting with at all. Their zeal to ferret out even the smallest infraction - clearly ignited by a passion for neutral and accurate encyclopedia content - may drive them to make plenty of unsubstantiated accusations. But inspiring nonetheless.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Is the ADeeperUnderstanding account in good standing? The account has resembled a possible Tombah sock to me for a while, but since the account wasn't targeting other editors, I didn't pay much attention to it. Now that the account has reported the only? Palestinian editor active in the topic area, it would be helpful to know whether they actually have the right to file an AE report. Unfortunately, I assume no CU data has been retained, so filing an SPI would likely go nowhere, but for what it is worth, here are page intersections with Tombah. A more detailed look at page intersections is available at User:Sean.hoyland/ADeeperUnderstanding_vs_Tombah where you can see many improbable (but entirely possible by chance) intersections at pages with the following properties:

low revision count
low unique actor count
low page views count
low watchers count (blank when less than 30 watchers)

There are similar improbable intersections with other Tombah socks e.g. Rajoub570. If history in the topic area is a guide, Tiamut will likely be targeted repeatedly now that she has returned, with much of it utilizing disposable ban evading actor accounts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Al Ameer

Can’t remember last time I posted here (if ever), but none of what a ADeeperUnderstanding has reported warrants intervention by Arbitration Enforcement. I am much more concerned that the filing user is strikingly similar to a banned sock, but it seems Sean.hoyland beat me to the punch on that. —Al Ameer (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tiamut

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

The first thing I notice is that all of the diffs under "POV Pushing" and 2 of the 5 diffs under "Confrontational, battleground behavior" are on articles not covered by ARBPIA; even on those that are, I don't see anything majorly problematic. And I'm unsure why you thought that bringing up a block log that has no entries for 15 years was useful, but here we are. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much of a case for a sanction here, but I would prefer to see a somewhat less confrontational tone in future edits. I'd appreciate if Tiamut can acknowledge that. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs show that Tiamut should be reminded to focus on content instead of conduct during content disputes, when possible. As Tiamut has accepted Newyorkbrad's suggestion to be less confrontational, I consider this matter adequately addressed for now. The concerns brought forth by ADeeperUnderstanding and Tiamut regarding the Hebrew Alphabet, Aramaic square script, Tuqu', and Tekoa (ancient town) articles are content-related, and interested editors have the option to engage in content dispute resolution processes to present relevant arguments; I do not see an obvious behavioral issue that needs to be addressed here based on the information provided. — Newslinger talk 15:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sean.hoyland and Al Ameer son: While I see the interaction overlap, that in itself is not sufficient to justify taking action against ADeeperUnderstanding before this enforcement request is closed. If you have additional supporting evidence, please file a sockpuppet investigation case, as this enforcement request (which is about to be closed with no further action) cannot be put on hold to accommodate a detailed behavioral analysis of the filer in relation to Tombah. — Newslinger talk 15:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[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